Will Any Theist Believe in an Inferior God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

An inferred from this discussion,
Does any theist here accept a God that is inferior to another God claimed to be more superior?

God is perfect so His act must be perfect too.

I can understand from your perspective why God must be absolutely perfect and ultimately superior to all.

The point is, if you do not claim your God to be absolutely perfect, then some other theists will do that. Thus a God which is claimed to be perfect and all powerful by other theists can subdue your God and make it inferior to the extent that a more superior God can command your God to kiss its ass or eat sh1t.
This is what happened with Islam claiming their God to be the most superior and thus dominate over all other inferior gods including the corrupted God of Christianity and Judaism.

Thus to avoid being inferior to another God, theologians [Christians especially] came up with the ontological God, i.e. "a God than which no greater can exists." Such an ultimate ontological God will leave no possible room for another to claim a higher God.
Note St. Anselm and Descartes came up with such a possible God which is followed by Islamic theologians.

BUT the problem is, the imperative ultimate ontological God is merely pseudo rational and cannot be empirically possible to be real.
Thus God [ultimately] is an impossibility.

If one believe in an empirically possible god [e.g. bearded man in the sky] which will be inferior to another God, so be it, but to insist it is real empirically, then bring empirical evidence to justify its existence. Until then such an empirical possibility is a mere speculation of no substance.

Any theist here accept a God that is inferior to another God claimed to be more superior?

[QuantumT]

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in Abraham's God. Jews believe they descend from Abraham's son Isaac, and Muslims believe they descend from Abraham's son Ishmael. So it's the same God. Only the messages/demands from him separates them.

[philosopher]

My God is physically and even psychologically inferior to the Devil/Satan, who is almost omnipotent and omniscient. My deity has no power and little if no knowledge.

But my deity will not obey the commands of any superior deities, like the devil. Rather, he prefer to either hide, pursuade others to follow him anyway - or die trying.

The thing is, my deity need not be a physical substance of himself either, to manifest himself physically. All he needs is someone to believe in him, and the more believers the more powerful he become and the more miracles he can perform.

My deity is a mind/thought-product of the personalization of the idea of True Goodness as defined by:

* Compassion for the needy, weak and unfortunate.
* Personal Freedom.

You can kill God. Many people kill god every day. The thing is, it takes just one individual to ressurrect him.

As I said, the more people believing in my deity the more powerful he become. For example, if the entire population of Earth believed in him, the biggest miracle would be that there would be peace between Russia and U.S. and EU/NATO and China. Also there would be no other wars or sanctions or anything. And there would be no death penalty, no torture, no solitary confinement either. There will be no labor duty, and everyone will have the right to not work, though there will always be incentive to work. And disabled people will get better chances at earning higher income through work. Health Care will be totally free/tax financed.

Also, the Climate Change would be handled in an entirely different way. There would be more sources for renewable energy and less need for fossil fuels.

However, people like to live in Hell and hate everything close to paradise. This is why they choose to become right wing conservatives, because they'd rather follow Satan than the God of True Goodness.

It is also the reason why so many people unconditionally support government leaders like Kim Jong Un, XI Jinping, Putin, Orban, Erdogan, Trump, Duterte etc.

Occassionally, I kill my own God because I too become fascinated by evil. To follow Satan and become evil, boost your dopamine and endorphine levels. It is Satans reward for following him. However, what people choose to ignore, is the fact that the price has to be paid by living in Hell on Earth.

[Walker]

Does any theist here accept a God that is inferior to another God claimed to be more superior?

That’s an immature question.

Personally, I prefer this question:

Does anyone here have the intellectual detachment and sophistication to present a view that does not hinge on the grounding of personal belief or self-identity?

In other words, devoid of bias can anyone intellectually present the affirmatives of two opposing views, in this case lesser and greater?

@

Here’s an intellectual explanation of one view detached from believe or identity.

In the big picture beyond the scale of our few years here on earth, what comes and goes is temporary and thus an illusion. What never leaves is permanent and thus real.

Two concepts of god:

- One is an impermanent god that comes and goes, e.g., the rain god who must be enticed with a rain dance.

