Proof of monotheism

 Proof of monotheism 

Last blog post, we talked about the proof of an uncaused cause, which proves the existence of an eternal entity that is the source of all that began to exist, but one might ask, why does it have to be 1 entity, there could be any infinite or more then 1 entity that cause everything, well today we will talk about the proof of monotheism, aka the proof of only 1 uncaused cause.

Necessary vs contingent 

before I get to the argument, I need to first explain certain concepts, which are necessity and contingency (possibility ), everything that exists either has to be the case and could not have been otherwise, or it could have been or not been, for example, me (the writer) could have not existed and everything else would still exist, I am not necessary for the existence to be, therefor I am possible and contingent (possible actual), while something like the law of quantity like 1 + 1 = 2, is necessary, there can not be a world where 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2, it is a logical necessity, another example of a necessary law is the law of identity, which states that given 2 things A and B, if the set of properties of A is equal to the set of properties of B, then A is, in fact, B, they are the exact same thing cause we cant differentiate one over the other, to do that requires a property that only one of them has and the other does not so to highlight that thing, remeber this law, we will use it later.

now that we explained necessity and contingency in a simple way, we can now move to our argument, first, we need to establish a premise, which is no matter the number of uncaused causes, each one of them needs to have necessary and only necessary attributes (properties), because if they contain at least 1 contingent property, then the thing becomes contingent and not necessary, which doesn't align with it being the uncaused cause, the uncaused causes also need to have all the attributes that are necessary, for if it lacks any of them, then this being lacks a necessary attribute, there for it is not necessary.

let's start by assuming there is 2 Necessary beings, being A and being B, for these 2 to be distinct and not the same being one of them needs to have at least 1 attribute that another doesn't  (Law of Identity).

Let`s assume that B has this attribute called E, now lets go through all the possibilities, the first one is if E is a necessary attribute. if B has this attribute then we can say that B is necessary, but since A lacks E which is a necessary attribute, then A is no longer necessary, therefor there is only 1 necessary being, the other possibility is if E is a contingent attribute, this means that B has a contingent attribute which is not possible for a necessary being, rendering B not necessary.

In the end, let's formalize this argument in a better manner :
Assuming

P1: A is a necessary being.

P2: B is another necessary being not identical to A.

P3: E is an attribute only B has.

[P stands for premise]

If E is Necessary :

    B Has E and A does Have A there for A is not necessary which contradict P1

If E is Contingent :

    B Has E, there for B is not necessary, which contradicts P2

as you can see this argument is a good one to prove the impossible existence of more than 1 necessary being since this argument can be scaled to any number of necessary beings.