Evidence from planning and evidence from uniqueness
In the SD
As I understand it, there are two pieces of evidence from the planning.
1) Evidence from design I assume that the world is designed for a specific purpose. There must be an entity with a will, and in any case, it is inappropriate to claim that it needs a designer.
The significant problem with it is why assume that the world is purposeful? Does the Rabbi have an explanation? After all, there are so many “defects” in the world of stars that are empty of meaning. Why assume that there is a purposeful purpose here, since in a few hundred million years the sun will explode, and with it the Earth. Etc., etc.
2) The evidence from uniqueness. I could have come up with a world with other, simpler laws of nature. Why assume that this particular world emerged from all the possibilities of the laws of nature? After all, only less “valuable” laws of nature cause this. A sign that someone must choose them from the possibilities. If so, what about him? He also needs a planner as to why he is this way and not otherwise. It is true that if he is forced to choose this, then the question returns to him. But if he is willing, the question falls partly and returns to the reality of will, which is unique. In my opinion, the answer to this question is that we have no hypotheses to assume about other Gods/willing beings of which he is a part. Does the Rabbi agree with this answer? Did I understand this correctly?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am now declaring a timeout on the issues of evidence for God. Most of the questions have been answered, and I am repeating the same things over and over again. Please search the site for questions and notebooks. I will not answer these issues again until further notice.
Apologies, it’s not your fault (except that you probably didn’t read what was already written here, or at least not carefully enough) but neither am I. I’m just exhausted. In the last few days alone, I think there have been hundreds of posts on this topic, and I have a few more things to do in my life. I’m sorry.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Maybe then the rabbi will allow questions with understanding? For example, the second question I asked without explanation, as in the rabbi's question of R’ Chaim:
The evidence from uniqueness – claims that I could have come up with a world with other, simpler laws of nature.
If so, why assume that this world came out of all the possibilities of the laws of nature?
A sign that someone is needed who ”chooses” them from the possibilities.
If so, what about him is he also unique? And he also needs a planner why he is like this and not otherwise.
Here the answer can be divided into two:
1) On the one hand, because he has will – it is not appropriate to ask why he is like this and not otherwise. Will is a purposeful action, not causal/random.
2) On the other hand, because he is not in our experience – we have no way of assuming that God is unique, from what options is he unique? Additional gods? We have no experience with it to assume it is unique.
Does the Rabbi agree with this answer? Did I understand this correctly?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
