Want to "Understand" G-d? Contemplate His Oneness
This explication of Judaism's Second Principal was discovered on Gentiles for Moses via r/Noahide. Consider it a partial reading list. Classical Theism is a footnote to Deuteronomy 6:4 and 4:35.
"There is a Fundamental of Fundamentals, which is the concept of G-d of historic, classic Torah Judaism. … This Fundamental states that G-d is the only Eternally Pre-existent Absolute Be-ing (Absolute Existence), transcendent in His unlike otherness, the Absolute Incorporeal Unity to Whom no other unity in the universe is similar. G-d is without composition or plurality, objectively or conceptually, One from whatever side you view the matter and by whatever test you examine it. Accidents (i.e., qualities, attributes, relations, circumstances) that are applied to corporeal beings are not applicable to G-d. Combination, separation, place (space), dimension, time, beginning, end, change -- all these are not applicable to G-d. He transcends all of these. G-d is beyond description. He transcends any attribute, quality or characteristic that we may attribute to Him. There is no similarity between Him and the creatures that He created. Existence, Life, Power, Knowledge and Will when applied to G-d do not have the same meaning as when applied to us, and the difference is not only one of degree. His Be-ing is absolutely simple (i.e., free from combination or composition), to which nothing is superadded. ...
"To quote Rav Saadyah Gaon: "The extreme abstractness of the concept of the Creator (G-d) is its true character." Also: "The concept of the Creator (G-d) [is] more recondite than the most recondite, more abstract than the most abstract, more subtle than the most subtle, more profound than the most profound ... more sublime than the most sublime." G-d is not a substance. He is not like fire, or air, or space. He created all of these and He is unlike anything that He created. Length and width, division and combination are all inapplicable to Him (from Emunoth VeDeoth of Rav Saadyah Gaon).
"The allegation of the Christian trinitarians "of the existence within Him (G-d) of distinction (i.e., distinct characteristics), with the result that one attribute is not identical with the other, is equivalent to their saying that He (G-d) is really a physical being ... For anything that harbors distinction within itself is unquestionably a physical being" (Rav Saadyah Gaon, Emunoth VeDeoth 2:5). The only alternative would be to consider each distinct attribute a distinct coexisting spiritual entity. This would be polytheism (See Guide 1:58). ...
"G-d has no form. The form mentioned in Scripture is merely visional. It exists only in the prophetic vision, or as specially produced (created) revelational light.
"Therefore, as emphasized by Rabbenu Bahya ben Pakudah, we must know G-d through contemplating the traces of His activity, which testify to His existence, not through contemplating His Be-ing, His Essence, which is beyond contemplation. When we have removed Him from our imagination and senses as if He had no existence, and have found Him through the traces of His activity as if He is not removed from us, we have attained the ultimate knowledge of G-d possible for human beings.
"This sublime and exalted transcendence of G-d is called the holiness of G-d (Kuzari 3:17). 'The Holy One expresses the fact that G-d is sanctified and transcendent above any attribute of created beings; if He is referred to in terms of attributes, it is only by way of metaphor.' (Kuzari 4:13).
"All the foregoing is undoubted by any Israelite from east to west among all the [Jewish] inhabitants of Arabic lands (Maimonides). Whoever dissents from this exalted, sublime, transcendent concept of G-d's holiness, and attributes likeness, form or place (space) -- or any other attribute of created entities -- to G-d, the Creator, such a dissenter is a sectarian heretic, and he has no share in the world to come." The Oneness of G-d In Its Purity
The Oneness of HaShem: Judaism’s Second Principle
The Absolute Importance of Understanding the Oneness of HaShem
Why Is There ANYTHING At All? It’s Simple
Idolatry is worshiping anything that is not the simple Uncaused Unity that caused the universe
Classical Theism & Divine Simplicity
"The Holy One, blessed be He, recognizes His own truth (his true existence) and knows it as it is. He does not know it with a knowledge that is outside of Him like we know (things). We and our knowledge are not one, but the Creator, blessed be He, and His knowledge and His life are one from every side and every angle and in every manner of oneness. If He lives with life and knows with knowledge that is outside of Himself, there would be multiple gods – Him, His life, and His knowledge. And this is not so; rather it is one from every side and every angle and every manner of oneness. It comes out that He is the Knower, He is the known, and He is the knowledge itself, all is one. And concerning this matter, there is no way of describing it in words nor is it within the capacity of the mind to understand it fully … Thus, He does not recognize and know the creations in terms of the creations as we know them, but rather He knows them in terms of Himself. Thus, since He knows Himself, He knows everything, for the existence of everything else is dependent on Him." Maimonides
The Argument from Composition
Existence and Divine Simplicity: A Stroll Along the Via Negativa with Maimonides
Negative Attributes, Divine Simplicity, and Direct Prophecy
The Simplicity/Composition Argument: "The Neoplatonic tradition emphasizes that whatever is in any way composite or made up of parts (whether physical or metaphysical parts) must ultimately be explained by reference to that which is utterly non-composite or metaphysically simple. The idea is that whatever has parts is metaphysically less fundamental than the parts themselves and whatever principle accounts for their combination. The ultimate explanation of anything would therefore have to be without parts, otherwise it would not be ultimate but would require a cause of its own. Lloyd Gerson argues that something like a cosmological argument developing this basic theme is at least implicit in Plotinus."
