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
A lot more work is needed before I see an argument here. Even individual sentences here are constructed in a vague and careless manner.
The argument that nature is God is pantheism, which I have already written here is completely equivalent to atheism (there is no God, but nature is called God. Semantics aside). Are the laws of nature applications or descriptions of behavior? What does it mean that they are “included” in it? What does it mean that they are “derivative” of nature? They are included in it.
Where did the question of laws being enforced the same way in different places come from? What’s the problem with that? Why does anyone need to look after it? And what does all of this have to do with the laws that were written in the first place?
???
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
