Providence, God’s will, and chance

So in fact, God, who is subject to the world of logic and paradox, is not God, but a limited computer.
After all, the whole concept of God, blessed be He, is that He is unlimited in the laws of the physical world, and how can we limit Him in the laws of physics through logic?
What is more, it is possible to argue, as you said, that the tsunami came in advance in order to kill those people who, by God's will, God determined in His will that they would die, even if some of them were righteous and did not deserve to die. In the power of His will, He determined this (and could also bring about a disease or something else that would kill the others..) On the other hand, this is completely understandable (like the deaths of babies who did not sin, like the uniqueness of the Ramach, because there are things that happen because God determined this and this and this for a higher purpose, by the wisdom of reason). Because what happens in causality is what happens. What is more, the difficulty of knowing and choosing in ways that are above time is a fruitless difficulty. Therefore, there is a reality to the round based on the knowledge of each person's choices.

If you have read my answers here on the site, you have probably already read an answer to these questions. My argument is that the laws of logic also limit it, and I argue that this is not a limitation at all. The laws of logic are not “laws” in the same sense that the laws of nature or the laws of the state are laws. They are related to the essence of things and therefore cannot be deviated from. God cannot make a round triangle because there is no such thing and not because there is a drawback to any of His abilities. Every ability is the ability to do everything that is possible and exists and not to do what is impossible. If there is no set of laws that creates the specific results that you want, and God wants a world that operates according to a set of laws, then this is a logical problem and He will not be able to overcome it either. If you want more, search the site again (for example, about Puss in Boots).
The same is true of knowledge and choice and the other vegetables you mentioned. Everything has already been answered to the point of bloodshed in several answers.

I have reservations about the assumption that the metaphysical is necessarily logical, I think it is not of the same essence at all, so that it cannot be truly spoken of (Wittgenstein and Leibowitz) but only from its negation perhaps and to determine what is certain is not.

Where does the above assumption come from? Or is there an indication of it.

It has nothing to do with different realms of reality, physical or metaphysical. Logic is a condition for thinking, and as long as you think about something, it is subject to logic. Otherwise, you come to the conclusion that if you think X at the same time, you can also think not X, and in fact you are not thinking at all.

This is my claim that we do not actually speak of the essence and essences of God to the world, but only describe (the behavioral) and how He reveals Himself to us in consciousness, but we must remain silent about His essence. So that assuming His essence logically or illogically does not matter because we have already referred to the essences.
(insert unlimited into the limit)

Here, here you are talking about His essence and essence (you say that this is not discussed). In short, everything you say in any field is subject to logic. You cannot speak and think outside of logic, and therefore the discussion of whether God Himself is subject to it is meaningless. Your image of Him is subject to it, and that is enough. It does not matter whether He Himself is subject or not. When you discuss the question of whether He knows and watches over, etc., you are discussing the image of God in your mind and in your thinking. It is subject to logic. Everything else is just empty words.

