Occams Razor vs. pantheon of Catholic Saints

(February 5, 2017 at 2:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 5, 2017 at 4:15 am)robvalue Wrote: I think polytheism is a far closer model of reality than monotheism. The extreme divergence of the descriptions of deities, coupled with the geographical tendencies, points far more towards several competing guys than one continually misunderstood one.

The term 'principality' mean anything to you?

I've never heard of it; perhaps you could explain it to me (and, us)?

The realm of a prince? I fail to see the relevance?

I have never heard a Christian apply Occam's Razor as a justification for monotheism. You AF members seem to attract the strangest apologists.

(February 5, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I have never heard a Christian apply Occam's Razor as a justification for monotheism. You AF members seem to attract the strangest apologists.

Christians, Muslims, and Jews are monotheist because Abraham was too dull to keep up with the pantheon of gods his family worshipped.

Never have felt Occam's razor had any bearing on any question I ever cared about. Seems like it is something people like to trot out to persuade others but I wonder how often the same people ever change their mind based on its consideration. I think it is a truism without a purpose.

(February 5, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I have never heard a Christian apply Occam's Razor as a justification for monotheism. You AF members seem to attract the strangest apologists.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ockhams-razor

(February 6, 2017 at 3:47 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(February 5, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I have never heard a Christian apply Occam's Razor as a justification for monotheism. You AF members seem to attract the strangest apologists.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/ockhams-razor

Sounds like WLC was just answering the question of a reader about what it was. He did mention in passing that having more than one Creator god would be redundant, but that's not particularly important, or even a useful apologetic. Even in polytheistic religions there is usually only one creator god anyway.

(February 5, 2017 at 4:22 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I've never heard of it; perhaps you could explain it to me (and, us)?

(February 5, 2017 at 6:16 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: The realm of a prince? I fail to see the relevance?

I was responding to rob's post.

(February 5, 2017 at 4:15 am)robvalue Wrote: I think polytheism is a far closer model of reality than monotheism. The extreme divergence of the descriptions of deities, coupled with the geographical tendencies, points far more towards several competing guys than one continually misunderstood one.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12

You are correct Mr. Greene, a principality is a realm of a prince. what does this have to do with polytheism you ask? If you research some of those old pagan gods found in the bible, you'd find that they were demon princes, Baal and Beelzebub are one and the same. These demon princes have a geographical area as their domain.

If you look in the book of Daniel you'd see where he was praying to God, but he received no answer for 21 days, finally an angel appears and explains why it took so long.

Quote:Daniel 10
12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael (an archangel), one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

*emphasis and annotation mine*

The point being that it's not warring Gods, but warring spirits.

Your above statements would not contradict polytheism; it would only mean that there were "lesser" gods versus greater ones.  For instance, we can imagine a pantheon of gods where one was omnipotent but not omniscient and another was omniscient but not omnipotent, etc.