Logical Proof that there's only One G-d?

Amital

Thu, Jun 05 2008, 9:02 am

(From Chabad.com question of the week e-mail)

Quote:

Is There a Logical Proof that there's only One G-d?

By Aron Moss

Question:

I accept that some sort of "Higher Being" created the universe. But why couldn't there be many such beings? Is there any logical reason to say that there is only one god?

Answer:

The definition of G-d is: "a Being without definition." G-d cannot be defined, because if I define Him then I limit Him. And something limited is not G-d. By defining something, I give it borders. If for example I define an apple as a sweet, round fruit that is green or red, then when I find a long purple fruit, I know that it can't be an apple. An apple is limited to being round and red or green. That is its definition. G-d can't be defined, because by defining Him you are saying that there's something He can't be; but this could not be true, because G-d is unlimited.

That's why there can be only one G-d. Because if you don't have a definition, then there is nothing outside of you. There can be no "other".

An example: two neighboring countries can only be called two countries when there is a border in between them. But if a country has no borders, if there is no defined place where it ends and another country begins, how can you say that there are two countries?

G-d has no borders, so how can there be more than one god? Where would one god end and one begin if there is no dividing line between them?

The act of creation is the act of making borders and drawing definitions: this is an apple and not a banana, this is land and this sea. Creation has definitions. The Creator doesn't have a definition. That's what makes Him G-d. And that's why there can only be one.

What do you think of this?

Motek

Thu, Jun 05 2008, 6:56 pm

I got that HR.

Quote:
G-d has no borders, so how can there be more than one god? Where would one god end and one begin if there is no dividing line between them?

marina wrote:

What does it mean not to worship idols, then?

to deny that

Quote:

# English translation Transliteration Hebrew
Lord of the universe, who reigned, Adon 'olam, 'asher malakh, אֲדוֹן עוֹלָם אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ
Before anything was created; b'terem kol y'tzir niv'ra בְּטֶרֶם כָּל יְצִיר נִבְרָא
At the time when by His will all things were made, L'eyt na'asa v'kheftso kol, לְעֵת נַעֲשָׂה בְחֶפְצוֹ כֹּל
Then was His name proclaimed King azai melekh sh'mo nikra אֲזַי מֶלֶךְ שְׁמוֹ נִקְרָא
And after all things shall cease to be, V'akharey kikh'lot hakol וְאַחֲרֵי כִּכְלוֹת הַכֹּל
The awesome One will reign alone L'vado y'imlokh nora לְבַדּוֹ יִמְלוֹךְ נוֹרָא
He was, He is, V'hu hayah v'hu hoveh וְהוּא הָיָה וְהוּא הֹוֶה
And He will be in glory. V'hu yih'yeh b'tif'arah וְהוּא יִהְיֶה בְּתִפְאָרָה
He is one and there is no other, V'hu 'ekhad v'eyn sheyni וְהוּא אֶחָד וְאֵין שֵׁנִי
to compare to Him; to consort with Him L'ham'shil lo l'hakhbirah לְהַמְשִׁילֹ לוֹ לְהַחְבִּירָה
Without beginning, without end, B'li reyshiyt b'li takh'liyt בְּלִי רֵאשִׁית בְּלִי תַכְלִית
to Him is the power and sovereignty V'lo ha'oz v'hamis'rah וְלוֹ הָעֹז וְהַמִּשְׂרָה
He is my God, my ever-living Redeemer V'hu 'Eyli v'khai go'ali וְהוּא אֵלִי וְחַי גּוֹאֲלִי
the strength of my lot in time of distress v'tsur khevli b'yom tsarah וְצוּר חֶבְלִי ב צָרָה
He is my banner and refuge V'hu nisi 'umanos li וְהוּא נִסִּי וּמָנוֹס ִלִי
my portion, the day I call m'nat kosi b'yom 'ekra מְנָת כּוֹסִי בְּיוֹם אֶקְרָא
Into His hand I commit my spirit B'yado af'kid rukhi בְּיָדוֹ אַפְקִיד רוּחִי
when I sleep, and when I wake b'eyt 'ishan v'a'ira בְּעֵת אִישָׁן וְאָעִירָה
and with my spirit, my body too v'im rukhi g'viyati וְעִם רוּחִי גְוִיָּתִי
The Lord is with me, I will not fear Adonai li v'lo 'ira אֲדֹנָי לִי וְלֹא אִירָא

