Silly Monotheists, Polytheism is the only thing that makes sense

Patrick Henry has accused me of neglecting to respond to the points raised by his opening statement. And that I made "grave assumptions" (which of course ... he didn't) So before I begin addressing his (anemic) arguments, first I'll categorize the arguments and assumptions made in his opening: A) Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 (paragraphs 1 and 2 didn't actually make any arguments) The notion of there being one god is silly because some people describe him as all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. The assumption here is that monotheism depends on us accepting the tenet that God is 1) all mighty and 2) all loving, and 3) all knowing. But where is it written (besides the bible, koran, and torah) that if there is only one God, he has to be all might, all loving, and all knowing? I ascribed human tendencies to God, e.g. the tendency to be wrathful. Ergo addressing the points made in those 3 paragraphs. I'll go more in depth later on. B) Paragraphs 6 and 7 Polytheism makes sense because it explains why good and bad things happen. Also addressed by argument. Why can't one God reward and then punish someone? Again addressed and will be further elaborated upon soon. C) Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 Nothing new is added here except implying that if there is one God then he is not all loving. Which .... why again is this an argument against monotheism? So there, I'm not the only one making assumptions and I've addressed each of Pro's arguments. So now back to the on case arguments. 1. Monotheism is logical because of the large number of individuals who practice monotheism. Patrick Henry responded that people used to think the Earth was flat. Which has no relevance. I did not say monotheism was logical because it was popular, I said it was logical because otherwise the many other Gods who we've been neglecting would have been very angry and wiped us out. To that point, he responds by making the assumption that gods can't obliterate the people of Earth. In fact, as far as I can tell .... he claims God(s) rely on indirect interaction with humanity ... but let's be frank here, which assumption is more logical? The assumption God(s) CAN interfere directly (such as by iono, making the world, throwing lightening (Zeus), creating a flood (Zeus and God)) or the assumption God(s) CANNOT interfere directly (mmm, remind me, in which religion do the gods Only promise material things again?) Certainly the power to interfere directly does not preclude the power to interfere indirectly, but that's not altogether relevant here. If we accept the (absurd) notion that there is a pantheon, then all those gods would at the moment be neglected by the entirety of humanity. Thus if those gods existed, they would have wiped out these ingrates occupying the world they created. The fact that we exist, in our monotheistic ways, is evidence that there is only 1 God, who is more or less happy with us for our faith and so does not visit us with Armageddon. 2. One God makes more sense in explaining good and evil than multiple gods. The Bible tells us a lot of what God does ... but it doesn't tell us exactly how God's mind works. And furthermore, just because God let's the Bible exist / influenced it's creation, that is hardly conclusive evidence of the Bible's accuracy. Why should we believe God is all loving anyway? We would like to believe God is all loving ... but as Patrick Henry states himself ... a god can certainly be anything except all loving. Now he believes we need a god of peace, a god of war, a god of love, etc. etc. He does not believe it can be manifested in one being. But that's not only an Assumption, it's a rather absurd assumption. Humans, all humans, manifests each of these attributes. We're sometimes peaceful, sometimes belligerent, sometimes passionate in love, and sometimes compassionate. We sometimes are fiercely righteous in justice, and sometimes we're evil, violent, malicious. Patrick Henry believes that God(s) are less than humans. That they cannot be both compassionate and belligerent. But then he contradicts himself by mentioning Zeus or Apollo. These Greek Gods, as anyone well read in Greek Mythology should know, are often very capricious. They have emotions and changing feelings can can sometimes be wrathful and sometimes compassionate. Zeus, who started his own great flood to wipe humanity of sinners is also known to visit lonely human females and bless them with his compassionate company. So yes, there've been assumptions thrown around here and there ... but who's assumptions are more reasonable? God(s) who have no choice but to be compassionate or warlike? Or God, who like the humans he created, to be kind or wrathful at different times of the day? Which assumption is more valid. that God(s) can only sit around and watch humans ... or God who has the power to interfere directly with humanity? If this debate comes down to which assumptions are more logical ... well, which assumptions are more logical?