We have proved already that the world has a Creator, a God. God is One. We do not assume God is more than One, unless we have a proof, because it is illogical to assume there are more cause then necessary without a reason.

For example, a man read a manuscript that is uniform in composition and handwriting. From beginning to end, there is the same handwriting and use of words and phrases. The man would assume the author is one. It is not logical to assume there’s more than one author, unless there is an indication by change of handwriting or composition.

Either there is One Creator or a plural amount of (two or more) creators. (There can‘t be One Creator with two or more parts, because we have already explained the infinite cannot have parts.) If there are two or more separate Creators (can’t have two of same entity, as that would constitute as two parts of One Creator which is not possible), then there must be a separation between them, because they are of different entities. There must be a boundary where one creator ends and one begins. Whatever is separated is limited, because there is a point where the entity ends, and cannot be infinite. So, whatever is limited is finite. All finite entities are limited, and must have a limited set of causes. There must have been a first cause for anything that is finite, and that is how it came into existence. We have explained that an item must be created to be in existence, and could not have created itself.

This all basically means that the idea of two or more creators (gods) is not possible because they must be limited and created. If these gods were created, they can’t be the all-powerful Creator. The Creator must be One.

There are two possibilities (for the sake of argument. We already proved there‘s One God.): Either there exists One God, or a plural amount of Gods (two or more). If there are two or more gods, there are two possibilities: Either each god could have created the whole universe himself, or each god needed the other’s help in creating the universe.

If each god could have created the universe himself, then what is the necessity of the other god? We don’t need the other god, and as explained above, we don’t assume another god unless necessary.

If each god needed the help of the other, then they are all limited in power, because they couldn’t have created the universe themselves. What’s limited is finite, and the finite have a beginning. What has a beginning has been brought into existence, and that which has been brought into existence has been created. A god could not have been created, because the definition of a god is an all-powerful, infinite, Creator. There must be only one God.

The Creator is truly One. Any object that can be described as one (e.g. a book, a car, a drop of water etc…) is not truly one, because it is actually made up of many parts (e.g. one book has many pages, one car has many parts, one drop of water is made of many molecules etc…). We perceive the item as one, but it is actually made of many individual parts united. The Creator is not plural, as we have explained above, so when describing the Creator as truly One, we are saying God is not plural, and that He does not consist of any individual parts.

An accidental property is a property of an object that is not necessary, but could come about. For example, a pot became hot. The heat is an accidental property of the pot. The pot does not need to be necessarily hot while it exists. An essential property is a property of an object that must be attributed to the object while it exists. For example, a fire that is hot. The heat is an essential property of the fire, because fire is always hot. It can’t exist if not hot.

Whenever there is an accidental property in an object, the object must have received the property from another object, where this property is an essential property for it. For example, Heat in hot water is an accidental property. The water received the heat from fire, where heat is an essential property. This applies also to moisture in an object (e.g. a wet towel). The moisture in the object is an accidental property, but it was received from water, where the moisture is an essential property. This applies to all existing things.

This rule can be applied to the meaning of oneness. Since oneness is an accidental property in all created things (it is accidental in all creations, because all creations are in a sense one, but in reality plural), it must be that true Oneness is an essential property to the Creator that created all things, and transferred this property to all things.

The human mind is very limited. Man can only obtain knowledge through experience. If you close a person up in a black room for his whole life, you will never be able to explain to him colors, animals, plants, insects etc… Man can only understand ideas by having experienced them through one, or more than one, of the five senses. One can perceive an item he has never experienced through his senses through the intellect, by bringing proofs about an existing thing from its indications and actions.

We need to give some earthly attributes to God, to understand Him, or we would not even be able to comprehend what He wants from us. For example, even saying God becomes angry at you when you sin, would be attributing God with anger. We need to say God gets angry when you sin, because we wouldn’t understand God otherwise. It does not mean God actually gets angry and loses His temper (God forbid!).

