Is deism the most logical position to take if one believes in God?
No, because that still doesn't explain how you go from a proposition like "The universe had a beginning/cause" (this proposition is in itself very dubious, but whatever) to "this cause must possess a conscious will"
>>809531
>if one believes in God
>>809542
Setting your conclusion in advance is not philosophy. That's bullshit
>>809519
tbqh Christianity is the most autistic deistic religion. God had a son, killed him, to save humans from sins, he also has a spirit. Wtf....
Islam and Hindism honestly makes more sense...
Islam: There is one God, sends prophets, be a good god fearing man and he will reward you
Hinduism: Brahma, Visnhu, Shiva are aspects of God/universe, representing the creation, now, and the end. We can find God by discovering inner self (Atman)
>>809519
It's logical, but has no upside. The devil's a deist.
>>809542
If you're going to reject every premise you disagree with and never consider the potential implications of their potential truth, you're going to live a very intellectually shallow life.
>>809888
>Islam: There is one God, sends prophets, be a good god fearing man and he will reward you
Isn't that Judaism? Islam is "There is one God, sent the seal of the prophets, submit to God and you may or may not go to paradise??? Islamic afterlife is unclear lol"
>>809902
To be righteous to the Jews and therefore get a portion in the world to come you need to follow the 7 commandments, or the laws of Noah.
Jews don't really like the idea of getting converts in general, hence you just follow the laws and boom, you get heaven.
>>809519
Is the philosophical doctrine that "0=1" the most logical remaining position to take if one believes that two plus two equals five?
>>809928
>To be righteous to the Jews and therefore get a portion in the world to come you need to follow the 7 commandments, or the laws of Noah.
According to whom? You, or a sect of Jews, or a Rabbi, or your Jewish friend? Jews agree universally on pretty much nothing.
>Jews don't really like the idea of getting converts in general, hence you just follow the laws and boom, you get heaven.
I don't think Jews universally, or even generally, believe in Heaven.
>>809974
Some instructions written in the Talmud.
Jews believe in the world to come, when they will rise from the dead and enter the new world under God led by the messiah, the unrighteousness stay in sheoul, the righteous to paradise on Earth.
>>809519
ask yourself that question dumbfuck
>>810333
>Some instructions written in the Talmud.
Isn't the Talmud meant to be interpreted? Who interpreted those instructions in this way?
>Jews believe in the world to come, when they will rise from the dead and enter the new world under God led by the messiah, the unrighteousness stay in sheoul, the righteous to paradise on Earth.
Some Jews do. Some Jews are atheists.
>>809519
I'd say deism is preferable to theism.
If everyone who is religious now, just turned into deists, the world would be a better place, unfortunately we have to deal with retarded religious people and their adherence to bronze age texts.
gnosticism is shit
>>809888
It makes more sense to you that an Arab living 600 years after the fact knows more than the eyewitnesses that Jesus was crucified, died, and rose on the third day?
If that's "rational" to you, maybe consider a lobotomy.
>>809928
Daily Reminder that the Old Covenant had nothing to do with going to heaven.
>>810470
Astronauts was in space and don't saw a planet of heaven.
>>810468
>rises from the dead.
>dozens of "saints" get out of their tombs and talk to the people in Jerusalem.
>not a single historian mentions what would have been the most extraordinary event in human history.
>credible historians.
>>810468
>Eyewitnesses
You do of course realize that the Gospels are only traditionally attributed to people who would have been eyewitnesses to the story and are more likely to be later adaptations of oral traditions?
>>810478
Almost as if the third heaven wasn't higher than the first two, but overlaid upon them at all points and at all times.
>>810518
They did, in the bible.
Your logical fallacy is:
"absence of (other) evidence is evidence of absence".
>>810521
Really? You're back, after getting so assblasted in that other thread?
>>810534
He said credible Historians.
Tacitus' relevant passage has some signs of tampering, not even Josephus backs him up on it and that passage isn't referenced for a long time.
Josephus had several things interpolated into the relevant passage (References to the resurrection and overt praise) and the whole passage may be a later insertion.
Neither of them make reference to what he said, except for the parts of Josephus where the consensus is that the words were interpolated later.
>>810563
What other thread?
Are you going to actually refute my point?
