The Teleological Argument does not support Monotheism

Author: TheMorningsStar

Posts

Total: 11
Topic's author
#1
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
For the sake of discussion we will assume the teleological argument is sound, as I desire this discussion to focus more on monotheism vs polytheism than atheism vs theism.

So, what is the Teleological Argument for those unfamiliar? It is the watch maker argument, that the universe or certain things in nature appear to be designed and such design demands explanation, that explanation being god(s).
William Lane Craig is a popular proponent of this argument, specifically from the fine-tuning of the universe. His specific argument can be found in his essay “Five Arguments for God” (link below). To copy from his essay, the argument is as follows:
"Here, then, is a simple formulation of a teleological argument based on fine-tuning:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design"

As we will assume the soundness of the argument for sake of discussion, we now the universe was designed, but does this get us to the monotheistic god that WLC argues for? I think not. There is nothing about the argument that demands the designer be a single entity, it opens in up to the possibility of a multitude of designers working at the fine-tuning of the universe. In fact, the argument itself stems all the way back to Ancient Greece (like many theistic arguments), and thus to polytheists.

A common argument against the polytheistic interpretation is to attempt to argue Law of Parsimony (Occam's Razor), but this, I would argue, is not sufficient. There are two ways in which parsimony works, quantitatively and qualitatively. In regards to theism the qualitative parsimony is based on how many categories or sets of things exist, keeping in mind that sets can be made up of many, one, even no things. Quantitative parsimony deals with the number within a category/set. I think using quantitative parsimony in this instance is flawed, and I will use an analogy to help demonstrate this.

Within physics there is an idea called the One Electron Theory which posits that within the universe exists a single electron. This electron moves both forward and backwards in time, thus creating every instance of an electron and positron in the universe from a single particle. This theory would be favored if we use quantitative parsimony, but the theory is a rejected one. In fact, an even more extreme idea would be to posit that all particles in the universe could, likewise, be a single particle. This idea was proposed by physicist Dr. Weiping Yu in his paper "The U-Theory of Everything (- A single Particle Theory of Universe)".

Both of these ideas would definitely be favorable if we operated the Law of Parsimony quantitatively, but yet physicists reject this and still opt to posit new types of particles one at a time in their models of the universe. This is because of something many that attempt to argue for parsimony forget, syntactic simplicity.
From Stanford:
"Syntactic simplicity, or elegance, measures the number and conciseness of the theory's basic principles"

Essentially, the reason that many particles is better than one is that supposing one particle requires more hypotheses to support the idea while many particles does not. I believe, for a few reasons, that the same can apply to god in the teleological argument.

We can start with the more complex, the fine-tuning, and move on from there. To start with, I believe that it isn't a stretch to think that if there is a single god that there would be a Unified Theory of Everything, which would be representative of the principle in which said monotheistic god designed the world. The problem is that such a theory, while it had its proponents among physicists, has lost popularity.

Stephen Hawking helped popularize the idea of a unified theory of everything but eventually gave up on the notion and declared such a thing to be wishful thinking. The reason for this being Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. To quote from quantamagazine on :
"He proved that any set of axioms you could posit as a possible foundation for math will inevitably be incomplete; there will always be true facts about numbers that cannot be proved by those axioms. He also showed that no candidate set of axioms can ever prove its own consistency."

A more recent book on the subject is Dr. Lars English's "There Is No Theory of Everything" where he argues that no single set or rules can unify relativity with quantum mechanics as something can be true on a quantum level but false at the gravitational level.

Without a single Unified Theory of Everything, that means the principles behind the design of the universe are many, and we must ask why a single designer would use many principles instead of just one when there exists a Possible World that can be imagined in which a Unified Theory of Everything does exist. I believe that there being one category of beings, god(s), with multiple gods within said set better explains multiple principles behind the design of the universe than one god.

But this only addresses the aspect of the Teleological Argument around the Fine-Tuning of the universe, what about when we get to other aspects of the Teleological Argument?