The same applies to physical attributes that the Bible gives about God. The Bible says, “By the mouth of God,” (Numbers 9:18) or “In God’s ears.” (Numbers 11:1) God does not really have a mouth, ear, or any other body part, because we have explained above that the infinite cannot have a spiritual part, or all the more so a physical part. (Any physical parts would render the infinite to actually be finite, because all physical things are finite.) Anthropomorphizing God is a means for us to comprehend God through our limited knowledge. These attributes help regular people understand the Creator, and not be left out dumbfounded.

Emotional attributes, such as anger and love, are all in essence one, but it only appears to us as essentially different attributes. This is similar to a ray of light, which is uniform throughout, and when reflected in a prism, is viewed as a spectrum of colors.

God is kind, compassionate, perfect, and the ultimate good. He wants to give loving kindness to others. God wants to do loving kindness solely for the good of others, and with no desire of it for Himself. Man, on the other hand, does many acts with others for himself. For example, a taxi driver helps others out, by driving people from one place to another. Some taxi drivers aren’t doing it to help others, but just for themselves, so they will receive money for the act. It is impossible that God is doing it for Himself to gain, because if God would gain by doing good to others, then that would mean God is lacking something that He is trying to gain. Anything that is lacking is surely not infinite, but a limited thing that is striving to add more to it’s finite self. We explained that the infinite cannot have a part. This all the more so applies to the impossibility of the infinite gaining a part.

To do the best good to others, would be to create other gods, because God is the ultimate good one can enjoy. However, it is impossible for there to be more than one god, and it is impossible, by definition, for a god to be created. (Because this god wouldn’t be an all-powerful Creator, but a creation.) It is not possible for God to create other gods, even though that would be the ultimate loving kindness.

The highest loving kindness God could do, is to create creatures, and then give them as much Godliness (goodness) as possible. Godliness is goodness, because being God, or being as close to God as possible, is the ultimate good. The more we are like God, the more good and pleasure we will enjoy. So God created our souls to do good to us, which is to make us as close to Him as possible. This ultimate closeness we can achieve, is only possible in Heaven.

If God would just put all of our souls in Heaven, it would not be the ultimate good possible. It is the nature of man to be ashamed and have less enjoyment, when he receives goodness, which he does not deserve. For example, if a man were to choose whether he wanted 1,000 dollars of his own hard-earned money, or 1,000 dollars from charity, any sane person would rather the money of his own toil. This would apply in most cases, even if you would receive more money from charity than from your own work. It is embarrassing to receive something you did not earn, even if it is given with happiness. For example, a person lost his job and cannot even pay his rent. His friend happily offers him a place to stay for a month, and covers all of his expenses. The man still did not find a job for half a year, and is still a guest at his friend’s house. How would that man feel? If he is not completely egoistic, he would feel a bit uncomfortable (to say the least), and would do almost anything to be able to care for himself again.

The same applies to the human soul. If God were to put the soul in Heaven, giving it the ultimate goodness possible without the soul earning it, the soul would not enjoy it to the fullest extent. This would not be the ultimate loving kindness possible. God created the universe to reach the means of giving loving kindness to others. The universe gives the setting for the tests God wants us to pass, and then reward us with the ultimate good.

For this reason, God placed our souls in a materialistic world and body. He gave the soul the desire to do good and spiritual activities, but the body desires evil and worldly activities. God combine these two opposites, the soul and the body, to test the soul if it would succeed in doing good or not. If the soul would succeed in doing good in this world, then God will grant the soul permission to enter Heaven (after the body dies). This then would be the ultimate loving kindness God could possibly give, because the soul would earn it (Heaven) by passing the tests of choosing to do good or evil.

