Ask in faith
Peace and blessings to the honorable Rabbi, the eminent Rabbi Michael Avraham.
First, I would like to apologize for bothering the Rabbi to address my request. I do not have access to the Internet (the last time I had temporary access, I used it to go through the fascinating responsa on the Rabbi’s website). I can only ask via the kosher email.
And to the question. Is there a formula for crowning God as ‘the one who is bound by reality’? At the same time, why can’t it be claimed that the primary matter (or more accurately, energy) is the experiencer of reality, since the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter state that matter neither disappears nor is born, but is always in one state of aggregation or another, so it is possible that it is bound by reality.
I ask for your permission to write something I wrote for Rabbi Leib Mintzberg, author of Sefer Ben Melech, about his words on the matter.
Rejecting the logic of ‘reality’ proposed in the book Ben Melech – Wisdom and Morals
The principle of the argument is that for every substance in the world we can ask why it exists, since it was not supposed to exist. When we eventually reach the primary substance, we will discuss it, which was also not supposed to exist, and we must search for the reason for its existence. Our only answer is that it was necessarily created by an external entity that is “obligated by reality,” of which we do not ask why it exists since this is its nature. This entity fills all of reality in its simple unity, for if there were a place or another entity in the space of reality, we could again argue against it that if there is a place where it is not present, meaning that it is not supposed to be everywhere, then why is it present in that place? In any case, the whole of reality is not obligated, and in any case, it is not supposed to exist at all.
The basis of the argument is the assumption that no substance known to us can, by definition, be “non-existent.” If any substance could be non-existent, then without a prior cause it should indeed remain so and not come into being at all.
Although this assumption is apparently incorrect . The basic laws of physics (the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter. It is known that the Grand Master already formulated this law in his book Beliefs and Opinions, Chapter 7) state that there is no matter in the world that has come into being or ceased to exist. Matter only takes form and changes form but remains at one level of aggregation or another in the universe without any disadvantage. The same is true of energy in all its forms. Therefore, there is no question why the chair before us is in the world, since if it did not appear as a chair, it would exist as a log, as smoke or vapor, or in some other form. The legitimate question is only who created the chair from another material and brought it to its current form.
When we come to discuss that basic primary matter that existed at the moment of the creation of the world (according to the accepted research hypothesis, it was a ball of energy that transformed into matter at the creation of the world), we have no way of knowing what its nature is and whether we can ask about it why it exists. To the extent that the matter we know has been like this from eternity to eternity, it is possible that the primary matter has also existed forever and is bound to reality.
Although it is possible that there was a creator at that initial point (this is the truth as written in the Torah, but our discussion is of course purely philosophical and logical), it is equally possible that matter never existed, since we do not know of any matter that did not remain forever. Therefore, the claim that we must find a cause that preceded matter is dropped.
While it is certain that that initial ball of energy needed an orderer and planner, and statistically it is inconceivable that it could have arranged itself in such an ingenious and sophisticated way. But this order does not exist philosophically but mathematically. Another problem, which is that the claim that this initial order is unique is omitted, in the absence of proof for the original assumption that everything that is not supposed to be necessarily did not exist, it can be assumed that there were two or more orders.
Please don’t bother yourself and your precious time if you find it difficult to answer me.
Thanks in advance.
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.
You made me very happy. This is exactly what I am looking for. May you be blessed with great strength. May you continue to spread the bright light of faith.
Thank you very much, I have started to go through your material and I can already formulate the question that bothers me regarding the cosmological argument.
Although everything in the known creation needs a cause, all of this applies only to the particular form of matter or energy. On the other hand, it can be argued that the entire energy of the Earth, which is constant and never changes, did not begin at any point in time and therefore does not need a cause, because it has always been.
Although the scientific quasi-consensus accepts the assumption that the world was created and was not ancient, in relation to that initial ball of energy that existed before the ’Big Bang’, and in which lies all the matter of the cosmos, we have no information whether it was created or renewed (correct me if I am wrong). Therefore, abstract matter does not need a cause and is the one bound to reality.
