Abgionza

Rachel: Why reject evolution if the chance of its occurrence is so small?

High Z”A.

Exactly
And how am I supposed to respond here?

I didn't understand what your question refers to. Have you read my book? Any article? The question is up in the air.
I suggest you at least read the article. I explain there why the chance is zero:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7 %AA%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95% D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/

I think there's no chance at all for evolution because I haven't yet encountered a person with wings.

You can be more specific
And anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should stop taking antibiotics

I didn't understand the argument
I'm talking about Abguyza and I heard from something that you oppose it
And regarding what you wrote about the gaps, I can simply say that the laws are eternal and then they are equal to yours

Idan – Unfortunately you are wrong, the Rabbi does not oppose abiogenesis (and evolution), but on the contrary, he believes that it probably occurred, and not only does it not contradict the existence of a Creator, it even proves it.
But for all this and more, see the link attached above (it really is a shame to start explaining here long steps in a superficial way that already appear in detail on the site). If you have any more questions after this, I am sure he will be happy to answer.

There is no way that there was any evolution because it is a process that takes years and if there were creatures that develop like that and all (assuming there was some kind of Jovian material) then there were creatures on other stars that evolved evolutionarily. It is special that science indicates that the world is millions of years old.
Evolution also gives explanations without reasons, for example why a person does not have a tail. Did they once find a person with half a tail?
Man also came from a monkey, that is what the Rabbi believes, come on!
Those who believe in evolution do not believe in creation.
Everything was created from an explosion and creatures evolved.
The Rabbi also does not believe in evolution, which they believe in, but in slight changes, a short beak that turned into a long and strong beak, in my opinion birds that do not see food are looking for an alternative “prey”, and if there is none then they will have to fly somewhere else. Or devour each other or hunt lizards and spiders and so on. But to change their limbs - unimaginable.
Just as the rabbi claims that genes can only get stronger, I claim that the opposite is also possible, that when there is no need for the root, it should fall because there is nothing to peck with it.

To M I either didn't understand what he said or disagreed because of his writing style I'm not sure
Moses
The universe has existed for 13.7 billion years The Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years Life has been evolving on Earth for 4.2 billion years
Is that enough time for you?
Some people are born with a tail
The Big Bang is not an explosion
And you have no knowledge of evolution
Explain to me how you perceive evolution right now and I'll explain to you where you're wrong
After all, to err is human

Brother, is Ghiut Katib also human?

Dear Era 2000
Is that what I said, in 4 billion years and man has not changed since we became man? And monkeys have not changed at all since then, the fact that a man was born with a tail does not mean that the human species once had a tail because there is a man born without legs so does that mean that he was once full like him?
I admit that I do not understand evolution.

http://sutrtkheyrubh.blogspot.co.il/

Age – Evolution proceeds within the framework of rigid natural laws (the constants of physics, the laws of chemistry, and so on). It is true that it is possible that the laws have always existed (this raises all sorts of other philosophical difficulties, but let's put that aside for a moment). All this does not make the philosophical conclusion about the existence of a Creator superfluous, since if the laws were even slightly different, life would not have developed.
Of all the possibilities for laws (infinity for the purpose of this matter), the probability that these laws will be the ones that allow life is zero (if it can be calculated at all).
Now I will ask – What is the reason that the laws are precisely these and not others? (This principle is ready for the ’sufficient reason’).

The physico-theological evidence claims that in order for the laws to be so suitable for the creation of life, they require a reason that is the designer – the Creator. Therefore, even if the laws have always existed, it does not supersede the philosophical conclusion that there is a Creator. Therefore, evolution is precisely the one that proves its existence by studying the laws by which the world operates, it of course does not at all solve the philosophical question of why they are such and not others.

Moshe – On the surface, it seems to me that you are indeed not familiar with evolution, indeed there are some difficulties here and there in the theory (which may be resolved over time) but in general it is the best scientific explanation we have today for the way in which the world was created (by a Creator who brought it about). In my understanding, this is also the Rabbi's view. Therefore, I suggest not taking the discussion to this place.