For the benefit of those who are interested, here is the conclusion of the book "What They Cannot Do", which deals entirely with the cancellation of the thought that God can indeed cancel the laws of logic (the avoidance of avoidance). Although, after an exhausting study full of sources, the author discusses any possible thought when talking about his own nature, as above, and the words are long: At the end of the book's conclusion, we are allowed to look back and praise ourselves, because indeed we have managed to thoroughly encompass the problem of avoidance in all its incarnations, over thousands of years of philosophy and religious thought, in Israeli literature in particular and in the literature of the nations in general. After delving into everything that our predecessors wrote, our own statement is finally required, returning to the fundamental problem: Is God subject to the laws of logic and mathematics, or not? In my opinion, in the state of philosophy today, this is the kind of question that cannot be answered with a yes or no. Still, our answer is closer to a yes than a no, and I believe that this is the answer that Rav Saadia, Maimonides, and the other rationalists of the Middle Ages would have given if they had lived in our time. I answer, therefore, that God, as we perceive Him in our human intellect, is undoubtedly subject to logic; for our intellect itself is subject to logic and is capable of thinking only in logical categories, and therefore is unable to imagine anything, and no being, that is not subject to these categories. Regarding God “as He is to Himself,” on the other hand, I do not claim that He is subject to logic, but I also do not say that He is not subject to logic. We cannot state that God in Himself is subject to logic, because philosophy today sees the categories by which the human mind thinks as subjective conditions that distinguish or limit intelligent beings of our own kind only, and distances itself from the pretense of extending their application to the objective-absolute reality. But no less than this, no one is able to positively claim that God in Himself is not subject to logic. Logic is the limit of our language, thought, and perception, and any sentence that attempts to exceed this limit contains a built-in contradiction - while necessarily formulating itself according to logical rules, it simultaneously tries to nullify logic, and hence is meaningless. So, is God in Himself subject to logic or not? Neither subject nor non-subject, but simply beyond the horizon of our language and thought, and hence, not an object of conversation or engagement; and yet the God we know, the God who is subject to philosophy and religious discourse, is subject to logic without a doubt, like any other subject in human discourse, and just as Rav Saadia and Maimonides taught. The general distinction in philosophy between the phenomenon and the “thing in itself” has found its home in modern times, mainly since Kant, who through it reconciled realism and idealism and thus resolved a series of open philosophical problems, chief among them the problem of induction. Kant's popularity today is mainly based on the development of modern physics, which, as it progressed, confirmed the feeling that more than it reflects the laws that exist in nature, it is mainly an interpretation, or an attempt to interpret, of nature, the subjective interpretation of science that observes nature subject to the basic human approach, tools, and limitations that it brings with it to the investigation of nature. In contrast, the philosophical-theological distinction between God who is revealed and "God as He is to Himself" is much older. Among the Jewish rationalists of the Middle Ages, the emphasis is mainly on the fact that God in himself is not subject to human perception, and just like Kant's "God as He is to Himself", man can only know about Him that He exists, and this as a conclusion derived from his actions in nature. Thus, for example, R. In my opinion: “The Creator, blessed be He, is absent from all that is absent and far from all that is far from Him, His glory in us, will not be grasped by the intellect except for the matter of His reality alone… and therefore we need to seek the reality of the Creator, blessed be He, from the signs of His actions in creatures, and they will be evidence for us of Him, and when they are fulfilled. We need to stand by this path and not seek in our thoughts for His image” 988 Similarly, in Maimonides: “Let all men who pass by and come explain that the Creator is exalted, that opinions may not reach Him, and that He will not reach what He is but He, and that His attainment is the exhaustion of the purpose of His attainment... . Although the rest of what comes in the books of the prophets will be read in passing about Him, but what we have already explained as descriptions of His actions will be believed in Him” In this context, the Kabbalah comes even closer to the Kantian dichotomy of phenomenon-thing as He is for Himself. The rationalists' operational terms have become in Kabbalah actual ontological entities, the Sephiroth, which are the revelation, or phenomenon, of the Infinite, He is God Himself, as the Ramak explains: In Him we cannot speak, nor draw, nor impose, nor judge, nor mercy, nor anger, nor change, nor limit, nor measure. Indeed, what we should know is that at the beginning of the Noble One, the Infinite King of Kings, the Blessed One, ten Sephiroth, which are from His essence, are united in Him, and He and they are all a complete unity. And we can draw a beautiful analogy: to water, which is divided into vessels, and the vessels are of different colors: this one is white, this one is red, this one is green, and so on. And here, according to the truth, there is no change in that color that is acquired in water, but by the different instruments they will change to that color by chance, not in essence, and that chance in the amount of the seers, not in the amount of the water itself” . This idea is further developed in the Ari's theory of reduction, according to him we perceive existence only after the initial reduction of the light of ‘infinity’, “because the upper light, up, up, to infinity, called infinity, which proves that there is no perception in it, neither in thought nor in contemplation at all, and it is abstract. And separated from all thoughts” What brought the philosophers and theologians to insist and warn so much, that it is impossible to perceive God in Himself? The R’ In my life and in the Maimonides, the issue of God's titles was particularly troubling, which in their view harmed His unity and incorporeality: "Everything that is attributed to His essence from the dimensions does not escape the dimensions of the essence or the dimensions of the case" (992). "And as if the study of the titles, which you said, that God will exalt is one subject, will be married to Him somewhat married" (992). And He is two in the sense, and if He is one in reality, then any attempt to exploit them to speak of God's essence will lead to its realization, so it is better to prohibit such an attempt altogether. This was also the motive of the early Kabbalists, who claimed that “anyone who has been made aware of the unity of the infinite, how