Debate – Rationalism on the Possibility of God’s Existence
Hello,
Although Mr. Aviv did not present his theory [if such a theory exists] in a coherent manner, in my understanding his question remains as follows, since the principle of causality is a product of human reason, and it is possible that it is also a product of or subject to the universe in which we live, perhaps even conclusions that are necessary in the eyes of this reason even without being subject to the laws that are valid in this reality, are not necessarily valid outside of this universe, [this is roughly the question of whether God is subject to logic..], that is, is it possible that the principle of causality is valid only in this universe and that insofar as the world exists, even though it is not the result of observation, in any case it derives its validity from reason, and since this is possible, and in order to discuss causality for the same system that created the principle of causality, tools are needed that are not necessarily subject to the environment that created this system, and if we apply the question to the discussion in the debate, perhaps the urge to find causality is not valid when dealing with the question of the formation of a system that gave rise to This principle, I hope I was clear.
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.
Thanks for the answer
First of all, I'm not sure if I understood; if part of the properties of reason/rationalism is to recognize its limitations, and since reason is always based on assumptions, then to draw a conclusion from the assumption of the principle of causality born of reason that it is part of the universe is not rational, because reason is supposed to avoid questions that are discussed by assumptions produced by reason in areas of discussion outside of it, (I used 'maybe' as a courtesy)
Secondly, even if we assume that it is indeed rational, what is the real answer to the above statement about the physico-theological view
Thank you
It recognizes its limitations, but the fact that there is no certainty or that it could be otherwise does not prevent conclusions from being drawn. You are confusing certainty with truth. The principle of causality is logical, and rational thinking assumes it in every context until proven otherwise.
I did not see any contradiction in your words, so I do not know what answer you are looking for.
The problem is that although the argument is rational, it is not necessary, in my opinion.
So where's the catch? That it's not necessary? Of course. Nothing in the world is necessary.
I understood that the modest goal was only for the sake of debate, and the existence of the first cause can also be forced through the above evidence.
Not to force, but to argue in favor. There is no necessity and there is no certainty in anything. Arguments are based on assumptions, and these can always be disputed. I wrote to you that you are confusing truth with certainty.
So if so, I would love to understand what the emphasis was at the beginning of the debate that the modest goal is to demonstrate that it is rational, while that is all that can be done.
Secondly, what is the difference between truth and certainty?
The modest goal was to show that the path to belief is rational. Arguing for belief is another step aimed at persuasion (showing that the other position is illogical). There is no certainty in anything at all.
As for the difference between truth and certainty, what is the connection between them? A true claim is a claim that is consistent with the state of affairs in the world. Certainty is a description of the strength of my knowledge about that claim. A strength of 100% is certainty. I can know truths with varying degrees of certainty.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
