1. Maybe because of such an inefficient production line, you really cannot say it was created by an intelligent being.
Because no intelligent being would do such a poor job.
2.
I saw that the Rabbi once said that there even had to be a lot of waste because of the second law of thermodynamics.

Can the Rabbi explain why?

1. As I wrote, when there is a very inefficient production line that produces something very special, that still means it has a designer. The inefficiency is at most an objection showing that the designer’s mind is different from yours. By the way, you also cannot know that the fact is poor. At most you know that you do not understand what the things are intended for. But as stated, even if you are right, that does not change the proof.
2. The second law says that in a natural process without outside intervention, the overall order does not increase. Therefore, if there is high local order somewhere, then outside it the disorder must increase so that the total amount of order (= entropy) does not increase.

1. So you are proving that the designer is not logical. That’s absurd, no?.

2. If so, then one can explain why there is life here, because it is possible. It would have been better if the overall order outside remained the same and there were life here. That would show outside intervention.
But as things stand now, everything can be explained without intervention.

3. What does it mean that the order outside decreases? For example, the Rabbi gave a one-dimensional sketch with a container of length 10 cells.
With 100 particles.
So one can imagine that all the particles are in one certain square while all the other cells are empty.
The probability is tiny, but it still exists.

That is, do the empty cells describe the disorder? On the contrary, they are actually very unique. (There should have been 10 in each cell.)

So how can one say that the system tends toward disorder? This is an example where optimal order exists from every direction, although the chance is tiny, it exists.

1. Did you read what I wrote? It doesn’t seem so.
2. It is possible within the laws, but not plausible outside the laws. See my article and the booklet.
3. A tiny probability that nevertheless occurs indicates the existence of a designer. Especially since the whole calculation is within the laws, while the main proof is from the laws themselves. The chain can describe the order, and the disorder is also outside it.
All this was explained in the article and the booklet; take it from there.

1. I read it, and I chose your option that “even if you are right” it does not change the proof.
And I’m asking why? True, it is weaker than the proof, but it is still a major difficulty.
Is the designer such an idiot?

2. Thanks.

3. Why does a tiny probability show a designer — do you mean that it is more reasonable to say there is a designer?

And regarding the whole thermodynamics part, I think I understood it in the booklet, but absolutely not the point about order in one place causing disorder around it.

In my opinion this is a very, very significant part; even if it is not necessary, it greatly strengthens the argument.
For example, a practical implication is that you claim that so many galaxies had to be formed in order to offset life on Earth. As a kind of logical law.
And that you can turn life on Earth into one of the world’s official purposes and put it back on the map of arguments.

And on this point the Rabbi really explains almost nothing apart from a few words in the response.

Why is the disorder outside it? As far as I’m concerned, this is the closed system.

I’ll try one more time.

1. He is not an idiot. You do not understand Him, or He is constrained, so to speak, by the terms of the discussion (if you want things to operate in the world according to laws, the laws determine that when order is created, there must be disorder around it). The alternative is to run the world not according to laws. See briefly here: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A2-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D/

3. A tiny probability points to a designer because when an event with tiny probability occurs, it is more reasonable to say there is a designer.

4. Order somewhere else does not cause disorder around it. The disorder around it accompanies it (there is no causal relation, except perhaps the reverse: the disorder causes the order). Many galaxies had to be formed to offset the order of life on Earth. Not as a kind of logical law, but as a law of nature.
The disorder can be outside because when a system becomes ordered in some way, this does not happen randomly but is done by an organizer who by definition is an external factor to the system. There are descriptions that explain that disorder is created in the organizer (in his mind), and that offsets the order within the system. But this is not the place to elaborate.

As stated, none of this is important to the proof at all, as I explained. A special thing requires an organizer. You do not need to know any physics or thermodynamics or anything else for this. It is just simple common sense that everyone understands.

I’ll just note regarding point one that if I find something strange that indicates design, it may be that the designer was an idiot. The only question is whether that is plausible regarding the Creator. Since He created our intellect, it would be a bit odd to think He is less intelligent than we are (though not impossible).