Duties of the Heart: Treatise on Unity
Maimonides on the Unity of G-d
The Second Ikar: The Unity of G-d
Divine Simplicity by the Maverick Philosopher
Mega Maverick Philosopher posts on Divine Simplicity
"[T]o deny the absolute ontological simplicity of G-d is to deny theism itself. For what we mean by 'G-d' is an absolute reality, something metaphysically ultimate, "that than which no greater can be conceived." (Anselm) Now an absolute reality cannot depend for its existence or nature or value upon anything distinct from itself. It must be from itself alone, or a se. Nothing could count as divine, or worthy of worship, or be an object of our ultimate concern, or be maximally great, if it lacked the property of aseity. But the divine aseity, once it is granted, seems straightaway to entail the divine simplicity, as Aquinas argues in ST. For if G-d is not dependent on anything else for his existence, nature, and value, then G-d is not a whole of parts, for a whole of parts depends on its parts to be and to be what it is. So if G-d is a se, then he is not a composite being, but a simple being. This implies that in G-d there is no real distinction between: existence and essence, form and matter, act and potency, individual and attribute, attribute and attribute. In sum, if G-d is G-d, then G-d is simple. To deny the simplicity of G-d is to deny the existence of G-d."
G-d's Oneness by Rabbi Avraham Ben Yaakov
G-d without Parts: The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity by James Dolezal
Dolezal on Divine Simplicity: Does He Make a Mysterian Move?
"These are the reasons why defenders of Divine simplicity sometimes go so far as to argue that to deny the doctrine entails atheism. For if being an uncaused cause and being absolutely unique entail simplicity, then to deny that there is anything that is simple or non-composite is implicitly to deny that there is an absolutely unique uncaused cause. And since to be God just is to be an absolutely unique uncaused cause, to deny Divine simplicity is therefore implicitly to deny the existence of G-d."
From the Unity of the World to G-d: A Teleo-Cosmological Argument
Making Sense of Divine Simplicity
"The One must be changeless or immutable. For to change entails gaining or losing some feature, and if the One could gain or lose some feature, it would not be simple or noncomposite. Rather, it would be a simple or noncomposite thing plus this feature, in which case the feature would be a part, and thus the One just wouldn’t really be simple or noncomposite. If the One is changeless or immutable, then it is also eternal or outside time, since to be in time entails undergoing some change. It must also be eternal in the sense of neither coming into being nor passing away. For if it came into being, it would have a cause, which entails that it has parts which were combined at the time it was caused; and it has no parts."
Atheist Graham Oppy Defends the Coherence of Divine Simplicity
Atomism, Causalism and the Existence of a First Cause
"This G-d is one, and only can be one, and not two or more. He is one with a complete unification that surpasses any of the types of unity that are part of the created realms; He is not one in the manner of a category that includes multiple individual entities, nor one in the manner of a body that is divided into portions or dimensions. Rather, He is completely unified, and there exists no unity similar to His within the created realms." The Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner
Brian Davies on Simplicity & Freedom and his Modern Defense
Why The One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity
"Having the correct understanding of G-d is how one enters the Palace described by Maimonides. Deut. 4:35 and 6:4 constitute a foundation all by themselves. Incorporating them into one's intellect actualizes its potential as a soul. These are the greatest truths one can strive to understand.
Doing so, to the extent one is able, fulfils one's telos, his highest
purpose as a rational animal. G-d designed us to become aware of Him." Reflections on Ein od milvado
Is Oneness Compatible with Trinitarianism?
A Critique of Trinity Monotheism
"Don't
be misled by the fact that the Rambam (Maimonides) says the ideal human being is one
who is both learned and possesses proper character. He is quite clear
earlier that having proper character is only necessary to allow one's
intellect to properly understand the truth.
"And having a correct understanding of the truth is simply not possible without proper character development.
"This means that according to the Rambam, the highest form of human endeavor is really attainment of the ultimate truth. The refinement of character is simply a prerequisite. An indispensable one at that, but it is not the end goal." The Slifkin Challenge
Comments
Post a Comment