On Divine Intervention and Prayer – First Question

How does the Rabbi know that what is measured as RP is part of nature from the physical chain?
I believe that there is no need to conclude so.
Just as the Rabbi believes that after the RP we have free choice, even though according to the data of pure science there is no reason to assume this, I believe the same only regarding the potential of readiness. There is a “Divine will” that prepares us for free choice, and after the Divine will has appeared in us (expressed by the RP), the free choice is ours.

If the Rabbi allows himself to assume that we have free will in the physical world (call it a “miracle” or a “spiritual being” or a “soul”), why not assume one more interval for the Divine will within the human mind, even if it is a complete miracle?

So allow yourself to assume that it is involved in nature itself and you have solved all the problems. What is all this convolution for?

A. It's not such a twist. It's just making one more small assumption. One assumption beyond what the Rabbi allowed himself to make. If I were to say that God also raises my hand and moves my leg - fine. But I didn't claim that. Right now, for the sake of the discussion, I only claimed limited divine involvement in the physical chain in the human brain. If I were to say that God moves all of nature, then I would actually be saying that we are all puppets, and that's not what I meant. My intention was that free choice + a certain active involvement of God is possible.

B. Why do I allow myself to make such an assumption?
1. To get along with my intuitions and those of billions of people whose intuitions cry out for divine involvement. The Rabbi himself wrote about how important intuitions are.

2. Let it come to terms with everything that so many of our wise men have said.

3. Let it come to terms with what is happening in reality. I can clearly see general (and even private) providence.

So yes, I allow myself to be bold and allow one more space in nature.
Seems like a very worthwhile approach to me.

You will gain all this even if you assume that God is simply involved in nature without us seeing it (for example, He is involved in every electron that divides by 17 in the brain, every fifth second). That's all. Why get involved? If you assume that God is involved in nature, you can assume it yourself without advising Him exactly where to intervene (specifically in RP). And if you assume that He is not involved, then He is not involved in RP either.

I did not advise God 🙂
I am looking for a logical and intuitive interval. Just like the esteemed rabbi does in his book “Science of Freedom”.
There the rabbi analyzed, based on the results of the Libet experiment, where it makes the most sense for free will to appear.
This is precisely the opposite of getting involved.
What is permitted to the esteemed rabbi is also permitted to the common people, right?

By the way, in the context of human decisions, I believe that sometimes God also intervenes in other places, for example, if necessary, he will make a person not raise his finger, and the intervention will not be in the RP, but rather at the end of the neural chain at the tip of the finger.
But this is the exception. If I estimate that there is divine intervention in a person, it is usually in the brain, within the RP.

And one more thing, there may be wicked people who are simply left to nature. That is, their RP is not an action from God, but indeed part of the physical chain, until free choice, and then their free choice to repent, will be very, very difficult. And a very large Rabbi (a conduit for transmitting divine abundance) is needed to revive them (from the dead).
I mean, the RP itself is not absolute all the time and in all people, but only when the divine will operates it. The more a person is attached to his God, the more the divine will will operate the RP for the most part, and hence the free choice of the person will be of higher quality.

This also explains how there are wicked people who succeed . . . If they grew up in a rich environment, and with a quality genetic load, then yes, according to the pure laws of nature, they will also be very successful.
They will succeed in this world, of course. They will miss their essence, and they will have to undergo correction in the next incarnation.

Everything is permitted to everyone. I explained why in my opinion there is no point in this, and the righteous will live by his faith.

Isn't it worth noting, after all, that there is perhaps an intermediate option, and not just the two options of “free will” or “puppets on a string” just so as not to fall into a ”false choice”?
Overall, I don't think the argument I raised here is entirely reasonable, and I think it could have been raised as an additional question from the reader in the book “Hillel”. And if the rabbi thinks he has an explanation that refutes the argument I raised (I didn't see it here), he could have mentioned it in the book.. . .

In any case, thanks to all the rabbis for the response.