With how long ago the Teleological Argument was first created it is obvious that it was not always used on the Fine-Tuning of the universe's very principles, like how WLC likes to argue, but about the world and nature itself and what can be found in it. In fact, a well know formulation today is the Watchmaker analogy, but this actually is a modern version of Cicero's argument from his work "On the Nature of the Gods",
"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"

These early formulations did not stem from the in depth mathematics and high level physics of the modern day, however, but of observation of the world itself. This, however, raises a question. If, like how a building demands a builder nature demands a designer, then why is it that societies the world over when observing nature do not conclude monotheism (not even those that originated the argument)?

When we look at history, if the natural world points so easily to a design by god, and more specifically a monotheistic interpretation, then we should expect to find many people from across the world and across time reaching the conclusion of monotheism, but this is not the case. In the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc. we do not see monotheism having arisen but, instead, polytheism. Even monotheistic religions like Judaism can be seen to have henotheistic (and quite possibly polytheistic) roots to them (even Genesis 1:26 uses the plural 'gods'). The historical record would indicate that people from across the world and across time, when looking at the design of the natural world, concluded that there were many gods. The question that must be asked is why.

Why is it that when people see the design of the world around them that they, seemingly independently, came to the conclusion of many designers instead of one? When we account for syntactic simplicity when coming up with a parsimonious answer I believe that we can conclude that it is because there are multiple designers.


Sources:
William Lance Craig's “Five Arguments for God” - https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/ee/articles/Craig_Atheism.pdf
Weiping Yu "The U-Theory of Everything (- A single Particle Theory of Universe)" - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014APS..APR.Y9007Y/abstract
#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Well said.
Topic's author
#3
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Barney
Thank you. I had half of this formulated quite some time ago (second half) but this was my first time arguing polytheism in regards to fine-tuning and was unsure if I was giving the argument justice or not. Most polytheists are not interested in debate and so it is hard to find people to help formulate these types of arguments.
#4
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The Teleological Argument and others like it, have a built in problem of why would they imply one certain deity? The response tends to be special pleading, which fails the simple absurdity test brought in by the FSM(s).
#5
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheMorningsStar
The Teleological argument and others like it, have a built in problem.

What designs the designers.

And what designs the designers designers etc etc.

The something from nothing conundrum cannot be ignored.

GOD principle and material evolution are sound and compatible hypotheses, but both fail to explain the beginning bit.

Designer floating about for all eternity.....And then decides to design something from nothing......Methinks not.
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

What or whoever the creators of this simulation are, they have no desire in making themselves known.



#7
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
First, I appreciate the thought you put into this and even though I'm going to put forth some of my theories it's more or less a collaborating ordeal. This would be to help you connect some of the dots you have spread out here.

What I say initially will basically create a whole new problem for you, and I must say that it is certainly unorthodox. We all are familiar with the two seemingly opposing concepts of Mono and Poly Theism but what if I told you they are both compatible? For instance lets say that there is a Platform (God) out of which everything in existence arises and we can call that Platform Mono. Now lets say that out of this Platform arises a myriad of various platforms (gods), and we will call them Poly. Essentially we could say that there is indeed an original Platform, but the reality is that there exists many platforms.

The interesting thing here is that while we normally perceive both concepts to be an either or proposition, there really is no need or justification to do so. Not if we fully understand that one concept originates with the other concept, or that one concept arises from the other and scratch the idea that only one could work. So while I did mention that this is an unorthodox approach it really isn't. This idea or proposition can be found in many different religious sources. A spiritual writer and author by the name of Paul Twitchell put forth this idea very cleanly in many of his works such as "The Tiger's Fang" among a few others. I will say however, that some Polytheists have never considered this and some Monotheists have never considered it because to them they are conflicting concepts at first glance.

Now while I admittedly support Polytheism I will also agree with the reality that all things arise from a single unified original Source (Monotheism). Logically speaking, it does makes sense that we would only have to account for one single original source rather than many original sources. Why? because you should be able to trace everything that exists back to where it began at some point, and from that one point show how from that one origin all things tie together. As we know it, creation is much like an expansion that expanded from one direction into many directions of processes. So, logically speaking we should be able to hit the rewind button and reveal how it all originated. And we can do that conceptualizing Mono Theism.

We can't really do this starting with the presumption that all things began with many origins, it wouldn't logically follow as we would inevitably have to account for each source and how each source could exist. But we can start with the presumption that all things began with a single original source that begat other sources. I would also have to side then with the same idea about the universe without a God as we trace all things back to where they inevitably took place.

