The philosopher in Khozari
In the SD
Hello Rabbi. I have a few questions please about the philosopher in Kuzari.
1. What does he mean by saying that God is not connected to the world, eternal? Does he believe in some spiritual being, only that he is disconnected from the world? What does he mean by saying a. “And God never created man, because the world is eternal”? b. “And everything is from the first cause, but not from an intention that belongs to it, but through the path of ordination. From the first cause, the second cause was ordination, and from that, the third and fourth causes were ordination”? What is the logical logic in these 2 arguments? I simply do not understand the logic in saying that everything is ordination from this supreme God, who is disconnected from reality, and that he did not create man, but man was simply created? And what is the logic in saying that the world is eternal? At some point, it had to have a beginning, right?
2. If I understand correctly, the philosopher’s serious problem is the will of God. If we say that He wanted to create the world, then He is lacking and in any case He is not God? (If I am wrong about this, I would be happy to explain) And if we say that He is connected to the world, why should He bother with small things, and with our wills, etc.. After all, He is so great and we are so small.. My question is why it is impossible to say that precisely because He is so great and infinite, He is also able to will small things, and He also cares about us, etc.. After all, He is omnipotent, so He can also will and it would not be a paradox.
3. How can we even talk about it in terms of wanting or not wanting… To us it seems like a desire and in any case a disadvantage. Maybe it’s not like that for him?
4. Why does the philosopher remain in the position (at least initially) of a philosophical God? What prevents him from saying that God is indeed involved in reality?
5. Is it correct to say that there is no significant difference between such a philosophical God and the absence of God?
Thank you very much!
Hello.
I’m not familiar with Kuzari and don’t remember right now what the philosopher said there (it doesn’t seem very important to me either). If you have a specific question, please provide a full quote and ask what is difficult for you. Preferably one by one.
Thank you very much. I will ask one by one.
Is there a well-known philosophical claim that if we say that God wanted to create a world, then He is lacking and in any case He is not God? (As I understand it, this is the claim of the philosopher Bekhuzari, but as you said, it doesn't really matter who the claim is attributed to) My question is why it is impossible to say that precisely because God is so great and infinite, He is also able to will small things, and this still would not harm His ”divinity”, after all, He is omnipotent, so He can also will and this would not be a paradox. (And if we can say so, on what basis is this philosophical claim based?)
It doesn't matter whether he wants small or big things. The argument is that the very fact that he wants means that he is lacking.
I'm not sure about this at all:
1. It's not clear that wanting necessarily expresses lack. For example, we want the world to be good for ethical reasons and not necessarily for reasons of need and lack.
2. It's not sure that it's correct to say that he wanted in the normal human sense.
3. It's not sure that if he is lacking then he is not God.
Thank you.
1. I didn't understand 3. How can you say that God is infinite, and also lacking? A lacking God is a mysterious question, isn't it?
2. Regarding 2, I understand that it is impossible to make it difficult for God from our concepts. But still, there is finally a world created by God. Doesn't this express a lack in it that we come to complete? (I'm asking about this very claim. I know that there are many answers. The perfection of completion, etc.. I'm asking about the very claim, before the answer is given)
3. Does it make sense logically to claim that God is omnipotent and therefore can also be infinite and lacking? After all, he determines the “rules of the game” and from his perspective, he can both want and not lack. Is this a logically valid argument? If not, I would be happy to explain.
Again, thank you!
The numbering has changed. I'll use yours.
1. Who said it's infinite? That's accepted, but I'm not sure it's necessary. It's at least powerful enough to create a world.
2. I already wrote that it's not.
3. A question of defining the concepts infinite and lacking. If they logically contradict each other - then they can't be said about God at the same time.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