There is no middle ground, and I've already explained this to the point of exhaustion.

Sorry, I can't understand.
According to almost all neuroscience professors, there is no possibility of free will. Because it is a pure physical chain.
Nevertheless, the Rabbi pushed free will there. Somewhere between the RP and the person's reaction/decision.
In other words, the Honorable Rabbi believes, to the best of my understanding, that there is a “permanent miracle” in reality. And I completely agree with him. Our will is above nature, it is a miracle. And it is probably part of the infinity of the soul.

I believe that there is one more miracle in our brain. Among the genetic/environmental influences, etc. that affect the RP, there is another thing called “Divine will”, which is also a miracle that occurs in the human brain, sometimes.

True, it is a miracle because it is not possible within the framework of the laws of nature themselves, because there are no two options within the framework of the laws of nature.
But there is one more miracle (the divine will) than the miracle that the rabbi states is possible (free will).

I will illustrate all this briefly:
Let's assume that Itzik grew up in a completely secular environment. His RP always starts a chain that tells him before Shabbat “You are allowed to desecrate Shabbat” . Then he desecrates Shabbat by choice. This makes sense because the RP is influenced, among other things, by the environment in which he was raised, etc.
One Friday, the divine will acted in Itzik's mind (performed a miracle), and despite physics and environmental influences, it changed his RP from one that leads a chain that would cause him to desecrate Shabbat, to an RP that caused the brain to start a chain that would cause Itzik to ultimately *decide/choose* to actually keep Shabbat. Such enlightenment.

Hence, the choice is entirely Itzik's – to keep Shabbat or not.

Ehud, all of this was clear from the beginning and there is no need to repeat it. And I still claim that you have gained nothing from it. If you claim that God is involved in nature, then there is no problem to solve. And if He is not involved, then He is not involved in rp either.
When you claim that He is involved in rp, you are simply assuming the first possibility (that He is involved). That is all. What do I care if He is involved in rp or in every fifth electron in every odd second. It really does not matter.
I assumed that our will being involved stems from direct recognition and not from unfounded metaphysical assumptions. Our will is part of nature, even if not from physics. In the natural world there is physics and there is also human will. In my assumption, God is not involved in nature, that is, in these two components of it.
We go back and forth and get nowhere.

Does the Rabbi rule out the view that God causes everything to happen to those who are acted upon? God gives the actors a certain scope of choice that He decides about. That is, I, as the actor of an action (of waving a sword, for example), have the power to act and choose in such a way because of the possibility that He has granted for me and for the other actors. But the actor (the one on whom the sword was waved) has no choice about him, and God is the one who causes the action in him and decides whether he will become the actor and in what way (what usually happens and is called natural, i.e. the reality we are familiar with. But this is still the imprint of God's hand). And according to this, God is the one who applies the principle of causality until He no longer feels like it. I hope I have formulated it clearly.
How does the Honorable Rabbi criticize this method?

A
I assume this is a parody. (That's how I attack this method.)

I assume that the Rabbi's response is an allegory stemming from an allergy to the opinion I brought that even causes negative energy in a state of accumulation of heresy. Forget Adar, we are facing the month of Nissan in which there is no Tachanun. Don't make me beg for a satisfactory explanation. Of course, if the Rabbi prefers not to answer substantively, who am I to explain this method.
N Nach Nach Nach Nach Malach HaMoshiach Bibi forever and ever!

Rabbi,
You wrote “I assumed that our will is involved stems from direct recognition and not from unfounded metaphysical assumptions.”
Why doesn't he have the right to create theological evidence from the recognition of free will for the assumption that God intervenes?
Only a rabbi is allowed to do so with morality 🙂

Hello K,

Just to reinforce your question. “In the science of freedom”, as far as I understand, the rabbi writes that he advocates free will because of intuition and because of philosophical arguments. There is no scientific explanation by the rabbi that justifies free will.

