God as the eternal Creator
Hello Rabbi,
Maimonides in the Mishnah Torah writes that the connection between the Creator and the creatures is not only on the axis of cause, but also synchronously/on the axis of delegation. “And if it is conceivable that He does not exist, nothing else can exist.”
I wanted to ask, does this have a philosophical basis? After all, after God created the world, He created an entity that was separate and independent from it. Isn’t that so?
Not necessarily. If you mean my claim that he is not involved in what happens in the world, this does not mean that he is not a noble (see the second and third notebooks), but only that he does not interfere in the conduct according to the laws of nature. But they can operate by his power.
Poke Hezi, after all, the Rambam’s own method in several places is that God is not involved in what happens in the world (everything, including miracles, was imprinted in the world from creation).
He wrote that he was referring to Maimonides' statement in the Mishnah Torah, that if God were to cease to exist, then the world would cease to exist, but not vice versa.
Like the relationship between a candle and light, the candle may not give light, but if the candle burns out, there will certainly be no light.
Thanks for the answer, but my question was about the philosophical part, not about God's intervention in the world. But why does Maimonides write that if God ceases to exist, the world will also cease to exist? After all, the world is not Him.
Moses,
We are not panentheists.
The reality between the world and its Creator is completely disconnected (although He intervenes in it, it is not Him, and not like the candle and the light).
And therefore why did Maimonides hold this view?
By the way, there is light without a candle (from the sun). The relationship is between light and fire, and there it is also symmetrical (there is no fire without light). The relationship between a cause and a cause is the opposite: the cause is a sufficient (and not necessarily necessary) condition for the cause.
Uncle, what's the problem? It's not about identity, but about conditioning. God is a condition for the existence of the world, but He is not identical with it and does not contain it.
No problem, you can always add a pretext.
My question is, is this pretext well-founded? It is truly necessary.
That is, the moment God ceases to exist, the world will also cease to exist at that moment. And does constant creation/constant connection occur?
For example, more conditions can be added, such as:
The Torah is a condition for the world, for without the Torah the world would cease to exist.
Because it is a condition for religion, if it ceases to exist, the religious will cease to exist. 🙂
Or does it really have a philosophical basis?
Since it is a necessity of reality, then speaking of a hypothetical situation in which it has ceased to exist seems meaningless to me. This does not describe a situation in which it has ceased and the world has disappeared, but rather the situation of the condition.
What is the argument for this concept of conditionality? I do not know. Perhaps the language of the verse is “He gives you power to do good”. And so is “For ever and ever; Thy word is established in heaven” and other verses.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
