Thanks. Can I publish the response on their site? (That will presumably trigger counter-responses, and the Rabbi obviously doesn’t have time.)

Publish it, the Rabbi will be very happy!

But how could evolution produce so many species, male and female? That doesn’t make sense to me! And what about the soul—when exactly was it breathed into us? Did He wait until the human was formed and only afterward breathe a soul into him? And if that were so, he wouldn’t have been called Adam, because he was formed by evolution!

Ronen, you can, but in my opinion it’s pretty pointless. First, the points need more explanation. Second, those guys don’t listen. Might as well talk to the wall.

A.
The Rabbi didn’t explain why these laws need a creator.
We have never seen a law that is created, such that it would require a creator.
And if they need one, then God needs one too.
What is the distinction?

B.
The laws were formed in each universe in the Rabbi’s multiverse theory.
So we know that we were not created by a creator. (Or the machine is the creator, but that does not seem to be what he means.)

A. These things are explained in detail in my book and in the third booklet. Laws are not entities, and therefore they cannot cause anything. The laws only describe what takes place, but their lawgiver is the one responsible for all this. When you arrive at a factory and see that it is operating in an exemplary and coordinated way among all its parts and workers, you will not be satisfied with the “explanation” that there is a rulebook telling everyone what to do. You would wonder, quite rightly, who wrote the rulebook and why the workers act according to it. You would conclude that there is a lawgiver and manager of the factory, and he is responsible for its operation.
A system of laws that is well coordinated and brings about the formation of such complex and unique creatures requires explanation. Why specifically this system of laws and not another one?
These matters were already explained very well in the third booklet and in my book and articles, and there is no point in repeating everything here again.

B. I have an even simpler suggestion: the theory of random nonsense, which says that nothing needs a cause and nothing special needs an explanation. What’s wrong with that? If giving something a name instead of explaining it seems reasonable and satisfactory to you, then good for you. I addressed that too in the sources mentioned above.
The multiverse explains nothing. Now, instead of explaining the formation of one universe, you have to explain what mechanism creates universes out of nothing all the time, each time with different laws. And on top of that, you have to explain why we do not observe any of this. The same goes for every surprising phenomenon, or any very rare event: you can always propose an explanation according to the theory of many events, and thereby dispense with explanation.

A.
I know the booklet,
and I would agree with the Rabbi if the laws were complex.

But the small problem is that evolution is not complex at all.
And not only that, its essence is founded on logic—natural selection.
Something that even God cannot bypass, according to the Rabbi’s own definition.

Also, all of “nature”—the “complicated” part—is only about six simple laws.

So maybe for hundreds of laws that work together I would require a lawgiver, but not for a few isolated laws.

Am I not right?

B.
The Rabbi is looking for logic in reality…
What can we do if there is a machine that creates and destroys lots of universes for no reason and with no context infinitely many times over an infinite “time”?

Does the Rabbi still think that this requires an explanation?~!!!

Can the Rabbi address this? The issue at hand…

Thanks in advance!

No law will explain to you how a plant grows, because that is the wonder of wonders. How did fruits come out of water?
B. The Rabbi told you that a law causes nothing. And who invented this machine? I never heard about it when I read the entry on abiogenesis.
Should we also put some hot sauce in your pita, or just hummus and mustard?

I’d be happy for the Rabbi to answer.
I’m sure he can also explain to you the scientific view of how a plant is formed by law.

B.
See the entry on multiverse theory.

Hello Pugi.
I did address it. These are special, coordinated laws whose combination makes the formation of life possible (which is a very special phenomenon, with very low entropy). Therefore these laws require explanation. We are talking about six very simple constants, but they have very precise values, and with slightly different values life (that is, chemistry and biology) would not have arisen at all. This is the fine-tuning argument, and if you read the booklet, I do not understand why I need to repeat it.
This is aside from the fact that the formation of laws and universes is a phenomenon unfamiliar to us, and is therefore itself speculative—something you can always raise with respect to any familiar phenomenon. Moreover, these formations are themselves a natural physical phenomenon, and as such they too require explanation and are based on some mechanism (like spontaneous formations in quantum theory, which occur within quantum theory and therefore cannot explain anything. Because quantum theory itself is a law of nature that requires explanation).
Evolution is not only natural selection, because if it were, it would be a branch of mathematics and logic, not of science. You also need heredity and the emergence of mutations.

