Addendum to Aristotle thread.

I have seen quite a few Christians that use the first mover idea as a kind of refutation of polytheism in general. There is a pervasive idea(Abrahamic influence) that there can be only one origin of all things. https://twitter.com/GraniRau/status/1300402996120092673

This discounts a polytheistic cosmology. Christians plop their idol in the place of the "one first unchanging thing" and then leave it at that. This shows an ignorance of what polytheistic religions generally say. So I figured I should counter that too.

Polytheistic cosmologies do not use the gods as an explanation for how things originated, or "were created". At least, not as a collective. For some reason, Christians in particular seem to think that each god in a pantheon is a some kind of first cause on its own.

Or that all the gods as a collective are meant to constitute some kind of first mover. This idea is also inaccurate, polytheistic religions don't posit this. Part of the problem is that Christians have narrowed the definition of god.

It wasn't entirely their fault. The Greek philosophers introduced that nonsense, and in my opinion are responsible for all sorts of other mischief. For example, the idea that a god must be an unchanging being. Unchanging is perfection, after all. Or the gods must do what you like

No matter what sophistry you employ, and unchanging being can't respond or even think. What we laud as "thinking" or "contemplation" is really the mind in a constant flux of ideas, sensations, feelings, tendencies. Nor can an unchanging god respond to anything, that's change too.

The philosophers often attacked worship. The more radical ones repudiated it altogether, as if they were atheists. If the gods are not somehow effected or connected to by offerings and worship, it would be entirely vain to do it. They created that problem with their new doctrines

So if a god must be the unchanging, eternal, first mover, creator of all things, then that is Abrahamists redefining what a god is. We need not adhere to this definition. That is a trap they want us to fall into. That was not the definition of a god, though.

Open up Enuma Elish, Kojiki, Hesiod's Theogony, the Edda, the Vedas, even the Book of Genesis. They will give you origin myths for the world, and sometimes specific things in it. None of them involve unmoved movers or unchanging gods. Nor do they involve creation ex-nihilo.

That is because a god is an actor in the play of events that unfold in these myths. The god does things and produces things. If you look at theogonies, what typically happens is that out of some primordial state, something happens. Often there are two forces that interact.

Some interaction within the primordial state causes something to arise. In Egyptian cosmogony, it is the first god Atum arising from Nun, the great water abyss at the beginning. This is due to the interactions of 4 dualistic original principles/gods.

These were in masculine and feminine form pairs. Kek/Kauket(darkness), Nun/Naunet(waters, chaos), Amun, Amunet(hidden), Heh/Hauhet(limitless, flood). From the primordial state arose Atum, who sets other things into motion, bringing forth other gods, who bring forth more gods.

Or take Hesiod. I already posted Fortress of Lugh's video on the Titans. It is what I consider a pretty clear explication of that part of Hesiod's Theogony.

Hesiod has primordial chaos, nothing can be said about it, it just is there. Then the primal principles/gods arise.

Eros, Gaia(Earth), Tartaros, Nyx, and Erebos come into being from this state. From them(keep Eros in mind) come their complements. Day and Aether, Heaven, Ocean. From Gaia comes extensions like the mountains. Ouranos and Gaia have the primordial thunder and lighting(the Cyclopes)

And so on down the line to further differentiation and complexity. This isn't a story of things being created, or popping into existence. It is a story of the cosmos unfolding, from a primordial simple state to the current complex order. Big difference from Abrahamic assumptions

Take the Eddic myth. There was Ginnungagap, primordial chaos. The two opposing forces within it, Muspell and Niflheim, produced beings, Audumbla, Ymir, and Buri. Buri(producer) is the ancestor of the Aesir, and together him and Ymir are the forefathers of all others.

From Ymir also comes the raw material of creation. Odin divided him up and he became the sea, vault of heaven, clouds, soil, mountains, and boundaries. I suspect there was more to the myth, but that is the outline.

From Mundilfari(moves according to time) come the Sun and Moon.

Polytheistic cosmogonies relate to how the world is now, and why it is like it is. Think of how some cultures reenact(ed) their origin of the cosmos story every year. It was considered part of an ongoing process. It may have never had a beginning in "time", that was irrelevant.

Rather, the myths tell how things relate to each other within the whole. My view is akin to pantheism. While I believe in individual gods, I also think the cosmos as a whole is divine, and has an overarching order inherent to it. Even though the cosmos has opposing forces within.

The whole issue about a single origin can be sidestepped entirely. Yes, there can be an "origin". No, it does not necessitate Abrahamic monotheism. That requires several leaps and assumptions. Single first cause, personal, jealous, has emotions and desires, no peers or children

As for Abrahamists trying to ask "what purpose does it all exist for", that is a silly question. It would be like asking them for what purpose God exists. Why does there need to be some purpose, outside of the cosmos doing what it does? Maybe the gods know the answer.