I'm not in love with this model, based on string theory, in which I don't believe, — Verdi

lol me neither, string theory and multiverse is a good story for kids before sleep.

I've read your Hartle–Hawking state as a background to "planck-scale event, therefore acausal" universe.
from here:

Unless I'm misquoting you, how does this oppose the first cause?
Hartle–Hawking state says nothing about lack of first cause except that BB didn't produce time and space.
It only assumes time and space was there before BB.

You said "planck-scale event, therefore acausal"

however:

The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) Big Bang cosmology immediately after the event which began the known universe.

Therefore no lack of first cause or mention of that.
First cause in BB is unknown because of "infinitely dense mass" as an explanation before plank epoch.

Big bangs can follow each other up even if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity. — Verdi

What do you mean by this? how can there be BB if the universe never stops expanding?

Dark matter keeps galaxies together and dark energy pushes them apart at an ever increasing rate. — Verdi

Indeed, my mistake, I confused the 2.

What does science have to do with philosophy or conversely?
According to your logic we should dismiss all scientific theories because that's "human imagination"

Maybe you don't know but without philosophy, scientists would probably never come to idea called "God's particle"

If you define any of the omni terms as "Being able to do anything without limits, even the impossible", then an omniscient, omnipowerful, and omnibenevolent being would be able to do anything, even contradictions. — Wirius

Yes, that is I think the only reasonable way to understand what omnipotence involves. Here is an argument for that: to be all powerful is to be more powerful than anyone else. A being who can do anything is more powerful than one who can do some things and not others. Thus, an omnipotent being can do anything. — Bartricks

Just because God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, this doesn't mean he is inferior to superior God, contradictory to itself or that his omnipotence is limited only to doing good.

Such thinking is a fallacy already in the start, any conclusions based on such premise can be refuted.

This logic holds if one assumes the unit of analysis for guilt is the individual, not the people. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You quoted Job from bible, and based on that found logic that an individual is to be blamed rather than whole society (people).
While this is true, it's false to say that either only an individual or only people are to be blamed.

The truth is however that both apply, an individual and people, this are 2 separate and necessary guilts (or judgements)

"There is no such thing as right or wrong, but only thinking makes them so." Shakespeare." — boagie

Therefore if child molesters which are currently in prison think they did right we should let them go out?
Or maybe we should just keep them imprisoned and claim they are right but also dangerous?
Imagine a judge having such criteria of what's right and what's wrong.

Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe. — Gnomon

There is a theory about multiple big bangs, I don't know what it is called and how is it theoreticized.

There is also a theory which say the universe isn't ever expanding but rather expanding up to some point and then again shrinking to initial state to form a new infinitely dense mass to produce a new BB.

These 2 theories if merged together may form a new more plausible theory that could explain infinite amount of BB that follow the same cause and shouldn't break the laws of physics (except "infinitely dense mass")
Unfortunately shrinking universe is not observed and dark matter (which is responsible for expansion) is unknown.

The fact you can reference crazy ones like flat earth or lizard people which are clearly untrue doesn't mean they all aren’t true. — DingoJones

And here is misunderstanding regarding such conspiracies.

lizard people, those proclaimed by David Icke, this isn't really a conspiracy in full meaning, obviously there is no such thing as "lizard people" literary, instead he is figuratively referring to tiny portion of wealthy individuals that have control over wide aspect of economy world wide such as banksters and similar master minds who push new world order agenda, which is a fact that is observable.

A better question is, why does he speak of them as "lizards" rather than referring to them directly?

And "flat earth" isn't conspiracy either except it's labeled as such, obviously it's clear the earth is not flat plate, but in old times no one was aware that the earth is round and that it's not the center of universe, not even the church.
If the church leaders knew that fact (or didn't believed) then surely wouldn't call N. Copernicus heretic.
Even ancients believed the Earth is the center around which stars are circling.

But that's not unknown, including the answer to, why was flat earth labeled as "conspiracy" (much later) even though it has nothing to do with conspiracy as theory or intentional plotting?

Also there is a fundamental difference between "lizard people" and "flat plate earth" in that lizard people "conspiracy" is offensive while flat plate is actually a offensive conspiracy of non conspiracy.

