Question: How does Pascal Boyer believe that gods and other supernatural beings behave?

Answer: much like people

<hl> Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people . <hl> The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl>. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl> .


Question: Who argues that there are lots of supernatural things in the world?

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Answer: Pascal Boyer

<hl> Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. <hl> The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

<hl> Pascal Boyer <hl> argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: How do supernatural entities act?

Answer: much like people

<hl> Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people . <hl> The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl>. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave <hl> much like people <hl> .


Question: Which religion does Boyer equate with a modern soap opera?

Answer: Greek mythology

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. <hl> He cites examples from Greek mythology , which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. <hl> Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from <hl> Greek mythology <hl>, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.

He cites examples from <hl> Greek mythology <hl> , which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems.


Question: Who believed that gods are just projections of a person's father?

Answer: Sigmund Freud

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. <hl> Sigmund Freud also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father. <hl>

Pascal Boyer argues that while there is a wide array of supernatural concepts found around the world, in general, supernatural beings tend to behave much like people. The construction of gods and spirits like persons is one of the best known traits of religion. He cites examples from Greek mythology, which is, in his opinion, more like a modern soap opera than other religious systems. Bertrand du Castel and Timothy Jurgensen demonstrate through formalization that Boyer's explanatory model matches physics' epistemology in positing not directly observable entities as intermediaries. Anthropologist Stewart Guthrie contends that people project human features onto non-human aspects of the world because it makes those aspects more familiar. <hl> Sigmund Freud <hl> also suggested that god concepts are projections of one's father.


Question: What are ways that small social groups can force morality?

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Answer: gossip or reputation

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation . <hl> However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as <hl> gossip or reputation <hl>. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as <hl> gossip or reputation <hl> .


Question: Who suggested that by including the presence of an omniscient God, selfishness can be controlled and cooperation can be gained?

Answer: Matt Rossano

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist <hl> Matt Rossano <hl> contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: What did Émile Durkheim suggest about the existence of God?

Answer: gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings

<hl> Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings . <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that <hl> gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings <hl>. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that <hl> gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings <hl> .


Question: Why would humans have begun to create gods?

Answer: a means of enforcing morality

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality . <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as <hl> a means of enforcing morality <hl>. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as <hl> a means of enforcing morality <hl> .


Question: Who posited that humans created gods to create morality in social groups?

Answer: Matt Rossano

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist <hl> Matt Rossano <hl> contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.


Question: Omnipresent gods are a way to watch large groups and enforce what?

Answer: morality

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. <hl> In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality . <hl> In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing <hl> morality <hl>. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.

In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing <hl> morality <hl> .


Question: Omniprestent gods helped build what?

Answer: more cooperative groups

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. <hl> Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups . <hl>

Likewise, Émile Durkheim was one of the earliest to suggest that gods represent an extension of human social life to include supernatural beings. In line with this reasoning, psychologist Matt Rossano contends that when humans began living in larger groups, they may have created gods as a means of enforcing morality. In small groups, morality can be enforced by social forces such as gossip or reputation. However, it is much harder to enforce morality using social forces in much larger groups. Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building <hl> more cooperative groups <hl>.

Rossano indicates that by including ever-watchful gods and spirits, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building <hl> more cooperative groups <hl> .


Question: How did St. Anselm define the existence of God?

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

Answer: "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"

<hl> St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" . <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, <hl> "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" <hl>. Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, <hl> "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" <hl> .


Question: Who said that God is "a substance consisting of infinite attributes"?

Answer: Baruch Spinoza

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher <hl> Baruch Spinoza <hl> would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: What did Baruch Spinoza use as proof for the existence of God?

Answer: a variation of the Ontological argument

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. <hl> His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument . <hl>

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was <hl> a variation of the Ontological argument <hl>.

His proof for the existence of God was <hl> a variation of the Ontological argument <hl> .


Question: What did Spinoza believe the world was made of?

Answer: one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature . <hl> His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of <hl> one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature <hl>. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of <hl> one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature <hl> .


Question: Who defined god as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"?

Answer: St. Anselm

St. Anselm 's

<hl> St. Anselm 's <hl> approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

<hl> St. Anselm <hl>'s approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: Name a famous pantheist?

Answer: Baruch Spinoza

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher <hl> Baruch Spinoza <hl> would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: What was Spinoza's concept of God?

Answer: infinite

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite , i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." <hl> For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely <hl> infinite <hl>, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely <hl> infinite <hl> , i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."


Question: Spinoza believed that the universe was made up of one substance which is?

Answer: God

<hl> St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". <hl> Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.

St. Anselm's approach was to define <hl> God <hl> as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." For Spinoza, the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or its equivalent, Nature. His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.


Question: How does Dawkins interpret evidence for or against the existence of God?

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Answer: a lack of evidence for the material existence

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. <hl> Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary. <hl>

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as <hl> a lack of evidence for the material existence <hl> of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: What do atheists believe of God?

