Talk:Omnitheism

Do such people really exist? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt it. However, let's let the newbie explain his writings before we take any hasty action. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I exist, and I think I may be one. --Maratrean (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also note there is a Wikipedia article which discusses this, although its definition is maybe slightly different. But surely its definition implies the definition here -- if one believes in the truth of every religion, surely one must also believe in the existence of every god which any religion claims to exist? --Maratrean (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary definitions 2 and 3. Definition 3 is exactly the definition the article presents. Definition 2 can be seen as a collolary. (Since every entity is a possible god, and omnitheist believes in the existence of every possible god, it follows the omnitheist believes that everything is a god.) --Maratrean (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the definition; I'm questioning whether there are people who actually hold this belief. It reminds me of concepts like solipsism - more of an idea for philosophers to kick around than a belief which people actually adopt. If you think you may be an omnitheist, can you explain in more detail what you believe? Is it just that all gods which have had religious cults exist (e.g. the ones on the list you linked to) or if I make up a god right now (let's say Quackleus, the God of Ducks) does that also now exist (other than as an abstract concept in my mind & on this page)? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I am an inclusive monotheist. That means I believe in one utlimate deity; but unlike exclusive monotheists, who believe that their deity alone exists and all others are somehow fradulent, I believe that the one ultimate deity has many names, masks, forms, images, servants, representatives, emanations, intermediatories, etc., and happily accepts worship via any of these; hence I am willing to accept any god which anyone believes in. Inclusive monotheism is a form of monotheism compatible with polytheism, unlike exclusive monotheism which is incompatible with it. But, while a polytheist believes in many gods, they do not necessarily believe in all gods -- they may, for instance, only believe in the gods of a particular pantheon. Whereas, I believe that if someone wants something to be true strongly enough, that tends to make it true. So, whenever one believes in a deity, one's belief brings the deity into existence. So, I believe in the existence of all deities which anyone believes in. I think omnitheism describes that belief. --Maratrean (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on. You say you believe in the actual existence of all deities, but you only consider them representations of a single one. What about their properties, especially those which are mutually exclusive? How can these be true, despite the fact that there are certainly lots of people who believe in them very strongly? How can they all be right at the same time, and how can you bring an ultimate deity into existence by conceiving it when monotheists (who are right, according to you) have left no space for it? Röstigraben (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many religions are explicitly monotheistic - no other gods can even potentially exist. How can one be a monotheist and a omnitheist at the same time?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What about when somebody claims to be a god, or son of God? If you're willing to accept any god which anyone believes in, then you'd have to accept not only vague sky-beings but flesh & blood cult leaders as gods, including Sun Myung Moon, Charles Manson, David Icke, David Koresh, etc. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And me. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider myself an Omnitheist and I exist--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Defence of objections to omnitheism

Röstigraben says "you believe in the actual existence of all deities, but you only consider them representations of a single one". Well, I consider there to be one ultimate deity, but various subsidary deities. As to the relationship between the deities, maybe the subsidiary deity is just a different name for the ultimate deity; maybe the subsidiary deity is actually a separate entity from the ultimate deity but which serves the ultimate deity; maybe, as an in-between position, the subsidiary deity is not an entirely separate entity but neither just a different name, but some sort of appendage. I am open to all of these possibilities; or even combinations of them (maybe different possibilities apply to different deities.)

And "What about their properties, especially those which are mutually exclusive?". Well, there are two ways we can identify an object or person. We can refer to them by name; or we can enumerate their properties to form a description. Suppose I assert "The God Zeus exists". Am I just asserting the existence of some god called 'Zeus'? No, I probably have some ideas about what Zeus is like; if a god called 'Zeus' existed, but had completely different properties from what I believed he had, I would have to conclude -- that is not the 'Zeus' in which I believed, but a different being with the same name. But, suppose there was a god called 'Zeus' who had most but not all of the properties which I believed Zeus had. I wouldn't then say "Zeus does not exist; but another god called 'Zeus' does." I would say "Zeus does exist, but some of the ideas I had about him were wrong." (How many of the properties which I believed Zeus to have the actual Zeus must have for him to be the Zeus in which I believed, that is not a question with an easy answer.) So, if we define gods to make every property their believers claim they have an essential part of the definition, then all possible gods cannot exist -- that would be contradictory. However, if we take a looser attitude to definitions, and say the god of a religion may still exist even if it does not have every single property claimed by its adherents, then it is possible to believe in all gods without committing a contradiction.

One cannot be an exclusive monotheist and an omnitheist at the same time. One can be an inclusive monotheist, a polytheist, and an omnitheist at the same time. So, an omnitheist believes the gods of the exclusive monotheists exist, but that those gods do not have the property of exclusivity which the exclusive monotheists claim -- they may however have many other properties which the exclusive monotheist claims for them.

