How is God not just a powerful alien?
Duty of reverence is rather natural.
Might conflict with traditional religious teaching (e.g. in the case of the pre-eternity of the world, doctrine of Aristotle and Falsafia)
Mu'tazilite hermeneutic tradition: When scripture conflicts with reason, we read allegorically.
Augustine The Literal Interpretation of Genesis
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world... may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
What then, can we say about God?
Appears not to require plurality
But, requires commensurability
A plurality of actions does not imply plurality of actors. Consider fire, or the human mind.
When God performs an action,
we ascribe to God that emotion which is the source of the act when performed by ourselves, and call Him an epithet which is is formed by a verb expressing that emotion.
Problem: Aren't you contradicting yourself, when you describe God as indescribable?
Solution: Only negative things---God is not composite, God is not limited, God is not definable, God is not feeble, God is not ignorant
Negative predication does not imply plurality.
Is there really a difference between negative and positive predication?
Is "the infinite" an essentially negative concept? (or is negation essentially tied up with infinity?)