Ontological understanding of the evidence for the reality of God
Hello Rabbi,
Many times, in the evidence for God, we proceed from an intuitive observation of this world, and following certain basic assumptions, we stand on the unknown – God.
For example, in the cosmological view – we assume that everything in our world has a cause, so the entire world also has a cause. Then God exists – meaning an entity that is its own cause.
And so it is with regard to the physico-theological view, every complex thing that we could think would be this way and not otherwise has a rational cause. If so, there is a God who put the world together.
But I have a question: why assume that there could be such a thing as an entity that is its own cause?! Doesn’t this seem like an illogical thought to the Rabbi?
on. Suppose there were a voice that informed us that this world was created without a designer or cause but a predestined one. Would this world be called its own cause? Or would it simply be a contingent reality without explanation?
third. The intention of an entity that is its own cause, according to the physico-theological view, is an entity that we could not think of as being constructed differently and contingently?
After all, if such an entity can be structured differently, and is very unique, etc., it itself distils a designer.
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.
A. Thank you.
B. I meant that you clearly knew that the world is ancient and uncreated. And without a creator.
Is such a world called a cause of itself? Or will it simply come into existence without explanation?
I am asking in order to understand your definitions of these terms.
C. It was a question of understanding the concept of a cause of itself in the physico-theological view.
The physico-theological argument is that every unique entity that we could think of as seeing something else is distilled from an adjuster.
So, the regression stop of the physico-theological view is a non-contingent entity, that we could not think of as being constructed differently?
That sounds to me like a more “strange” entity than the cosmological regression stop. Whereas the cosmological is a cause of itself. Here it is an entity that cannot be constructed differently. In any case, it is not unique (because the uniqueness of a thing is determined from a wide collection of accepted events that could have happened, but here it could not have been otherwise).
Since a reality in which our world exists for an infinite time is incomprehensible to me, I cannot answer your question. The source that would reveal this to you should also have answered the question.
This entity does not have to be structured in a certain way, since it is an intelligent entity. You assume that it is a mechanism that generates the world mechanically, and then its structure dictates the world. But I am talking about an intelligent entity that decides what the world will look like and does not generate it mechanically.
Thank you,
But why does the Rabbi assume that something that is not its own cause must have a cause, (if it is a primordial being.)
After all, the assumption that everything has a cause is indeed learned from pure reason and not empirically, but it is learned with respect to occurrence.
In the case of a primordial entity, we do not have to assume an occurrence that endowed the thing.
Gilad, these are pointless word games. A long-winded thing is distilled into an ingredient/redeemer/flavor unless its flavor is in its essence. I have nothing to add.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