it is, and that it is removed from the descriptions and changes and the limitations of the body, will undoubtedly understand that there is no place for Torah and mitzvot and prayers and sacrifices that are not real, the Sefirot.” However, all these claims, in the end, are only logical claims; if our philosophers and theologians had the privilege that the later Kabbalists allowed themselves, to claim that God, and certainly God as He is, is not subject to logic at all, all these enormous efforts invested in saving God’s unity and incorporeality from the threats of human language would be completely unnecessary. It would have been much simpler to argue, for example, that although from a logical point of view titles are indeed mandatory ”that God should be exalted above one subject, be somewhat married to Him”, this need not trouble us when it comes to God who is “a work of logic”, and therefore can be described with titles without becoming the basis on which they are borne. Except that such a move, of course, did not occur to our ancestors at all. From their perspective, as the first intelligent being, however high and exalted God is, he is still subject to the basic rules of logic, and to the extent that speaking about Him leads according to these rules to His fulfillment, there is no other option but to prohibit such speech. The issue of titles for God does not trouble philosophers today, but in the state of philosophy in our time, as mentioned, it is up to us to give a new meaning to our ancestors' prohibition of speaking about God ”in itself”. Today, we are forbidden to speak of anything “as it is for itself”, that is, we recognize that our perception of reality is not objective at all, but subjective, shaped from the outset according to the templates we have brought with us in advance, which are mainly the basic logical laws according to which our thought operates, and which do not necessarily oblige the thought of other possible intelligent beings. If so, then certainly, we are forbidden to oblige or limit God “as something for itself”, or to speak of him at all. In this way, we can finally achieve a nice compromise between the rationalists of the Middle Ages and the mystics of modern times. In principle, therefore, Rav Saadia and Maimonides are right that “if we do not avoid existing nature, the Name cannot be described in His power”, but in light of the progress of philosophy today, it is better to limit ourselves in this context to the God who reveals himself to us, the God of the Bible and prophecy, the Torah and the commandments, the prayers and sacrifices. The God who reveals himself is undoubtedly subject to logic, for only through logic does he reveal himself to us, to our intellect, spirit and thought, which are unable to grasp and contain even a single fingernail beyond their logical limits. However, we can agree with the central claim of the mystics, “that the first rationalities have no entrance with the simple object that invented them, and they are in his hand as material is in the hand of the creator”, 995, insofar as it refers to God “in himself”. Regarding God himself, we do not claim that he is subject to logic, just as we do not claim that he is not subject to logic; we do not know, and cannot know, whether our logic has a meaning beyond human reason or not, but even if not, the limits imposed on us by our logic sterilize the possibility of thinking about what can or cannot happen beyond it, and even the possibility of thinking about the very existence of such a "beyond". If indeed, as the mystics claim, God created our logic, then our thought in principle may only reach this moment of creation, and not at all. Regarding the moment of creation of logic, as well as the moment after the completion of logic, it is truly appropriate to recommend the mishna in Tractate Hagiga that the Rema brought on this very matter: "Whoever looks at four things deserves it as if he had never been born: what is above, what is below, what is ahead, and what is behind." 996, and it is a great pity that the Rema did not listen to his own words in this context. We said that we were offering a compromise between the rationalists and the mystics on the question of abstinence, but in fact, as I have already written, our compromise is much closer to the rationalist side, and we are merely reformulating it in accordance with the conclusions of modern philosophy, which no longer claims to see the human mind as necessarily reflecting objective reality. It is important to emphasize this, since, as we have seen, there were also two modern mystics who formulated it in an apparently similar direction, and proposed to interpret the Ari's doctrine of reduction in the sense of the creation of logic, and thus to accept abstinence as limiting God after the reduction, but not before it. This direction is found in Rabbi Kook, who wrote several times: “And the ancient reduction of the gathering of absolute ability, caused the revelation of the law of the impossible” 997; “From the root of the roots, the light of the infinite in its fullness, there is no place for the word impossible… in the foundation of the Reshimo, the place of the made chaos, the created nothingness, the created nothingness, and the noble emptiness, there was prepared the foundation of the limiting motivation of the impossible” 998; “The philosophical idea of the smuggled motivations in which divine ability cannot be described, comes from the foundation of the Reshimo” 999; and so did Rabbi Menachem-Mendel Schneerson once suggest, “As they wrote in several books of the scholars of Israel… Dish to avoid. Nature exists in the Creator's law – their intention is to create Yhat’ as He limited Himself within the limits of reason" 1000 But as I have already explained, the very identification of the Lurianic reduction with the creation of logic may remain as a vague doctrinal refinement; the main test is whether one does indeed assimilate and internalize, because in such a situation it is never possible, in any way whatsoever, to go beyond reduction and logic and still speak about God “when He is to Himself”, as it were, before He “limited Himself within the limits of reason”. When we say that we cannot say anything about God in Himself, we mean it seriously; Even when we consider the possibility that our logic does not require God per se, we do not try to imagine how God might behave in such a situation, free from logic, and we certainly do not imagine God actually performing anti-logical tricks. In fact, we do not dare and are not even able to assert positively that God per se may not be subject to logic. This very sentence, “God per se is not subject to logic”, is absurd and self-contradictory in every way, for on the one hand it is based on logic and accepts the law of contradiction, if only in the sense that the phrase “God is not subject to logic” is different from the phrase ”God is subject to logic”; At the same time, he tries to undermine the very logic on which he is based, and to claim that God is not subject to it. But if God is not subject to logic, then he can also be subject to logic, and yet not subject to logic, and still subject to logic; in short, we have said nothing. Therefore, we do not express ourselves as “God