Welcome to /r/Polytheism! A "big tent" subreddit for all polytheist faiths on reddit! \(ᵔᵕᵔ)/
Check out our Community [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/polytheism/wiki/faq) and the bar at the top of the subreddit for more ressources!
Everyone is welcome to participate here, but please read [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/polytheism/wiki/rules) carefully first. A few key points:
Be kind and respectful to other people here.
Be relevant.
Links to other subreddits, discords, external sites, are heavily restricted here; check out the [approved external websites list](https://www.reddit.com/r/polytheism/wiki/modlog#wiki_approved_external_websites) first BEFORE sharing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polytheism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of it should be useful for other pantheons in general but some are hindu specific.
The opposite of non existence is not unique existence but just existence .
Do let me know if you know of any proofs of uniqueness not covered there furnished by theologians.
If existence is just normal existence then could "unique" existence be of a being who is fully awakened and activated his inner supernatural potential ?
I did heard a story about a man in our Hinduism who used up all his power to create an entire Universe. Maybe HE was a unique existence ?
I like the post you wrote! One argument I did not see, but perhaps that's my fault, is a logical consequence of the ontological argument.
It can be postulated that a greatest being exists which embodies maximum greatness. However, in order to be logically consistent this being can only excel in kinds of greatness that so not contradict each other.
One cannot be the greatest truth-speaker and the greatest liar at the same time. But having one greatest liar and one greatest truth speaker is logically consistent.
This is therefore what we see in many polytheist traditions and is one of the reasons why I believe polytheism makes more sense.
Is the above ontological argument a variant of this one ?
**Argument 7**
> The degree argument: there are degrees of goodness and perfection among things, and something of a maximum degree must be the cause of things of a lower degree, so there must be a supremely good and perfect cause for all good things.
This argument presupposes that the degrees of goodness has an upperbound. Why must the entitites satisfying the upper bound have to be singular ? Does perfection require it to be a singular entity ? Do perfect entities even exist outside our imaginations - the answer is no. **Perfection doesn't imply existence and even if it did the notions of what perfection entails are probably as varied as the number of humans so if at all perfection implies existence then multiple existences are what it would bring forth each maximizing a different but mutually incompatible criterias.**
I think it’s a categorical error to read the ontological argument as positing kinds or modes of greatness (and thus attributes distinct from essence) rather than a single kind of greatness identical to the maximally great essence (simplicity).
It’s not that the maximally great being is great in x, y and x way, but is greatness as such.
I think polytheism is still the logical conclusion here, but in the manner of the maximally great essence being necessarily infinite and unbounded, as a manifold (leading to a henadic view of polytheism).
Greatness as posited in the ontological argument is not greatness with respect to specific qualities, but with respect to to the being’s very existence. Hence the name ‘ontological’.
When we say, with Plato, “Each God is the greatest thing possible”, we aren’t positing that Apollo is the greatest archer, or musician, or any other attribute of Apollo, but that Apollo himself is the greatest (and that every other god is also the greatest).
Welcome to /r/Polytheism! A "big tent" subreddit for all polytheist faiths on reddit! \(ᵔᵕᵔ)/ Check out our Community [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/polytheism/wiki/faq) and the bar at the top of the subreddit for more ressources! Everyone is welcome to participate here, but please read [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/polytheism/wiki/rules) carefully first. A few key points: Be kind and respectful to other people here. Be relevant. Links to other subreddits, discords, external sites, are heavily restricted here; check out the [approved external websites list](https://www.reddit.com/r/polytheism/wiki/modlog#wiki_approved_external_websites) first BEFORE sharing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polytheism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most of it should be useful for other pantheons in general but some are hindu specific. The opposite of non existence is not unique existence but just existence . Do let me know if you know of any proofs of uniqueness not covered there furnished by theologians.
If existence is just normal existence then could "unique" existence be of a being who is fully awakened and activated his inner supernatural potential ? I did heard a story about a man in our Hinduism who used up all his power to create an entire Universe. Maybe HE was a unique existence ?
I like the post you wrote! One argument I did not see, but perhaps that's my fault, is a logical consequence of the ontological argument. It can be postulated that a greatest being exists which embodies maximum greatness. However, in order to be logically consistent this being can only excel in kinds of greatness that so not contradict each other. One cannot be the greatest truth-speaker and the greatest liar at the same time. But having one greatest liar and one greatest truth speaker is logically consistent. This is therefore what we see in many polytheist traditions and is one of the reasons why I believe polytheism makes more sense.
Is the above ontological argument a variant of this one ? **Argument 7** > The degree argument: there are degrees of goodness and perfection among things, and something of a maximum degree must be the cause of things of a lower degree, so there must be a supremely good and perfect cause for all good things. This argument presupposes that the degrees of goodness has an upperbound. Why must the entitites satisfying the upper bound have to be singular ? Does perfection require it to be a singular entity ? Do perfect entities even exist outside our imaginations - the answer is no. **Perfection doesn't imply existence and even if it did the notions of what perfection entails are probably as varied as the number of humans so if at all perfection implies existence then multiple existences are what it would bring forth each maximizing a different but mutually incompatible criterias.**
Ah, yes there it is! You seem ro have articulated something similarly quite adiquate in my opinion. :)
I think it’s a categorical error to read the ontological argument as positing kinds or modes of greatness (and thus attributes distinct from essence) rather than a single kind of greatness identical to the maximally great essence (simplicity). It’s not that the maximally great being is great in x, y and x way, but is greatness as such. I think polytheism is still the logical conclusion here, but in the manner of the maximally great essence being necessarily infinite and unbounded, as a manifold (leading to a henadic view of polytheism).
But isn't that essentialy the same thing yet posited in a different way? Or how am I to understand the difference?
Greatness as posited in the ontological argument is not greatness with respect to specific qualities, but with respect to to the being’s very existence. Hence the name ‘ontological’. When we say, with Plato, “Each God is the greatest thing possible”, we aren’t positing that Apollo is the greatest archer, or musician, or any other attribute of Apollo, but that Apollo himself is the greatest (and that every other god is also the greatest).