>>810534
Let's not be pikers:
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):
Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD,
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:
Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:
Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:
The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:
Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:
Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD
The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:
The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:
The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD:
The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:
Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):
Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD)
Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):
Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):
Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):
Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):
Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:
(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:
Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:
Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:
>>810565
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."
Show me the tampering.
>>810534
Still don't reference to the saints rising from the dead and talking to the populace. Why the fuck not? Josephus even recorded that during the siege of Jerusalem hundreds of soldiers saw heavenly armies battling in the sky, this guy was interested in the supernatural.
>>810580
Why do you assume this event happened at all? Because you read it in the bible?
Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, 52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
Now prove to me that nobody else recorded this.
>>810576
I didn't want to mention Christian works because this guy is probably not going to care about them.
>>810626
Still, pretty good list. Comes in handy when the emo furfag swears the early church fathers didn't believe the bible.
>>810579
>Annals from 29-31 are missing
>The first mention of Christians shows signs that the i was changed from an e
>While you type Christus the passage doesn't actually have the relevant vowel, instead showing "Chrstus". Not tampering but just felt like pointing it out.
>The passage isn't backed up by any other contemporary historian
>The relevant passage remains unquoted for centuries
>It was reduced to a single surviving copy made in the 8th century located in Christian hands
It's doubtworthy.
>>810652
What's the problem with Christus?
The bible backs it up. It backs the bible up.
You can doubt until you die, and then you'll know.
>>810652
44 ...But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices,27 whom the crowd styled Christians.28 Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus,29 and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast p285numbers30 were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race.31 And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.
How do the missing ones effect this again?
>>810675
27 The charges bandied about in the next century were those always favoured in such cases: ritual murder, nameless abominations with extinguished lights, et hoc genus omne (Just. Mart. Apol. I.26, etc.).
28 About twenty years had elapsed since the name arose in Antioch (Acts xi.26). — For a clear statement of the main problems of this "Neronian persecution," the reader may be referred to Furneaux' Excursus (II2.416‑427).
29 The only mention in heathen Latin.
30 The expression, of course, may mean anything. Gibbon compared the terms applied by Livy to the 7,000 people involved in the Bacchanalian scandals — multitudinem ingentem, alterum iam populumº XXXIX.13), multa milia hominum (ib. 15).
31 Jewish "misanthropy" — which was proverbial — may have partly suggested the charge; though from a passage of Sulpicius Severus, almost certainly transcribed from the Histories (see vol. II p220 of this edition), it is evident that the gulf between Jew and Christian had been clearly recognized by the Roman high command in 70 A.D.
Hmmmm, these all seem to fit the facts in the bible rather well.
>>810658
Because the bible isn't a historical source.
Moreover because of the i/e issue it's not unambiguous at all, whether or not Christ is the person being refered to.
>>810576
Most of these are written too late.
Some of them don't even mention Christ.
A few of them are even generally considered forgeries.
I'm not going through your entire list because I've gone through these types of lists several times and this one is just a longer one.
>>810675
I meant 29-31 AD.
Sorry for the confusion.
>>810694
The bible.....is not a historical source.....
But you're not biased, right Anon?
>>810652
You know Jesus was crucified in 32 AD, yes? How would missing annals from prior to that even be relevant?
Do you think Rome kept track of every itinerant rabbi in Israel?
>>810652
>It's doubtworthy
If you're looking for rock-solid evidence of the existence of any given individual in the ancient world then, to some extent, you're going to have to make this same critique of pretty much any source you use. Do you think we should just not think about that part of the past?
>>810704
Would you be satisfied if I said that it's not a historically accurate source and doesn't even back itself up because it's a composition of multiple books?
>>810709
Why wouldn't it be important to know what the annals said about the events immediately before Jesus' crucifixion?
If he thought it was important enough to mention Christ and Christians then maybe he might think they were important enough to mention more than once.
>>810735
I'm saying that it's doubtworthy that the relevant passage in Tacitus hasn't been altered to serve a Christian agenda for those reasons.
Moreover the original issue wasn't whether Jesus existed or not but whether he rose from the dead etc.
>>810750
I don't mean his statement that Christ existed.
Due to time constraints I'm going to stop posting.
