Q&A: The Objection to the Physico-Theological Proof: Who Put the Creator Together?
The Objection to the Physico-Theological Proof: Who Put the Creator Together?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
On the assumption that the Creator is more complex than the world, since only a complex thing can create a complex thing, and not a simple thing create a complex thing,
why is it preferable to stop at the Creator who assembled the world rather than at the world itself? That is not clear at all. No matter what you claim about Him, it will still lead you into a regress. After all, with His help you have not solved anything.
Answer
There is no despair in the world at all. 🙂
Even if He is more complex, He is still the cause of Himself, unlike the world.
Discussion on Answer
I mean, this is kind of a cosmological-ontological proof of that sort.
Where is the answer here?
The atheist will reply that, from his point of view, the singularity point is its own cause, and it is preferable to stop one stage earlier.
Just saying that God is His own cause is a claim, not a proof. More accurately, what we have here is a report about religious feelings.
Absolutely not. In the background there has to be something that is its own cause. Matter apparently is not such a thing, and therefore there is something else that is. It is called God. It has nothing to do with feelings. This is also not a claim but a definition. And if the point is its own cause, then it is God.
I am pretty sure all atheists would agree to call the singularity point God if that would calm the religious people down. But to claim that you have proven God is an exaggeration.
Moti, see what he answered in my proof from free choice:
“…….Michi
No. You cannot call it God, because it did not create the world. Otherwise you might as well call the ancient laws of nature God too.
Dani
And in fact that is what the Rabbi does.
Michi Team
No. Only if you decide that they have discretion and will, and that they created the world.
”
The simple meaning is that once you relate to something as a necessary existent and self-caused, it makes no sense to ask any questions about it, so all the theology here gets thrown straight into the trash by necessary existence.
Therefore you need to wait for what the Rabbi answers Asaf:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%94%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%95%d7%9D-%d7%9b%d7%94%d7%9b%d7%A8%D7%97-%d7%94%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA/
Moti, atheists can agree to whatever they want. Read my notebooks. I do not have the energy to keep repeating the same things over and over that I have already explained ad nauseam. I think I will stop answering these topics because it simply never ends, even though I answered everything in the notebooks and in responses here. Every moment someone else comes back with the same questions. Of course you are not to blame, but neither am I.
So for now I am taking a break from topics about proofs for God.
That is not the conclusion the Rabbi draws in the notebook, am I right?