Welcome to Gaia! ::

I may post this in the ED later, but for now it's just on here... Monotheism is an impossibility. Why? Take a look:



Any omnipotent being must, by logic, have created everything else in existence. If anything existed without the omnipotent being's creation, then the being would not have the power to create that existing object; that would render the being not allpowerful, not omnipotent- because that other object would have been created whether the being wished for it to be or not to be. Therefore there can be only one omnipotent being, and that being must have created anything else in existence.

If this being created everything, there must have been a time when only the creator existed, and not the creation*. In such a time, the creator comprised the entirety of existence. If the creator was everything, was infinity, was all that existed...- where did the creation come from? Since the creator is everything, and anything created would, obviously, be a part of "everything", anything created would be a part of the creator. Creation would be a part of the creator.**

So, creation has to be part of its omnipotent creator. In which case we have two possiblities: either there is no seperation, and the creation and creator are actually one and the same... Or, creation is only a small part of the creator. In the first case, the only omnipotent being (since, as said above, there can be only one) in existence is the universe*** itself; there was no reation and there is no seperate God. If the idea of it being impossible for everything to end is accepted, the universe can also be seen to have always existed and to be on a path of continued, eternal existence (although, of course, this last conclusion is of no importance to the impossibility of monotheism).

In the case of the second possibility, namely that creation is a part of the omnipotent creator, all of creation is a part of the creator. In which case (as with the other), an omnipotent being cannot be "perfect" in any dualistic sense of the term. Even if one rejects the dualistic view and says that in instances of things such as "good" and "evil", one is only the absence of the other, an omnipotent being still must contain both. Some parts of creation, and thus the creator, are "evil" (even if it is only the lack of good), and some parts are "good" (even if it is only the lack of evil). Therefore, an omnipotent being cannot be purely good, evil, kind, harsh, or anything else.

Either there is no omnipotent God, the universe itself is God, or the universe is a part of God. In each of these cases, a personal God (omnipotent) is impossible. In each of these cases, a purely good God is impossible. Therefore, monotheistic religions are logically impossible.




Notes:

*I use "a time" becuase it is convinient and easily understandable; whether it is an actual "time" or not is irrelevant. If time exists only for creation, the creator can still be seperated as something outside of the time in which creation exists- which, whether or not a time itself, serves the same purpose for our discussion. We will discuss it gramatically as if it were a seperate time; but keep in mind that it need not literally be "in time".

**Another, although probably less valid, way of looking at it is this: If the creator is everything, how can it create anything other than itself? The ideas for the creation can't come from anything else, because nothing else exists- and if they come from the creator, then they never leave the creator, and creation is part of the creator: not a seperate entity.

***Not necassarily just the "universe", but the entirety of existence; the "multiverse", "ultiverse", or whatever existence actually is. "Universe" will be used for clarity.

I think that you can. I don't need a full understanding of geometric theory and all of the properties of triangles in order to disprove the existence of a 900 degree planar triangle. If I know one fact, that planar triangles must have 180 degrees, I can disprove the given triangle. I don't need to understand everything, or even very much, about something in order to disprove it.



And you're right about that. But as far as pantheism goes, I wouldn't consider that monotheism- obviously, I would consider it pantheism. You're right; my argument is against the belief in an omnipotent being who is seperate from his/her creation. Which inclues mainstream Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (to name a few). If the universe as a whole is God, you could call that "atheism" just as well as "monotheism"; don't atheists believe that there is the universe, but no God? Saying that the universe IS God could be seen as removing either concept.

As I said, my argument is aimed against an omnipotent God apart from creation- it shows that any omnipotent God would HAVE to be the universe or the universe would have to be a part of such a God, and in that way contradicts monotheistic belief. I wouldn't consider the religions you mentioned to be monotheistic, and I think neither would most other people- thus "pan"theistic and "panen"theistic.

Guh, sorry, but drawing a paralell between mathematics and spirituality doesn't form a very good argument in my mind. I don't find you can reduce spiritual issues down to mathematics. There are some things that a math comparisson is appropriate for; religious issues isn't one of them. Religion is never so concrete as to be reduceable to numbers; neither is science most of the time for that matter. Try reducing down the complex interplays of an ecosystem and you'll see what I mean. It just plain doesn't work, and is only an approximation.

So maybe we can make the approximation that omniscience is logically impossible, but only that. And besides, as chaoticpuppet says: "Why must logic apply to God?"

Another point:

Why does God have to be infinite? Can't God just appear to be infinite? The number 10^1,000,000 is virtually infinite to humans. No human can possibly comprehend just how insanely huge that number is. Maybe God is like that, his power is limited, but in such a way that he appears to be infinite. To humans, he basically is. So, if that were the case, this universe would not necessarily have to be God or a part of God.

Therefore, it is possible that an omnipotent(to humans), omnibenevolent God exists out there.

The limit of humans is that we can't really understand just how limited we are. Thus, we cannot understand things beyond our limits, one of which seems to be ourselves relative to things beyond our limits.

It's possible that some monotheists tweak their beliefs just a little bit to allow for such a thing. Even though the doctrine of such religions have set rules, the individual people usually have variations on those rules that they use for their own faith. If I was still Christian, this entire argument surely wouldn't be enough to dissaude me from my faith. I would simply find the meeting point between the logic and the faith.

If I were to believe that God and the Bible are real and true I would assume God to be the creator/controller of all matter that we know of. This universe would still be possible whether or not God is composed of matter himself.

And, as usual, the topic wanders. Spiritual matters happen on an entirely different plane of existence. God created this universe from another universe, another entirely different set of universes that overlap ours like fog. Human logic does not necessarily apply there. It can only be perceived dimly by the senses, if at all, and does not occupy the same set of dimensions. In fact, the number for the spiritual dimension would probably be something like pi, never ending, and in-between the third and fourth. It helps to think of God as a kind of sentient dimension, in fact. Reaching out, knowing everything, able to do anything with this one, and able to do the same in Himself.
Satan and Hell would be something like another sentient dimension, somewhat closer to this one. They are separate from God, and that is their torment.