>>810763
The bible is true on whatever it touches. When it touches on history, it is true. "Liberal scholars" denounced the bible as falsely saying there existed a "Pontius Pilate", until they found him in history. They denounced the bible for saying there was a Hittite empire, until they found the Hittite empire. They denounced the bible for talking about the walls of Jericho, until they found the walls of Jericho.
The bible is very much a history book; it's only about the relevant history to God, though, not to people like you. People like you want to pretend you're better than people in history.
I would not expect Rome to know anything about Jesus before the resurrection, and I would be correct in that. Why do you think Rome would follow a wandering Rabbi of Galilee?
Read the passage again. How is it in any way favorable to Christians?
It's not important that you admit that Jesus existed.
It's important to know that you're going to meet Him, in your lifetime, and that meeting will go one of two ways.
And right now, that would not be the good way.
>>810763
>I'm saying that it's doubtworthy that the relevant passage in Tacitus hasn't been altered to serve a Christian agenda for those reasons.
Why is it doubtworthy? Because you said so?
>Moreover the original issue wasn't whether Jesus existed or not but whether he rose from the dead etc.
Fine, that doesn't justify your dismissal of any and all sources mentioning the execution of a carpenter in Nazareth in 33 A.D. as fabrications.
Agnosticism is logical.
Pantheism is cooler and FUCK IT
I
CAN
DIG
IT
>>810576
>Acts of Pontius Pilate
I just looked at this one from the list, are the rest as dubious as this?
>The oldest sections of the book appear first in Greek. The text contains multiple parts, which are uneven in style and would seem to be by different hands. The Acts of Pilate does not purport to have been written by Pilate (thus is not pseudepigraphical), but does claim to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem.
>The authenticity of the document is unlikely and there is no historical basis that Roman governors wrote reports about non-citizens who were put to death.[4] Most modern scholars view the Acts of Pilate as not authentic and as a Christian composition designed to rebut pagan sources.[3]
>The Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (writing c. 325), shows no acquaintance with this work, although he was aware of "Letters of Pilate" referred to by Justin and Tertullian. He was also aware of an anti-Christian text called Acts of Pilate, which was prescribed for reading in schools under the emperor Maximinus during the Diocletianic Persecution.[7] "We are forced to admit that [the Christian Acts of Pilate] is of later origin, and scholars agree in assigning it to the middle of the fourth century."[2] Epiphanius refers to an Acta Pilati (c. 376), but the extant Greek texts show evidence of later editing.
>>810868
kek
"nobody says anything about Jesus!"
Lists dozens
this one is contested!
every single time.
Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):
"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."
>>810824
Ignorance is logical? Well, that does explain the massive amount of ignorance in the world today.
>>810868
There you go. There's your "contest".
When the influence of Christianity was increasing rapidly in the Empire, one of the last pagan emperors, Maximin II, two years before the Edict of Milan, attempted to bring Christianity into disrepute by publishing what he alleged to be the true 'Acts of Pilate', representing the origins of Christianity in an unsavoury guise. These 'Acts', which were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by schoolchildren. They were manifestly forged, as Eusebius historian pointed out at the time;' among other things, their dating was quite wrong, as they placed the death of Jesus in the seventh year of Tiberius (AD 20), whereas the testimony of Josephus' is plain that Pilate not become procurator of Judaea till Tiberius' Twelfth year (not to mention the evidence of Luke iii. 1, according to which John the Baptist began to preach in fifteenth year of Tiberius). We do not know in detail these alleged 'Acts' contained, as they were naturally suppressed on Constantine's accession to power; but we may surmise that they had some affinity with Toledoth Yeshu, an anti-Christian compilation popular in some Jewish circles in mediaeval time.'
>Someone wrote a forgery, so the original must be a forgery!
>>810890
Im not that Anon you are engaging with, just curious about the idea of their being writings left by Pilate.
The text you cited seems to be either a different one to the one Justin was using or simply another one of the various amounts of contradicting events and words attributed to Pilate.
>>810911
>Someone wrote a forgery, so the original must be a forgery!
The question for me is whether what we hold to be the Acts of Pilate from the Gospel of Nicodemus refer to something that was actually produced by Pilate.
The text in question does not seem to be the one being refered to
>>810919
There were three. One from Pilate reporting in to Rome, one forgery making christians look bad, and another from christians trying to make themselves look good.