By the way, is it only in the Orthodox Tosh”a Beit Midrash that it is forbidden to dispute about “Rishonim” And ”last” (it seems you freely disagree about Kant and so on’)?
It would be very helpful to me if you could answer me this evening.
Many thanks in advance.
Hello.
The claim of a primeval world is indeed immune to the cosmological argument. I think I insist on this in the notebook. The full argument is a combination of both arguments together.
Although if we are talking about matter as it is known to us, and the singular point that preceded the explosion is also matter, then it is unlikely that it was ancient since it does not seem to be the necessity of reality. Something the necessity of reality is something other than the matter known to us. Therefore, it is unlikely that this point is primeval.
What does it mean to be forbidden to disagree? Who forbids? When there is no authoritative source, it is not possible to talk about prohibitions. At most, you can ask whether it is customary to disagree or not.
Incidentally, even in the world of the court, there is no prohibition to disagree about firsts and last. It is just customary not to do so (and I am not strict about this). The last authority that cannot be disputed is the Talmud.
I still don't understand. The amount of matter (and energy) known to us hasn't changed at all in the last billion years. It was all a game of states of aggregation and the like. Where do we get the assumption that it was ever created? Complexity was certainly created by someone, but matter itself was not?
I would appreciate clarification.
By the way, what did you mean by “the full argument is a combination of the two arguments together”. Which two arguments?
Good day.
I will try to clarify more.
A. The more complete argument for the existence of God is the combination of the cosmological and the physico-theological (and especially the latter). The separation between them is mainly for didactic purposes. The cosmological deals with matter and the physico-theological with complexity. Therefore, the separation you made between them is not really important.
B. Indeed, if you are willing to accept the thesis that the world (=matter-energy, the singular point) is ancient, there is no place for the cosmological argument (although the physico-theological one still remains). I was only commenting that with regard to matter or physical entities in general (and this includes the singular point) it is accepted to assume that they are not ancient and not necessary for reality. If you do not accept this, then indeed the cosmological argument is not valid from your point of view. But it is still a common sense assumption, and on top of it a cosmological argument can be built. On the other hand, God is a different being who is not in our experience, and therefore we can accept the conclusion that he is necessary for reality and has always existed.
I will speak only this time, and you are forgiven. It seems that you still have not understood me.
I claim that we have no experience not only with God but also with the singular point! It is beyond our understanding for the simple reason that we still have no experience with matter or energy that has been created or completely annihilated! We have never heard of matter being created, and why should we think that that singular point was created (unlike what we know about any other matter in creation)?
I hope that now I am understood.
What was at this singular point became the matter that is familiar to us. Therefore, it is completely improbable that this point is the necessity of reality and that it has always been there. But as mentioned, this debate is futile. The physico-theological evidence complements this evidence and it is a shame to discuss it separately.
I have a reason why I insist on the cosmological argument (because I want to test whether it is possible to argue about any substance that if it has no reason to be, it should not be, and thus argue that God is the first cause. And I will continue to argue that if there were two gods, I would argue about why each one is not his partner and I would need an external cause from them, thus proving the unity of God).
I will end the discussion with great gratitude, and with a blessing that you will continue to learn and teach from peace of mind and peace of mind.
(I eagerly read the articles you attached to me on the proofs for God and enjoyed it very much. By the way, do you also have notebooks on the belief in unity and the denial of incarnations?).
I will mention that a friend of mine from the kollel who read about you on Wikipedia, that you do not mind being defined as Epicurus, according to the first, warned me not to dare to argue with you. I hope he does not get offended.
Hello.
Indeed, it is true. I wrote that I don't care what people call me and whether anyone considers me an apostate. For me, what matters is only the arguments on the merits of the matter and not some headline. If I think X, what good would it do to be called an apostate? Even if it is true that I am an apostate, that is still what I think.
All the best,
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
