Forces of nature
In a brace
Hello Rabbi
Why, from a legal perspective, is the focus on the laws?
One can ask who operates the forces of nature, such as gravity, and whether they are entities that operate independently without God and have always existed.
Instead of asking who enacted the law of gravity? What am I missing?
It’s the same thing. The only difference is whether the laws need a constant force that activates them at every moment or whether there may be laws that needed a creator, but from then on they operate by their own power. Third-generation missiles.
Thanks for the great answer
I didn't understand, the argument is that it is necessary to say that the forces of nature have an activating or creative factor - because there are finally laws for these forces?.
It is impossible to say that these forces have always existed,
Why because they are not a personal entity and the force of gravity, for example, does not have intelligence and the will to manipulate bodies?
I wrote that there is no necessity. Both options exist. The law can be like a machine that, after I built it, operates without me.
Thanks Rabbi
Just one comment regarding the second part of the passage
The forces of nature are defined as an action and not an entity
But you wrote in your book that the force of gravity, for example, is an entity" You mean to say that they are likely a non-personal entity with intelligence and will
But rather something mechanical like a machine
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