>>810955
>One from Pilate reporting in to Rome, one forgery making christians look bad, and another from christians trying to make themselves look good.
Which one is the in N gospel?
>>810709
Jesus could perform miracle after miracle according to the bible and you want to tell me that Rome kept no contemporary reference to Jesus, potentially the biggest threat to the region due to supernatural power and amazing charisma he had? That would make sense if he was a charismatic rabbi with a devoted cult following and not a supernatural messiah but needs a larger suspension of belief to accept that they somehow caught no word of him.
>>810991
Magic, divination, miracles, etc. were very common back then. Even if all of it was a con, everyone accepted it as normal that people would do things like what Jesus was doing. Prior to the birth of Christianity, nobody legally had a monopoly on miracles.
He could as easily have been put to death for witchcraft in another possible world, but then that wouldn't happen in accordance with Scripture, I don't think.
>>810982
I don't know. I would guess the third.
Nicodemus didn't write a gospel; he became a believer, lost his well digging company, lost his family, lost his house, lost everything for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
>>810991
Yes, that is what I would call "obvious". You know there aren't really that many 2000 year old documents about, yes?
>>809902
>Islamic afterlife is nuclear
if only that were so
>>810991
In the Gospel of Mark, at least, Jesus makes a point of telling people not to talk about his miracles. It's possible this is factual, and Jesus took great pains to keep his supernatural actions a secret.
His greatest miracle ever, the Transfiguration, is in fact kept secret in all three synoptic Gospels. He doesn't even let all twelve Apostles see that one.
>>811054
Moses finally makes it to the Promised Land!
woot!
>>809519
>thread is immediately derailed by christians
>>811087
>derailed
>Deism is 100% compatible with many forms of Christianity
>OP posted a William Blake-related photo
Yeah.
This is the level of discourse one should expect here.
>>809519
Why even bother ? Deism comes from believing in intelligent design- that we don't need an active deity participating in creation, we just need a creator who was intelligent enough to make complex systems like the ones we see in nature.
There is no real clear way to determine what level of complexity entails the need for an intelligence though- there is no strong deductive argument for it, it is just a "hunch" that because eyes do what they do that they have some sort of privileged complexity and require a "watchmaker" type God.
The classical theism position is far more coherent because it points out that the way our world is not logically necessary, nor is there any necessity for it to sustain the way it does at each moment that it does. The need for a God comes in from the fact that at the fundamental level there is nothing to necessitate the sustenance of just the kind of universe we have at every moment it persists. Given that there are many options open at this fundamental level we need a deity who can select between the options, since there is nothing else to determine that we have one kind of world rather than another, since it is not necessary, but contingent. Combine this with a cosmological argument about causation and you have a pretty strong explanation that grounds the most general features of existence- no need to rely on arbitrary notions of "complexity".
The latter position also has nothing to do with the universe having a temporal beginning or not. It holds whether the universe began or is eternal. Watchmaker/Design arguments that the Deist conception is based on requires a temporal beginning since it is said that deist God created the world and then left it to do its thing at some particular time.
>>811054
Still not seeing the external evidence for dozens of dead people walking around Jerusalem during its most important time of the year in what would be an extraordinary occurrence.
It's the most empirical position, in that it doesn't claim actions that would leave evidence.
To get yourself to believe in a deistic god requires just about as much logic as a theistic one. That is to say, cherry-picked logic bites with leaps in between.
>>809968
>>812570
So, because you don't see it, it doesn't exist, and never existed.
Because you have seen everything that has ever existed.
https://youtu.be/ubjGZ5UVsQM?t=2m53s
>>812607
The universe is pretty substantial evidence for either the deist or the theist, difference being the deist cannot put a name to God, and the theist can.
>>813742
>make idiotic statement
>have it shown as idiotic in a different context
>save statement by posting hats
C'mon man, you can do better.
>>813803
The universe is evidence for the universe. For every god idea you posit I can posit a functional infinity of ideas that could be the cause of it, none being any more or less provable than a god claim. So no, they don't have the slightest empirical evidence.
>>813819
I say God created the universe; x created y. This presupposes the existence of God, x, before the universe, y. This is logically consistent with an eternal God, and a finite universe.