Which then brings me to your objection that Theism has no unified theory of everything. It certainly does actually. As a matter of fact it is much like what is recognized in theories like quantum mechanics, except that with Theism it takes you a step further. And that extra step sheds better light on why anything exists at all and why it (creation/universe) operates as an intelligent force.

Consciousness (awareness) is what I propose as a single unified theory of everything (religion may label that "soul"), but you must step over into an eastern philosophical idea of consciousness as it exists independent of matter and form. Much like beginning with the proposition that energy is a unified theory of everything as you break all things down prior to any process of events, so beginning with awareness as the fiber and foundation of everything as we break all things down prior to any process of events is our platform out of which all things arise.

Now remembering that the Big Bang theory generated a myriad of alternative elements (principles) as creative forces out of a single event, and prior to that event was a single unified platform not many. So while we can trace processes back to a myriad of elements they arise from a single event, and that single event generated many components. I posit energy as that single event or original platform.
This is where we as Theists gain the advantage over any other proposition that attempts to account for existence. And originating with consciousness AKA intelligence we can account for why any processes occur, and we do that by correlating intelligent productions (universe) with thought and mind (intelligence). The materialist can only account for the process, but they have no foundation or answer for why such processes would ever occur. As you pointed out already, that would be like accounting for a building but without the builder, a production without a producer, a construction without a constructor and that would be insane of course. We carry over that same principle with the products of the universe.

So how do we tie together energy with the proposition of Theism? did you know that both energy and consciousness as put forth by religion have the very same attributes? coincidence? no not at all. Both energy and consciousness (awareness) are omnipresent, they both exist within form and independent of form and they are both uncreated and indestructible, in other words eternal. How are they distinguishable from one another? they aren't because the reality is, is that they co-exist.

I put forth that energy exists because conscious activity exists, in other words conscious activity generates energy. So if consciousness exists energy exists, and everywhere there is energy there is awareness, everywhere you find awareness you find energy. Basically you can't have one without the other. Energy then is the first principle arising in order after consciousness.....so you have consciousness then energy then creation.
Before the Big Bang you have two co-existing principles that operate as a single unified platform, don't be confused by me saying "two" existing principles because they act as one force only one is generated by the other, one is animate the other inanimate....one is the effect of the first cause yet the one cannot exist without the other. Consciousness precedes energy but it is the very activity of consciousness that generates it.

So what we have is an omnipresent conscious Reality that generated megatons of energy across an infinite platform. The Platform condensed this massive field of energy at an isolated single point and it was then released to create what we call the Big Bang. It was out of this single expansion that generated a myriad of elemental principles through the fusion and combustion of chemistry transformation and manipulation. Out of this "soup" of chemical properties exists the creative principles that originate the processes of events to establish the order of the universe. However it first began with the unified single platform being consciousness/energy. Then consciousness/energy as the medium which manipulates and originates intelligent processes that occur within the universe.

At this point I want to say that we shouldn't really invoke the "design" theory because it tends to focus on perfection and perfection here is irrelevant. We want to focus on function not design, it may sound like a trivial objection but it eliminates the tendency to see flaws (imperfection) within a "design" (perfection). I do think it is proper to correlate processes with intelligence though, but in a physical universe that was created to experience death and decay perfection is out of the equation, at least in this physical plane of existence and yes, I'm a proponent of the multiverse theory or Buddhist cosmology which observes various planes or layers of experience. But for this topic focusing on the physical layer is sufficient for now.

But back to Monotheism and Polytheism being compatible and them both being relevant in creation....Monotheism is first relevant to the original event, and Polytheism would only become relevant to what takes place after that initial event. If you strip away creation before any processes occur you can essentially only have a single reality, because there has been no action which has created any separation within that reality. Like energy per say, once you strip away form (duality) you have only that which preceded form and to create form that energy must be isolated and confined to create the appearance that you have two distinct things.
Consciousness, co-existing with energy is the same thing....if you were to isolate consciousness within form you would create the appearance of two distinct consciousnesses but once you break down that form you again have a single platform.
So for there to exist more than one god, consciousness must be isolated and confined within separate forms. And this can only take place within creation where duality exists and contrast can be created and separation can be experienced. For now, I won't get into why the original Platform would create other platforms but lets just say it's definitely possible. So while the events that took place to originate the first sources of creation to begin creating originated with a single Source, other gods can utilize those same sources to create worlds within the reality that was first established.

