God as a causal agent
Hello, Rabbi. I saw the first and did not quite understand whether it is possible to divide between the mere belief in God as a causal factor and the clarification of the concept of divinity. A. – If we define the Creator as knowing all that will be, we get pantheism that is not fundamentally different from atheism (as you noted there). If we define that the Creator does not know what will be, there are two possibilities: A. – The Creator is not ‘God’ in the simple sense, since He has the disadvantage of not knowing. B. – The Creator gave man free choice, and therefore this is not a disadvantage (as the Rabbi wrote in his book ‘No Man Has Dominion Over the Spirit’). Of course, if we say according to the second method, this is implied because man is commanded to carry out the Creator’s command (as you noted there). Finally, if we assume that the Creator is a causal factor, we implicitly assume a commitment to the Creator’s command. What do you think?
thanks. Good afternoon
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.
Isn't knowing the future an expression of the ancient necessity of everything that happens in creation, and therefore everything that happens is the work of God and de facto nature and the actions of humans constitute part of the divine?
And does this strange chatter lead you to pantheism? If I know something will happen, then that something is me?
Perhaps we should distinguish between human knowledge and the knowledge of the Creator, since human knowledge is not a sign that the thing is "I", but divine knowledge differs from it in terms of the unity of the titles in relation to the Creator (although Aristotle and Maimonides "He is the science and He is the knower and He is the opinion"), and precisely in the matter of divine knowledge, the assumption that the Creator's knowledge includes the future means an existence whose necessity stems from the Creator's knowledge, and it is found that there is no contingent case in reality, and Spinoza's assumption that "everything that exists is in God" holds true?
And now everything is fine with me. After a rambling that doesn't hold water with strange divisions and eccentric distinctions, you managed to pose a question. You just had to open with the immortal opening: and it must be made difficult.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