Motek

Fri, Jun 06 2008, 11:02 am

Also said in Aleinu every day:

15 He is our G-d, there is none else. Hu Elokeinu ein od, הוּא אֱלֹהֵינוּ ְאֵין עוֹד,
16 Truly He is our King, there is nothing besides Him, emet mal'kenu, efes zulato, אֱמֶת מַלְכֵּנוּ אֶפֶס זוּלָתוֹ.
17 As it is written in His Torah: kakatuv bisoraso: כַּכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹר:
18 "And you shall know today,
and take to heart,
v'yada'ta hayom,
vahashevota el l'vavekha. וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל לְבָבֶךָ,
19 that the Lord is G-d, Ki Adonai, hu haElokim, כִּי י הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים
20 in the heavens above bashamayim mi ma`al, בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל
21 and on the earth below. v'al ha'aretz mitachat, ein od. וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת. אֵין עוֹד
There is nothing else."

HindaRochel

Fri, Jun 13 2008, 11:20 am

Motek wrote:

freidasima wrote:

I hate to say this, but all these things only apply if you believe in a G-d in a first place.

And if my geometry teacher asks me to prove triangles congruent and I don't believe in triangles, then there's nothing for me to prove ...

Motek, we can see triangles. People can of course deny what they see, but then really there would be no proof of anything. As we can't see G-d, trying to prove G-d is a very, imho, risky business. We must rely on logic alone. His proof dependent on accepting a certain definition of G-d, one the original poster (not here, but on the site from whence the question came), did not seem to accept.

We aren't denying Hashem's existence, only that the proof works as it stands alone.

amitalmaia wrote:

If G-d has no borders, does that mean that everything is part G-d?

not "part G-d" but part of G-d
One of G-d's names is "makom" - place. G-d is not in the world. The world is in G-d. All emanates from G-d. G-d continuously gives everything its existence by sustaining the G-dly utterance that brought it into being ("with 10 Utterances the world was created").

I love this part of the answer.

entropy

Sat, Jun 14 2008, 6:25 pm

amitalmaia wrote:

What do you think of this?

I don't disagree - but it's a weak argument because it relied on a weak definition of God.

Louche makes an excellent point. The definition of God as "having no definition" is not a logical definition at all. I'm not saying God can be encompassed in a definition by us mortals, but the absence of an adequate definition is not, in itself, the definition of God.

louche wrote:

To try to "prove" G-d's existence or unity by means of logic is an exercise in futility because there will always be a bottom line, irreducible initial premise that is based on faith alone.

I disagree.
Rambam's first halacha in Mishne Tora is: לידע שיש שם אלוה; If we are defining God in a way that is based on faith alone, that means we're using the wrong definition.

I offer this definition of God instead: The creator of everything.

I base this definition on the first sentence in Mishne Tora:
יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון. והוא ממציא כל הנמצא; וכל הנמצאים מן שמיים וארץ ומה ביניהם, לא נמצאו אלא מאמיתת הימצאו.

Note: It's an imperfect definition, but is sufficient for the purpose of Rambam's basic proof of God's unity.
Here, at the end of perek bet, after Rambam spent 2 chapters on the definition of God, he explains the incompleteness of the definition and hints that we can't (or at least most of us can't) give a complete definition:
דברים אלו שאמרנו... כמו טיפה מן הים הן ממה שצריך לבאר בעניין זה... הוא הנקרא מעשה מרכבה. ציוו חכמים הראשונים שלא לדרוש בדברים אלו אלא לאיש אחד בלבד, והוא שיהיה חכם ומבין מדעתו. ואחר כך מוסרין לו ראשי הפרקים, ומודיעין אותו שמץ מן הדבר; והוא מבין מדעתו, ויודע סוף הדבר ועומקו.

Anyways, on to Rambam's basic proof God's unity:

אילו היו האלוהות הרבה--היו גופין וגווייות, מפני שאין הנמנין השווין במציאתן נפרדין זה מזה אלא במאורעין שיארעו הגופות והגווייות.

By definition there can only be one: Divisibility is a property of the physical world, which is a creation. God is not a physical being, therefore God is indivisible.

amitalmaia wrote:

does this mean that all of the polytheistic religions are actually looking at aspects of one G-d instead of multiple gods? If there are no dividing lines...very confusing if you apply this to anything other point of views.