Humans have been humans for a period of time that's 0.2% of the dinosaur age. Look how much we've achieved but among all that one particular ability stands out - space exploration. My theory is that dinosaurs in the 165 million years they were on earth perfected space tech and left the earth for another planet in another solar system, perhaps even to another galaxy, leaving earth to mammals, bequeathing it to, ultimately, humans who, I suppose, have to follow suit.

This is my favorite conspiracy theory. — TheMadFool

Not bad, it seems to support the origin of "lizard people" :grin:

No, it is 'logical' to conclude that God made us ignorant and placed us here because we jolly well deserve to be here facing the risks of harm that our ignorance creates for us. — Bartricks

"ignorance" is relative word, it may mean many different things including those which have nothing to do with God or our suffering.
ignorance is subjective.

The only knowledge that matters is knowledge of good and evil, which is what free will encompasses.

Look, this argument is valid and apparently sound:

1. If God exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world — Bartricks

You see, it's not clear what is meant by "ignorance", what kind of knowledge do you think would set us free of suffering?

By definition, he's morally perfect. And he's also all powerful. So he can do anything and he's nice. He's not, then, going to create a dangerous world and put ignorant innocent people in it, is he? — Bartricks

Since God is omnibenevolent and since we have free will, then it's logical to conclude "dangerous world" is not dangerous because of God but rather because of us.

The rest of your post is thus not in line with this logic as well.

Therefore if God exists:
1. He can not be the source of evil because it's contradictory to it's omnibenevolent nature.
2. He is not required to prevent evil because this would be contradictory to our free will.

If God (an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person) exists, then he would not suffer innocents to live in ignorance in a dangerous world — Bartricks

Your premise assumes God has full control over people and doing so in line with his omnibenevolent nature, you omit free will of people, it's completely absent and nowhere mentioned.

This leads to conclusion that God-people relationship is master-slave rather than master-freeservant which obviously we all know is not true.

Secondly, we have evidence that free will in human live is not lacking, it is obviously present, therefore expecting God to control us is contradictory to fact.

To be honest though I believe there is a theoretical counter argument to the laws of conservation although it may take a little bit of mental gymnastics to explain it to you if really you want to hear it. — dclements

No don't bother, I could google out details if interested, but information so far is more than what I expected, thanks!

In addition to "information warfare" and "psychological warfare", it's worth understanding how counter espionage and foreign interference works.

Usual opinion of espionage is as some sort of information gathering to either gain advantage or to construct conspiracies and cause social unrest, however it's far from as simple as in James Bond movies.

Spies don't just come to some country and start doing things, some actually establish their life there, get married and activities of their families remain undetected for decades and even centuries.
They don't actually have to do anything except to gather sensitive information.
Usual operatives are actually recruited within population to perform the task, while those before mentioned only supply vital information required for the job.
If the operative fails, family remains hidden and unrooted.
Of course the operative doesn't know anything about it's contact, he only gets paid (from someone else)

This is one reason why conspiracies tend to be sourced within some country rather than from the out side.
Conspiracies born on the inside and more plausible and less detectible, and as such it also becomes more difficult to figure out who started them.
Public unrest and riots is the usual goal of such activities.

You may also want to study about "information warfare" and "psychological warfare"

It should help you to better understand what makes conspiracies so strong apparatus and how authorities exercise their power behind the scene.

Word conspiracy is a new linguistic invention because old fashioned "plotting", "rumors" and similar doesn't have an effect as wanted.

Conspiracy is almost always aimed against larger authorities or populations, when you hear about conspiracy that's something big and almost never about small things such as ex. you and your neighbor.

Conspiracies are valid theories, the reason why they are called conspiracies is to label theories that are either "harmful" for social order or some authority, and are viewed as a tool to undermine some authority or to cause confusion among larger population. (from the perspective of those who defend)

But this does not mean conspiracies are ultimately false, because conspiracies may also be used as a tool against truth, ex. to label truth as lie because not every truth is for public, so conspiracy may be good labeling tool to reverse damage.

