Hindu vs God's Unity   Moshe Ben-Chaim     Reader: The response of the Hindu's position on the topic of multiple gods from our discussion yesterday. His definitions for his gods are different than what we had previously been defining God as: Their is no one all-powerful all-knowing divine being, but rather, many gods who all have different powers and capabilities, (god of wisdom, beauty, etc.) All are limited in some sense. All are more powerful than humans, but never complete. Their natures are the same in the sense that all are gods, like all natures of humans are human, but their capabilities and powers are unique, like the different talents and abilities of different humans. So the essence of their beings are similar, but they possess accidental features like humans, thereby making them unique, unlike God, who possess no accidental features whatsoever. This was the response to my questions of his belief.   He also had a question: Why can't two metaphysical beings exist at the same time? (He wanted to prep the question by arguing that two completely different metaphysical beings do exist at the same time in a sense with the human soul existing after death. After death, the soul (a metaphysical being, the essence of a human) and the Divine metaphysical being both co-exist in a metaphysical reality.     Mesora: I address myself to your Hindu friend. Drawing incorrect notions and parallels, that man's soul exists "with" God after death, is not a proof that there are multiple gods. You make two errors; 1)That there can be "number" in the non-physical (metaphysical) world, 2)That any parallel may be drawn between man and God,   A man's soul existing after death "with God", does not mean that there are multiple, metaphysical things. 'Number' can only exist in the physical world, in connection with things which are subject to parts. For example, the idea of gravity cannot be 'cut in half' it has no weight, color, size, etc. Physical attributes are not applicable to non-physical things. Therefore, multiple gods is a false notion. Our concept of "God's Unity" is based on this vital principle.   Additional errors include the notion of multiple gods with mutually exclusive powers. Even in your own framework, this implies a limit on each god, as each maintains only "some" powers. If a god is limited, then what imposed this limit upon them? You are forced to say that something even greater exists which determines each god's capabilities and scope of power. You have contradicted the very point you wish to make, that a god is superior. This notion of multiple gods is not substantiated by reason, and is mere imagination. We do not live by any thought that a man imagines. Man's fantasies are numerous, but the truth is singular. We must determine what is true, then all other opinions will be rendered false.   Proof of Torah from Sinai teaches that there is one God. No mention exists in the Torah of any being but the God of creation, the God of Abraham. Once we have proof that God gave the Torah at Sinai, and that He alone is the sole cause for the existence of all things, and we know that He wrote the Torah, we arrived at a conclusive proof and the only conclusion: there is only one Cause for the universe.   It is incorrect thinking to suggest multiple gods, when no evidence of such a notion presents itself. The burden of proof is on this Hindu. As he has no proof, and defies reason, and as we do have proof, we do not subscribe to his view but we follow the rational principles which lead us to true monotheism, defined only by the Torah.   The argument that God may give of His own powers to anything besides Himself is also false. God's control of the universe - His wisdom and abilities - are synonymous with Him, for the reason already stated: there cannot be division in God. Separating some of His powers from Him is the flaw of ascribing division to God. Additionally, if it is God's wisdom that created the universe, this means that this is His unique ability to do so. One cannot be what God is, this is impossible. In such a case, the very definition of a God who created the universe alone would be flawed. But this suggestion is erroneous, as one assumes other beings to possess abilities identical to God. There cannot be two things which created the universe. This would mean that each god alone could not, thereby implying a limit on each god, a limit, which implies that another force imposed this limit on them. Then, there would be three gods at least; the two who created the world, and a third who imposes a limited scope of power on the first two. But then one would be saying that the imposer of these powers did not create the universe, yet can control the two gods who did! As you can see, such notions are foolish.   But think for a moment; if God is the One who created all the laws and matter found in the universe, then He alone controls all. He has no need for assistance, by witness of His very creation, by Himself. He also has no needs. "Need" itself is something which also resides only in physical things. Not only does God have no needs, but how would another thing control what God controls? This implies God's inability to prevent another being from doing what they wish. So it leads to yet another contradiction, that God controls things, and others also possess control. Well, which one controls the world? This is against reason.   A rational analysis will lead one to the conclusion that ,1)all matter and all laws cannot create themselves, 2)something external to all matter and all laws must have created them, a Creator, 3)this Creator itself has no need for a creator, 4)the Creator gave existence to all things, is all powerful and all knowing.   God has no needs and runs the universe independently.