in himself is not subject to logic”; we are only trying carefully to find a way to formulate the possibility that our logic, within which we are imprisoned, is not absolute and that there is a world outside it, although even if such a world exists, we can never become acquainted with it as long as we persist in our existence as human beings. What is this like? Perhaps for creatures in a two-dimensional world, who are unable to imagine a three-dimensional reality, but can perhaps raise the possibility of the existence of an additional dimension, just as Einstein's theory teaches us that the universe has four dimensions, even though no human being is able to imagine more than three. And yet the parable is not like the parable, because the four dimensions have nevertheless been able to be described as variables in mathematical equations, while logic, even if we assume that it is indeed limited to human beings only, has such a total nature that it does not allow any form of glimpse, even theoretical, beyond it, even if today we are barely allowed to hypothesize about its very existence. A better parable: Is the value of a rational function at the point where its denominator becomes zero an even number, or an odd number? And here, the answer is neither an even number nor an odd number, but that when the denominator becomes zero the function is not defined at all. In exactly the same way, when I am asked whether God himself is or is not subject to logic, I reject both possibilities, and answer that for me everything outside of logic is not defined at all, that is, meaningless; and although I cannot rule out the possibility that another intelligent being would find meaning in such a thing, I would be remiss even to try to guess what that meaning would be. Hence, we can never reach any starting point with the mystics, who are willing to admit that they cannot understand how God can overcome logic, but insist that they still understand themselves when they say that God can do it anyway. The holders of this absurd opinion have concrete examples of possible anti-logical tricks of God, such as changing the past or making the part larger than the whole, and according to them, God has performed and is performing such miracles in our world in actual practice, from the trials of the "place of an ark is not out of proportion" to the "place of an ark is not out of proportion" Or, in one word, they were said in the Talmud, which they believe is understood simply, even to such a miracle in the twentieth century, when, according to R. Menachem-Mendel Schneerson, God, being “all-powerful and free from all inevitability,” clothed himself in the body of his father-in-law, Yosef-Yitzhak Schneerson, “and on the other hand, the matter of the free from all inevitability is not related to any questions at all.” 1001 We find this approach to be completely unreasonable, and it certainly has no connection in any way with the compromise we have proposed; Because the God who acts in the world and performs miracles is not God per se, of whom, as stated, we have no conception at all, but the revealed God, and you cannot claim that the revealed God “reduced himself to the limits of reason” and in the same breath continue to speak of him without reason. On the contrary, the whole feasibility of the possibility that we are nevertheless willing to allow, that it is possible that God per se is not subject to logic, depends on our accepting that for us, humans, this hypothesis is meaningless, but that it is not impossible that another intelligent being would find meaning in it; but when someone nevertheless insists on pouring meaning into this hypothesis for us as well, he is essentially shooting himself in the foot. Because if for you, a logical being, there is any meaning to the statement “the place of the Ark is not within the measure” Simply put, or in general, the statement “God can overcome logic”, in its various forms, requires that these statements, in fact, somehow do not contradict logic in reality, otherwise how could a logical being contain them? But if in the end these statements do not contradict logic, then you have essentially lost everything you wanted; because you intended to claim that these statements do contradict logic, that is, that they are completely meaningless from your point of view, and precisely by doing so you thought to glorify your God, who nevertheless is not incapable of them. He says: Do you want God in himself, at least, not to be subject to logic? First, admit with all your heart that the revealed God, the God whom you alone know, and about whom you alone can speak, is indeed subject to logic. Only then, when you truly internalize the meaning of your words about limited human cognition, will you be able to achieve at least the one point of the darkness possible for a person limited by his logic - the recognition that this logic may not be absolute, even though it is impossible to imagine it. From here we can continue to develop our idea even further. The solution we propose to the problem of avoidance, then, is not a solution in retrospect, a compromise imposed on religion from the outside as a result of philosophical necessity, but rather an idea that deserves to be adopted precisely from a religious motivation. Those who truly glorify, exalt, and exalt God are not the mystics and their confused teachings, but rather we, whose mere assertion that the God who reveals himself to us is subject to the laws of logic allows for the hypothesis that God in himself, about whom we know nothing, may not be subject to these laws after all. And even more than that: if it is indeed true, as the mystics claim, that “the first rationalities have no introduction to the simple object that invented them”, then in fact this proves precisely the opposite of the mystical claim. For if God created man as a logical being, it means that this is precisely God’s will, that man should think as a logical being. If God chose to reveal himself to us through logic, it means that this is precisely how he wanted to appear to us, this is how he wanted us to perceive and attain him, as a logical God. Who, then, would dare to try to rebel against God and reason against him, to want to attain precisely what God wanted us not to attain? God himself has decreed this, because even if he himself is not limited by logic, we will attain him only within these limits. Anyone who tries to go beyond them and imagine God free from the shackles of logic is therefore acting not only against the most basic criterion of humanity, but above all against God himself. A great deal of ink has been spilled in trying to interpret the mysterious biblical story of Moses who asked God, “Show me your glory,” and was answered, “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” But you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” According to the thesis we have proposed, things seem simpler than ever. God replied to Moses that man can attain the revealed God, the one defined within the limits of logic; God in himself, the one who is above logic, can never be known, “for man shall not see me and live.” A person cannot deviate from logic and remain a person, because logic defines the boundaries of humanity that God designed. __So far