Wait a minute, bro, did you look at the link I attached?
I don't think the rabbi believes that man was created by evolution, in fact I don't understand you at all, not on the very sixth day of the creation of the heavens and the earth and the very light
What do we have to fear?

Moshe
Man (modern Homo sapiens) is 200 million years old, not 4.2 billion. There have been many changes since the first bacteria.
And the reason you don't see changes is because you don't look, people grow taller with the generations.
M I can say that Kadi, who will gather ignorance, who will want to create humans, must also be ignorant. That's fine.

Gentlemen, Idan (not to insult or anything) is dyslexic as such (they are usually also smart people) so expect mature responses and ignore spelling errors, but the errors are still correct at the syllable level.

On the subject itself,
Idan, the Creator does not need a Creator because we say that a Creator is needed only for objects for which we have an assumption that they have no ancestors but are “created”.
If you say that we will stop at the laws of nature - (even though it is not at all clear that they were not created) then the small problem is that the laws of nature are not an independent entity. Rather, they describe a process.

I will quote from the Rabbi's notebook on the website – the second notebook.
“Even if we assume that the laws of nature are the primary causes of the existence of the universe, laws only describe something. The law itself is not a being, but describes beings. For example, the law of gravity describes the relationship between masses and the acceleration created by their influence. What causes motion is not the law of gravity but the force of gravity. The law of gravity only describes the action of the force of gravity. So, even if we say that the laws of nature caused something (such as the existence of the universe), then we see them as beings. So from the perspective of the cosmological argument, they themselves can be the initial being, or the first cause. Or perhaps they are beings that are acted upon by another being, but at the end of the chain there is a primary cause.
If the laws of nature are not beings but mechanisms, we have seen that there must be some being at the basis of their existence, since we have already seen that a process is always brought about by an object, even if this is done through another process. Either way, at the beginning of this chain there is some being, and everything exists by its power. It is the cause of everything.”

This is the small understanding of the division between the Creator and the laws of nature, which can also be argued (assuming they were not created in a bang) that they are sufficient to explain the existence of the world.

In fact, we find in the world that things can be created just like that (by the quantum method), but the case there is a little different.

Because a. It is not clear that things can be created in a complete vacuum, and even assuming that they will disintegrate almost immediately so that there is nothing in them. (Unlike the world). (And this is without the reality of seeing particles of significant size created).
So it is clear that this difficulty does not explain how the world was created, but rather a challenge to the validity of the cosmological argument.
But, nevertheless:
B. Their very creation indicates that there is still a framework hiding behind them, because otherwise how would they know to maintain the laws of conservation every time? (That a particle and an antiparticle are created) It is clear that there was something behind this process that criticized it. That is, it is not a completely spontaneous creation. We may not have an explanation, but it is clear that it is not completely spontaneous.
So perhaps the laws that were ancient created the particles and there is really no need for a Creator. But if so, it is still difficult, because the laws are not entities but describe the process of connections between entities, and therefore the need for a Creator still remains.

That is how I see the picture.
With greetings, M.K.
Schindler

😉

And the fuel

Welcome M.K.S.
Just because the Rabbi understood you doesn't mean we do either.
I didn't understand what the difference is between a vacuum and a void?
What do you think was “before” the divine creation, or before the “bang”? Vacuum / nothing / void
His face is locked It seems you are a microphysics major, so explain if there is a “void” How did particles come? How did they evolve? And then you will talk about laws and forces.
You know the law of conservation, so if there were no particles or any primordial matter as you say, (not that I do believe in primordial matter) then where did they get their energy from, and after all energy is only transferred and changes form.

I will support Moshe's words with another point from the notebook.

It is reasonable to say that laws need a reason and a creator does not. Laws are mechanisms that operate in a specific way, and we can ask about them why they are like this and not others? If we also include the same logic about a creator
Either we will fall into an infinite regression… (and the assumption is that this is a fallacy)
Or we will assume that the first factor simply has no reason and this is very difficult (because really why is it like this and not otherwise? The chances are zero)
Or we will assume that at the top of the pyramid stands something that is “different” it does not need a reason because it is structured differently.

