God’s submission to the laws of logic

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › God’s submission to the laws of logic

asked 9 years ago

I saw that several people approached the rabbi with a question about the inability of God to foresee my choice, and in principle I understood the rabbi’s answer. I would just be happy to be referred to a source that would explain why it is necessary to say that God is subject to the laws of logic? (Then it would also explain to me more fully the rabbi’s suggestion regarding the question of a righteous person and a wicked person without resorting to the answer of the reincarnations.)
Perhaps a refinement, the (perhaps childish) understanding that I had up until now in the context of the ‘all ability’ of the Blessed One, has difficulty accepting ‘something’ that the Blessed One cannot do (even become a human and have him shot in the head, etc…. even though it contradicts logic). Is there no problem in saying that the laws of logic are above the Blessed One? That He too is bound by them? Isn’t it more logical to say that there is nothing to try to understand here because it touches the very essence of the Blessed One – and we have no ability to understand (as we may have heard from the Rambam in the context of knowledge and choice, that His knowledge and He are not separate – perhaps this is so even if He has all the ability?) – or perhaps I don’t understand deeply enough the meaning of the laws of logic, and then I would be happy to explain.

Discover more from Rabbi Michael Avraham

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

You don’t understand the laws of logic. The borrowed use of the term “law” confuses many people. The laws of nature are laws that someone enacted. Their validity is not by themselves, and therefore it is not possible for God to be subject to them, because then it follows that He is subject to that legislator. But the laws of logic are not “laws” in this sense. No one enacted them. They are necessary by themselves. Therefore, God is also “subject” to them. And this is because subjection to the laws of logic is not subjection. God cannot make a circular triangle because there is no such thing as a circular triangle. The Almighty can do everything that can be done or imagined. But He cannot do something that is not defined and does not exist. This is not a violation of His entire ability. Just as He cannot make a wall that stops a shell and a shell that penetrates every wall at the same time. This is not a disadvantage in Him, because a disadvantage is only an inability to perform something that can theoretically be performed. —————————————————————————————— Asker (another): peace! Through your wonderful website, I heard a lesson in which you explained with good taste and knowledge the words of the Rashba, who claims that God is above the laws of physics but below logic, and therefore it is impossible to think (or mutter) that God would create a circle that is simultaneously a triangle. And here I found what they wrote about it in the attached file (p. 53). I would love to hear your opinion/response on what they wrote there in the name of the Rashba and in the name of the sermons of the Rabbi (ibid., p. 11) – do you think there were Rishon who believed so? So do you think it is simply a mistake? I would also like to know if you have written one of your books or an article on this topic. I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you very much for this wonderful website! —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Thanks for the things. I quickly skimmed through the things you sent. It seems to me that the man is mixing up concepts. The Rashba is merely copying the words of the Maimonides in the Mora, and both believe that the Blessed One is subject to the laws of logic but not to the laws of nature (he brings a division there between things that are inherently avoided and things that are avoided on our part, but I think that this division is intended). This is typical Chabad gibberish, which either I don’t understand or he himself didn’t really understand. His conclusion in the end is that the Blessed One is omnipotent and whoever denies this is like an infidel against a settled law (which is itself nonsense, of course). But is omnipotence also an ability over logic? After all, he himself wrote above that he would not. That’s why I didn’t understand his intention. In any case, anyone who believes that God is not subject to the laws of logic, if there is such a person, is simply mistaken. At the end of my book Two Carts, I wrote about this. The source of this is an unpublished article, Here . —————————————————————————————— Asks: thanks. And what about his ‘proofs’ from other answers by the Rashba, in which it is ‘proven’ that the Rashba even believes that ‘omnipotent’ means the ability to break the laws of logic? How do you deal with these things? Or did his ‘proofs’ simply not convince you at all? (In general, as I understand it, you probably believe that it really doesn’t really matter what exactly the Rashba believes – since one way or another, the belief in an ‘omnipotent being’ above logic is unfounded – and it would be interesting to hear whether you reconcile the Rashba’s other answers (or the words of the Rabbi) in which he says it is proven that believing that omnipotence is above logic, or whether you are not interested in that) I’ve seen various publications about you publishing a new book. Is that true? So when was it published? