I like the argument. Interesting.

Interesting conversation, looking forward to more videos exploring polytheism! The discussion did reveal a significant metaphysical problem for this account of polytheism. Specifically, we can only go so far in declaring that each god is unique and independent of the others. For when we acknowledge that we can discuss the gods and that the gods can interact with each other, we necessarily admit that ultimately we're all together in a common context. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to point to them (for we would not be connected in any way), and they couldn’t interact (for they would not share any point of contact or common ground between each other). I think that this point was touched on when someone asked whether “is” is used in the same sense for gods and man. In the broadest sense, “is” applies to everything we can talk about, with the result that literally everything is held in common in some broad sense. Therefore, there cannot be an absolute uniqueness, because ultimately all the gods are held together in Being/”what-is”, as are we and all the other things that might be mentioned. Of course, the monotheist account will stumble for this same reason (and others). It’s not to say that polytheism won’t work, rather it indicates a need to rein in the religion so that it complies with the broader metaphysics. A discussion of Being would make the limits of the gods (and all things) clearer. For Christians, a question to consider is how both the creator and creation exist. For it would seem they are necessarily held in common in a broader context (Being). Of course, the discussion would also need to consider the omnipresent nature of “is”, the impossibility of generation/destruction, and the like. Fascinating stuff.

@kevinmcdonald6560

2 ай бұрын

yes I feel like instead of saying gods are totally uncountable due to incomparable uniqueness, it might be better to say they are both uncountable AND countable in the minimal sense of sharing certain properties such as being or god-ness. not sure if this is what you were specifically saying, or my hazy reading, ha. I also like Dillons second argument: religious experience without polytheism is arbitrary cherry picking. I think the uncountability argument it too metaphysically complex for immediate persuasiveness

@tweetophon

2 ай бұрын

​@@kevinmcdonald6560 yes, I think you grasp the issue I'm raising. We can't insist on absolute incomparability, because the gods are necessarily common/comparable in some sense ("is", "god-ness", etc). There's a broad context that holds everything in common, hence we are able to point at the gods and say they interact with each other, because everything is here together and interrelated. Basically, the religious claims are constrained by the broader metaphysical framework, on pain of incoherence. I do like that second argument, too. Even if we said that one particular myth is arguably more trustworthy than the others, still I think it rather arbitrary or unwise to discard the others.

@Scp--lo5kp

2 ай бұрын

Even though I am a Polytheist, I must say that I loved your comment! May the Gods bless you there.

don't you have to be able to count in order to know there's more than one?

@crushinnihilism

2 ай бұрын

Multiple experiences of Multiple divine agencies strongly suggests either 1) more than one exists, or 2) one exists and it takes different forms for some odd reason.

@kensey007

2 ай бұрын

You also have to be able to count to know there is exactly one.

@caiomorino8672

Ай бұрын

@@judapriest ok.

fascinating convo, my tentative understanding of Dillons argument would be the following summary... 1. If divinity came from countable categories, then divinity would not be ultimate reality 2. But divinity is ultimate reality 3. Therefore, divinity cannot from countable categories 4. Therefore, monotheism cannot be true, as it assumes divinity to be a countable category the only objection i can think of would be something along the lines of a classical theist notion of divine simplicity i.e. divinity and countable categories are identical ...not sure ......my head hurts

@danieljones1939

2 ай бұрын

Look at the way the Neoplatonists use divine simplicity. It applies to 'whatness' not to 'whoness.' In fact, Plotinus argues against those who "contract the divine into one." But on that score even the later medieval view of divine simplicity would cut against numerically one God. If anything, it would mean that the divine is numerically undetermined, which is also the upshot of Steven's argument.

@kevinmcdonald6560

2 ай бұрын

@@danieljones1939 I don't understand the whatness-whoness distinction, but i appreciate the effort! My understanding of plotinus is that the partless One is needed to explain the contingent arrangement of the plural part-ness of the world. But he is not a simple monist, his monism is almost daoist in the sense that oneness and manyness are interdependent, like panentheism...am I wrong?

@danieljones1939

2 ай бұрын

@@kevinmcdonald6560 the One and Nous which you are attempting to describe are principles Plotinus uses to describe reality, and in the limited instances he does with Theology as well. There is a causal dependency between Nous to the One. However, The One necessarily causes Nous, so it is impossible for the One to be without it. Nous is not therefore a choice.

@kevinmcdonald6560

2 ай бұрын

@@danieljones1939 this sounds like something i'd lean towards, God is not free in the human sense of choosing among alternatives, his nature and his will are perfectly aligned etc. ...my very rough understanding of Plotinus is that oneness and manyness need each other, there is no alternative choice where oneness doesnt create/emanate manyness ...and this manyness includes other gods such as the Nous, which is something along the lines of a platonic world soul

@danieljones1939

2 ай бұрын

@@kevinmcdonald6560 All Gods are at the level of the One, what is produced at Nous is their actuality, energeia/essence. So you can see this in "layers." The mechanism that drives this is the Limit-Unlimited. Energeiai are a web of that interplay of the Limit and Unlimited, each energeia is a Limit. God qua its Unity/Person are allocated out into this procession into Nous and Psyche, and down into the kosmos as well. If you read V.1 of Plotinus, you'll see that the One, Nous, and Psyche are levels of the Self in us.