Could Charles Manson (for example) be a god? An omnitheist must say, if someone really believes he is a god, then he is a god (or at least, there is a god called 'Charles Manson'). But, first question to ask is is there anyone who does (or have) really believed he was a god? His followers may have, in the day, loved him very much, adored him, obeyed his every wish -- but did they view him as divine in a theological/religious sense, rather than just a metaphorical sense of 'god' (like how people speak of 'rock gods'...)? I don't know. But, for the sake of the argument, let us assume they did. Then, it follows an omnitheist has to believe in a god called 'Charles Manson'. However, it is possible that there exists a god 'Charles Manson' without the man sitting in San Quentin right now being that god.

Christians believe that Jesus was both human and divine; however they generally claim Jesus is unique in this regard, the only person who bridges the human and the divine. But more New Age interpretations see Jesus as not alone in bridging humanity and divinity; Jesus is divine on account of his 'Christ consciousness', which is a state anyone potentially can attain, and his purpose as a teacher was to lead his disciples to achieving this consciousness, and attaining his divinity. My view is similiar -- the human and divine, rather than being two separate essences, as Christians (and Jews and Muslims claim) are actually two different expressions of one and the same essence; the divine the fullest expression, the human a very limited expression. But our destiny is to grow in the expression of our essence unto the fulness thereof. The ultimate deity is the one single soul at the beginning-end of time, whom we all used to be and we all shall be once more. Therefore, we all used to be divine and all will be divine once more and in our essence our divine right now. 'Every man and woman is a star', as Crowley said. So, there is no inherent problem with a human being being a god.

But I guess, if Manson's followers believed him to be divine, they meant in a particular sense, not in the generic sense in which we are all divine. But, if the divine is the fullest expression of the single human-divine essence, in a real sense humans who express that essence better than others are more divine; those who express it to a far greater extent than is the norm, in some saintly way, are in a relative sense really gods compared to mere mortal humans. And, those who lived saintly lives may be enshrined as gods after death.

However, it will be objected -- Charles Manson was not a saint, he was a monster. But, I believe in parallel universes. In this universe, Charles Manson very well is a monster. But there may be another universe in which he is saintly instead. Maybe, if someone believes in Charles Manson as god, the god is not the Charles Manson of this universe, but of another. And maybe even at some point the saint and the monster were one -- maybe, in one universe (our own), while at Spahn Ranch, Charlie fell further and further into madness, and ended up ordering murder; while, another universe branches off at some point, where another branch of our Charlie never ordered any murders, but became an ever more saintly man, and possibly even one worthy of being called a god. Likewise, maybe there is another universe in which Icke isn't ranting on about lizards -- or maybe there is another universe in which the lizards he fears really exist, and he is valiantly warning us of them, yet none of us will believe.

But as to you Idiot numbre 188, I am not convinced anyone really believes you are a god, so I would not say you as a god exists. However, if it was proven that someone really believed you were a god, I would have to say that there would be such a god -- although, he may not be exactly you. --Maratrean (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We're really back to these personal religions again which seem to be cropping up more often now. Personal religions are great because:

• They allow you to pick and choose beliefs as you like.
• They do not oblige you make this set of beliefs internally consistent.
• They allow you to move the goalposts when you like.
• They mean that if you are challenged on any particular point of your "religion" you can just rephrase it or abandon it. (In contrast to an established religion with a set dogma where, if a particular point is proven wrong then the whole body of dogma is put in question.)
• As it's your personal religion you can has as much or as little evidence as you like.

In fact personal religions amount to "What I personally want to believe is true today is ...." Now, as a statement of the personal beliefs of an individual they may be accurate. But there is little reason for the rest of the world to take them very seriously.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So what you're essentially doing is to argue the following:

1. Beliefs create reality. ("So, whenever one believes in a deity, one's belief brings the deity into existence.")
2. I believe in a system of gods with my own ultimate deity on top.
3. However, since your beliefs create reality, too, I will accomodate them by incorporating your god(s) into my system.
4. Unfortunately, only I am 100% right. Your beliefs are mostly true, but not completely (despite what I said earlier). I need to reserve the position of final arbiter in order to avoid inconsistencies.