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I didn’t go into details, but it’s clear that even if the Rashba says so, it can’t be true. Although everywhere one must examine whether it’s really about logic or physics, and the line is not that simple. For example, the ark is not of measure, and is ostensibly a deviation from the laws of physics (because it deals with the world), but it contradicts the laws of geometry, which is part of mathematics. Because it’s about the world, in my opinion, there is no deviation from logic here, because we can be made to measure things differently, or “curve” space, and so on. This is not necessarily (and cannot be) a deviation from mathematics. I am indeed working on a new trilogy that will attempt to present a comprehensive and systematic theological picture, and mainly “lean”, that is, without unfounded and implausible additions. I don’t know when and how it will be published. The first book is supposed to contain five notebooks that appear on the website, and it deals with philosophy (its subject is proofs for the existence of God and the basis for religious obligation). The second will deal with Jewish thought and the third with halacha. All the best and thank you, Michi —————————————————————————————— Asks: I will only note that I saw one of the Hasidic Rebbe (presumably Chabad) who wrote to disagree with the author of the principles (who in his opinion is God, blessed be he, below the laws of logic – as you say) and that the Rebbe, blessed be he, is above the laws of logic. This is because in his opinion, our very ability to speak and think logically, or more precisely, logic itself, is a type of creation, meaning that indeed we, as creatures, have a limitation that we cannot think outside of logic (and then this would be nonsense, like some of the nonsense of Rabbi Shagar, etc.), but we assume due to various assumptions (and because He is completely unique, and if we say that He is not above logic, then He is not really unique, since apart from Him there are also laws of logic that He does not control) that God is completely ancient and that He Himself created the law of contradiction, etc., meaning that the moment He created the mind, He actually created logic, but He Himself is above these laws, only that, as mentioned, we have no idea how it is possible, etc., that two things that are logically opposite are true at the same time. And the Rebbe’s proof that this was a case of Aron is beyond measure. [By the way, the same Rebbe also answered the famous question of whether God can create a stone that He cannot lift, and answered that God as perceived by our intellect (i.e., the level of wisdom in Kabbalah) – that is, within logic – cannot, for at any moment He can eliminate a limitation, for it is found that before Him He was not limited (and the meaning of ‘omnipotent’ is that He can do everything possible – to break logic in our case), but God as He is to Himself, I know that He can do this, but I do not understand what that means, that is, since I know that God is without any boundary at all – not even logic – then I know that He can be yes and no and no and yes at the same time, only that with our intellect these statements are meaningless and meaningless – but I still know that He Himself is above that. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Logic is not healthy, since even this statement itself is made within the logical framework. This discussion cannot be held. Logic is not something and therefore there is nothing to discuss whether there is something else besides it. As I wrote in my notebooks (I don’t remember where right now) there is confusion between the laws of logic and the laws of physics. The laws of logic are not laws in the conventional sense. They were not enacted and could not be otherwise, unlike the laws of physics. In my opinion, this talk stems from a conceptual confusion, very common in Hasidic writings (will be addressed in a bit in my second book in the trilogy). This is empty chatter in my opinion. He doesn’t know what it means, but he knows it. It’s empty chatter. —————————————————————————————— Asks: That’s exactly the argument and I don’t quite understand where your proof is. You claim that the laws of logic were never enacted (but they are true in their own right), the same Rebbe claims that they were enacted (but we do not have the ability to understand what was before – and not exactly like the concept of time). Indeed, the proofs that the laws of logic themselves were created, these proofs themselves are made by our intellect (like all discussions in the theory of cognition about the structure of our intellect), and therefore the intellect truly says that towards God Himself (Essence and Essence in the language of Kabbalah) we have no perception at all. It is possible that yes and no at the same time. It is possible that no, and it is possible that both this and this are true – the law of contradiction is true because God has decided so. How exactly can these kinds of arguments be decided? Can you point me to an explanation of this? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I don’t know of any organized treatment for the issue, and for good reason. There can be no such treatment. I could also say that clouds are birds, or alternatively that clouds are both blue and triangular and round (and I will also add that I myself don’t understand what that means, but I believe it), and now look for someone to explain it. How can you even treat something like that that doesn’t claim anything? If you show him that his words are contradictory or meaningless, he will tell you that it’s true but that’s okay even though it’s contradictory or meaningless. So what treatment/decision are you looking for? With logical tools? Or maybe with the tools of prophecy? After all, even if prophecy tells him that it’s not true, he will say I know but I still believe it. Without logic, there is no meaning, no treatment, and no claims or arguments. —————————————————————————————— Asks: In this you are certainly completely right. However, in Hasidism it is explained (and I am not an expert on this subject at all) that due to various logical considerations it is not possible to say that he is below logic, since this conclusion itself creates many strong paradoxes that are much more disturbing than the statement that he is above the laws of logic, which statement is meaningless and incomprehensible to our intellect but is not a logical paradox. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: This statement is ostensibly a paradox, since it says something outside of logic (which is a condition for speech and thought). But beyond all that, it is simply meaningless, and as such it is indeed not paradoxical but simply says nothing. Even the statement blah blah blah blah is not paradoxical. Would you expect any answer or comment on it? By the way, there is no such thing as logical considerations that teach that it is not subject to logic. These are just plain nonsense.

Discover more from Rabbi Michael Avraham

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.