One sufficiently-powerful god is simpler than numerous not-quite-so-powerful gods.
Yes --- but it's just not practical. It's like saying, "we are all pre-programmed by fate and destiny" Practically, even if this were true .... the semblance that we still have free will is a reality we have to deal them. So even if monotheism were the case, polytheism is, I think, a more practical way to "communicate" the idea. Now, using the fate/destiny analogy ... if we can understand how free-will and predetermination can co-exist hand in hand ... like light can be both a particle and a wave ... then perhaps if there is only one god, we could understand that concept as well.
Hell, maybe that is what history is "evolving towards"? The move from Olympus to Eden?
Most people who believe in a single god, believe that their god created the Universe, instead of the Universe itself making god.
If the Universe created a god (one or many) than wouldn't the Universe be god?
Yes and no. It would be god if it held captive it's own creations to it's laws and principles purposefully, which would make it a Master God. Otherwise, it would merely be the creative force. "God" could still be God ... if he was able to pick up the Master/Parent reigns successfully. Generally speaking, this would involve I think being able to manipulate purposefully the forces at work in the universe to a degree more so than we can as humans.
But suppose god were "weaker" than us, but had something to bring to the table that only he knew/had, etc? Suppose he created the universe and spent all his "energy" in doing so. Perhaps he can no longer create things, or "fix things" ... but he has one last remaining ability or thing that would greatly benefit us or do harm to us. Or perhaps god grows .... and it takes "time" for him to have certain abilities that would make him more "god-like".
Or again, polytheism ..... he is bound by our choices in whether to trust him, his wife, his son, his opponents, logic, science, nothing, leprechauns, ourselves, etc.
Only if the universe is "held sacred," or venerated as a God, for one. Also, the definition of God requires that he be supernatural in nature, meaning that the normal rules of the natural world do not apply to God.
And, like the Universe, a God does not need a beginning, nor an end.
This is more akin to the classical attributes humans would put on "god" for sure.
I think polytheisms are more satisfying intellectually -- competing forces describe the physical universe better, explain evil -- but monotheisms are more satisfying emotionally -- one god who can do anything to appeal to, to look after you. So even though poly may seem likelier to the mind, the heart likes mono, and minds follow.
Interesting. I wonder if this is because the mind is a multi-tasker and "the heart" or that instinctual drive is usually more focussed on one thing at a time. "I need to eat." "I want to have sex" "I'm afraid". So it basically boils down the multitasking of the mind to one central issue.
Like if I go to a bar to pick up a woman, I use a variety of skillsets/attributes/qualities to my advantage to fulfill one basic concept. And that basic concept is :"find woman for ________ reason"
So when we think we "need" god ... perhaps because our internal instinct has a need but doesn't know where to find it or exactly what it is ..... we try to fill that void by "looking for the unknown." And we look in multiple places, in multiple ways ---- physically, emotionally, and mentally. Thus the multi for the uni ---- the polytheism (finding the unknown in everything with our ability to gather data and reason it to fulfill the unknown instinctual need). We would collectively call this unknown thing "god". And if we found god in multiple places, it would most likely keep the polytheistic concept. But if we were able to identify that instinctual "need", then perhaps both the mind and the instinctual drive would then have a single label ... and so a single god.
Is it a Unity vs Diversity issue? I'm starting to think that it is, by definition.
Monotheism requires that everyone follow the same viewpoint, while polytheism values diversity.
(added)
So, from an ethical point of view, Polytheism would be more in keeping with modern eithical values.
I see what you're saying, but I don't know that I agree that monotheism requires a unified consistent belief of the same overall framework. Polytheism would basically be more of a democratic type theology, where diversity and the freedom to choose "your own thing" is valued. But why does the idea of a single god usually bring up dictatorial ideas? Why can't god be the only god (president so to speak) but have a system of checks and balances that allows others the freedom to view him differently and value different aspects of the same thing (like the variety of states in the US, the legislative, judicial, executive branches .... congress and senators representing the peeps, etc). The idea that some people believe that "god uses islam to speak to the muslims, christianity to speak to the christians, gurus to speak to the Sikh's ... etc etc ... and it's all the same god ..." for them there is a single god who works in a variety of ways, playing multiple roles, using multiple masks. If this is really how god (assuming for this argument there is one) works, it might seem like a bunch of sociopathic, deceiving b.s. .... but generally speaking, humans operate this way anyway. We wear different masks for different occassions, and speak different languages to communicate to each other. A single god could do the same if he/she/it wanted.
So it's more of a Mono-chamelonic-theism. One god, many colors. (that sounds really fluffy and Hallmark-ish). But it doesn't mean necessarily there are many gods. Just that god is more than bipolar
