The "one god further" objection is fallacious

I understand that this isn't an argument in the same way others are---that is---it is not deductive proof against God. It is more an argument that casts doubt on theism. However, I think that it is flawed because it misunderstands theism at the heart. I will break down the problems now. I. The question of GodThe proper approach to the existence of God is not to come up with some prior notion of what it means to be God and see if that being exists. The proper approach is a reasoning from the effect (universe) to understanding the nature of the cause. Once we understand this cause, we understand God. We cannot say that we have some special prior knowledge because this is dishonest unless there is good reason to define God in some specific way. II. The question of revelation Lets assume that this God is personal (for the sake of argument) in that He has intellect and will and the power to reveal Himself and things about reality to man. This is a separate question from the existence of God, even if a personal creator does exist, it does not follow that any revelation MUST exist. Also, even if it does exist, exactly HOW God has revealed Himself would be a separate question. III. The Question of the PreternaturalThe question of the preternatural is whether or not there are beings or a being that is some form of life or personality that is above humans in the sense of power or wisdom and involvement in the beginning or creation of the universe. The question of higher beings does not necessarily mean God in the traditional sense. A simple illustration can make that point: Suppose we found out that there were aliens a lot like the gods of ancient Greece. They fought, had an important explanatory role in the lives of human beings, they got angry, jealous, had affairs, murdered, etc. They were extremely powerful and far more wise than humans. They existed on another planet rather than on earth. Would this cause atheists to admit they were wrong? No probably not---that is because these aren't really gods but simply higher beings---which many atheists---and even theists would admit might exist---either in another planet or another universe altogether. The exact nature of these beings might be debatable, and we may never know, but the point is that they are not really gods but preternatural creatures of some sort. Now on to the crux of the argument. The point of this argument is to show that since we are dismissing many entities in a class of beings, we might as well dismiss all of them. Why only belive in one? It is also meant to show that many of these beings fall out of favor over time, so why would ours stand the test of time when it is almost certain that it too will fail? It is not deductive proof but meant to cast doubt. The problem with this is that it misunderstands theism. First, as point I made clear, we arrive (or attempt to arrive---this isn't a debate about God's existence) to an ultimate explanation or existence of some sort of creator/supernatural being using reason about the natural world. Second, as made clear in point II, many specific qualites of this being or the poionts of how that being(s) interacts with the world is a separate question of what we call revelation, or what God has revealed to man. I can exist without II but II can't exist without I. They are entirely different questions in reality. II presupposes I but still, they are categorically different. So we have enough background information to see why the argument is fallacious. 1) With respect to pagan gods and the likeWith respect to pagan gods and greek gods, that kind of thing, the flaw is that we are equating those beings with the God of montheism simply because of the name "god. " The problem is that dismissal of one does not imply the acceptance or dismisal of another. There is a complete category mistake here. As point III above made clear, with gods of ancient greece we are talking about the preternatural more powerful beings. Now, among this class of being, it is reasonable to say that dismissing all but one seems a little shaky. It is like saying "I only believe in one alien and that is all. .. the possibility of others is absurd. " Or saying "even though all unprovable spirits have fallen out of favor, mine has not. " we see the problem and why the one god further objection would have force. However I argue that it does not have force becasue what is meant by God in the monotheistic and more specifically, classical theistic tradition, is not hte same as what is meant by the gods of these pagan religions. Even though they share the same name, it is a category mistake to lump them together. To the classical theistic tradition, God is an ultimate reality and the explanation of all things. .. the being of infinte everything who's essence is simple and is His existence. We are not talking about the greater than human type creatures, but an ultimate, almost undefinable reality. You obviously don't accept this as TRUE, but you should see why the one god further objection loses its force because it is not even comprable to the other beings. In fact, according to the arguments of classical theism, this God is perfectly compatible with the existence of other greater-than-man preternatural beings including "gods" (not really god in the sense of classical theism but in the sense of the pagans), angels, and aliens. However, they would not be God in the same sense and in the meaningful sense. Once we understand this, we can understand how lumping them together is problematic. The gods of pagan religions are basically like aliens as I explained. Sure there are differences, but the basic concept of a greater-than-man but similar being is upheld. So, to dismiss the God of classical theism because it is really just one step further than the gods of paganism or because those have been shown to be false is like saying "I dismiss God because aliens are not real or because why not go one being further, if aliens don't exist, we might as well not believe in God" Obviously you recognize the flaw in this. .. it is that God is an entirely different question than aliens. So it is with God and gods. Sharing the same name is a mistake. The God of classical theism is not even comprable than the gods of ancient religions because He is an explanatory ultimate reality, not just a greater-than man being.1) With respect to other monothestic religions. So lets say the objection has no force with regards to ancient Greece or Egypt, but does it among followers of classical monotheism? Say can one accept the God of Chrsitianity but not of Islam. Well, insofar as the God of monotheism is the God of classical theism, that is, an explanatory ultimate reality, infinite source of being, etc. , then they are the same God--either in the scriptures, philosophies, or minds of the followers of these religions. So it is not as though a Christan accepts the God of Christians but not the God of Islam. We are dealing with a different question. As I alluded to above, this is a quesiton of revelation. Has God revealed Himself through the Koran or through Jesus? Is Jesus God's Son or is He not? Did Jesus rise? Did He establish a church? These are questions of revelation but NOT of "does god exist" or going one god further. Now, to use the one god further objection against revelation has more force than it does against theism. However, it still commits the genetic fallacy pretty much. It also can be answered using different theologies. But EVEN IF it was effective at showing revelation to be dubious or false, what would follow? Since it would be directed at revelation and not theism per se, it would show that revelation is meaningless and specific religions are just man's conjectures. However, it would NOT prove that belief in God is false. The proper response (assuming that there were indenedent and reasonable reasons to believe in God of classical theism) would be to believe in the God of monotheism but to reject supernatural revelation.