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty shoddy argumentation. Not only do you contradict what you said earlier, but you now have to backtrack on a rather central point - properties like exclusive existence and omnipotence are major features of the deities world religions believe in. The #1 creed for both Christians and Muslims is that there are no other deities. That's slightly over 2 billion people whose core beliefs you can't accomodate in your system, so you have to take the position that while they're right in some way, they haven't gotten it exactly correct. And why did they will compatible deities into existence, instead of the incompatible ones that are outlined in their stated beliefs? Who judges where they went wrong and which properties have to be sacrificed when creating the actual existing deities? Röstigraben (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stated more generally, you're simply facing the same difficulty all religions face. You have to argue that there's something special about yours, something all the others lack, that makes it the one truth, while the others are mistaken. That's a position which you can easily take when you're basing your argument on theology, but not philosophy. Röstigraben (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Beliefs create reality" is a somewhat simplification of my position. To state it more precisely -- the ultimate deity brings universes into existence to fulfill the deeply-held desires of all people. So, anything which you deeply desire, which you did not receive in your life, you will be granted rebirth into another universe in which you have that. So, if you desire a god to exist, and do not receive that in your life, you will be granted a universe in which that god exists. The proviso, however, is that desires can only be fulfilled to the extent they can be fulfilled in a single universe. So, whatever "god X existing" means, if a single universe can fulfill that desire, it will be fulfilled -- these universes could be universes with similar physical laws to our own, or they could be governed by wildly different principles ("heavens"). So, Christians couldn't have their god be the only god; but they could exist in a virtual heaven, in which Christianity appears to be true, and the Christian god appears to be the only god. Maybe that wouldn't be Christianity being true in the fullest sense of the term, but it would be a significant degree of truth for Christianity, at least with respect to that universe. --Maratrean (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If I will be reborn into another universe where my deeply-held desires are fulfilled, then why did I end up in a universe where those desires are not fulfilled in the first place? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In order to fulfill the desires of others. This universe fulfills the desires of some (who they are, we cannot say) -- but the fulfillment of the desires of some creates others with unfulfilled desires. So this is a desire-fulfillment universe for some, and a desire-unfulfillment universe for others. Whereas, a desire-fulfillment universe for you will be a desire-unfulfillment universe for others -- maybe even for those others for whom this is a desire-fulfillment universe. Desires are so contrary, it is impossible to fulfill them all using a single universe; using multiple universes, one can fulfill, maybe not absolutely every desire, but certainly vastly more than one can with a single universe. And I believe the deity wishes to fulfill as many desires as possible. --Maratrean (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that your super-deity is capable of shaking as many universes out of its sleeve as it wants, but unable to run those universes without staffing them with billions of unhappy employees? That doesn't sound convincing. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Particular goods can only exist with evil. People might have existed in a world without evil. But, the particular people who now exist, in a world without evil they would never have been born. The people who now exist experience various goods -- love, friendship, happiness, joy, ecstasy, beauty... Now, if these particular people had not existed, then other people might have existed, who might have also experienced goods. But, they would not have been the same goods, but different ones. So, people experiencing goods could have existed in a world without evil, but not the particular people and particular goods which exist in ours. Now, the Goddess loves us, her children, not just as 'people', but as particular people. And we love, and she honours our love, not just for goods, but for particular goods -- and she honours that our love. Swinburne said in The Triumph of Time:

There are fairer women, I hear; that may be;

But I, that I love you and find you fair,

Who are more than fair in my eyes if they be,

Do the high gods know or the great gods care?