I have several comments, and I'm just saying that the relationship between God when He is Himself and His appearances is not like the relationship between other things and their appearances with us (the phenomenon). The titles of God are either action titles (then there is no connection to Kant) or entities separate from Him (spheres, faces and worlds) that only represent Him and are not just a translation of attributes into the language of cognition as with other objects.

And another note. Modern physics does not strengthen Kant's perception, but rather weakens it. And some have already written about the Newtonian perception of space and time, which in Kant's eyes are transcendental, that is, imposed on us by the structure of our consciousness, which was thrown into the dustbin of history with relativity and quantum theory (even if these theories are wrong in themselves. The very use of them refutes Kant).
And God willing, let's do this…

First of all, the renewal of Kant's topic
I will try to explain my argument with a short example.
Before that, regarding the issue of providence, I will not deny that it is first of all a belief that is above reason and knowledge in my eyes based on the scriptures and tradition and only then do I try to reconcile it with logic if possible.

Regarding logical contradictions and God, there is such a thing in physics. (I didn't really grow up studying it, I saw it on a science program) that is talked about a lot, mainly on the subject of black holes, where a person in certain situations such as a black hole will be in a state of paradox that he will be neither alive nor dead.
And from this they say that beyond this universe that there are other universes, they will actually not be universes of the laws of physics and in any case logic, so that language is a paradox and cannot exist there, and it does not apply to it at all as a limitation.
It is true that the God who comes to mind is limited in logic, but because he comes to mind, and the mind itself is a limited tool in the essence of the aforementioned universe that operates according to logic (at least as we perceive it).. But beyond this universe, we do not have to assume that God will necessarily be limited to logic. And in fact, what we are discussing will already be reduced to the idea of God who is limited.. because it is part of the limited cognition as part of the limited universe.
In my opinion, a logical God cannot necessarily be the creator of the universes because he is clumsy and limited, and therefore, apparently, there is a cause that precedes him and enters into infinite regression.
(But this is already an assumption from the experience of the world)

I have no business with beliefs that are beyond reason and reason. I don't think you do either, but in any case I see no point in dealing with words that none of us know what they mean. I explained what I had to explain.
As for physics, these things are baseless, but this is not the place to go into detail about them. I'm just saying that no scientific theory can contain contradictions, since any conclusion can be drawn from contradictions, and therefore a contradictory theory simply doesn't mean anything.

Understood, thank you.

Rabbi Michi, Forgive My Ignorance: How Does Modern Physics Weaken Kant's Opinion?
Kant claims that space and time are ways of looking at the world and are not in the object itself, Einstein came along and said that time is relative. Can't we simply say that relative time is our way of looking at the world?

As I explained, Kant argued that space and time are categories imposed on us and therefore cannot change. In his opinion, we do not derive them from the world but from ourselves. In modern physics, the picture of space and time has changed due to empirical findings, which proves: A. that it is not imposed on us. B. that it is derived from observation of the world.

Best regards, thank you very much.

Shalom Rabbi,
After all that has been said here, including that you are discussing the image of God in your mind, and that there He is subject to logic. And what does it matter whether He Himself is subject or not, hasn't the ground beneath the evidence from epistemology fallen away?
If nothing can be said about the world in itself (such as that the laws of logic, mathematics, and causality also apply there), how can we continue to claim the correspondence between cognition and the world?
Maybe I misunderstood, but I got the impression from your words that logic is only true in our cognition, and that it is not necessary to claim so about the world

Thank you,
Natan

I wrote exactly the opposite. As for the relationship between our knowledge and the world, see here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D/