The question of who created God
Hello Rabbi,
- I wanted to ask, as in the parable of the factory that makes complicated trains. And you believe that it requires a planner. In the past, we know that humans create factories, so it is unlikely that the factory is accidental and self-caused. But why, regarding the world, would you prefer to assume that the initial link is not the world?
- I saw your debate with Rogel, where he asked all sorts of questions about how the world doesn’t function as we would expect given that there is a God. You mentioned Paley’s parable of the broken clock. I think you didn’t understand it. At a certain point, when we get down to the small resolutions, it will become clear to us that what appears from a distance as a broken clock is actually a block of stone and sand. In this case, you too would appreciate it if we stopped at the familiar. This is how he feels about the behavior of the Jewish God. There comes a point where, through too many questions, we will discover that what we saw as a broken clock is not a clock at all.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. It is itself.
A. You admit that if the evidence were based on experience, we would stop in our world.
Only the evidence is from an a priori consideration.
B. Therefore, we will reach an infinite regression of explanations and we will have to stop the chain of causes. So it makes sense to stop the chain at a factor that is not in our experience. A. It is such a factor (you will admit this right now).
Therefore it is reasonable to stop in the world.
2. I understand. This is what is called believing in the absurd 🙂
I hope you understand what you wrote. To me, it's a meaningless collection of words. Insistence on nonsense. Cheers.
Again, what is the mistake in 1? There is no insistence on this.
A complex thing needs a component. This is a claim with an a priori source.
It cannot be applied to everything. Otherwise, we will reach regression.
Therefore, we will remove one factor from it.
The factor we remove is not from our experience.
You accept that the creation of the world is a factor that is not under our experience. So why not stop there?
Moreover, with the source of the evidence being synthetic a posteriori like an analogy, you agree that the evidence will not work. So the world is an excellent primary factor.
1. The world is exactly what we experience and therefore must have a creator. The creation of the world is not a thing. The subject is the world.
2. I understand that this sentence was written in reflection on your words.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