Maratrea cares; therefore, loving us as particular persons, and loving the particular goods that we love, she causes us to be; in doing so, she causes also everything that we are dependent upon for our existence, all those prior particularities, good and evil and neutral. Yet those who suffer for her love for us, she loves them also -- so she grants them universes as recompense, that those particular goods they longed for, yet had not, they shall have. --Maratrean (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In essence, the answer to my last question is "yes"? In other words, for some unstated reason, I was made (presumably by your super-deity, yes?) in such a way as to be incompatible with a (hypothetical) world (= universe?) without evil. Why? Who wants that? What's the point? I'm not the one who asked for "goods" that come with compulsory "evils" attached. Who ordered this stuff on my behalf? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you rather that you had never existed? Because that is what you are in effect saying. A perfect world is a world without you in it. So, to wish that there had been a perfect world instead of this present imperfect one, is to wish that you had never been born. For you to be born, countless evils must come to pass. If you don't value your own existence, mere words on a screen cannot help you. --Maratrean (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If a perfect world is a world without me, then that means that I can never be part of my own "desire-fulfillment universe". I can't exactly describe my idea of a "desire-fulfillment universe", or "heaven" as some might call it, but I can tell you for sure that it most definitely does not involve any kind of suffering for any of its inhabitants. It seems to me that at this point your whole construct breaks down. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, so it's not actually humans (or their beliefs) who create the various deities, but your own ultimate one. That's not quite what you said earlier, and you also didn't mention that their beliefs won't turn into reality until they've shuffled off to their personal afterlives, but OK. That works for your purpose, but it just proves my point above - we're firmly in the realm of theology now, where you can just make up stuff as you go along. I have to say that I don't get why you're doing this, though. I can gather from your other postings that you're not only interested in serious philosophy (especially metaphysics), but rather knowledgeable about it, too. Don't you think this is a field of thought that's more interesting and rewarding than making up your own religion? Röstigraben (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy is interesting, to a point. But in a sense it doesn't go anywhere. At one point, years ago, I was studying philosophy as an undergraduate; I think some of my lecturers were hoping I'd continue on with it, and maybe they'd get a good honours or masters or PhD student out of me -- instead, I ended up dropping philosophy as a major. Yet, if I continued down that path, where would I have ended up? Maybe I could have become an academic. I think religion has much more potential than philosophy to change existing reality. As Marx said "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." At the same time, I am keen to use the tools of philosophy where they can to help in formulating my religion. --Maratrean (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Marx for one definitely changed reality, as did other political philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Spinoza and so on. The impact of metaphysicists and ethicists isn't as direct, but I don't think anyone would argue that Kant or Rawls are only relevant to academia and had no influence on broader society. Some of their thoughts are so ingrained in our consciousness nowadays that we don't even recognize them as philosophy any more. I don't know how many people have subscribed to your new religion yet, but I can imagine it's difficult to get people to genuinely believe in something which they know to be (recently) invented/designed/made-up. And then there's always the question about whether religious belief (not any specific one, just as a practice in a very general sense) changes reality for the better. Röstigraben (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that political philosophers can change reality to a degree. But I don't have bright hopes for the future of political philosophy, particularly in terms of influencing the world. Politics today is less and less about theory or ideology or policy and more and more about soundbites and slogans and lies and conspiracy theories and screaming matches. I doubt the political philosophers of tomorrow will be paid attention to anywhere near as much as those of yesterday were.

I don't pretend its easy to promulgate a new religion. But all the religions had to start somewhere. And new ones are forming constantly.

Have you ever read any work by Rodney Stark on the development of new religions? Its very interesting. Religions tend to grow exponentially -- but what that means, is for the first few decades, growth is very slow in absolute terms (even while being very large in proportional terms -- the first follower represents 100% growth for example.) But, if the religion keeps at it, within a few decades/centuries it can number in the millions (good example is the Mormons -- millions of people, one of the world's fastest growing religions, yet less than two centuries old.) Problem is, most religious groups get frustrated by the inevitably slow growth at the beginning, and become unable to maintain a formula for success. They end up either assimilating too much to the mainstream, or going too far in the other direction, and becoming too inward-focused. Either way, people stop joining and they stagnate or die.

Religion has done and continues to do a lot of bad, no doubt. But that doesn't mean religion must be like that. For a start, my religion doesn't have regressive views on social issues like homosexuality or anything like that. I'm not doing it to exploit or boss them around people (but I suppose you'll just have to take my word on that). --Maratrean (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What about people who really want to create suffering? Will they be given that chance in a future life? I hope not. I'm not Jesus (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is not to fulfill every desire, but only "true desire" (not the will, but the true will). Now, many people desire evil things, but often that evil is not what they really want -- what they want is something else -- but they have so given up on that something else, they've almost forgotten it, and focus on the evil instead. But, remind them well enough of what they originally wished for, make forgotten dreams seem possible again, and many of them I believe will turn from desiring evil, and come to desire the good instead. At the same time, people shall will for (and receive) things which amount to great evils, but only indirectly. Consider the case of the Goebbels children -- you think they would truly wish for Hitler to have won World War II rather than lost it, which would be a horribly evil outcome for very many. But, their own desire is actually rather innocent -- it is the wish of every child to go on living and grow up, to be successful, for their parents to go on living and to be successful, to enjoy all the good things that life might offer, to be healthy and prosperous -- rather than to be murdered by one's own parents in an underground bunker. Yet, while for many the fulfillment of this desire would require nothing major, for these children this usually innocent desire would require the victory of the vile regime their parents supported. So, we should not be suprised to find there being a universe in which Hitler won decisively the Second World War; undoubtedly that would be a far worse world for millions if not billions -- but, the desires that would maintain it in existence, such as the desires of the Goebels children, are not as horrid as one might at first think. --Maratrean (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge

This should be merged in with Maratreanism, if we're going to indulge articles about this, they shouldn't form a constellation of crazy.--^talk 11:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Discuss here.--^talk 11:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if bizarre, this is a real religious concept and is at WP. Even if Maratrean wrote it, there's no good reason to merge, and Maratreanism may or may not be omnitheism. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Some sects of hinduism believe something similar, where all religions are somehow equally valid. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)