He also writes clearly that free will stems from spirituality. Here is a quote:
“…Libertarianism cannot escape a dualistic position, that is, a position that holds that in our world there is something beyond matter . . . exempt from the world (in the language of the yoke) of the laws of physics. There must be an interaction between this other substance and matter . . .”

Therefore, I also did not quite understand the statements that are made about me that I am based on unfounded metaphysics.
1. Doesn't the Rabbi do so according to the quote above?
2. The Rabbi wrote “Our will is part of nature”. So that's not how I understood it. Is the spiritual world (as illustrated in the quote above) also part of nature?

As I wrote above, I think the Rabbi allows himself to do all kinds of magic, and he doesn't allow others. Why? I don't understand . . .

The Honorable Rabbi does not explain why he considers my method to be parodic. Is the Rabbi interested in writing an argument against my words?

I explained. In my opinion, this is a parody of the proposal at the beginning of this thread and the discussion in it (I thought that's why it was placed here). A casual division like a hundred other possible divisions, one of which I described above.

Sorry for the dig, but I didn't mean to parody. I'm not suggesting a third option. I think what I'm suggesting perfectly preserves both of the assumptions of freedom of choice as an agent of action and, on the other hand, that action is expressed in action in our world only by tacit agreement with God without miraculous intervention on his part. If so, a person can act as much as his freedom of choice allows him. I can take a Kalashnikov and start spraying. But for this to affect physical reality, God needs to take care of the conditions for that free person's action to take place. Even if I spray indiscriminately or by shooting, God can still prevent those bullets from hitting. I think this is a terribly conciliatory combination. Why is this a "casual division"?
PS. I read the rabbi's responses in this thread but did not find another possible division that his honor mentioned.
Have a nice day!

I proposed all sorts of other divisions (like which electrons are driven by the laws of physics and which are not). I meant that the division is arbitrary and I see no benefit in it.
The two assumptions that there is freedom of choice and that the outcome only occurs with divine consent also hold for me without involvement (except for Sephardic cases). If you mean that consent is required for every outcome and that there are many involvements, then I don't see what the benefit is in your words. You just claim that there is involvement and that's it. I don't see any difference between such involvement or any other distinction (in events X there is involvement and in Y there is none).

According to the way I present things, the involvement does not harm freedom of choice in any way. What is the intention of the rabbi who does not see any “benefit” in my words? I was impressed that I resolved the contradiction created by adopting the two assumptions. Furthermore, what is the problem with the feasibility of multiple involvements? I have come to show why the statement “it is clear that it is not possible to adopt both assumptions simultaneously” is incorrect.

Of course it is harmful. A person cannot do something unless God allows it. If He does not allow it, it means involvement.

So it's a shame I wasn't understood (which I suspect isn't true about the Rabbi...) Right. A person can do whatever he wants and there is no approval from Him, may God bless him. The involvement begins with the impact of that free action on the world controlled by God. It's not the action that is controlled, but its result. And things are like a bud and a flower.

A button maybe. I don't see a flower here. I shot an arrow at Reuven. His death depends on God. Will he die naturally (without divine intervention) or not? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that he will. So how will God make sure he doesn't die? He will change the laws of nature.
Neither a button nor a flower.

First of all, for the sake of discussion, I assume that there is no need to change the laws of nature. For example, if the arrow is deflected by a sudden west wind. Second, the cliché that God does all actions by the very thing that nature has imprinted is true because of its very content and because God, when His imprinting is not pleasing to Him, intervenes and is what we call a miracle. It turns out that every natural act has actually undergone approval and approval from the Creator. What is the problem with that? Does the Rabbi share the entire concept of a miracle?
Neither a button nor a flower? You have Amsterdam here. You can add one flowerbed to the tort. Whatever you like.
Good day!

I'm tired. Going around the bend on things that have already been well explained. If the west wind came without intervention then there is no dependence on G-d. If not – then here is the intervention.
That's it. Please forgive me, I won't answer the same questions again.