Q&A: The Creator of the Laws
The Creator of the Laws
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In practice, one can argue that the laws of nature are eternal and do not require a creator.
If so, since all the laws of nature are basically just 4 basic laws, why think they require an emanator??
That is, the physicotheological argument is gone.
The cosmological argument was void from the outset (because the definition of the laws is that they are eternal).
So there is no reason to argue for a creator, and there is no rational reason to think so.
Answer
First, the laws of nature are not entities but descriptions of how nature operates. In order to be a cause of something, a thing must itself be an entity.
Second, see the third notebook for a response to this argument (the distinction between the principle of sufficient reason and the principle of causality).
Discussion on Answer
???
He wants to argue that quantum theory shows that not everything has a cause.
I also explained in my book how quantum theory relates to this. It isn't true.
By inventing all kinds of conjectures with no scientific basis, like conservation of entity, and turning the wheel of history back 1,500 years to a reality of prime matter—then maybe that counts as an explanation.
Is it rational? Not clear. …
The Rabbi has been mistaken ever since quantum mechanics.