Number of questions for the Rabbi

Honorable Rabbi Michael Avraham Shalom Rav,

A number of questions have come to my mind that have been discussed by many and I have even dealt with them a little, but I have not received a satisfactory answer, since I have read two of the Rabbi's books and have come to the conclusion that the Rabbi has iron logic. I would be grateful if you could clarify the questions I am trying to clarify.

1. The question of evil – there are three basic assumptions that apparently do not hold together: G-d is omnipotent (the Rabbi claims that G-d is not omnipotent, if I am not mistaken), G-d is absolute good (the Kabbalah, as I understand it, disagrees with this assertion), and there is evil in the world (the Maimonides claims that this is not accurate).
The Rabbi explains that evil does not descend into the world from above.
Given that G-d created the world and that creation itself contains the potential for evil in our world, the question remains. How is it that there is evil in the world?

2. I had the privilege of reading the book “Two Carts and a Hot Air Balloon”, which talks about the difference between a priori synthetic thinking and analytical thinking. I recently watched an interview with the Rabbi on the London and Kirshenbaum program about a book I haven't had the privilege of reading yet called “Truth and Unstable”. In the interview, the Rabbi sounds like he represents an almost pluralistic position, despite taking a position that supports Orthodox Judaism from an internal perspective. Is there anything new in your philosophical position or is the Rabbi actually continuing the line of your first book?

3. The Rabbi explains that in order to accommodate two strong concepts, each one separately, of a world subject to the laws of physics on the one hand and free choice on the other, one must qualify or reduce the rules of physics so that the first electron that acts in a person's brain is not driven by causality, that is, by a physical factor, but by a non-physical factor, and thus we will settle the slap in the face, but it seems that if we choose to follow the rule called Occam's Razor, there is a preference for the determinist view due to the simplicity of this theory, even though it is contrary to my intuition and perhaps human intuition.

4. Are miracles also an exception to the laws of physics? If so, is the burden of proof on Judaism to prove the existence of miracles (in an era without prophets) or that miracles do not really exist and that the stories of the Bible are allegorical, and thus we subordinate our perception to the superiority of Western philosophy's thinking over the classical perception of Judaism.

With great respect and appreciation

For some reason I think I answered this. I'll answer briefly again.

Hello.
I'm not sure that iron logic is a compliment (since I spend most of my days trying to explain why thinking that isn't as iron-hard is also logical). But I understand that you meant to be complimentary, so thank you.
To your questions:
1. The three assumptions really don't contradict each other. To understand this, we must divide the question into human evil and natural evil.
Natural evil. Even the omnipotent cannot make a round triangle. If a world without evil is impossible, then there is no contradiction between the three claims. What does impossible mean? For example, if God wants the world to operate according to fixed laws (if only to help us find our way and function within it. In a chaotic world, it would be impossible to conduct ourselves, because you don't know what to do in every situation and how to achieve what you want to achieve. Our choice is also emptied of content in such a situation), then it is possible that there is no system of laws that would govern the world in the form and present to achieve the goals for which the laws were intended, but without evil. It should be remembered that intervening every time evil happens to prevent it is not conducting ourselves according to laws. Is there a fixed system of laws that would govern the world in the same way, only without evil? The burden of proof is on the questioner.
Human evil. In particular, the following is true: if God wants to give people free choice, then of course He cannot intervene every time and prevent them from doing evil. If He did this, then de facto we would have no choice. We could only do good. And here again there is a round triangle: a world with free choice without evil.
2. I continue along the lines of the first book. A synthetic position does not say that all questions have only one correct answer. It says that there are questions to which there is only one correct answer. But there can be questions with several correct answers. Pluralism claims that this is the case for all questions.
3. The principle of simplicity is not an exclusive criterion. By the same logic, materialism should be preferred to dualism because it is simpler, and Newtonian mechanics to quantum theory. Simplicity is decisive between equivalent theories (which explain the same set of phenomena with the same quality). This is not the case between libertarianism and determinism. For example, would you accept the claim that there is no external world because it is simpler than the claim that there is? Why not? Simply because it is clear to you that it is not true. Why? Because you believe in your senses. So I believe in my sense of freedom, and therefore I do not accept the ”simple” explanation any more. By the way, if you are asking this question then you have not read the Science of Freedom and not just Truth and Unstable. There I elaborate on this matter.
4. Miracles by definition are an exception to the laws of nature. No one has ever disputed this, neither those who believe in miracles nor those who disbelieve in them. The debate is only about whether or not miracles exist. Therefore, your formulation is inaccurate. You are not asking whether miracles are an exception to nature but whether they were miracles or not. Beyond that, it has nothing to do with Western thinking or not. This is a scientific concept, and it is not really related to the West (although it was created mainly in the West). As for the matter itself, I did not see a question here.