When is a theory regarded as a conspiracy? — Verdi

When it has negative connotations, a theory that is not all about common good.
Conspiracy can be either defensive label tool or offensive. (depends on authority vs population perspective, or authority vs authority), therefore either true or false but likely newer known for sure.

hello fellow coder,

I guess our "great programmer" never heard of exception handling or even worse it forgot to debug prior to release, so this whole universe may as well be a debug version of what it should be lol. :joke:

And here is the proof of a bug we found, our scientists attached a debugger and discovered black holes, which are considered to be the place where our great programmer somehow divided by zero, which may explain why this universe is nothing else but "undefined behavior".

What is "undefined behavior"?

undefined behavior (UB) is the result of executing a program whose behavior is prescribed to be unpredictable

In the C community, undefined behavior may be humorously referred to as "nasal demons"

nasal demons may explain the source of evil lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior

The devil, if he exists, is also the will of God. — SolarWind

How does that not contradict with God's omnibenevolent nature?

Deduction: if God decides somethings as pious and somethings as sin, he, before hand, was endowed with knowledge — Vanbrainstorm

Knowledge of good and evil already is property of omniscient property of a God.

He was programmed to be this God that labels some actions as pious and others as sin. if on the rather hand he decides these things after studying human actions, the foundation by which he uses to analyze actions to label them as pious or sin, are programmed. In both cases God becomes a programmed machine. — Vanbrainstorm

Second reason (in addition to already omniscient) is:
God is "superior God" rather than "inferior God".
If God is programmed then it is inferior God.
If God is inferior then that's not God because there is God that is superior to that one.
If there is God that is superior then that (other one) is superior God.
God that is superior can't be "programmed".
Therefore God is superior.
There can't be greater God.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"? — Xtrix

Yes but in asymmetric way and always for fun because that almost always works.

By "asymmetric" I mean you never engage into flat-earther discussion by either denying or supporting their flat earth ideas, but rather accept their game and start fiercely preaching aliens.

You said "for the sake of others who are rational", you bring fallacy to attention in an interesting and funny way but in same time irritate flat earthers.

Does reality require an observer? — Benj96

Does observer need reality?
If not we may as well still believe in flat earth. :smile:

Advantage of death compared to birth is in that you are aware of new birth :smile:

Anti-vaccination sentiment (as it relates to COVID19) is tied to suspicions about the origins of the disease and the profitability of vaccines, as well as fears about it's safety. — frank

You can also think of it another way.

Let's assume it was intentional to spread COVID-19.
Anti-vaxxers believe that this is so for the sole purpose of selling vaccines.

But you should really ask yourself 1 important question!
Who are anti-vaxxers anyway? who is their leader or who started all this madness?
What makes you believe anti-vaxxer movement wasn't actually started and is supported by governments?

But why would one ask such an absurd question?
Well because anti-vaxxer movement may as well be a tool for depopulation.

Does that make any sense as to whether it is prudent to join anti-vaxxer movement?

ex.

Say, humans "created" airplanes to be able to so-called "fly". Why would it still be correct to say that humans can not naturally fly — TiredOfYall

"unnatural" can mean 3 things:

1. Something that is uncommon to do.
- ex. it's unnatural to start hitting people on the streets without valid reason, however no unnatural substance would be used to do so.

2. Something that is not material or energy
- ex. the laws of physics are not material things, you can't touch or eat them.

3. Something that is supernatural or spiritual
- ex. ghosts, demons, God etc.

But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. — Gnomon

We don't know anything about creation and how perfect or imperfect it was, except as it looks now.
Are the laws of physics perfect?
Quantum fluctuation is uncertain but we don't know whether that's perfect or not.
Seemingly chaotic universe is governed by the laws of physics, but universe is not subject of itself nor governed by itself therefore why it would be perfect or what's perfect at all?

Therefore using same logic, Spinoza's view that God = nature and nature = God is imperfect as well.

Removing me from my loved ones, eliminating my ability to contribute anything to the world, dictating my every move, housing me with those who wish me harm, is that not the worst torture imaginable? Is that more humane than 20 lashes? — Hanover

lol, indeed :grin:

Thats the main problem I have with many systems of ethics, they assume morality as the highest priority when its much more common for ethics to be 3-4th on the list of priorities for people. — DingoJones

Honestly (due to my English not being native), I didn't differentiate between morality and ethics, and it looks like it's not even universally defined, following quote seem to shade some light:

Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting. For example, your local community may think adultery is immoral, and you personally may agree with that. However, the distinction can be useful if your local community has no strong feelings about adultery, but you consider adultery immoral on a personal level. By these definitions of the terms, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community.

