There being only one

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatima-Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fatima-Crusader

Guest
According to Aquinas and classical theism why must there be one God?
 
The point that has made the most sense to me is that if God is infinite (i.e. infinitely good, perfect, etc.) then he must be one because if there were different Gods then some of them lack some quality of perfection that the others have - God’s perfection is complete. I believe Aquinas says something similar.
 
Even the ancient Greeks had already dumped their pantheon of gods as their Philosophy had already shown them that they were but human projections of the forces of nature that humans were trying to wrap their heads about.
So they were already toying with the concept of 1 GOD this is also why the acceptance of Christianity in the Hellenic world was so successful. The soil was ready to receive the seed to be planted.
 
There could be one god who then created lots more and then retired to the background, leaving his created gods to engage with us. Or one god who made another god, who made another god, who made lots of gods…
 
The universe need s CEO - otherwise it would be committee-think in charge, and the universe is far too beautiful, cohesive and unified for that.
 
FiveLinden said:
There could be one god who then created lots more and then retired to the background, leaving his created gods to engage with us.
Click to expand...
Except that these “created gods” wouldn’t really be ‘god’ – they’d just be powerful creations. And, if they attempted to pass themselves off as “the God”, then they’d also be liars (and therefore, evil).

So… no. One God.
Or one god who made another god, who made another god, who made lots of gods
Click to expand...
You’re not a Mormon, are you? 🤔 😉
 
Gorgias said:
Except that these “created gods” wouldn’t really be ‘god’ – they’d just be powerful creations. And, if they attempted to pass themselves off as “ the God”, then they’d also be liars (and therefore, evil).
Click to expand...
Perhaps - but we would have no way of knowing if this were the case. No, I am not a Mormon! I an not a believer.
 
Ive been studying it and if there are more than one God then there must be something that makes the two(or more) different gods distinct from each other. but if there is something that makes the two gods distinct from each other there has to be something that one god has that the other one lacks. but if one of the two lacks some thing the other has, then the one who lacks it has potential to actualize the thing that it lacks. but that means that the one who lacks it has potential, and that means that is it composed of a mix of act and potency(which means that its essence is not existence), and that means it is composite and also contingent on its parts(which also needs to be held together at all times, see the neoplatonic proof). but a god cannot be composite, contingent or have a mix of act and potency since the classical theism definition(which also is the only reasonable one) of God is that God is One, Pure Act and a Necessary Being.
 
When i saw the title I thought

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Only one God can there be, if there were more, they’d be sure
to let us know
 
So pretty much what angels do? Medieval theologians had the idea that angels/divine minds were driving certain aspects of the forces of nature (something I admittedly, still believe to a degree). So there could be an angel of gravitational forces or strong nuclear forces. Which, given the angelology I’m familiar with, could fall into the realm of the Dominions.

It goes with God’s character since He seems to love to give His creatures a specific task.
 
Last edited:
  1. Extrinsically necessary existents are dependent upon their parts and/or others to exist, and therefore are conditioned realities.
  2. Intrinsically necessary existents are not dependent on anything to exist, and therefore are unconditioned realities.
  3. A truly unconditioned reality must be absolutely simple, without parts, divisions, distinctions, etc.
  4. For there to be multiple intrinsically necessary existents, they must each possess parts in common due to their shared necessity, and parts to distinguish each other.
  5. However, an intrinsically necessary existent is an unconditioned reality, absolutely simple, and therefore there cannot be multiple identical beings that have no parts, divisions, distinctions, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top