Plurality Of God Analysis

Improved Essays
Thus, on one hand, we find that dogmatic monotheism proclaims God to be the one true God among many false deities. On this level “the true, authentic God, teaches the Old Testament, is always just the unique, he who is unique”. Hence, the plurality of false deities stands opposed to the one true God. On the other hand, if we understand philosophically the notion of God, we cannot but conclude that all representations of God are manifestations of the same reality. This, follows because the concept of the “capital ‘G’” God includes his oneness. Hence, he cannot be opposed to other deities insofar as he is not on the same level as them. Quoting John of Damascus, Schelling claims that God is more than just unique, but rather “over-unique”. Subsequently, …show more content…
According to the German philosopher, for two things to be described as equals, we must hold them to have something in common. At the very least, they must share pure being. However, if God as presented in the dogma is that being which has no equal, the one who is even above the other deities, then he does not share his being with anything. In this respect, God “[…] cannot be a being. […] But if God is not a being, something that just participates in being, then he cannot be but being itself”. Hence, being itself is “[…] the preliminary and necessary concept of God, that we must posit in order to posit God (and not: a god). Therefore, God is being itself. But to be being itself is not his divinity, but rather the presupposition of his divinity”. Thus, the concept of God from a negative point of view includes oneness, which becomes the presupposition of any manifestation of God. Crucially, God is not a one as opposed to a plurality, as it would be in the dogmatic context. Instead, God 's oneness escapes the dichotomy between the one and the many. This follows because if God is being itself, then all entities participate fundamentally in him as the source of their being. Thus, he is what gives ground and precedes the relationship between the one and the many, insofar as he is the source of the elements of this opposition. Hence, God is one in an absolute sense, and because of that he grounds the possibility of there being a one in a relative sense, namely as opposed to the

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    The proofs offered in the monologion, make it more clear that such a proof is only applied to a supreme being. As a such of supreme goodnes, first existnece, and supreme existence. Thus the arguments of both the proslogion and the monologion are best taken together. As th eproslogion offers an overarching principle as to the existence of god as ngt, and the monologion offers,…

    • 1352 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Descartes Existence Of God

    • 1454 Words
    • 6 Pages

    John Cottingham, in his book Descartes, affirms that "The problem is given special piquancy by Descartes ' own statement (...) that 'the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends on my knowledge of the true God ' ". This suggests that the knowledge of God should be axiomatic - but it isn 't. Although all the knowledge depends on the knowledge of true God, Descartes ' does not have, at the starting point, any knowledge of God. He shouldn 't be able to give forth any certain and truthful judgment, yet he claims to do so. Apparently, Descartes employs 'clear and distinct ideas ' in demonstrating that God exists (when he perceives clearly and distinctly that 'existence ' is an essential attribute of God or when he puts forth the causal principle) and then justifies the truthfulness of the clear and distinct ideas by the existence of God.…

    • 1454 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Spinoza, subscribing to monism, claims that thoughts and bodies are merely facets of God’s perfection; they are one of the infinite extensions and modes of the one true substance, because if anything exists outside of God, God cannot be said to be perfect for He would be limited. Since Spinoza defines an infinite substance as “which is in itself, and is conceived through itself” (Part I, Definition III), having a finite substance would thus be a contradiction. Everything else are hence, modifications As such, while Spinoza and Descartes designate God as the one infinite substance, they have different conceptions of the God’s relation to things due to their dissimilar ontological…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The main concern with his argument is that it is based off of assumption, not reality. Descartes states in his argument that in order to not doubt our clear and distinct perceptions, we has to believe that there is a supremely perfect being—God. Yet, the problem with this argument is that in order to prove that there is a God, and not assume, we must rely on our clear and distinct perceptions. Hence, the entirety of his argument creates what we refer to as the Cartesian Circle. If we question if our clear and distinct perceptions are reliable, and answer that with the fact that God exists, we also can question how we know God exists—our answer being that our clear and distinct perceptions prove it.…

    • 780 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Anselm’s Ontological argument expresses accusations that are simply in his favor or his outlook on God. A premise of the argument is that any person who does not exist in one world cannot simply exist in another and that this person is less perfect than one who exists in all worlds, which could only be true with actual proof. Primarily, Anselm’s argument…

    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Descartes replies by arguing that by referring to an idea of God, he means what is perceived in the mind and that he uses the term idea because it is used in philosophy to reference perceptions in the mind (Third Objections: CSM II 126-7). Descartes argues that Hobbes should provide his own idea of God and that he is only using the term idea in a manner that suits his argument, which is a __ fallacy. Though I believe Descartes response to Hobbes here is valid, I still find premise 1 questionable because it assumes that all humans have the same specific ideas about God, which may not be true especially considering Descartes does not provide…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Descartes believe that every effect must have a cause because “something can’t arise from nothing” (Descartes, 1641, p.12). This assumption means that something would have to have given Descartes the idea of God because it would not have been able to come from nothing or just appear in his…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this paper I will dispute that Anselm’s ontological argument is dependent on Anselm’s personal faith in God. My argument lies within the premises that Anselm offers, it would not be rationally acceptable to create content of a maximally perfect being unless the person already accepted the Christian faith. The premises for Anselm’s argument can only be held if the only conception of non greater (relative to his attributes and worldly design) is God but if one does not follow such religious paths how can it be god. So in a sense god wouldn’t exists since you can’t have a mere conception of god without prior experience or impression of him. I will engage this scope of criticism by touching on Humean concepts and conveying how Anselm faith structured…

    • 442 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thus, God must exist in all possible worlds including the mental state and reality. One of the biggest objections to the ontological argument is the predicate objection. According to the predicate objection, giving something existence makes it greater, adding existence to something is also similar to adding property to something. Though the Ontological argument adds existence to God, a non believer can counter this argument by removing existence or property from God. An opposer can argue that God does not exist because he lacks such…

    • 916 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    If something is good because it is the will of God, then God is Good because this is his will. However, this is an empty tautology. We cannot recognise what it means to praise God for his goodness. It would suggest nothing other than God willing whatever he wants to. Adams objects to this, arguing that a statement such as 'God is Good ' should be understood metaphysically rather than morally.…

    • 1485 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays