The Definition of God

An interesting letter on Chabad.com asks for a logical proof that there is only one God. I don't know if any such proof (I'm not even certain that God's existence is provable, but we'll leave that for another day) truly exists. However, it's not so much the question, but the answer that was given that intrigues me.

An answer to this question is provided on the site by one Aaron Moss. He writes as follows:

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.

Personally, this "proof" does nothing for me. On the contrary, I find it very lacking. Let's see if we can break it down a bit. He starts out by saying:

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

Now, I'm not sure that I agree with that definition. Indeed, by making that the definition of God "a Being with definition," you *are* defining Him, thus invalidating your own definition. Heck, God Himself defines Himself several times in the Torah as the one who redeemed us from bondage in Egypt.

Putting that aside, there is the problem of the fact that we *do* define God. We do it all the time. He's defined in a number of ways. Some sources define Him as the Creator of the Universe. Others define Him by assigning Attributes to Him. He is defined in classic Jewish literature all the time with positive attributes (mah hu rachum...) and negative attributes (He is noncoporeal, etc.). To say that God is without definition is just incorrect.

In addition, you can't say that the definition of God is something that is undefined. Left to that, the result of division by zero would be God too...

G-d cannot be defined, because if I define Him then I limit Him. And something limited is not G-d.

By that definition, it's possible to say that the universe (or multiverse, or whatever "top level" object you want to use to define reality) is God, since it, too, is unlimited.

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.

And yet, many prominent Jewish thinkers disagree with this point. R. Aryeh Kaplan discussed this in one of his essays. I believe he quotes the Rambam (although I could be wrong on this... I'd have to check when I get home) that we don't say that God can do the logically impossible. God cannot create a rock that He cannot lift. He cannot create a triangle with more than three sides or whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees. He also brings down that God cannot do the things that the Christians maintain He did: He cannot corpify himself and He cannot die.

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?

Boundaries are not always necessary to define something. In a previous apartment, we had one large room that we used as a dining room and a living room. Although it was one room, there were areas of it that we defined as the "living room" and "dining room." There was no formal boundary. And yet, there were clearly areas (under the dining room table and on the couch, for example) that were clearly "dining room" and "living room" even in the absence of a defined boundary.

It's interesting that the respondent chose to use a geographic metaphor to explain that a boundary is necessary since there are many examples where, despite a lack of a formal boundary, we can still define an area. For example, where does the "West Coast" (of the United States) start? When you say the "West Coast," people don't mean literally just the coast. They usually mean regions of California, Oregon and Washington. But where does it begin and end? Where does the "Midwest" begin and end? What are the borders of "the Bible Belt?" Heck, what are the defined boundaries of Boro Park? And yet, there comes a point where you are undoubtedly on the West Coast, in the Midwest, Bible Belt or Boro Park. Because these areas don't have defined borders, that doesn't mean that they don't exist. In fact, I'd wager that for the majority of human history, most countries didn't have defined borders as we have today.

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?

How can there be more than one informal region of the United States? How can there be more than one ocean on the world since there is no definite border between the oceans?

In any event, the logical comparison is silly anyway. He's using a human concept (borders, boundaries) to define a supernatural concept. There's no (logical) reason to say that two (or more) gods co-exist together in a way that is beyond the human ken (much as we say that God's lack of origin is beyond our understanding).

Would I love to see a logical (as opposed to a theological) proof to God's unity (or even His existence)? Sure. But this proof doesn't do anything for me.

The Wolf