One might ask why I haven’t considered *many* gods as the collective cause of the Universe.  Don’t many authors sometimes write books? I honestly can’t remember reading such a book, and I have to believe they’re typically bad literature.*  But for the sake of argument, why wouldn’t I consider multiple gods? As a matter of fact, you’ll see I haven’t entirely ruled it out (see comments to Existence of God – 2).  In that case, though, I don’t mean that there are multiple gods at work in our Universe; I mean that God may have peers, of whom we have no real conception. So – why not polytheism?  Because it does not seem to add anything to the plausibility of a God.  Ockham’s razor helps here – the simpler explanation is usually better.  Adding gods is mustard on the hot dog, if you will. If you like – I won’t stop you – you can now read “God” as “the set of gods which collectively rule our Universe as if of one mind.”  But most of the time, the polytheistic objection does not originate from a sincere belief; it is only a red herring, and a false concept (as in, “We go one god further.”)  You can have mustard on your hot dog, if you like. And those gods would be personal, and more obviously “relational” than the one God!  (Some relish on your hot dog?) Anyway, it’s that one-ness of mind that’s important, which is demonstrated (I believe, and would try to argue) in the cohesion of the Universe.   If there are multiple gods, and they are of one mind, I don’t see how that would be practically different than one God, of one mind.  Moreover, I’m Christian – I believe in three persons, and one God.  Turns out God (the Father) does have peers, in a certain way. *The smarmy skeptic will say, “The Bible was written by multiple authors!  Ha, bad literature!  You fool!” First of all, smarmy skeptic, settle down. To the point:  The Bible is more a compilation than a single work, and it is certainly not a book for which all of the authors got together.  It was written and compiled over time, and even among Christians there is some disagreement about who is really part of that “project” and who is not.  Nevertheless, I like to carry on the conversation without too much smarminess, if possible.