Q&A: Why Doesn’t the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Prove That He Exists?
Why Doesn’t the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Prove That He Exists?
Question
Hello to the honor of the great eminent rabbi, may he live long, the minister of hashkafah and the leading sage of the generation in matters of faith, who has raised the banner of faith, etc.
Why doesn’t God prove that He exists?
Granted, according to the ethicists and spiritual overseers who hold that difficulties in faith are tests, and come from desires and so on—that makes sense.
But according to Rabbi Michi, who holds that all these heretics bear no blame at all, why does the Holy One, Blessed Be He, see fit not to reveal Himself and bring them too into the system of reward and punishment? Isn’t this a tremendous difficulty regarding His very existence?
Answer
I don’t think so. First, He has in fact proven His existence. See my notebooks. The fact that some people do not draw the conclusion, for various reasons, is no more the fault of the Holy One, Blessed Be He, than those who choose to commit various wicked acts in His name or against Him. We have free choice and judgment, and we make decisions and form positions. He is not to blame for our views.
Second, perhaps He has good reasons not to prove His existence. For example, so that secularism would come into being, which has advanced the world and religious thought quite a bit.
And third, even if I think He really should have proven Himself, the fact that He does not do so only means that His mind works differently from mine. One should remember that the conclusion that He exists is derived from other arguments, and if they are good arguments then that is the conclusion they call for. And if you have a difficulty about that (which in my opinion is not difficult), then remain with the matter unresolved. But why does the fact that He does not prove Himself lead to the conclusion that He does not exist? What about the whole range of arguments showing that He does exist? As stated, at most the conclusion is that He exists and His considerations are not clear to us.
Thus ends the minister’s address,
Place of signature (-)
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, and still Q is quite significant enough. And that is only under the assumption that it is really true that He should have proven His existence. But I questioned that too. So in the final analysis, the picture does not really change.
You can be a deputy minister without portfolio, and I mean a (deputy minister) without portfolio, not a deputy (minister without portfolio). Actually, maybe a deputy without portfolio to a minister without portfolio. Send the résumé to the minister’s portfolio.
Which raises the important question whether there can be a deputy with a portfolio to a minister without portfolio. And ostensibly one could prove it from the case of a deputy minister without a minister, for that would be an a fortiori argument, except that this can be rejected. It seems the matter depends on the conceptual inquiry whether the portfolio is emanated or transferred, and if so then it depends on the worlds, since there is a difference between the World of Emanation and the other three worlds of Creation, Formation, and Action.
And that is what seems correct to me.
It seems that from the very ink of the minister’s pen, sensitive information was leaked regarding the divine origin of the five holy notebooks: “He has in fact proven His existence. See my notebooks.” But as is well known, all great ministers stumble in their speech when guarding state secrets.
🙂 🙂
And about this the singer already said: “And all honor to the minister” (Montefiore, Yehoram Gaon).
And Joseph the Righteous already preceded the minister, in his words: “Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell them to me, please.”
And the world’s well-known question is already known: why do you need ten ministers without portfolio, if it is possible to appoint one minister without ten portfolios?
And I found in the book Earthly Kingdom, with the glosses of Impudent Dogs, that it explains as follows: if they were to appoint one minister without ten portfolios, they would need to appoint nine more ministers in order to waste the money they saved. Examine this carefully.
If there were absolute proof that He exists, then the conclusion would be that He exists and His considerations are not clear to us. Since you don’t think that, but only that it is probable, then this unresolved issue needs to be included in the balance of probabilities, so that the bottom line is not to move from “He exists” to “He exists and His considerations are unclear,” but to move from “probability P that He exists” to “probability Q that He exists,” where Q<P (surely the notation will get reversed when I send this, and the perceptive reader—and all the more so the minister—will have to figure it out on his own).
P.S. Is there any possibility of being appointed deputy minister? What’s the salary? Where should I send a résumé?