In order for the first Source to become multiple sources It must first have the option of separating into distinct forms, and of course that can only occur within creation where form and duality exist. To isolate Itself, It must create a form that consciousness can experience being confined through and create the experience of being distinct from Itself.
Say for example you were a body of water and you wanted to create something distinct from that body of water but that body of water is all that exists, and it exists as a whole. The only way you could do that is to create a form within that water, to create the appearance of having something distinct from that body of water. So while it's true that any form that exists, exists within that body of water, that form isolates and confines the water to create separation. This is how creation works, all things exist within a single unified Reality and within that Reality all form and separation occur. So basically you have one reality and within that reality many other realities. This is how Monotheism and Polytheism work together because gods are created within one God.

The original Platform expresses Its creativity and power through other incarnations, and those incarnations can create worlds and interact with those worlds through embodiments. So creation is much like a simulated game, where the simulator must have a character to experience and interact within that game as one inhabiting it. The characters experience everything as being distinct from the original Source while the original Source experiences everything through all channels of form and embodiment. It's purely ingenious. The original Platform created what can be experienced as many platforms through created form and each character can develop their own personalities, perspectives and unique experiences. 

Topic's author
#8
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
It is a very long post so I apologize if I don't respond to quite everything.

For instance lets say that there is a Platform (God) out of which everything in existence arises and we can call that Platform Mono. Now lets say that out of this Platform arises a myriad of various platforms (gods), and we will call them Poly.
This is actually the Hellenistic Pagan view (Greek Paganism). From the texts the first thing was Chaos (not really a god per se) in which is the 'first thing' which the various primordial gods come from (and some primordial gods come from the very first of the primordials), and it is through these gods that everything exists.

It is, itself, an interesting idea, and it is one of the reasons why polytheism is apriori more likely than monotheism, as polytheism can become true even if there is a single 'grounding'/god but monotheism cannot become true if there are multiple.

Logically speaking, it does makes sense that we would only have to account for one single original source rather than many original sources. Why? because you should be able to trace everything that exists back to where it began at some point, and from that one point show how from that one origin all things tie together. As we know it, creation is much like an expansion that expanded from one direction into many directions of processes. So, logically speaking we should be able to hit the rewind button and reveal how it all originated. And we can do that conceptualizing Mono Theism.
We can't really do this starting with the presumption that all things began with many origins, it wouldn't logically follow as we would inevitably have to account for each source and how each source could exist. 
I actually disagree. Just as under monotheism the single god is a necessary existence there is no reason to think that there cannot be multiple necessary existences which ground the single reality. Think of it as when you look at a skyscraper, you can trace back its history and find multiple sources in which are responsible for creating it. So to with the universe.

Which then brings me to your objection that Theism has no unified theory of everything.
You misunderstand, the Unified Theory of Everything is a concept in physics and mathematics that there can exist one fundamental equation/theory in which all scientific understanding can ultimately boil down to. Just as you can rewrite chemistry concepts using only physics, and theoretically the same can apply with biology to chemistry, the idea is that all science can be expressed through one theory/formula.

It is not ipso facto tied to theism, I proposed a connection. If there is one single theory in which can explain how all the universe itself operates it becomes easier to say that there is a single 'grounding' for the universe (which, as pointed out, still wouldn't necessarily mean monotheism is true, just would be useful when arguing for it), but if this is not the case then it can be argued that there are many.

And as it is a concept within science, specifically physics, I thus took the argument from physicists that such a thing likely doesn't exist.

As for your arguments about energy and consciousness, how only a single god can exist before creation, etc. I need to reread it again as, to me, it isn't necessarily clear at first read what is trying to be said.
#9
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
This is actually the Hellenistic Pagan view (Greek Paganism). From the texts the first thing was Chaos (not really a god per se) in which is the 'first thing' which the various primordial gods come from (and some primordial gods come from the very first of the primordials), and it is through these gods that everything exists.