- Two is the permanent god known as God that never leaves but can be hidden from apprehension, comprehension, inspiration and understanding.

Which is the lesser god?

The rhetorical answer is: with beauty as the judge of greater, isn’t the rose more beautiful because it must leave, Grasshopper?

Isn't that which hides the real greater than the hidden? Ask the zebra's stripes, or the tiger's.

Anyone with a lick of sense prefers the comfort of delusion to stark shunyata, but once illusion is lost you can’t go home again.

[fooloso4]

According to Kabbalah “En Sof” (ein sof, eyn sof), the boundless, infinite God is not the god who is manifest. All that is named, all that is attributed to God, is not En Sof, who is unknowable and incomprehensible. So, when we speak of God it is an inferior god, limited by what we can conceive and experience.

This is, of course, quite different than the notion of “warring gods” you point to.

Thus to avoid being inferior to another God, theologians [Christians especially] came up with the ontological God, i.e. "a God than which no greater can exists."

I don’t think that this is correct. Christian theology was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy. Aquinas’ discussion of perfection is based on Aristotle’s in the metaphysics.The question of perfection seems to have had a lot more to do with the difference between man and God than gods and gods.

The perfectibility of man has an interesting history. Apotheosis was the central question of the Council of Nicaea regarding the ontological status of Jesus, as well as threat that the “king of the Jews” posed to the Roman divine kings. Although he tried to hide it, Descartes’ method for the perfectibility of man was not simply a theological threat it was a coup.

As I see it theology or god talk is inherently illogical. If God is beyond the limits of human knowledge and understanding then theologians should stop trying to eff the ineffable.

There is another kind of god talk that is taken up by wannabe mystics. They will talk and talk and when it becomes clear that they cannot defend their talk they talk some more about how it is not about the talk. Out of ignorance they imagine that they are talking wisely about what they do not know, what they have only heard talk of. They don the robe of sage and congratulate themselves on their superiority. They think themselves qualified to talk about a road they have not travelled.

[Nick_A]

Theism is defined in the dictionary as:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

We accept that one and one equals two in matters of quantity but few realize that it cannot be true in matters of quality.

For example the one god cannot be added to the one god to produce two gods. By definition the one god is one so there is no other to add to. The two one gods cannot equal the one god in quality.

The one god is ineffable. It is the ONE described by Plotinus and Plato. All of creation is within it. Creation itself is the lawful devolution of spirit within matter. There can be many universes within the ONE but there can be only one God, one source from which everything comes into existence.

One and one equals two in quantity but not in quality. People can argue conceptions about the ONE but they are just conceptions. However human consciousness is sufficient to experience objective human meaning and purpose within God. The problem is how to become open to this quality of consciousness so as to become open to the experience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in Abraham's God. Jews believe they descend from Abraham's son Isaac, and Muslims believe they descend from Abraham's son Ishmael. So it's the same God. Only the messages/demands from him separates them.

Nope!
The well-meaning Jews and Christians may like to think so.
But within the Quran and Islam it is declared the present God of the Jews and Christians are a bastardized and corrupted god which is not Allah the greatest [Allahu Akbar] Islamic God.

The Quran claimed Allah delivered the original pristine Torah and Injeel [Gospels] to the Jews but they subsequently bastardized and corrupted the originals from God.
Thus what the Jews and Christians has on hand at present are the bastardized and corrupted versions of original representing an inferior God to Allah the Greatest of the Greats.

This is why the Christians have to resort to the ontological God when cornered;

• Christians: Our God is a God than which no greater can exists.
  
  Muslims: Our God is a God than which no greater can exists.

In such a scenario both claim to the ceiling limit and thus no one God can be greater than the other.

Despite the above Muslims [many] will insist their Allah is the most superior and dominate over every other gods, humans and the universe.
This is how the really worst Muslim who is a shit will still have the internal confidence to view the greatest [of whatever] from the West as inferior and as a piece of shit that can be eliminated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My God is physically and even psychologically inferior to the Devil/Satan, who is almost omnipotent and omniscient. My deity has no power and little if no knowledge.
...

