The evidence from the order
Hello Rabbi,
What does the rabbi think about the evidence from the Seder:
”
1. Evidence of a higher power that controls the universe, otherwise the universe would return to chaos.
Every moment there is a law in nature, without which the universe would return to chaos. But there is no rational reason that would require the constant operation of the laws of nature, hence it is proven that there is divine control over the universe even at this moment, who controls the laws and revives them as “the One who renews in His goodness every day, always the work of creation.” Without His constant providence, there would be nothing to require the continued existence and lawfulness of the world, and the universe would simply return to chaos.
2. The evidence from the design of the laws of nature.
Because there is logical and mathematical logic in the laws of nature, which indicates consciousness – planning of the universe. That is, there could be laws that lack logic, which would still indicate the existence of a law-making force, but not the existence of a conscious and planning law-maker.
Planning naturally indicates a planner, just as light indicates a source of light.
We see that nature is designed: atoms, molecules, the water cycle, ozone, oxygen, and more, are all extremely complex systems from any mathematical perspective. The wisdom revealed in nature is an undeniable scientific fact, and it is logical proof that there is an intelligent Creator who designed all of this, because there can be no wisdom without a wise person.
I would be happy to review the evidence.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- I am not sure of the value of this argument. The question is whether it is possible to enact a law that will endure (i.e., build a mechanism that will ensure that it endures) or not. If so, then we are left with the question of who enacts the law, not who preserves its operation.
- The evidence from design is a common version of the physico-theological evidence (like the evidence from complexity). The question is whether we really see design around us or whether it could be the result of blind evolution. Those who deny it will accept both evidences and those who accept it will reject both.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. On the other hand, is it possible to enact a law that will always be binding on the creator? Or could a ‘blind’ reality do this?
2. Thank you!
To enact a law that will endure certainly requires a creator, but it is the creator who is responsible for the formation of the law and not for its continued persistence. In other words, we have returned to the original argument (the argument from the laws).
Explanation? Why can't a blind reality make a law that lasts, like the laws of nature that we know, for example?
We are again going around the tail. Do you agree that ordinary law is refined by the legislator? If not – then what is there to discuss about the persistence of the law if there is no agreement about the law itself? If so – then again what is there to discuss about its persistence?
I mean, on the other hand, an ordinary law does not require a legislator. Will a law that is permanent surely require a legislator?
And I repeat again: What is a law that does not last? There is no such law. If it does not last, it is not a law.
I don't understand what is not understood in his words.
There is a law 1 regarding the matter, for example, that two bodies will attract each other. Even for just a single moment.
And there is a law 2 regarding the very fact that law 1 will persist.
He asked at first regarding 2
and you answered him with 1.
Then he asked about the possibility that law 1 will be created randomly, whether law 2 would need a legislator, and you didn't answer that, but you didn't understand his words.
Momentary law is a particularly amusing concept in its emptiness. I'm done.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
