Introducing The Kabbalah

Copied from Religion And Philosophy:

In Poul Anderson's "The Three-Cornered Wheel," Master Merchant Martin Schuster, seeking to sabotage the Ivanhoan theocracy, begins to introduce the Kabbalah to an intelligent and inquisitive Consecrate called Hertaskor but the latter is led by the nose far too easily.

Schuster argues:

God is unbounded in every way;
therefore, He must have eternally pre-existed the world;
He is above everything finite;
but thought and existence are finite.

Herkastor agrees with this last proposition, adding:

"'Thought and existence as we know them, anyhow.'"
-Poul Anderson, "The Three-Cornered Wheel" IN Anderson, The Van Rijn Method (Riverdale, NY, 2009), pp. 199-261 AT VI, p. 251.

However, Schuster is not talking about thought and existence as we know them. He is talking, to a fellow monotheist, about God. They have just agreed that God's existence is unbounded and eternal, not finite, so it will not do simply to state that all existence is finite, then to qualify that by referring to existence as we know it, thus not to all existence. Immediately, a distinction has to be made between the infinite existence of God and the finitude of existence as we know it.

A text-book on Hegelian philosophy presented the argument that to be is to be one thing, not another, therefore that to be is to be limited. However, there is no agreed terminology in these matters. I remember the same text-book as applying the word "existence" to things which exist only by virtue of their relationships to other things and the word "being" to the absolute totality that is independent of any external relationships. Such technical distinctions are helpful as long as they are clearly defined and adhered to.

Schuster goes on to argue that a pre-creation God Who was neither comprehended by thought nor described in words would in some sense not exist. This is nonsense. God, assuming the premise of monotheism, would exist in the fullest sense, would comprehend Himself and would not need words.

The Chief Consecrate might show from scripture, tradition or reasoning that a new teaching contradicts the Word of God. So far, this is exactly the position of Catholic Christians on Earth except, of course, that they have different scriptures and traditions. Full-rank Consecrates may dispute freely within doctrinal limits. Thus, unlike the Bishop of Rome, the Chief Consecrate cannot define doctrines infallibly. Science replaces scriptures and traditions with observations and thus has immensely expanded knowledge of the universe.