It is, itself, an interesting idea, and it is one of the reasons why polytheism is apriori more likely than monotheism, as polytheism can become true even if there is a single 'grounding'/god but monotheism cannot become true if there are multiple.

Well because in essence, multiple gods are the expression of a single Platform. So it's basically a single Platform expressing Itself in various ways through various incarnations. So while it appears there are various gods, rulers and demigods they come from the same Source. If you wish to maintain that monotheism can't be true because of that I don't really care as long as you can see how both concepts could be compatible. The issue is whether or not you truly understand what I'm saying, and how it works.
Lets pretend you are the original Platform, and you are an eternal, conscious creative force that exists alone and you decide to create a game (creation) or a simulation to have an experience apart from the alone state. So you create the game (simulation), and within the game you can download yourself into characters within the simulation to have the experience of living in that game. Since you are the creator of the game, aren't you going to want to create as many characters in that game you can play roles in? you're eventually going to get bored per say just incarnating into one being, so you create many beings...boss's, kings, rulers, gods or whatever...the point is to make the simulation as interesting as you can.

Even though you are one single Creator of that game, you can invent many personalities and beings you can incarnate into. And even though within that game there are many beings, they ultimately are just expressions of your own creativity. In polytheism, only the various beings exist within creation or the "game", and they all have various roles within creation but they all originate from a single Creator. Does that make sense?
Now within this concept there exists a hierarchy which involves every single being. And within this game there are real objectives, progressions and climaxes. This all is revealed through the various and vast forms of spirituality in each of our worlds. This of course means that there is a spiritual journey for each person, and to ultimately understand who and what they are, where they come from ect ect.

I actually disagree. Just as under monotheism the single god is a necessary existence there is no reason to think that there cannot be multiple necessary existences which ground the single reality. Think of it as when you look at a skyscraper, you can trace back its history and find multiple sources in which are responsible for creating it. So to with the universe.

This basically goes back to the nature of consciousness, what it is and how it exists. I went over a lot of this and showed how it works. Comparing consciousness as the fundamental reality to energy is the best way to articulate what I would want to you catch here. Once you strip away creation and form there can only be a singular Reality. Above, I compared that Reality to a body of water. Separation, duality, contrast, forms and opposing forces come into play only in creation, outside of that there is only one fundamental principle out of which all things arise. Now, this falls in line with what we know about energy and the evolution of processes within the universe which means it's not just logical to start with a single premise but it stays true to the evidence. Even if we just look at the process of evolution as a concept, starting with something very simple perhaps a single thing and then becoming various things.
I don't see any real reason to approach this azz backwards.

You misunderstand, the Unified Theory of Everything is a concept in physics and mathematics that there can exist one fundamental equation/theory in which all scientific understanding can ultimately boil down to. Just as you can rewrite chemistry concepts using only physics, and theoretically the same can apply with biology to chemistry, the idea is that all science can be expressed through one theory/formula.

I did, I got ahead of myself. However what I wrote is very relevant. I would posit though that creation and a Creator as it stands by itself is a universal idea and one that works within all Theistic propositions. It would just be a matter of creating a bridge between the Monotheistic concept and Polytheistic concept and I did that. All of religion and spirituality can be expressed through one theory that consciousness precedes matter, that intelligence precedes creation. The general idea of creation is simplistic, in other words there are basic universal concepts. I personally don't think it is that complicated if we remove dogma from the concept of Creator.

It is not ipso facto tied to theism, I proposed a connection. If there is one single theory in which can explain how all the universe itself operates it becomes easier to say that there is a single 'grounding' for the universe (which, as pointed out, still wouldn't necessarily mean monotheism is true, just would be useful when arguing for it), but if this is not the case then it can be argued that there are many.

I went out of my way to tie not only the universe with a Creator, but also the concept of creation to our understanding of scientific theories together as a whole lol. I understand there are many ideas involved outside of what I proposed but I've put the time in to bring to you a universal, solid explanation of how everything works and I haven't even really elaborated on it yet. You may not know it yet, but I worked in monotheism, polytheism and scientific theory all in one seamless package, where else will you find that? I made it easy to digest.