What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?

Therefore if we agree on that definition, it all depends on society or an individual in question, what is fine for you or your society may be utter disgust for some other society or individual.
I'm not saying that majority should define what's right or wrong, but that's not up to judge to handle.

For example, many people put family before ethics or sadly most people put money above ethics and compromising ethics for money is so common they scarcely recognize their behaviour as unethical. (Some clever folks even call it “business ethics” to create the illusion that they still operate ethically.) — DingoJones

Agree, this is sadness of modern day society where money of few rules the world. (or more precisely love toward money).

I would describe that as putting a higher degree of priority on social stability than ethics. This is what judges and lawyers are doing all the time, and why people often refer to lawyers as scum….they arent acting ethically first. They are acting in the interests of a system first — DingoJones

Agree as well, abuse of system is not uncommon, but I don't think torture is subject of abuse, if fact such abuse doesn't even exist in today's times.

I think a better question would be, what is more acceptable? punishment that is merciful or punishment that is too harsh?
Regardless of answer it all depends whether either of these choices would be counterproductive, that is cause social instability whether in long term or short term and whether that is acceptable.
I mean, ethics is relative to society or an individual, and no society is perfect.

so in my opinion this should be prevented however possible — Enrique

I think it's hard to prove, and even harder to prevent.
It depends on so many things I don't know what to say :meh:

As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction? — DingoJones

Sorry I wasnt clear. I was stating your stance not offering my own when I said “as punishment, ethical, as deterrent unethical.”. What I meant was I myself do not see a difference between the ethical standing of either is f those. — DingoJones

You put ethical higher meaning than practical, while this sounds ethical and in most of the cases valid, there are cases where an issue isn't only a matter of ethical or not.

If you're a judge that is supposed to be just then in such extreme situations it's not only about you and defendant, you also need to care of yourself because there may be millions if not billions of those seeking justice :wink:
If that's sounds unethical to you then don't judge.

Your question seems to be oriented toward physical torture, but there is also psychological torture.
Both have same effect but different outcome.

As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction? — DingoJones

Not really, consider a person who attempts to pollute a water so that whole society would face serious issues for survival, and this attempt becomes publicly known. (but not committed)

Would you punish such a person in private (punishment) or in public (deterrent)?
What's the purpose of private torture if there is a whole host of potential people who might think doing such evil is actually a good idea?

Punishment is collateral and “secondary”…collateral of what, and secondary to what? — DingoJones

Primary purpose of punishment in public is deterrence not punishment, for reasons in example above.

Put it another way, we face COVID pandemic, now somehow a person is found guilty who is responsible for this, such that it was his will to infect the whole world.
Would your just punishment be death penalty, torture in public or torture in private?

do you think torture as punishment would be unethical — DingoJones

Definitely yes, torture for the sole purpose of punishment is not only unethical but also uncivilized.

Can you expand on torture as a public deterrent? — DingoJones

Torture in public, primary goal is to discourage committed crime or evil, punishment comes as "collateral" and is secondary.

Torture may be otherwise ethically acceptable as long as it doesn't result in death.

Purpose of torture is not punishment as one may think, but public deterrence and information gathering.

Of course, the upshot of the sermon would be "No! Nothing can challenge God!" They lure in the sheep with a temptation of controversy, only to shut it down. Meanwhile, some little kid in the pews is wondering: "Wait, if God is really God, can't he challenge himself? If not, is God nothing, or not nothing, or both? — James Riley

hahah, good joke! :rofl:

Q) Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
A)No! Saying that quantum mechanics does not conserve energy is misinterpreting quantum mechanics. — dclements

Awesome insight! who would though of misinformation on wiki.

This also explains why there is no clear-cut definition of "scientific" theory of nothing, it's obviously depends on most recent scientific discoveries.

Seems like we touched the ground of both scientific and philosophical.

Coincidence vs Creation :
Laws of Nature’s God
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html — Gnomon

Question from link:

So, was the origin of our world a coincidence or a creation? In any case, the Cosmic Bang was a rare event, not a mere regularity . . . No? [YIN\YANG]

Seems like Yes\No choice question where one needs to choose between God and "no God", or good and evil, or 0 and 1, but that's mathematically incorrect question.

