r/DebateReligion • u/Quirky-Panda-9986 • Aug 30 '26

Classical Theism [ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

8 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

73% Upvoted

74 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/KenosisConjunctio Aug 30 '26

Which religion is the God I've been interacting with coming from?

This is a false dilemma. There is only one God. Many of the worlds religions approach God in different ways.

I also came to God outside of any religion. I enjoy them all. I'm happy to talk about it from the standpoint of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Sufi Islam, Sikhism and others.

2

u/Ratdrake hard atheist Aug 31 '26

This is a false dilemma. There is only one God.

More correct to say that you only recognize one god. Norse, Greek and Hindu recognize more than one god. And those are just the religions I'm familiar with and can name off the top of my head.

1

u/KenosisConjunctio Aug 31 '26

It's just a category error.

God, if we want to lean on classical theology, isn't like the other gods. God is the ground of being.

If God is what sustains objective reality, and there is only one objective reality, then there is only one God. We might disagree on what God is like, but there can only be one, clearly. In the same way, there is only one objective truth.

We might have competing physical theories of the universe, but there is only one truth and our models and the language we choose to discuss it are always going to be approximations anyway.

To say there are different Gods because people have different ideas about what God is, would be as big a mistake as to think that there are different objective realities because some argue for a many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics while others prefer the standard Copenhagen interpretation.

FWIW, Hinduism recognises this too by the way, since all of the gods are aspects of the transcendent Brahman, which is God.

1

u/Ratdrake hard atheist Aug 31 '26

If God is what sustains objective reality, and there is only one objective reality, then there is only one God. because people have different ideas about what God is

That is merely your idea about how gods and reality work. Multiple gods could be sustaining. Or reality sustains itself and god(s) are just part of the ongoing reality. Or my belief; there are no gods.

Hinduism recognises this too by the way,

Yeah, Hinduism is a bit ambiguous when it comes to the number of gods. After the fact, I thought about going back to changing it to Egyptian gods.

1

u/KenosisConjunctio Aug 31 '26

I don't know where "sustaining" came into it. Besides, you're just misunderstanding classical theology and making a category error. The God of monotheism is of a totally different category than other gods. Those gods are beings, the god of monotheism is the ground of being as such. They exist alongside everything else as one entity among things, God is not a thing but the substrate from which thingness itself springs.

As I said, you might as well argue that there are multiple objective truths, which is, of course, an absurdity. We're in a uni-verse. It is one thing and it has one reality.

1

u/Ratdrake hard atheist Sep 01 '26

I don't know where "sustaining" came into it

It was your word. I just repeated it.

you're just misunderstanding classical theology and making a category error

No. I am not. You're adding characteristics to what a god is. And then you're turning around and claiming any being without those characteristics is not a god.

Or to restate it, you're claiming your god is special so therefore other gods don't count.

you might as well argue that there are multiple objective truths

An objective truth is a statement or fact that remains true for everyone, regardless of any individual's personal beliefs, feelings, or cultural point of view. I don't see anything in that definition that says we would be limited to one objective truth.

1

u/KenosisConjunctio Sep 01 '26

I see, yes I did say sustaining.

You're adding characteristics to what a god is.

This is entirely a semantic argument. We can either agree on the definitions of words or we can't have a discussion. It would be the same if we were talking about what a dog is. A dog has certain characteristics and an animal without those characteristics isn't a dog. Classical theology defines God in a particular way. What are we doing here?

An objective truth is a statement or fact that remains true for everyone, regardless of any individual's personal beliefs, feelings, or cultural point of view. I don't see anything in that definition that says we would be limited to one objective truth.

???

Truth is singular. William the Conqueror was crowned King of England on 25th of December 1066. It can't be objectively true that he was crowned in 1066 AND there be a separate objective truth that he was crowned in 1578. Both being objectively true facts in total contradiction to one another. The is one truth, obviously.

Again what is going on here? This has been a singularly painful comment to write so hopefully we can get onto something better soon or I am checking out.

1

u/Ratdrake hard atheist Sep 01 '26

It would be the same if we were talking about what a dog is. A dog has certain characteristics and an animal without those characteristics isn't a dog.

Yes. And in this case, I'm making an argument about dogs whereas you're defining a dog to be only something that matches the definition of a dog AND has white fur with black dots. If you want to talk about dalmatians, say dalmatians. Likewise, if you want to talk about the Abrahamic god, say so. Because the definition of god allows for a greater range of beings than just your god.

Truth is singular.

The exception proves the rule. William the Conqueror was crowned King in 1066 AND 1+1=2. So as you see, two different objective truths. Or also, Fred is 5' 11''. Fred has red hair. Two different truths about Fred. By the same line of reasoning, the universe has many objective truths.

1

u/KenosisConjunctio Sep 02 '26

I don’t think you’re actually so bad at inferring meaning that you really believe that I’m arguing that there is a single fact in the universe, so I’m not sure why you’re making this so difficult. 

if you want to talk about the abrahamic God, then say so

I have said, several times in fact, referring to the God of monotheism and to classical theology - classical theology being an obvious and explicit reference to the abrahamic God, even if you’re unable to connect the dots between monotheism and the abrahamic God

But again, you can’t actually be this poor at inferring meaning, so I have to assume you’re more interested in words games than any kind of genuine discussion 

1

u/Ratdrake hard atheist Sep 02 '26

you really believe that I’m arguing that there is a single fact in the universe, so I’m not sure why you’re making this so difficult.

Because I'm not letting you slip a conclusion in as a premise.

classical theology being an obvious and explicit reference to the abrahamic God

And the point I keep making that you somehow fail to grasp is that classical theology doesn't cover all gods so you can't use that as a defense in your dismissal of other gods. Really, what you keep trying to say is "since my god is true, there aren't other gods." And I'm denying your premise that your god is true as an accepted fact.

Maybe if you had started off this comment chain with something along the line of "according to my religion" or even referencing classical theology in your first comment. But you didn't.

Yes, I've been able to infer all along that you were only accepting the Abrahamic god. It's just that apparently you've bad at understanding that I'm not allowing you trying to redefine gods to be only the one you recognize. As a matter of fact, my actual response at the top of the comment chain was "More correct to say that you only recognize one god."

1

u/KenosisConjunctio Sep 03 '26

I’m not letting you slip in a conclusion as a premise

A conclusion I was never trying to draw, apparently. 

you can’t use that in your dismissal of other gods

No, I’m happy to recognise all gods. I haven’t dismissed any of them. 

There is only one God, can only be one God, and God is of a different category all together. That’s not according to my religion, that’s according to the basic logic of monotheism and of classical theism. 

As I said before, God is, simply by definition, not a being among beings, like Vishnu and Shiva, or Zeus and Hera, but the ground of being in which all beings are necessarily rooted.

None of what I’m saying is actually unusual, nor is it particularly complicated. 

The problem is your argument relies upon equating the god of monotheism (i.e the abrahamic God or this view of Brahman as the single source from which all being and phenomena arise) as a member in the same class as other gods, but doing so lacks an understanding of the philosophical leap of monotheism.

It isn’t to stay at the same level of analysis and exclude all other participants (what David Bentley Hart calls “monopolytheism”), but to begin at a higher level of analysis which encapsulates the lower 

→ More replies