The human mind cannot comprehend all of the reasons for God’s actions. Man can only ask questions, when the questions are reasonable and worthy of an answer. For example, a man asked his fellow, “Why do you work?” “I work to make money,” was the reply. “Why do you make money?” “So I can have a house” “Why do you want a house?” “I want a house so I can live comfortably.” “Why do you want to live comfortably?” One cannot answer this question about why there is an urge for man to want to have pleasure and enjoy himself, so the last question is not valid. If we cannot answer why there is this base desire of man to have pleasure, how can we expect to understand why the all-powerful Creator, Who is infinite in Wisdom, wants to do good to others. Simply, it is not a valid question.

By definition, the all-powerful Creator does not need anything. He is infinite, and the infinite cannot become greater or smaller. This means that God is not greater when we exist, or smaller if we wouldn’t exist. He would not be the infinite, all-powerful God, if He would be lacking if we were not to exist, as we explained above that only the finite lack things that would make them greater.

It would appear that God needs us to do good. This is not possible for the Creator to need something, however. God was complete before He created us. He decided on his own will to do loving kindness. His decision necessitates other creatures to exist, for him to do good, but His decision to do good to others was self-decided by God. God did not need to make this decision, though. Because God decided freely to do good to others, his decision necessitates us to exist, but in reality God would be just as complete as if he would not have decided to not do loving kindness and we wouldn’t have existed.

It would only be logical for God to give us free will. We explained above how God created this world for us to be tested, choose good, and get the ultimate shameless reward. There would be no point in putting us within the realm of this world, if we did not have free will to choose between good and evil. God created this world for us to earn the ultimate goodness in Heaven. We could only earn it by choosing between good and evil, if we had a choice to do either option. If one is not able to do one or the other, then there is no reason to reward or punish.

For example: You buy a computer, and program it to automatically find interesting information and email it to all of your friends every morning. If the computer completed its task, would you praise your computer and tell it, “Thank you so much! You are very considerate of me, and I appreciate it greatly.” This would sound insane to any onlooker of this story, because the computer had no choice of retrieving interesting information and sending it. There is no free will if there exists no opposing pull in doing an act. The same applies to a thief that has no free will to decide not to steal. Nobody has any right to punish the thief, if it was impossible for the thief to do otherwise.

If we did not have free will, then all of us would be in the same circumstance as the thief, but just doing different acts. We would not be earning a reward or deserving a punishment, whether we stole or gave charity, because we did not have the ability not to do that. God created this world to test us, and let us choose to do good, and get the ultimate, shameless, rewarded for doing good an not evil. It must be we have the choice and ability to do evil, and that’s why we get rewarded for not doing evil, because we earned it.

It occurs to many people, that they think to themselves about a past decision in their lives, and they either say to themselves, “I surely could have gone the other way,” or “maybe I couldn’t have actually chosen to do otherwise? It could be that what I did was just a response to the mixture of motivations within me.” The first idea is in accordance with free will, and the second idea is against free will.

The two intuitions are not on the same level. When thinking about the first option, one feels very sure that it is true. When contemplating the second, one is just suggesting that maybe there is a chance it is not free will. The second way of thinking is not as sure or steady as the first way, so you would need a proof or a reason to believe the second thought over the first one.

The second thought process is hard to believe because one can have a choice to do option ‘a’ or option ‘b’. One thinks the whole thing over for three days, and then decides he will do option ‘a’. According to the second idea, the person should have done option ‘a’ immediately, and not have waited any time at all. The only thing that could have subdued the action, according to this idea, would have had to been an extra motive added in right before you did option ‘a’ three days later. However, it is possible for a person to subdue his decision for three days, just contemplating what to do, and then do action ‘a’ without any extra motives being added. The second idea does not seem logical or likely.

A third proof for the first idea, that they could have chosen either way, is that people can cancel their motivations, control them, and still go in the same direction. For example, a person went to college with a Presidential candidate, and were drinking buddies. The person also likes the candidate’s position on politics. The person has two motivations pushing him to vote for his drinking buddy candidate. The person can, and most likely would, cancel his drinking buddy motivation of voting for this candidate, and only vote for him because of the candidate’s political position. If there were to be another Presidential candidate that had slightly better views on politics, the person would vote for him, because the drinking buddy motivation was cancelled. This means the person could control his motivations and choose which ones to act because of, and which ones to ignore. If one can control his desires, it is not possible for a person to be forced to do something because of his motivations.

This second way of thinking blames the person’s motives. It is an excuse that gives refuge to the people that did wrong, and let’s them believe that they were not at fault. The second way of thinking is against free will, and the first way promotes free will. As you can see, the first intuition is much more stable and logical.

Some people believe that the whole idea of the Jews receiving the Torah from God is just a conspiracy made up by the Jews. Basically, a large nation of (a few million) Jews got together to agree on a false story and write a book, and continued telling it over again and again for over three thousand years, without changing any of the details.

There are a few problems with this theory:

The Jews would seem very smart and ingenious to create a false Bible, that gave humanity the concepts of purpose in life, monotheism, providence, human rights, gave a foundation for Christianity and Islam, and even more great contributions.

It seems also, however, that the Jews are by far the least intelligent nation in the world, for how could anyone in their right mind restrict themselves with great restrictions voluntarily? According to the theory that the Jews conspired the Divinity of the Bible, the Jews willfully decided to make a story about the Revelation at Sinai, and decided to put very limiting dietary laws on themselves, deprive themselves from working one day every week, and commit themselves to some 600 more restrictions. This theory would explain the Jews as being very brilliant, but yet stupid at the same time.

This theory also proposes that the Jews are a very cooperative, like-minded, and submissive to authority kind of people, that work very well together to create this conspiracy, and could keep it unchanged for over three thousand years.

Yet, according to this theory, the Jews purposely made stories of themselves as being argumentative and scorning of authority. They would not be the best people to make a conspiracy with. It is nearly impossible to create a conspiracy, and keep it going and unchanged by a nation for thousands of years. To add to the unlikeliness, the Jews were attributed as not being very cooperative and submissive to an authority.

A few million people heard God speak to them. It is very reliable to have the account of two witnesses, and is almost believed to be as fact in most instances according to the Torah (Bible). The Torah relies on two witnesses, because the Torah is not conspiracy-paranoid. If some people just conspired the Torah, then they would for sure make laws that were built against conspiracies, and would be conspiracy-paranoid.

It would be impossible for a few million people to all make up the same story, and keep it unchanged for over three thousand years. The story could not have been exaggerated over the centuries, because that would be even more preposterous than saying the whole thing is a conspiracy. The chances are even slimmer for all of the Jews that are dispersed throughout the whole world, for centuries upon centuries, to make up the same changes, and agree upon it.

The story of God speaking to the Jews at Mount Sinai is much more reliable than the accounts of other religions that say 1 person (or a few people) saw or heard God (or an angel of God) tell them something. It is much easier to have a conspiracy between a few people, if they are all good liars. The Revelation at Mount Sinai, however included a whole nation of a few million people that all experienced the same thing. If any people will tell you, with consistency, that a great amount of them witnessed God, then believe them. But, the account of God talking to the Jews is the only story you will find, that says a large portion (actually the whole nation) was spoken to by God at Mount Sinai.

It is nearly impossible to create a story such as this one. It couldn’t even gradually evolve over centuries, because it would be a conspiracy, and conspiracies can’t work in these circumstances.

The very fact that no other people made up anything similar to the story of God speaking at Sinai should be enough evidence that it is true.

If God wanted to choose a different nation, it would make sense that God would make an even bigger event than that of which He chose to inaugurate His first nation. There would have been another huge nation that heard God speak to them, and the event would be big enough that everybody would know about it, and that nation would for sure publicize their revelation and the Story how God decided to change His mind and choose the new nation. But, that has never happened, and there are no stories of God even making a similar appearance as His first appearance to inaugurate His new nation.

Major Resources:

Duties of the Heart, Feldheim

www.chabad.org