Given all the discoveries and insights we collected, I think it's rather God or infinity (That is God or I don't know):

Potential vs Actual :
This connects the matter/form distinction to another key Aristotelian distinction, that between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) or activity (energeia).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActuPote — Gnomon

Paragraph "Actuality and Potentiality" at the end that says Aristotle also offers an "even stricter” argument which concludes as:

anything that is capable of being is also capable of not being. What is capable of not being might possibly not be, and what might possibly not be is perishable.

Can anyone assert this is not fallacy?, it's more correct to say:
what might possibly not be is possibly perishable but far from "perishable" as final.

Why? because possibility doesn't deduce as definitely impossible as final, but rather possibly impossible!

What is the difference between:

"Can theory of nothing challenge God?"
and
"Can nothing challenge God?" — James Riley

In my OP it was not clear what I mean by "theory of nothing", but obviously there is a distinction of scientific nothing and philosophical nothing.
It's obvious 1st video is in contradiction with 2nd video because 1st video expands to philosophical nothing where's 2nd video assumes "scientific nothing" for which it's not self-explanatory what it means.
I'm guessing scientific nothing is locked to current scientific discoveries so there is no universal definition.

Therefore philosophical "nothing" definitely can not challenge God, it's up to scientists to define what they mean by "nothing".

Conservation law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law — dclements

Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy.

Therefore is it safe to say that virtual particles (aka. quantum fluctuation) is what exceeds both matter and energy? (but not necessarily the laws of physics, that is laws of quantum physics)

If so then scientific theory of nothing probably assumes absence of matter and energy but not quantum fluctuation.

I'm more than happy to admit there are potential advantages in one that don't exist in the other. That is precisely why I posted this. — I like sushi

In this sense polytheism allows for meaningful conflict and division whereas mono is mono. There is a lack of growth involved. — I like sushi

I can't speak of advantages of "poly" or "multiple views" but it's obvious that "mono" (whether in religious, political or cultural aspect) is what is behind success of "western society" starting from roman empire toward modern day reality.

This may sound like too political but it is not, because even though roman empire had senate and modern day west is democratic there was always some kind of mono behind.
Feel free to call this conspiracy, but monotheistic views are not contradictory to "democratic" views, instead I think they complement each other and that is the source of success of development.

To express this in tabular way:
1. mono + autocratic
2. mono + democratic
3. poly + autocratic
4. poly + democratic

The choice compared to reality when it comes to success of development is obvious.
It's complementary what's is the driving force because without complementation we have 2 extremes none of which can nor did ever lead to success.

After all we are talking about development of society and how it affects psyche right?
So there must be some sort of weight to avoid extremes.

I was simply thinking about how relatable such 'ideas' are to a developing human society. A plural of perspectives from which to approach human life just seems more tangible to me. — I like sushi

we are analysing the possible psychological benefits of, mistakenly or otherwise, following a monotheistic line or a polytheistic line given the variety of human social activity. — I like sushi

I think I finally got what you mean, correct me if wrong.

You position is hat polytheism is sort of more "democratic" compared to monotheism which seem to be more "autocratic"?
And, how these 2 affects development of social life and psychology at large?

If so, I think that depends a lot on personal view and what one think is "healthier" for development of social life on psychological level, therefore personal preferences, beliefs and influences must be excluded for valid analysis.

I think polytheism as "multiple perspectives" toward anything are source of division among society.
You answer to that will surely be that deities don't influence or interact with each other and as such can't be source of division?

If so, however while that may be true for deities it's far from true for society, because not everybody in society is reasonable enough to overcome influence or opinions.
Society was, is and always will be divisible.

Fair point :up: but far from "click bait"

The true reason why I started this thread is because theory of nothing is relatively new theory that is obviously not well defined, and for which I believed is good one to understand what was there before BB if there ever was anything.

But I wouldn't dismiss anything however uncertain it may be, because in the end if you dismiss everything then what do you have left to work with? I guess "nothing" :meh:

Your links and propositions indeed helped me to get better understanding, thanks!