If we take the example of the watch or the airplane, then someone who sees a watch and asks himself how it came into being—Pugi would probably tell him, “That’s just how it works in our universe, that such an airplane suddenly comes into being at such a time; in other universes there are different laws.” I don’t think that is an answer that can be rejected with certainty, but if that seems like an implausible argument to someone, then it should probably also seem implausible to him regarding the universe. (And at least the burden is on him to explain his position.)

Please present the formula for creating a plant. And if the plant was also created from those “cells” that created animals, then where are the mutations here? Who put into every plant the vitamins and minerals that we need? How are these plants not literally alive, after all they were formed from living cells… that connected and divided and whatever, and after millions of years plants were formed—ha, who would believe that?!
Let’s say animals were formed from living cells, though I still don’t understand where those original living cells came from. How could they “give birth” / “spawn” / “bear” their own kind? What caused them to connect sexually at all? It’s all very murky.
And I already asked and no one answers: if those cells built the plant body or the animal body, then where did the soul come from, such that when it leaves, the body “made” of cells completely decays? You haven’t given an explanation of where the soul was “brought” from—or the “life-force” of animals or the “vegetative force” of plants.

To Yishai—regarding the watch example, it seems flawed to me, because why should a watch be formed? Who said a watch is needed, for what purpose should it be formed?
So I don’t think the “world” came into being without a reason and without a cause. It’s like saying that someone who didn’t buy a lottery ticket nevertheless won the lottery. There’s no such thing. He has to buy a ticket. If the world doesn’t need a “reason” for the cells to “come,” then they shouldn’t come.
And that’s nothing yet, because you also talk about mutations, which surely aren’t needed—so they specifically “won” the lottery? The very joining together of the cells created mutations in the first place, because the “cells” supposedly changed their “form” or became absorbed into the organs of the first mutations or those produced by them. And nowadays you can’t separate them (the “cells” from the mutations) as they once were in the past. And why don’t they “find” in the field “such individual cells” that didn’t connect to anything, or that connected and didn’t become anything but remained as they were from millions of years ago—why are there no “remains” of them?

The questions about cells and mutations relate to what the Rabbi said: “Evolution is not only natural selection, because if it were, it would be a branch of mathematics and logic, not of science. You also need heredity and the emergence of mutations.”

Pugi—what universes are you and the Rabbi talking about that were created and destroyed? Explain it to me.

Besides that,
the Rabbi is mistaken that the world requires an explanation.
There are other things that happen in the world that are not logical at all,
for example time is relative, space is misleading.

Yishai, I’ll just add that I never speak in terms of certainty. We are talking about probability. This is not a proof in the usual mathematical-logical sense (of course, someone who accepts the premises with certainty will also be able to derive the conclusion with certainty).

Pugi,
I’m sorry, but your words clearly show a lack of understanding. Why would things that are not logical undermine the physico-theological argument in any way? [By the way, what is “space is misleading”?] And besides, in what sense are they not logical? Because you got used to thinking otherwise (that time is not relative)? Then you were mistaken. What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

Of course we got used to thinking otherwise, until science opened our eyes,
and so too here,
there is no reason to infer from a lack of scientific knowledge to a need for God. We should simply wait until we discover an alternative…

By the way, Hawking has already solved your question of how the universe was created.

See there.

Hello.
It seems that contrary to what you wrote, you are not familiar with the booklet, because you keep returning again and again to questions that were already explained and answered there.

As I explained in the booklet and in the articles and the book, this is not a proof based on lack of scientific knowledge (God of the gaps). As stated, this is a misunderstanding. If you are interested, go and read.

As for Hawking, he solved all the problems of the universe long ago. Only one problem remained: his poor philosophical ability. His atheist devotees treat every bit of nonsense he utters as though it were a prophetic revelation. Unfortunately, that reflects church-like and fanatical “religious” thinking, like theirs and like what is common in parts of religious society, and that is a shame.

Can the Rabbi explain what the mistake is in his words?

P.S.

As I already showed, the world is not philosophical,
so it is hard to attack him on that basis,
or in other words,
reality shows that the world works against our logic.

The world does not work against our logic (in your language: it is philosophical), since our understanding of it is based on that very same logic. At most there are phenomena we do not understand. In the booklet and in my book I explained the argument, and its objections fall away on their own. It attacks incorrect arguments.
If there is some specific point you are interested in, write it and I will try to address it. But these things are already explained there and there.