The Unity of Nature, God
Hello Rabbi,
What does the rabbi think about the argument that nature is God?
So the laws of nature are included within it (immanent).
And therefore they are a derivative of nature. So who would have ensured that in different and distant places nature would administer the same law in a different place?
It must be said that the source of the law is external to nature: God.
What does the rabbi think about this argument?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
I didn’t understand anything. If you’d like, please elaborate on the assumptions and the course of the argument. On the face of it, it seems like nonsense to me. A few notes that will help you with the formulation and definition:
- The very claim that nature is God (=pantheism) is nonsense. It basically means that there is no God, it’s just that this Godlessness is called “nature.” Just a word and nothing more.
- The laws of nature are not applicable, so I didn’t understand what it meant to be “included within it.”
- What does it mean that they are “a derivative of nature.” They are part of it (if at all).
- Why do we need someone to oversee the uniformity of the laws of nature? They are part of the essence of nature, which is uniform.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