Do Conscious Minds Actually Exist? — Ken Edwards

Yes

Only humans have conscious minds. No animal has that bump. — Ken Edwards

I wouldn't agree on that, my personal view is that:
1. Conscious mind is a biological phenomena
2. Animals are less conscious but never completely unaware

‘Love’ can be both ‘selfish’ and ‘selfless’. — I like sushi

Both of which is love but with opposite "positivity", which exactly describes the world we live in, and therefore it's incorrect to say love does not exist.

No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing.

One can say it is possible for a "supernatural process"( a process that breaks one or more of the physical laws that have applied to every natural process that human have observed throughout history)
to create something from nothing but you CAN NOT state with any authority that something CAN come from nothing from either a "supernatural process" or otherwise because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something can come from nothing. — dclements

Indeed it would be impossible to empirically prove "supernatural", but same way it doesn't make sense to ask for empirical (natural) proof to prove supernatural.

As for religious portion of your post I'll abstain from turning this into a religious debate.
In any case I'm not trying nor searching for any proof beyond philosophical. :smile:

There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long. — Michael

That would be virtual particles,

Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs.

Quantum fluctuation

To my understanding virtual particles came and go out of existence in very short time (almost instant).
Interestingly, 2 videos are in contradiction regarding that, one say virtual particles are something, other says it's used to go beyond big bang, so it's again not something out of nothing.

I am looking at this from a psychological perspective and what seems to be a ‘healthier’ view. — I like sushi

Psychologically speaking, it's in human nature to love and be loved, to have a feeling that there is somebody who cares of you even in most dire circumstances, somebody who always listens and hears your problems, somebody who is always there, somebody who will give useful advice etc.

For this to be plausible and attractive, that somebody must have adequate powers to fulfill all off these expectations and must occasionally present it's powers to prevent suspicions with the main aim to ensure faith and to ensure sacrifice (in various forms) isn't in vain.

Polytheism splits these powers into multiple deities while monotheism has only one God.
To get my point further it's important to understand that deity is not the same thing as God.

Speaking of monotheism, in particular Christianity and most expressed in Catholicism, there are some similarities with polytheism, and these are angels and demons.

However it would be incorrect to say that angels and demons are deities, primarily because in polytheism there is no one ultimate God, therefore deities are not deputies of God (or other deities) which is true for angels but not for demons. (deities represent them self)
Secondly angels are not allowed to be worshiped in any way, which is true for deities.
In Catholicism there is a tradition where "few known" angels but mostly saints, may take words of an individual (trough prayer) and intercede (advocate) for you before God, which is false for demons. (but they're still not allowed to be worshiped like deities)
And finally angels as well as demons have ranks and obligations, ex. they don't do all the same thing.

Knowing that, psychologically speaking there is no "healthier" view because that's subjective and depends on an individual, (assuming that an individual is atheist who for some reason is in search for true or better God or an angel or saint), theist however will just stick with his belief until either doubt or attraction of other God trough exoteric teaching prevails.

Again psychologically speaking, taking into account expected powers that an individual expects from either deities, angels or saints, there is no better or more wrong way as long as it fulfils it's expectations.
One thing that however makes the difference that may affect an individuals psyche is unfulfillment of their expectations resulting in doubt which then results in weakening of faith. (which altogether acts negatively to psyche).

Weakening of faith and how it affects psyche is however subject not only to nature of an individual but also to external (social) factors.

Other things being equal in monotheism, in Catholicism that's one fundamental "advantage" where, if the particular angel or saint does not succeed to fulfil expectations, one can always turn to God directly, but that's never the case in polytheism.

Where Socrates would argue that the gods shouldn’t be followed because they err I wouldn’t agree. To blindly follow is stupidity/laziness. To observe and learn what the gods show us through narrative interactions, to understand how they become more relatable and to aspire to certain characteristics that inspire us as a individual is precisely the point of the polytheistic view of the cosmos. — I like sushi

Which makes little sense given modern scientific discoveries because in the end it all leads to one God one way or the other.
Also mixing nature and how it unfolds in reality has little to do with religious belief, you either believe one or the other unless there is God that creates other beings that handle nature, but I'm not aware of such religion. (just my opinion)

There can't be 2 Gods therefore you 2 (presumably atheists) mutually exclude each other but not God :sweat: