You’re right, I really didn’t see it stated that way. It only says that it is primordial. I understood from this that it also comes out as a necessary existent.

In any case, for the sake of the theory, if we understand that primordial matter is a necessary existent, then it follows that God indeed cannot destroy it. Would you see that as any deficiency in God’s omnipotence? How is this different from His knowledge and free choice?

That is a meaningless question. If it is a necessary existent, then it cannot be annihilated. It’s like making a round triangle. And indeed, it is no different from knowledge and choice.

If so, do you understand why people often try to bring a proof for God’s unity from the fact that if God is omnipotent and most perfect and so on, then if there were another God 2 who was also omnipotent, he would certainly detract from the power of the first, who would no longer be omnipotent. And that would impair His power (and His perfection), Heaven forbid.

But after all, He cannot do logical contradictions. And one acting against the decision of the other is a logical contradiction—because both are omnipotent. (Like destroying primordial matter that is a necessary existent.)
So there is no deficiency in that at all. The concept of omnipotence is the ability to do everything that is logically possible.
Does the Rabbi agree? That indeed even in such a case there is no deficiency in His perfection?

It comes out from this that everything we were educated by our forefathers about on this matter is mistaken at its root.

B. If I may ask, why isn’t the Rabbi in the group? (Or has your cell number changed from the one I have?)

You phrased it unclearly. I understand that you meant to argue against that proof, not to explain the proof itself. And indeed, it is exactly like a wall that stops every bullet and a bullet that penetrates every wall. What is undefined and cannot be done does not detract from His omnipotence.
Were you educated about this by your forefathers? Interestingly, my father didn’t go over that point with me… 🙂
2. I don’t know. My number is 052-3320543.
But I don’t have time for back-and-forth, and WhatsApp is difficult for me. So I ask that questions directed to me be here. But I’d be happy to join for brief matters that don’t concern general questions.

That’s what we were taught:
When a son asks his father, “Dad, who says there aren’t two gods?” then after a little panic in the air, his father answers him that God is omnipotent, and if there were two, then God would already no longer be omnipotent but limited by the other.

But still, there is something strange here even if there is a contradiction and there is no injury to omnipotence.
Still, at the end of the day, I think there really is something to the idea that this answer is correct. There is something that smells pretty fishy if the omnipotent God is limited by another one, even though there is no deficiency in His omnipotence because of that.
In short, I got tangled up in the definition and in the answer. :/
What do you think? Does duality indeed prevent the infinite perfection of God, blessed be He, even though in the end there is a logical contradiction here, so there is no real deficiency? And then we can return to the path of our holy forefathers, the transmitters of faith and pure fear of Heaven from Sinai.

2. Okay, from my brief impression there, there’s a lot of talk. So it seems to me that the group really wouldn’t suit you.

I understand the feeling, but I’m not sure there is anything to it. You could also define both of them together as God (with two faces, female and male, yin and yang, kindness and judgment, right and left, and so on).

If it’s the same one, then the question never arose to begin with.
Obviously the question is if the two of them are different.

Do you really not think that God alone is more perfect/infinite/omnipotent than a situation in which there are two gods? After all, He is less limited in the first situation than in the second (even if the two gods are coordinated).

Now I thought about it again,
and I think the claim is that when there are two gods, it is impossible to define each one as “omnipotent” (not only in the case of an actual clash, where that would be a logical contradiction).
Because each one has the power to veto the other’s decision (and indirectly a logical contradiction would arise).
So practically speaking, neither one is really “omnipotent.” Rather, the precise definition would be something like “omnipotent” conditionally… but that kind of “omnipotence” no longer fits the original definition, which by definition is unconditional.

I didn’t mean that they are the same entity, but that together they constitute one entity.

I don’t see any difference between the limitation on omnipotence in the case of the stone He cannot lift, or the ability to know in advance what a person will choose, and the like. He can do anything that is possible.

Okay, these are casuistic hairsplitting territories, and it doesn’t seem to me to be a really substantive discussion.