Depends. After all, The Torah does use enumeration (e.g. 10 sphirot) and other physical imagery when explaining God to humans.
However, most people are not worshiping God, but idols. they are worshiping creations and not the Creator, so they can have as many of them as they want; one, three, zero, fifty - it's still idolatry.

It has been said upthread that everything is God - No! that is idolatry. If you can see, hear, taste or sense it any way with your physical body, then it is not God - It's one of God's creations.

Dandelion1

Sat, Jun 14 2008, 11:26 pm

amitalmaia wrote:

(From Chabad.com question of the week e-mail)

Quote:

Is There a Logical Proof that there's only One G-d?

By Aron Moss

Question:

I accept that some sort of "Higher Being" created the universe.

well, this is usually the point that people are looking for logical proof of....

But why couldn't there be many such beings? Is there any logical reason to say that there is only one god?

once you have accepted that G-d exists, (without logical proof, since that cannot be given), you don't really need logical proof of there being just one G-d do you? You might as well just "accept" that too!

Answer:

The definition of G-d is: "a Being without definition."

again, this is not based on logical proof either, obviously. So to use this definition as logical proof that G-d is one, you would first need logical proof that this was actually the definition of G-d to begin with!

Once you've "accepted" the premise of a supreme being, you can then attribute any qualities you wish. As Jews, we believe, know in our hearts, that the torah provides the truth and our knowledge of G-d comes from there. The fact that
a. G-d exists

and the descriptions of G-d that
b. G-d is one
c. G-d is limitless
are descriptions of the Hashem that we know to be Hashem, from our belief in the Torah. To anyone else, these descriptions are arbitrary and are based on the premise that there actually is a G-d. So the whole exercise seems sort of moot.

Motek

Sun, Jun 15 2008, 2:17 pm

entropy wrote:

The definition of God as "having no definition" is not a logical definition at all.

Why?

Quote:

I offer this definition of God instead: The creator of everything.

I base this definition on the first sentence in Mishne Tora:
יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות, לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון. והוא ממציא כל הנמצא; וכל הנמצאים מן שמיים וארץ ומה ביניהם, לא נמצאו אלא מאמיתת הימצאו.

Your definition omits Rambam's first point and only tells us what G-d does, I.e. create. That doesn't define Him.

Quote:

It has been said upthread that everything is God - No! that is idolatry. If you can see, hear, taste or sense it any way with your physical body, then it is not God - It's one of God's creations.

How do you understand what we say in Aleinu that there is nothing but G-d? Here is how we can understand it while still having a creation:

Quote:

כל משכיל על דבר יבין לאשורו איך שכל נברא ויש הוא באמת נחשב לאין ואפס ממש

Every discerning person will understand clearly that every creature and being, even though it appears to have an existence of its own, is in reality considered to be absolute naught and nothingness

לגבי כח הפועל ורוח פיו שבנפעל המהוה אותו תמיד ומוציאו מאין ממש ליש

in relation to the activating force which creates it and the “breath of His mouth” which is within it, continuously calling it into existence and bringing it from absolute non-being into being.

Since this function must be continuous, it follows that the creature’s activating force is the true reality of its existence; the being itself bears no comparison to the activating force which is wholly responsible for its existence.

ומה שכל נברא ונפעל נראה לנו ליש וממשות

The reason that all things created and activated appear to us as existing I.e., self-subsisting and tangible, and we fail to see the Divine activating source which is the true reality of any created being,

זהו מחמת שאין אנו משיגים ורואים בעיני בשר את כח ה׳ ורוח פיו שבנברא

is that we do not comprehend nor see with our physical eyes the power of G‑d and the “breath of His mouth” which is in the created thing.

