For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)



There are certain things that not being able to do them has nothing to do with the characteristics of the doer, but rather with the characteristics of the thing.

For instance: Can G-d make a "mxyzptlk"?

There is no such thing as a mxyzptlk. But can G-d make it?

Of course not! There is no such thing.

But does this mean that G-d is limited because He cannot make a mxyzptlk? Of course not! Since there is no such thing, the request to make one is a jumble of words, that don't mean anything.

There are more such things. Can G-d make something that is "dangerous" but not "perilous"?

Here, too, the answer is no, because we're just playing with words, not expressing ideas. Danger without peril is just a meaningless, oxymoronic combination of words, but has zero connotation. The whole sentence is meaningless.

Can G-d be the only G-d but also have another G-d with Him?
Same thing. The whole concept is meaningless, and of course G-d cannot do that. The same way he cannot make danger without peril.

To ask can G-d make other G-ds is the same thing. "G-d" by definition means perfect. So what the question really means is:

Can G-d be perfect and imperfect at the same time?

Nope. Of course not. But since "perfect and imperfect" is conceptually meaningless, it's the same as asking if G-d can create danger that's not dangerous.

So to ask can G-d make other G-ds, or can G-d kill Himself, or something like that, all entails a play on words, because G-d by definition is eternal. So what you are asking is "Can G-d be eternal and not eternal at the same time?"
Well duh.

So the idea is not that G-d has one limit, that He cannot limit Himself. That's not the idea. Rather, G-d can do anything. But it has to be any THING, not something that has no meaning. Like a mxyzpltlk. Or an all-powerful weakling. Or a unique copy.

Get it?

No comments: