Does evolution contradict the possibility of a designer?

Thank you. Can I post the response on their website? (This will lead to counter-responses, and the rabbi probably doesn't have time).

Publish the Rabbi will be very happy!

But how could so many species, males and females, be created from evolution? It doesn't work for me! And what about the soul - when exactly did He breathe it into us? Did He wait until man was created and then breathe a soul into him? If that were the case, he would not have been called Adam because he was created from evolution!

Ronen, it's possible, but I think it's pretty pointless. First, you need to explain things more. Second, these guys aren't listening. Talk to the wall.

A.
That the Rabbi did not explain why these laws require a Creator.
We have never seen that the law is created. That it requires a Creator.
And if they are needs, then the Creator also needs them.
What is the division?
B.
The laws were created in every universe in the theory of many universes.
So we know that we were not created by a Creator. (Or the machine is the Creator, but that does not mean that)

A. The things are detailed in my book and in the third notebook. Laws are not applicable, and therefore they cannot bring about anything. The laws only describe what is happening, but their legislator is the one responsible for all of this. When you arrive at a factory and see that it is run in an exemplary manner and coordinated between all its parts and people, you will not be satisfied with an ”explanation” that there is a book of rules that dictates what everyone should do. You will wonder, and rightly so, who wrote the book of rules and why people act according to them. You will conclude that there is a legislator and a manager for the factory and that he is responsible for its operation.
A system of rules that is well coordinated and leads to the formation of such complex and special creatures requires an explanation. Why precisely in it the system of rules and not another system.
The things have already been explained very well in the third notebook and in my books and articles and there is no point in repeating everything here again.

B. I have a simpler suggestion. The theory of the absurd that says that nothing needs a reason and nothing special needs an explanation. What's wrong with that? If calling it by name instead of explaining seems reasonable and satisfactory to you, to your health. I also argued about that in the above sources.
A multiverse explains nothing. Now, instead of explaining the formation of one universe, you must explain what the mechanism is that creates universes out of nothing all the time, and each time with different laws. And you must also explain why we don't see any of this. So for any surprising phenomenon, or very rare event, you can always offer an explanation according to the multiverse theory, and so on for the rest of the explanation.

A.
I know the author,
and I would agree with the rabbi if the laws were complex.

But the small problem is that evolution is not complex at all.
And not only that, but its essence is founded on logic – natural selection.
Something that even God cannot bypass, as the rabbi defines it.

Moreover, the entire ”nature” – “” is only about six simple laws.

So perhaps for hundreds of laws that are intertwined, I would require a legislator, not for a few individual laws.

And am I not right?

B.
The rabbi is looking for logic in reality…
What to do if there is a machine that creates and destroys a whole bunch of universes for no reason, no context, infinite times, infinite “time”

Does the Rabbi still think an explanation is needed?~!!!

Can the Rabbi comment? Nidon Didan…

Thanks in advance!

No law will explain to you how a plant grows, because that is the greatest miracle. How did you get fruits from water?
B. The rabbi told you that a law does not create anything. And who invented this machine? I did not hear about it when I read the Abiogenesis article.
We will also give you spicy food in a pita or just hummus and mustard.

I would be happy for the Rabbi to answer.
I am sure he will also be able to explain to you the scientific position on how a plant was created from nothing.

B.
See the entry Multiverse Theory.

Hello, Foggy.
I addressed this. These are special and coordinated laws whose combination allows the formation of life (which is a very special phenomenon, very low entropy). Therefore, these laws require an explanation. These are six very simple constants, but they have very precise values that, with slightly different values, life (i.e. chemistry and biology) would not have been formed at all. This is the fine tuning argument, and if you read the author, then I don't understand why I need to repeat it.
This is beyond the fact that the formation of laws and universes is a phenomenon that is not familiar to us, and therefore in itself is a speculation that you can always raise in relation to any known phenomenon. What's more, these formations are also a natural physical phenomenon, and as such they also require an explanation and are based on some mechanism (like spontaneous formations in quantum theory that occur within quantum theory and therefore cannot be an explanation for anything. Because quantum theory itself is a law of nature that requires an explanation).
Evolution is not just natural selection, otherwise it would be a branch of mathematics and logic rather than science. You also need heredity and mutation.

If we take the example of a clock or an airplane, then someone who sees a clock and asks themselves how it was created, will probably be told by a fool, "That's how it works in our universe, that such an airplane was suddenly created at such a time. In other universes, there are different laws." I don't think this is an answer that can be rejected with certainty, but whoever finds this an unreasonable argument probably finds it unreasonable about the universe as well (and at least he is the one who has the burden of explaining his opinion).

Please show the formula for creating a plant. And if the plant was also created from these ”cells” that created animals, then where are the mutations here? Who put the vitamins and minerals we need in each plant. How can these plants not actually live? They were created from living cells..that connected and divided, and I know what, and after millions of years, plants were created, hahaha, who would believe that?!
Suppose animals were created from living cells, and I still don't understand where these primary living cells came from. How could they “give birth”/”to spawn”/”to give birth” to species like them? What made them connect sexually at all? It's very gray.
And I already asked and there is no answer, if these cells built the plant or animal body, then where did the soul come from that, leaving the body "made" of cells, completely rots away? You did not give an explanation of where the soul was "brought" from? Or the "soul" of animals or the "plant power" of plants.

Lishi- Regarding the clock example, it seems flawed to me because why would a clock be created? Who said a clock was needed for it to be created? What is the need for it?
So I don't think that the "world" was created without a reason and without a creator. It's like saying that someone who didn't buy a lottery ticket actually won the lottery. There's no such thing. He has to buy a ticket. If the world doesn't need a "reason" for the cells to "come," they're not supposed to come.
And that's nothing, because you're also talking about mutations, which they probably don't need, so they're the ones who "won" the lottery? The very fact that the cells connected created mutations in the first place because the "cells" supposedly changed their "shape" or assimilated into the organs of the first mutations or those created from them. And it is impossible today to disassemble them (the “cells” from the mutations) as they were in the past. And why don’t we “find” in the field “single cells like these” that did not connect to anything or that did connect and did not become anything but remained as they were from millions of years ago? Why don’t they/they have “remnants”?

Questions about the cells and mutations relate to what the Rabbi said: “Evolution is not just natural selection, otherwise it would be a branch of mathematics and logic and not of science. You also need heredity and the formation of mutations.”

Foggy – what universes are you and the Rabbi talking about that were created and destroyed? Explain to me

Besides,
the rabbi is wrong that the world needs an explanation.
There are other things that happen in the world that don't make sense at all,
for example, time is relative, space is a fallacy.

Yishai, I will just add that I never talk about certainty. It is about probability. This is not proof in the conventional mathematical-logical sense (of course, someone who accepts the basic premises with certainty will also be able to derive the conclusion with certainty).

Foggy,
I'm sorry, but your words show a lack of understanding. Why do illogical things somehow undermine the physico-theological argument? [By the way, what is “error space”?] And by the way, in what sense are they illogical? Because you got used to thinking differently (that time is not relative)? So you were wrong. What does that have to do with Landon Didan?

Of course we got used to thinking differently after science opened our eyes,
So it is here,
There is no reason to conclude from a lack of scientific knowledge the need for G-d. We will simply wait until we discover an alternative…

By the way, Hawking has already solved your question, how the universe was created.

Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design . Did God Create the Universe Full Episode.

See there.

Hello.
It seems that, contrary to what you wrote, you do not know the author because you are repeating questions that have already been explained and answered there.

As I explained in the notebook and in the articles and in the book, this is not a proof based on a lack of scientific knowledge (god of the gaps). As I said, this is a misunderstanding. If you are interested, go read it.

As for Hawking, he has long since solved all the problems of the universe. Only one problem remains, and that is his poor philosophical ability. His atheist followers treat every nonsense he spouts as if it were a prophetic enlightenment. Unfortunately, this is characteristic of ecclesiastical and fanatical “religious” thinking like theirs and as is accepted in parts of religious society, and it is a shame.

Can the rabbi explain what is wrong with his words?

PS

As I have already shown, the world is not philosophical
so it is difficult to attack it with this,
or in other words,
reality shows that the world works against our logic.

The world does not work against our logic (in your language: it is philosophical), since our understanding of it is based on that logic itself. At most, there are phenomena that we do not understand. In my notebook and book I explained the argument and his objections fall by themselves. He attacks incorrect arguments.
If there is something specific that interests you, write it down and I will try to address it. But things are already explained there and there.