אבל אילו ניתנה רשות לעין לראות ולהשיג את החיות ורוחניות שבכל נברא

If, however, the eye were permitted to see and to comprehend the life-force and spirituality which is in every created thing,

השופע בו ממוצא פי ה׳ ורוח פיו

flowing into it from “that which proceeds from the mouth of G‑d”1 and “His breath,”

לא היה גשמיות הנברא וחומרו וממשו נראה כלל לעינינו

then the physicality, materiality and tangibility of the creature would not be seen by our eyes at all,

כי הוא בטל במציאות ממש לגבי החיות והרוחניות שבו

for it (this physicality, etc.) is completely nullified in relation to the life-force and the spirituality which is within it

מאחר שמבלעדי הרוחניות, היה אין ואפס ממש כמו קודם ששת ימי בראשית ממש

since without the spirituality within it it would be naught and absolute nothingness, exactly as before the Six Days of Creation, at which time the creature was utterly non-existent.

והרוחניות השופע עליו ממוצא פי ה׳ ורוח פיו, הוא לבדו המוציאו תמיד מאפס ואין ליש ומהוה אותו

The spirituality that flows into it from “that which proceeds from the mouth of G‑d” and “His breath,” — that alone continuously brings it forth from naught and nullity into being, and this spirituality gives it existence.

אם כן אפס בלעדו באמת

Hence, there is truly nothing besides Him in any created being, apart from the Divinity — the only true reality — that brings it into existence.

The created being does not constitute a true reality, inasmuch as it is wholly dependent for its existence on the continuous flow of Divine life-force. Indeed, its existence verily consists of that activating force.

Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, beginning of Chapter 3

entropy

Sun, Jun 15 2008, 6:46 pm

Jellybean: There can be no doubt that the world was brought into existence by a higher being. This is a necessary truth, not just a random idea that we happen to embrace. There is no other way to view the world - there is nothing within the physical world that could have brought the physical world into existence!

_{משנה תורה;ספר המדע;הלכות יסודי התורה;א

הגלגל סובב תמיד, ואי אפשר שיסוב בלא מסבב

There cannot be eternal motion without an eternal mover}

Morover, there can be no doubt that such a being is one. If you say this is arbitrary you are portraying our faith as equivalent to idol-worshipping, where the only thing setting it apart from other faiths is that we happen to accept it. This approach does not meet the requirements of Mishne Torah (and recited in Adon Olam, Yigdal, Aleinu, etc.). To say God happens to be one in our faith does not fulfill the #1 mitzva of knowing Hashem. You need to know that by virtue of Hashem being the higher being who created the world, there can only be one. If there is any way apply divisibility to something, then that thing is not enough of a "higher being" because it's not above divisibility - and worshiping such a being is avoda zara. There is nothing arbitrary about this!

_{משנה תורה;ספר המדע;הלכות יסודי התורה;א

אלוה זה אחד הוא--אינו לא שניים ולא יתר על שניים, אלא אחד, שאין כייחודו אחד מן האחדים הנמצאים בעולם: לא אחד כמין שהוא כולל אחדים הרבה, ולא אחד כגוף שהוא נחלק למחלקות ולקצוות; אלא ייחוד שאין ייחוד אחר כמותו בעולם.

This God is One - Not 2 or more than 2, but one, and his unity is unlike any of the unities that exist in the universe. Not one like one type that encompasses many instances, and not one like one body that can be divided to sections, but a unity that is like no other.}

Motek:I do agree that God defies definition, I'm just pointing out that defying definition, in itself, is not a complete definition of God (as the wording in the article seems to imply), and not the best choice to answer someone who is asking if the higher being who created the world is necessarily one.

Motek wrote:

Your definition omits Rambam's first point and only tells us what G-d does, I.e. create. That doesn't define Him.

I also agree with you that my proposed definition is incomplete, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. re מצוי ראשון. vs ממציא כל הנמצא;. Each follows logically from the other, and both statements attribute action to Hashem, why is one more defining than the other?

Motek wrote:

How do you understand what we say in Aleinu that there is nothing but G-d? Here is how we can understand it while still having a creation:

The straightforward understanding of "efes zulato" is that everything other than hashem is nullified in comparison to Hashem.

The text you cite provides a mystical understanding, and needs to be approached appropriately. If one ch"v understood it to mean Hashem is IN the creature (in the way humans otherwise understand the concept of being IN something) one would be mekatzetz benetiyot . There is apparently a mystical relationship between a creature and its divine creator, and far be it from me to understand it properly, but in the conclusion, Hashem remains other than the creature:

כי הוא בטל במציאות ממש לגבי החיות והרוחניות שבו

Whatever "shebo" means, we can all agree that Hashem is not in the part that is being nullified ("hu" =the creature = efes)