Several questions

Hello, Your Honor. My name is Chaim and I am a Haredi from Marchesim. I recently purchased your book, “God Plays Dice,” and I was very happy to discover that there is also a rational approach to Judaism. After searching extensively (and secretly) for someone who could give logical answers to questions that I consider critical to my life as a Jew, I finally found your book that simply puts the problems on the table as they are without fear of being labeled a heretic, which I am so afraid of. You are right. And to the question itself, in your aforementioned book you concluded that the existence of the four forces and the other physical constants in a way that seems purposeful for the formation of the universe proves the existence of metaphysical intelligence. In addition, you rejected Dawkins’ argument about the multiverse theory as an argument that assumes more than is necessary to understand the world in the theological sense. A- Dawkins’ claim is apparently based on assumptions that are based on empirical physics. Although parallel universes have not been observed, and probably cannot be empirically proven, their existence is within the conditions known to science. Whereas the assumption of an independent entity with intelligence, which is (necessarily) associated with properties of will, etc. is perhaps more intuitively tempting, but it assumes the existence of a new field in science, no angle of which can be empirically examined. Hence, why is there still a higher probability of God’s existence than assuming that time extends back to infinity while parallel universes exist, but still within scientific laws?! B- Another field. Regarding free choice, I saw a video that justifies your position on the principle of free choice. In it, you explained that it is necessary to accept an exception to the principle of causality in order to explain the expression of choice. And in addition, you claimed that the sequence of causality that was created before the person’s choice and that seems to force him to choose this way and not otherwise, is a parallel sequence and not necessarily a cause, as in David Hume’s parable about the two clocks. And all this despite the fact that apparently the ‘parallel’ process always corresponds precisely to the person’s choice. And here I must ask, would you agree with me that the parallel process is completely causal and deterministic. So is the choice that is predicted from it, apparently necessary and without a cause. So you would claim that all the parallel processes of all of humanity since the dawn of its creation, coincidentally corresponded completely to the free choice that each and every person made. This is a somewhat difficult assumption to digest, isn’t it?! I would be very happy if you could contact me by phone only (since as an ultra-Orthodox person I am socially restricted from various means of communication) at 0527634376. Thank you very much and sincerely.