Answer: an imaginary entity only

<hl> Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only , with no basis in reality. <hl> A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is <hl> an imaginary entity only <hl>, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is <hl> an imaginary entity only <hl> , with no basis in reality.


Question: How long has the thought of the existence of God been carried on?

Answer: trans-generational

a trans-generational manner.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in <hl> a trans-generational manner. <hl> Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a <hl> trans-generational <hl> manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: How does Dawkins interpret his findings on the existence, or not, of God.

Answer: a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. <hl> Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary. <hl>

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as <hl> a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God <hl> but extensive evidence to the contrary.


Question: Who believes God isn't real?

Answer: Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris

<hl> Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris ) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. <hl> A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including <hl> Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris <hl>) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality. A single, omniscient God who is imagined to have created the universe and is particularly attentive to the lives of humans has been imagined, embellished and promulgated in a trans-generational manner. Richard Dawkins interprets various findings not only as a lack of evidence for the material existence of such a God but extensive evidence to the contrary.

Some findings in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience are interpreted by atheists (including <hl> Lawrence M. Krauss and Sam Harris <hl> ) as evidence that God is an imaginary entity only, with no basis in reality.


Question: What is the Omnipotence paradox?

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

Answer: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it

<hl> According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it ? <hl> Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', <hl> can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it <hl>? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', <hl> can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it <hl> ?


Question: What is another term for the Omnipotence paradox?

Answer: Paradox of the Stone

<hl> According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' Paradox of the Stone ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? <hl> Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or '<hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl>', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' <hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl> ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?


Question: Does either outcome of the Paradox of the Stone prove the existence of God?

Answer: God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. <hl> Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God , according to many theological models. <hl> Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, <hl> God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God <hl>, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

Either way, then, <hl> God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God <hl> , according to many theological models.


Question: What shows God is not omnipotent if he creates a stone that he cannot lift?

Answer: there is something that he cannot do

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. <hl> If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do , namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. <hl> If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then <hl> there is something that he cannot do <hl>, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

If he can’t, the argument goes, then <hl> there is something that he cannot do <hl> , namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent.


Question: What must God be, in order to be a Supreme Being?

Answer: omnipotent

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. <hl> If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent . <hl> If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not <hl> omnipotent <hl>. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not <hl> omnipotent <hl> .


Question: What paradox states that if a god can't create a stone so heavy he can't lift it?

Answer: Paradox of the Stone

<hl> According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' Paradox of the Stone ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? <hl> Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or '<hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl>', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or ' <hl> Paradox of the Stone <hl> ', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?


Question: What does the Paradox of the Stone posit?

Answer: he is not omnipotent

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. <hl> If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent . <hl> If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore <hl> he is not omnipotent <hl>. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore <hl> he is not omnipotent <hl> .


Question: What does it mean if a God is not omnipotent?

Answer: is not God

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. <hl> A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God , according to many theological models. <hl> Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, <hl> is not God <hl>, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. Several answers to this paradox have been proposed.

A being that is not omnipotent, though, <hl> is not God <hl> , according to many theological models.


Question: Are there any answers to the Pradox of the Stone?

Answer: Several

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. <hl> Several answers to this paradox have been proposed. <hl>

According to the Omnipotence paradox or 'Paradox of the Stone', can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t. If he can’t, the argument goes, then there is something that he cannot do, namely create the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If he can, it continues, then there is also something that he cannot do, namely lift the stone, and therefore he is not omnipotent. Either way, then, God is not omnipotent. A being that is not omnipotent, though, is not God, according to many theological models. Such a God, therefore, does not exist. <hl> Several <hl> answers to this paradox have been proposed.


Question: What do religions share across their belief structures?

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Answer: similarities arising from their common roots

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots . <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain <hl> similarities arising from their common roots <hl>.

For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain <hl> similarities arising from their common roots <hl> .


Question: What are some religious traditions that are found within differing religions?

Answer: expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature

<hl> Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature . <hl> The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl>. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl> .


Question: Who does Christianity share roots with?

Answer: attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, <hl> attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism <hl> share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: How many Attributes of Mercy are in Judaism?

Answer: Thirteen

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the <hl> Thirteen <hl> Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: What three religions share similar parts?

Answer: God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of <hl> God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism <hl> share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: What three religions share similar beginnings?

Answer: Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. <hl> For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots. <hl>

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in <hl> Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism <hl> share certain similarities arising from their common roots.


Question: What attributes do religions all roughly share?

Answer: expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature

<hl> Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature . <hl> The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl>. The assignment of these attributes often differs according to the conceptions of God in the culture from which they arise. For example, attributes of God in Christianity, attributes of God in Islam, and the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in Judaism share certain similarities arising from their common roots.

Different religious traditions assign differing (though often similar) attributes and characteristics to God, including <hl> expansive powers and abilities, psychological characteristics, gender characteristics, and preferred nomenclature <hl> .


Question: How is sex by God handled in a monotheistic religion?

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

Answer: God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. <hl> In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually . <hl> Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, <hl> God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually <hl>. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

In most monotheistic religions, <hl> God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually <hl> .