You say the universe created the universe; that x created x. Attempting to presuppose that x preceded x, that the universe pre-existed in order to create itself, is logical nonsense.
>>813851
>if I make my own rules, I can follow them flawlessly
Why would you take a logical position when it comes to the divine? Not being a fedora here, I thought logic runs counteractive to faith
>>813856
I created the rules of logic? Wow. I'm pretty old.
>>813865
No, but you created your own rules for logic. You also never explain why you should presuppose the existence of a god, where you got the idea of a finite universe (hint: the Big Bang theory doesn't actually describe the beginning of the universe), why the statement 'x created x' is inconsistent with what logical system, or why reality ought to follow human logic in the first place
>>813860
That's because we haven't defined our terms properly. Faith is not a religious word at all, no more than taste, touch, sight, or hearing. It's a human ability, and all humans have it.
Faith is the human ability to believe things you have not seen.
You have not seen God; neither have I. Yet I know He is no more invisible than you or I. After all, you cannot see me, but you believe I am posting this message to you. I can tell you something about myself, say that I am a man, and you can believe that on faith, even though you have not seen me. Or you can disregard it on faith, again, because you have not seen me.
Human logic does not control or constrain God. God transcends mankind So you have the choice to believe what God is telling you, again on faith since you cannot see Him, or you can attempt to box God in with human logic, which has always failed, and will always fail. There is no box that can contain God, physically or logically speaking. He revealed that He is I Will Be That I Will Be, often quoted as I Am.
>>813878
If I say God created the universe, I am presupposing that God existed before the universe existed.
If you cannot follow that, maybe the laws of logic are not for you either.
>>813882
>If I say God created the universe, I am presupposing that God existed before the universe existed
So you're backing up a claim with the same claim in different words? That's very 'logical' of you. Tell me more, o wise elder of divine axioms
>>813897
Hard headed people often need things repeated before they understand them.
For instance, Picasso existed before Picasso's paintings existed.
>>809531
Thread should have ended here.
>>813916
Your mother should have had an abortion.
>>813924
Is someone upset?
>>813905
Yes, and painting is in no way comparable to natural phenomenon.
For instance, bottom up organization is completely impossible in painting
>>813926
Yes. I should have said "another abortion".
>>813933
And it's impossible in Universe creation as well.
>>813941
Why are you so mad?
>>813949
Because I hate missing punchlines.
>>813946
And the term 'universe creation' presupposes top-down organization, so that isn't too strange. Once again you're asserting what you need to demonstrate
>>813952
Well think about your witty posts next time, 'kay, shitposter?
>>813851
Have you confirmed that the universe has not existed forever? (in whatever form it existed "before" the big bang)
Have you confirmed that universes in general do not create themselves? (what was your sample-size?)
Have you confirmed that if there is absolutely nothing existing, that the rules of logic still apply (e.g. causality) and prevent universes from appearing?
Have you confirmed that a universe can't for example create itself in a timeloop?
Or are you just talkin?
>>813763
Not him, but what kind of thought process is that? Why should one believe something so improbable and so poorly documented?
>>813960
The thought always comes late. Always.
ANOTHER ABORTION
SEE, IF I HAD BEATEN THAT GERMAN SHEPHERD OVER THE FENCE, I WOULD BE YOUR DADDY!!!
>>813977
>Have you confirmed that the universe has not existed forever? (in whatever form it existed "before" the big bang)
Yes.
>Have you confirmed that universes in general do not create themselves? (what was your sample-size?)
Yes.
>Have you confirmed that if there is absolutely nothing existing, that the rules of logic still apply (e.g. causality) and prevent universes from appearing?
Nothing does not exist.
>Have you confirmed that a universe can't for example create itself in a timeloop?
Yes.
>Or are you just talkin?
I am telling you what God told us. You can reject God at your leisure. Like you reject the precepts of logic.
>>814331
How many events of 2000 years ago are fully documented, and those documents exist today?
There is one God, because if one entity is God completely, then it would be the only God.
Then the rest of the entities which are not supreme are deities.
There is only one Supreme Controller, the demigods are lesser for a reason.
Both would make sense to see side by side, deism and monotheism or whatever "ism" the world wants to add to another word.
