From God the Creator to the Revealed
Hello Rabbi!
I have indeed come to the conclusion that there is a Creator for the world, but it is still not certain that there is any purpose for the world, because His mind is beyond my comprehension. Furthermore, even if there is a purpose, it is not at all certain that it is on Earth, just as we have no knowledge of a specific purpose for the planet E3205. Furthermore, let’s say there was some purpose for life on Earth, who said it was specifically for humans? Maybe He is waiting until a new species comes through evolution in about 2 billion years? Just as the animals that were created before humans waited until humans arrived and created for them according to our system, it is very possible that we were created for someone else. And even if we do make all these narrow assumptions, to claim that our goal must be through revelation, and not through our basic morality, for example, or whatever, is an extreme process. I would love to understand why this argument is reasonable. (And not because of the witness argument, because as you mentioned in your book, the witness argument also gains its validity from the fact that divine revelation is not such a far-fetched thing. From this it seems very far-fetched.)
Thanks in advance.
I wrote about this at length in the first post. In short, I really don’t agree that it is a drive. On the contrary, the assumption is that it behaves reasonably as we do, but it can be challenged and argued that we don’t understand it. The starting point is that what is reasonable is also true for it. Therefore, what you are raising is a collection of drives.
Beyond that, you ignore the significance of the tradition that has come down to us, which, together with the conclusion that there is a God, adds to the conclusion that he told us what was said in Revelation, which is very reasonable.
I would love to understand where this is in the first stanza, I couldn't find the chapter about it.
In the entire fifth conversation.
In the fifth conversation on page 478, Hillel asks, “In our previous conversation, you already explained that in light of belief in a philosophical God, an event of revelation is probable and even expected.” I didn’t find much about this in the fifth conversation, nor in the fourth conversation.
My dear L'Uriel, how did you come to the conclusion that there is indeed someone who created everything? I'm just curious to know, I'm still complicating this. Thank you.
That's the entire fifth conversation.
In the book you brought up the parable of the black president of the United States. Let's set up three cases:
– There is no black president, and someone explains to me that a black president passed health care reform. At the same time, racism is celebrated in the United States.
– There is a black president, and someone explains to me that the black president passed health care reform
– There is a black president, but someone told me that he ordered the killing of all blacks in the United States.
Indeed, the first case is unlikely, certainly less than the second case. But, as for the likelihood of the third case, some would say that it is even less likely than the first!
Indeed, in a simple way, if I believe that there is a God, it will be easier for me to ‘digest’ that there was a revelation, at least easier than a case in which I do not think there is a God.
However, my argument is that it is very not necessarily so. If I believe in a creator God, (I don't accept the argument from morality, because I really don't claim that morality has such validity, but that's another discussion.) The most likely thing is that as there has been until now some kind of system of natural laws, it will remain so. Even if we say that He has a will, which is not at all certain, it is very unlikely that it will be related to humans, because it could be to a lot of other things, including inanimate objects. The likelihood of this is very small. And even if to humans - then by revelation?? The things are very long, in general I can say that the chance that He will be revealed to humans is extremely doubtful to me, and therefore I really won't rush to believe in a revealed God, and even if I hear a tradition about it - I will certainly doubt it.
(Certainly, Revelation is not as improbable as a black president ordering all blacks to be killed, but I was just bringing up an example here that even if I believe in something, there is something that is very unlikely to happen, and if someone told me about it I would not be at all quick to believe them, contrary to how the book presents Revelation as being like health reform.)
This seems like a silly insistence to me. I've exhausted myself.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