The arrogant believers who believe their God is the greatest without exception don't give a damn what you believe, and will bully more if your god is a weakling. SOME [not all] of such arrogant [false] believers will simply expect their greatest God to send you to Hell or they themselves would smash your head.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Does any theist here accept a God that is inferior to another God claimed to be more superior?

That’s an immature question.

Personally, I prefer this question:

It is not what you prefer i.e. off topic.
The reality is there are people who believe their God is the greatest and dominates over all other gods, humans and the universe.

My point is I am confident no believers with a normal mind will believe in an inferior god against some other believers who claim their God is the most superior.

This impulse for a one-up stance is a natural instincts and very common in kindergarten and grade school yards. Unfortunately many are still impulsive with such instincts [ego maniacs] as adults even to their 70s [nb: the present Mr. T].

However in either an eternal life or eternal death/Hell situation, most theists will not believe and concede to an inferior God since it just a matter of thought in accepting the greatest of the great, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

According to Kabbalah “En Sof” (ein sof, eyn sof), the boundless, infinite God is not the god who is manifest. All that is named, all that is attributed to God, is not En Sof, who is unknowable and incomprehensible. So, when we speak of God it is an inferior god, limited by what we can conceive and experience.

If “En Sof” cannot or is not to be spoken, then we should remain silent [Wittgenstein], i.e. subject closed.
Unfortunately humans cannot resist but continue to speak of "en sof" indirectly. It is the same with the Tao, i.e. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao." Some insist the Tao nevertheless can be experienced. However what is often experienced of the "unknowable" by some is similar to experiences by the mentally ill or those who take drugs/hallucinogens.

Where believers speak of God, they can still claim their God is a God than which no greater can exists.

This is, of course, quite different than the notion of “warring gods” you point to.

Thus to avoid being inferior to another God, theologians [Christians especially] came up with the ontological God, i.e. "a God than which no greater can exists."

I don’t think that this is correct. Christian theology was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy. Aquinas’ discussion of perfection is based on Aristotle’s in the metaphysics.The question of perfection seems to have had a lot more to do with the difference between man and God than gods and gods.

The perfectibility of man has an interesting history. Apotheosis was the central question of the Council of Nicaea regarding the ontological status of Jesus, as well as threat that the “king of the Jews” posed to the Roman divine kings. Although he tried to hide it, Descartes’ method for the perfectibility of man was not simply a theological threat it was a coup.

As I see it theology or god talk is inherently illogical. If God is beyond the limits of human knowledge and understanding then theologians should stop trying to eff the ineffable.

There is another kind of god talk that is taken up by wannabe mystics. They will talk and talk and when it becomes clear that they cannot defend their talk they talk some more about how it is not about the talk. Out of ignorance they imagine that they are talking wisely about what they do not know, what they have only heard talk of. They don the robe of sage and congratulate themselves on their superiority. They think themselves qualified to talk about a road they have not travelled.

Note my point above, i.e.

• However in either an eternal life or eternal death/Hell situation, most theists will not believe and concede to an inferior God since it just a matter of thought in accepting the greatest of the great, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists.

Note the natural primal instinct re the one-up impulse potential that is inherent in all humans while active in many.

I believed the idea of the ontological and perfect God of St. Anselm and Descartes came much later than the earlier Greeks when the clergy were faced with an onslaughts of critics from non-theists and challenges from other religions especially Islam.

The point here is while the idea of perfection may be disputed, the fact is the majority with their inherent one-up instinct will naturally tend toward and end up with ceiling limit to a perfect or the ontological God.

My point is;
No normal believer will accept an inferior God, more so when faced with a challenge from others.

[fooloso4]

Veritas Aequitas:

If “En Sof” cannot or is not to be spoken, then we should remain silent [Wittgenstein], i.e. subject closed.

And yet Wittgenstein was not silent. Not to go too far off topic but the reason one must stay silent is because ethics lies outside the logical structure that underlie language and the world. This does not mean that such things are unimportant, just the opposite. He distinguishes between what can be said and what can be shown.

En Sor cannot be shown in the sense of something seen, but in the same way that Wittgenstein shows the limits of thought, language, and the world.

However in either an eternal life or eternal death/Hell situation, most theists will not believe and concede to an inferior God since it just a matter of thought in accepting the greatest of the great, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists.