And as it is a concept within science, specifically physics, I thus took the argument from physicists that such a thing likely doesn't exist.

I'm not sure about that, perhaps I need to brush up on quantum mechanics and physics. Perhaps you're just taking a particular side for the sake of your argument here but my understanding of quantum theory and looking at the Big Bang theory I don't see how you can confidently arrive at such a conclusion. To me, it just seems sloppy. 

As for your arguments about energy and consciousness, how only a single god can exist before creation, etc. I need to reread it again as, to me, it isn't necessarily clear at first read what is trying to be said.

Yeah do that please, it's hard to chop a dynamic topic into a few short paragraphs but feel free to ask me or argue anything I wrote about it. It's pretty simple really, once you fully understand what consciousness is and the nature of it you can put the pieces together. Consciousness as a fundamental reality exists independent of form and matter, so if you remove form and matter (creation) then there is no separation or contrast, it's simply a single Reality. That's why I like to compare consciousness to energy or a body of water so you can conceptualize how everything that exists, exists within that body of water.

Like energy, consciousness (awareness) is the fabric of our existence and within that fabric arises form and processes (many various things). But if we start with form we go backwards to process, components, energy and then consciousness. Or starting with consciousness (intelligence) we then go to energy, components, processes and then form. The only time you have consciousness distinct from itself is when you have an incarnation or a form, embodiment per say which can create separation from itself. This is how souls are created, consciousness is isolated within form and through embodiments. But just like energy, consciousness exists within form but also independent of form but there was first no form, just a single consciousness.

#10
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
I would like to say that there is good, sufficient reasoning to the suggestion that consciousness (awareness) is the fundamental principle of our existence. It answers for why energy and processes within the universe act as an intelligent force. To accept otherwise would be to accept that inanimate forces can begin to produce intelligent processes, which boils down to an absurdity. 
This is why I resent the idea that to believe in a Creator is the stupid option, the irony is that it is nonsense to believe that inanimate forces could ever create anything at all, much less begin to generate processes using inanimate materials and creating intelligent results lol. 
So I'm not just aimlessly proposing such a thing, just to support my own worldviews. The indication (evidence) that the universe is a product of awareness is probably the most solid proposition that exists, and there really are only two options. Either consciousness (God) is the fundamental principle or God does not exist (materialism). And only one of those propositions fit with the evidence. 
#11
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
This is actually the Hellenistic Pagan view (Greek Paganism). From the texts the first thing was Chaos (not really a god per se) in which is the 'first thing' which the various primordial gods come from (and some primordial gods come from the very first of the primordials), and it is through these gods that everything exists.

Sorry, but there is a huge gap between the first thing being chaos to various primordial gods. I mean seriously, there is no connection to reality or any connection to each proposition. This is disorganized at best, perhaps there's more to the texts itself. It in no way demonstrates anything I propose. I tend to lean towards the view that consciousness is the first reality, it poses as the universal, infinite and ever-pervasive fundamental reality out of which all things arise. But I don't represent any particular religious source I look at them as a whole and evaluate what they have to offer.
I think Vedic Hinduism, Eckankar and Buddhism have a decent grasp on the order of existence. It's well known in Hinduism also that there are various incarnations or gods that come out of a universal Reality. Brahman is a good starting point in describing this way of thinking.

But again, I'm piecing things together adding all things into the equation coming from all fields of knowledge not just one. So pardon me if you get the impression that my views are a tad spread out, but they are indeed tight and organized and I've paid my dues and put the time in to present to you what I observe as most accurate propositions. Religious knowledge and information is based upon what their practitioners and founders understood about reality and spirituality, and that being the case there are levels of understanding.
Not everything one source claims is correct and not all things are incorrect within that sphere of learning.
You won't really find many people presenting you with both Mono and Poly Theistic knowledge with the added bonus of tying in what we understand about the material world. It is indeed though one massive portrait where all these things fit together in harmony and it does begin with a singular Reality. It has to be that way, because as you break down the nature of energy and consciousness apart from creation there is only one way you can go. It's not a bad thing, it is not confrontational, it is easy to understand and absorb. And anything easy to absorb should also be innate to yourself, once you get the mind out of the way lol, where conditioned thoughts and confusion pervade.