Laws are something that in our experiences and in reality the difficulty of their reason exists. A creator, on the other hand, is an entity that is not in our experiences and we cannot ask the same question about me (and indeed we have seen that something different like this is required, in order to avoid regression).

The law of conservation of energy, the sun burns itself (it is a ball of gas) How does the gas not run out? How does it not explode? How does it not weaken?

We asked about the sun. Now we ask about the Creator: Why is he spiritual? A. Because if he were material, he could not create matter because he is limited. Therefore, he must be spiritual and unlimited.

Where did you find regression here in the example I gave?

This will be long
I am a dysgraph not a dyslexic, it doesn't matter, I appreciate your understanding
Moshe
As far as I understood you, you claim that the laws require matter to act on them
I say that the laws allow the creation of matter and this is a theory formulated by Stephen Hawking. I can explain it, but expect it to go like this in the explanation because I don't fully understand it

Moshe (2) Just as matter is energy, so matter-energy is space-time (Stephen Hawking's theory)

M I think I say that laws are not matter and because of this they do not require creation and the chance does not matter because the multiverse theory so that someone always wins the lottery

Moshe (3?) There is no law of conservation of the sun, there is E=MC^2
And it does not burn, it performs nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium, which is exactly what happens in a hydrogen bomb, so it does explode, but I assume you did not intend for this, so it will run out of gas It is estimated that this will happen in about 5 billion years.
Sorry if I missed anything, this is a lot of information.

:((: A law needs an external operator – energy needs to be created if there is matter but a law cannot create anything
Moment Laws can create matter - say, according to what plane? Time? Give a formula as a function of t and we will check what matter comes out when we set infinite or finite time
Function does not give matter! You are mixing!

Moshe, I really highly recommend reading the Rabbi's book "God Plays Dice"; it really addresses all the points you raise here. I really don't care to tell you what he writes about each issue, but I think it would be a shame if there was a place where everything was concentrated (with more issues).

Regarding the theory of the many universes –
1. First of all, in general, it is just a certain interpretation of quantum theory. It still has no proof. Indeed, it is very popular among the public because it is an exciting theory but it has no proof whatsoever. In other words, the atheist who claims that there is no God because no one has seen him also invents an infinite number of worlds that no one has seen as an answer. Nice…
2. Where do you get the laws that govern there? What is the assumption that there is a different law there? Is there proof for that? Like an atheist inventing endless worlds that no one has ever seen before in which talking teapots and divine pink elephants and anything you can think of can exist and that is the more rational alternative…
3. The important point – Even if we assume that the multiverse theory is correct. Then you have a law that creates universes with different laws of nature. This reality is also a law. Now I will ask – Why is this law this way and not otherwise? What is the likelihood of this? It also needs a reason == God.

Again, I suggest you read the scriptures. There really is a comprehensive reference to all the issues you raise.

I repeat, no matter how much you say that the laws require ignorance, I can say that ignorance requires ignorance.
You still haven't explained to me the difference between eternal laws and ignorance.

We repeat ourselves. This has a reference to my third response (mine, not mine in general). And again, this also appears in the sources I mentioned with the Rabbi….

In any case, I already feel like a troll who simply “took over” without permission a question that was sent to the Rabbi (and sorry for that… that was not the intention), so I will stop doing this and let you continue the conversation with the owner of the site (the Rabbi).

Well
I apparently either don't understand or don't agree
and because we don't speak the same language combination as a woman (and add to that the flaw as my quality…)

Perhaps the rabbi could take an active part in the discussion.

This is an important discussion for a site that purports to be an alternative to Jewish mission sites.

Idan, my brother, you are not a “writer” (instead of a “writer) but you are allowed to make mistakes, as the sages said, do not read in the flag of love, but in the leap of love
http://sodtorah.co.il/pirush.php?pos=%F9%EE%E5%FA%20%F4%F8%F7-%EB%E4&pasuk=

Why the skill?

Accidentally got stuck

Can I have an answer?