Some theists believe in an eternal life or eternal death/Hell situation and some do not. Monotheists believe that there is only one God, not greater and lesser gods.

The point here is while the idea of perfection may be disputed, the fact is the majority with their inherent one-up instinct will naturally tend toward and end up with ceiling limit to a perfect or the ontological God.

You are conflating two different things - the theological concept of God’s perfection and the “us and them” of religious disputes.

My point is;
No normal believer will accept an inferior God, more so when faced with a challenge from others.

Not all “normal believers” accept the notion of a perfect God. Many “normal believers” accept that because of man’s limits we will conceive of God differently and will be tolerant of different expressions of faith.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

According to Kabbalah “En Sof” (ein sof, eyn sof), the boundless, infinite God is not the god who is manifest. All that is named, all that is attributed to God, is not En Sof, who is unknowable and incomprehensible. So, when we speak of God it is an inferior god, limited by what we can conceive and experience.

This is, of course, quite different than the notion of “warring gods” you point to.

Thus to avoid being inferior to another God, theologians [Christians especially] came up with the ontological God, i.e. "a God than which no greater can exists."

I don’t think that this is correct. Christian theology was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy. Aquinas’ discussion of perfection is based on Aristotle’s in the metaphysics.The question of perfection seems to have had a lot more to do with the difference between man and God than gods and gods.

The perfectibility of man has an interesting history. Apotheosis was the central question of the Council of Nicaea regarding the ontological status of Jesus, as well as threat that the “king of the Jews” posed to the Roman divine kings. Although he tried to hide it, Descartes’ method for the perfectibility of man was not simply a theological threat it was a coup.

As I see it theology or god talk is inherently illogical. If God is beyond the limits of human knowledge and understanding then theologians should stop trying to eff the ineffable.

There is another kind of god talk that is taken up by wannabe mystics. They will talk and talk and when it becomes clear that they cannot defend their talk they talk some more about how it is not about the talk. Out of ignorance they imagine that they are talking wisely about what they do not know, what they have only heard talk of. They don the robe of sage and congratulate themselves on their superiority. They think themselves qualified to talk about a road they have not travelled.

Different 'FROM' you illiterate yank.

[fooloso4]

Vegetariantaxidermy:

Different 'FROM' you illiterate yank.

Different ‘THAN’ is an accepted American English standard. Its usage does not make one illiterate. The rules of grammar are not invariant, they change with time and place. Some sources consider the different to be one of style rather than grammar. (Or do you think it should be “rather from grammar”?)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Vegetariantaxidermy:

Different 'FROM' you illiterate yank.

Different ‘THAN’ is an accepted American English standard. Its usage does not make one illiterate. The rules of grammar are not invariant, they change with time and place. Some sources consider the different to be one of style rather than grammar. (Or do you think it should be “rather from grammar”?)

There is no such thing as American English. The language is called English, and yanks are simply illiterate morons who don't know how to use it.
Noah Webster effectively lobotomised the American population with his failed attempts at 'dumbing-down' the language. All he did was 'dumb-down' the population, and ruin the language.

ps. 'Rather' is a different word from 'different'. Similar 'to', different 'from'. Easy to remember because similar as 'going TOwards' and different as 'going away FROM' if you get my drift.

[Walker]

Does any theist here accept a God that is inferior to another God claimed to be more superior?

That’s an immature question.

Personally, I prefer this question:

It is not what you prefer i.e. off topic.
The reality is there are people who believe their God is the greatest and dominates over all other gods, humans and the universe.

My point is I am confident no believers with a normal mind will believe in an inferior god against some other believers who claim their God is the most superior.

This impulse for a one-up stance is a natural instincts and very common in kindergarten and grade school yards. Unfortunately many are still impulsive with such instincts [ego maniacs] as adults even to their 70s [nb: the present Mr. T].

However in either an eternal life or eternal death/Hell situation, most theists will not believe and concede to an inferior God since it just a matter of thought in accepting the greatest of the great, i.e. a God than which no greater can exists.

Then you agree that the question is immature.

A rain god that can parch you or drown you has power over your life, and what greater power can there be?