Question: How do polytheistic religions view sex by God or gods?

Answer: attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. <hl> Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually . <hl> In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly <hl> attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually <hl>. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

Polytheistic religions commonly <hl> attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually <hl> .


Question: What is God's role in the creation of the world?

Answer: begetter

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. <hl> Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse. <hl>

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as <hl> begetter <hl> of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.


Question: In what ways can the gender of God be viewed?

Answer: literal or an allegorical aspect

<hl> The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. <hl> Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

The gender of God may be viewed as either a <hl> literal or an allegorical aspect <hl> of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.


Question: What do polytheistic religions assign to their gods?

Answer: gender

<hl> The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. <hl> Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

The <hl> gender <hl> of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.


Question: What role does got serve in a sexual intercourse?

Answer: the active (as opposed to the receptive) role

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. <hl> Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse. <hl>

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to <hl> the active (as opposed to the receptive) role <hl> in sexual intercourse.


Question: In which type of religion does God have no sexual partner?

Answer: monotheistic

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. <hl> In most monotheistic religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. <hl> Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.

The gender of God may be viewed as either a literal or an allegorical aspect of a deity who, in classical western philosophy, transcends bodily form. Polytheistic religions commonly attribute to each of the gods a gender, allowing each to interact with any of the others, and perhaps with humans, sexually. In most <hl> monotheistic <hl> religions, God has no counterpart with which to relate sexually. Thus, in classical western philosophy the gender of this one-and-only deity is most likely to be an analogical statement of how humans and God address, and relate to, each other. Namely, God is seen as begetter of the world and revelation which corresponds to the active (as opposed to the receptive) role in sexual intercourse.


Question: What is a muslims life purpose?

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Answer: to worship God

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. <hl> Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God . <hl> He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is <hl> to worship God <hl>. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is <hl> to worship God <hl> .


Question: What type of God is the Muslim God?

Answer: a personal God

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. <hl> He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. <hl> Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as <hl> a personal God <hl> and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."


Question: What aspect does Alister McGrath argue is important in Christianity?

Answer: a "personal god"

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. <hl> Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. <hl> "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that <hl> a "personal god" <hl> is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."


Question: What does prayer usually include in Islam?

Answer: forgiveness

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. <hl> Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness . <hl> God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking <hl> forgiveness <hl>. God is often believed to be forgiving. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Prayer often also includes supplication and asking <hl> forgiveness <hl> .


Question: What type of God is the Muslim God?

Answer: forgiving

God is often believed to be forgiving .

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. <hl> God is often believed to be forgiving . <hl> For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

Prayer plays a significant role among many believers. Muslims believe that the purpose of existence is to worship God. He is viewed as a personal God and there are no intermediaries, such as clergy, to contact God. Prayer often also includes supplication and asking forgiveness. God is often believed to be <hl> forgiving <hl>. For example, a hadith states God would replace a sinless people with one who sinned but still asked repentance. Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe."

God is often believed to be <hl> forgiving <hl> .


Question: Who believe they are the one and only chosen few?

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Answer: exclusivists

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. <hl> One view is taken by exclusivists , who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. <hl> Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by <hl> exclusivists <hl>, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

One view is taken by <hl> exclusivists <hl> , who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not.


Question: Who believe that they are the only people that know the truth?

Answer: exclusivists

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. <hl> One view is taken by exclusivists , who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. <hl> Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by <hl> exclusivists <hl>, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

One view is taken by <hl> exclusivists <hl> , who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not.


Question: What is one called that believes he has the one religion, but that the others aren't necessarily wrong?

Answer: pluralism

Another view is religious pluralism .

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. <hl> Another view is religious pluralism . <hl> A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious <hl> pluralism <hl>. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Another view is religious <hl> pluralism <hl> .


Question: What is it called when someone belives that their own religion is an advancement of older religions?

Answer: supersessionism

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. <hl> An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism , i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. <hl> A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is <hl> supersessionism <hl>, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is <hl> supersessionism <hl> , i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions.


Question: What is a religion that believes that all religions are correct?

Answer: universalism

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. <hl> A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being universalism : the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. <hl> A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

Adherents of different religions generally disagree as to how to best worship God and what is God's plan for mankind, if there is one. There are different approaches to reconciling the contradictory claims of monotheistic religions. One view is taken by exclusivists, who believe they are the chosen people or have exclusive access to absolute truth, generally through revelation or encounter with the Divine, which adherents of other religions do not. Another view is religious pluralism. A pluralist typically believes that his religion is the right one, but does not deny the partial truth of other religions. An example of a pluralist view in Christianity is supersessionism, i.e., the belief that one's religion is the fulfillment of previous religions. A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being <hl> universalism <hl>: the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone. A fourth approach is syncretism, mixing different elements from different religions. An example of syncretism is the New Age movement.

A third approach is relativistic inclusivism, where everybody is seen as equally right; an example being <hl> universalism <hl> : the doctrine that salvation is eventually available for everyone.