Rational belief
Hello Rabbi
From what I understood from you, belief according to causal proof is completely rational, and anyone who does not believe in it is not rational. As an example, you bring up the example of ebb and flow and the stance on the unknown, and that the only way to learn new things about the world is from the stance on the unknown. Therefore, God is also a worthy explanation to the same extent. But my question is this: After all, gravity is not a “novelty” in the same sense as God. In the end, it is another law, only more comprehensive. In contrast, God is a concept that does not require a cause, not from the world of phenomena. In any case, is it appropriate to say that the comparison is good and both are equal?
I distinguished between the law of gravity and the force of gravity. The law of gravity is only a description of phenomena. But the force of gravity is an entity. We infer the existence of this entity from the phenomena (and the assumption that there are no phenomena without a cause that produces them). The same is true of the existence of God, which is inferred from the complexity of the world and there is no phenomenon without a cause that produces it.
Of course there are differences between the entities, but the logical progression is certainly similar.
Sorry for digging up the question from the archive, I tried to “save” with a new question (assuming it would be more convenient for the rabbi), and in a search I came here.
My physics education is weak, but I understood that according to the general theory of relativity there is no such thing as gravity. So, there is no position here on the familiar or the new, but only a more accurate description of the movement of objects in space. Does the rabbi still think that gravity exists or is it just an illustration based on the move that Newton made then?
Another question, why from the phenomena is not satisfied with the entity “God” that forces the world to behave according to its laws, but rather needs another intermediate entity called “gravity”?
The descriptions of force and geometric curvature are equivalent to each other. As far as I understand, the question of whether there is or is not a force is meaningless. These are two forms of description.
You can settle for a divine being, and there is still an entity that generates gravitational phenomena. It is more convenient to refer to it as a gravitational force. The assumption is that God does not play on the physical field. It is really a semantic matter.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
