/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>662316

No, polytheism always falls into Euthyphro's Dilemma. You should read Plato's Euthyphro, it's a Socratic dialogue which exposes a fundamental inconsistency in Polytheism.

>why can't the same arguments be used by Polytheists to prove Polytheism in a rational way?

Well some can however the strongest one of the ones you listed - the cosmological argument - and the ontological all lead to the conclusion of a single being. Hence in order for polytheists to justify their beliefs they would need to make their own gods emmenations or creations of a single God which kind of defeats the point.

>>662326

It doesnt, its a problem that can be applied to a monotheistic God just as validly (and in the Christian context is done by the people who have trouble reconciling the actions of God in the OT compared to the NT). The more human elements of say Greek Gods simply make the seeming divide more apparent.

>>662353

>Well some can however the strongest one of the ones you listed - the cosmological argument - and the ontological all lead to the conclusion of a single being.

Can you explain why?

Can someone post the reasoning for how the only God that can possibly exist *must* be triune? There was something about the Logos in there.

Polytheism with a supreme deity, maybe.

>>662326

This is a really stupid post.

>>662505

>Polytheism with a supreme deity, maybe.

Why not just regular Polytheism?

>>662477

Also interested to see this.

Plytheism can't be rational because it is a contradiction. Of course, to see the contradiction, your understanding of God has to go beyond a glorified man

>>662509

Can you elaborate please?

>>662477

The dominant opinion in Catholicism is that the doctrine of the Trinity is known only by faith from divine revelation. You cannot reason to it in the same way as the doctrine of God's existence. That said I have heard that St. Bonaventure argued otherwise, but I don't know any more about that.

>>662475

St. Thomas gives a few argument outlines in Summa Theologiae. The easiest to understand is the second, IMO.

>Secondly, [that there is only one God] is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (I:4:2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle.

If there were many "gods" they could not truly be called gods (unequivocally) because they would lack the infinite perfection of God.

>>662510

The several gods ofpolytheists are glorified men. There is nothing special about them. They are a theological monstrosity, where "God" only means "powerful man". There is no perfection, omnipotence, nor anything mysterious about them.

>>662653

>>there are objectively valid moral values

Are you implying there aren't?

>>662654

Just ironic (hopefully) Stirner posting.