There is only 1 god.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Pro: Has to defend the monotheist position
Con: Has to defend a polytheist/henotheist position. Con can be a polytheist, henotheist, pluralist, or something similar.
* do not commit these fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* Follow website TOS
* The rules will apply equally to both pro and cons.
all of the elements usually represented by different gods in a polytheistic religion are highly interconnected and ultimately based on the same subatomic particles.
If everything is interconnected, then there can be a god for everything, and that god of everything is very similar to the monotheistic god.
one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. Compare goddess (def. 1).an image of a deity; an idol.any deified person or object.a nebulous powerful force imagined to be responsible for one's fate
Generally, entropy is defined as a measure of randomness or disorder of a system. This concept was introduced by a German physicist named Rudolf Clausius in the year 1850.Apart from the general definition, there are several definitions that one can find for this concept. The two definitions of entropy that we will look at on this page are the thermodynamic definition and the statistical definition.From a thermodynamics viewpoint of entropy, we do not consider the microscopic details of a system. Instead, entropy is used to describe the behaviour of a system in terms of thermodynamic properties such as temperature, pressure, entropy, and heat capacity. This thermodynamic description took into consideration the state of equilibrium of the systems.Meanwhile, the statistical definition which was developed at a later stage focused on the thermodynamic properties which were defined in terms of the statistics of the molecular motions of a system. Entropy is a measure of the molecular disorder.Other popular interpretations of entropy are as follows;
- If we talk about quantum statistical mechanics, Von Neumann extended the notion of entropy to the quantum domain by means of the density matrix.
- While discussing the information theory, it is a measure of the efficiency of a system in transmitting a signal or the loss of information in a transmitted signal.
- When it comes to dynamical systems, entropy defines the growing complexity of a dynamical system. It also quantifies the average flow of information per unit of time.
- Sociology states that entropy is the social decline or natural decay of structure (such as law, organization, and convention) in a social system.
- In cosmology, entropy is described as a hypothetical tendency of the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity. It states that the matter should be at a uniform temperature.In any case, today the term entropy is used in many other sciences very much distant from physics or mathematics and we must say that it no longer maintains its rigorous quantitative character.
For a demonstration that overturned the great Isaac Newton’s ideas about the nature of light, it was staggeringly simple. It “may be repeated with great ease, wherever the sun shines,” the English physicist Thomas Young told the members of the Royal Society in London in November 1803, describing what is now known as a double-slit experiment, and Young wasn’t being overly melodramatic. He had come up with an elegant and decidedly homespun experiment to show light’s wavelike nature, and in doing so refuted Newton’s theory that light is made of corpuscles, or particles.
But the birth of quantum physics in the early 1900s made it clear that light is made of tiny, indivisible units, or quanta, of energy, which we call photons. Young’s experiment, when done with single photons or even single particles of matter, such as electrons and neutrons, is a conundrum to behold, raising fundamental questions about the very nature of reality. Some have even used it to argue that the quantum world is influenced by human consciousness, giving our minds an agency and a place in the ontology of the universe. But does the simple experiment really make such a case?
In the modern quantum form, Young’s experiment involves beaming individual particles of light or matter at two slits or openings cut into an otherwise opaque barrier. On the other side of the barrier is a screen that records the arrival of the particles (say, a photographic plate in the case of photons). Common sense leads us to expect that photons should go through one slit or the other and pile up behind each slit.
They don’t. Rather, they go to certain parts of the screen and avoid others, creating alternating bands of light and dark. These so-called interference fringes, the kind you get when two sets of waves overlap. When the crests of one wave line up with the crests of another, you get constructive interference (bright bands), and when the crests align with troughs you get destructive interference (darkness).
But there’s only one photon going through the apparatus at any one time. It’s as if each photon is going through both slits at once and interfering with itself. This doesn’t make classical sense.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.
Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.
- You have to prove that there is a man in the sky riding a chariot pulled by 2 goats.
- You have to prove that this humanoid wields a magical lightning hammer.
- You have to prove that this humanoid wields a magical belt that doubles this man's strength.
- You have to prove that lightning is caused by this man.
- You have to prove that there is a giant snake that encircles the globe.
- You have to prove that there are giants that this man attacks with his hammer.
- You have to prove that the hammer has the ability to return and never miss when this man throws it.
- If you want to go further you have to prove that there is a giant cosmic tree that holds the earth on one branch, the underworlds on other branches, and the heavens on others.
- You have to prove that Odin exists.
- You have to prove that a race of godlike giants exist.
If particles at the core of our reality are able to behave in two contradictory ways at once, even be in 2 places at once and defy laws that Newton suggested for reality, it similarly links to lack of morality in our reality. Rapists and frauds can thrive while the honest victims perish and suffer, even killing themselves due to the debt. There very blatantly is something wrong with our reality if it is a monotheistic God with a moral code... What if it isn't? I say it's unlikely it is.The same God preaching about saving lives and being kind to thy neighbour is not likely to be making storms, having infants die or suffer to unbearable diseases and domestic abuse or neglect without setting things right.A single God would need to be having multiple personalities in order to justify reality...
An analogy might be if my dog ate bees after I told her not to, and now her mouth hurts. Is it true that it's her own fault for not listening to me? Yes. Is it going to hurt when I have to touch it to put medicine on it? Yes. But really, the most important thing for her to know is that I am here to help her, and she needs to trust me. She may not understand why her mouth hurts, she may not understand why I am touching it and making it hurt more, but she does understand that I am her human, I know more than her, and I love her. That's what she needs to know.
"I am going to largely ignore Pro's Round 2 because no part at all covers why there is only 1 god, instead Pro explains why there could possibly be 1 God and why Pro has particular personal issue with the complexity involved in polytheistic mechanics of gods such as Thor needing to interact with the general Greek god paradigm but I didn't say I support Spartan/Athenian depictions of Gods."
you: "I will cover what I said in Round 1 and prove that it isn't an appeal to emotion."
Trying to prove zeus or Thor or the grand majority of polytheistic gods is like trying to prove the existence of the easter bunny. They both require very specific evidence that a humanoid exists which does similar things to them.
1. This world is just preparation for heaven. Heaven is a place were no evil, death, or suffering exists. There is free will in heaven, but the reason sin can't happen over there is the same reason you no longer put everything in your mouth like when you were a baby - you know better than to do so.
2. The famous Augustinian prophecy aka the free will theodicy which states that God chose to give people free will, and people freely chose to do evil; the evil that we suffer is a consequence of that.
3.The Irenaean theodicy holds that the evil that we suffer happens to make us better people afterwards.
* This argument can be compared to taking a vaccine, it hurts will you take it, but afterwards you get immunized to a specific pathogen.
4. The theodicy in the book of Job which states that humans are too limited in intelligence, wisdom, and perception to truly know the whole array of reasons why God does anything.