... wrote on Feb 8
th, 2017 at 7:47pm:
issuevoter wrote on Feb 8
th, 2017 at 7:28pm:
OK. In the absence of a Religion forum, I am posting this here, even though its got nothing to do with Atheism.
I would like someone to explain why one God is better than a Pantheon of dieties, like the Greeks and Romans had.
My intial thought is that with a pantheon, the question of "if gods made man, who made the gods?" remains. Most (all?) pantheons had a "king of the gods" that was above the others, but still - where did that come from?
The very nature of the universe is the ultimate secret, so an explanation calls for an ultimate power. Anything less than that will always leave questions unanswered.
in short: "god did it" can explain everything.
You have considered the question. So your conclusions deserve some thought too. I have to admit I have yet to see an interesting God concept. By inference, Sprint, using the personal pronoun "him," regards God as a personality, and a male. That explanation would have been better in the previous thread where no one seemed to be prepared to be quoted. If no one is prepared to explain what they mean by God, the whole business is moot. But we do a forum here.
I recognise the King of Gods in a Pantheon, ends up making the Pantheon redundant. However, that type of belief was not in my thoughts when I wrote the OP. I was getting at the superiority of the "one versus many" fundamental, which the Abrahamic religions taut as the greatest thing since cosmic sliced bread. The multiple God universe does not have to be Greco-Roman. Questions like that of the origin of the universe, and who made man, are somewhat further down the line of inquiry.
The explanation of reality as "god did it," is tidy. The problem is that "doing" is a human concept.