1,2,3) Thanks. I think I understood pretty well.

4)
Do you perhaps have a source where I can read about this in an understandable way? An article, a video, or something like that?

Because I’m not managing to understand it so well….
Thanks in advance.

Rabbi,
Does the answer to this objection appear in the booklets? This is a very common objection, and it would be worthwhile to include it before they are published, God willing.

I think the Rabbi does not understand the importance of the thermodynamics part.
It turns it from a serious objection into an objection that goes down easily.

Search online for material about Maxwell’s demon.

Does a complex thing always indicate a designer?
Say in the example of the Boeing 747, it is clear that if one sees a plane one has to assume that someone created it.
But if someone sees live with his own eyes a plane formed out of a heap of scrap metal? 1) Would one still have to conclude that there was a designer who caused precise storms?
2) Is there a case in which we would decide that the impossible happened, and there was no assembler for some complex thing?

Okay thanks,
Is the Rabbi sure that in order to allow the deviation from the entropy of Earth, so many galaxies were needed!?

In any case, the Rabbi claims that the main reason is that God runs His world according to laws.

R,
I didn’t understand the question. Ask yourself what you would say if you saw a wind assembling a plane out of a heap of scrap metal.

Moshe, I’m not sure of anything. My claim is that the existence of galaxies is not an objection to the argument. The one raising the objection has to show that it is implausible.

Okay, so if we start from the assumption that an intelligent being created the world,
why shouldn’t we ask the same question about it?
And if the Rabbi claims that there is an infinite regress and therefore we have no reason to continue beyond God,
then why stop at this universe?
(After all, that intelligent being also did not give us any real benefit in explaining the universe.)

It was explained in the second and third booklets.

Hello Rabbi,

I did not really understand your response found in the third booklet, because it feels to me like the answer to the cosmological proof.

I’ll describe what I think, and based on that maybe the Rabbi will explain.

The basic understanding:
This world is complex and requires a composer. Let us call the composer “God.”

If so, the question returns regarding God,
because He too is complex and would require a composer.

The problem we reached with this question is an infinite loop. Therefore it is preferable that we stop the loop at God and not continue it further.

The problem with such a stop is that it also involves giving up the principle that every complex thing requires a composer.

And therefore, if in any case we choose to stop the loop of composition at God, why not stop it at the world? After all, in both cases we are giving up the idea that every complex thing needs a composer.

Possibility 1: This world requires a composer, as we assumed at the beginning. Therefore it is preferable for us to assign the category of “complex without a composer” to God.

Refutation 1:
With this universe too, we are setting up the assumption that the universe requires a composer.
In a reality that is not really familiar to us.
That is, the universe requires a composer (because in practice we have no real indication of that, since we do not know how worlds come into being).

Possibility 2:
The universe cannot be eternal because of the proofs on the cosmological plane against pantheism (for example, that nothing in it is eternal, etc.).

Refutation 2: Indeed this possibility requires that the universe is not eternal, but we still threw out the assumption that the universe requires a composer, and with it the whole physico-theological argument.
That is, true, we did indeed conclude that there must be a first cause of the world (the God of cosmology), but we have absolutely no reason to assume anything about His intelligence (since we already accept that not every thing requires an intelligent composer).

Third possibility:
If we are already dealing with positing the unfamiliar (see under the entry God),
then in order to escape the whole regress we will create a new argument:
“sufficient reason,” and since the whole reason the world is this way and not another way (fine-tuning) requires a creator to make it, then let us add to the description of the creator (besides the fact that He provides the cause of the world) also the small and very significant addition — “the cause of Himself.”

Refutation 3:
The concept of sufficient reason is a rather slippery concept, and if we claim that a reality dozens of times more complex than the universe is the cause of itself, then we can also define the world as the cause of itself.

I would be glad if the Rabbi would explain why I am not right in my assumptions.

I explained everything there. This world is composed of things about which we have experience, and these are things that have a cause. God is not within our experience, and we need something like that in order to say that He has no cause.

A. I would be glad if the Rabbi would answer what is mistaken in what I wrote.

B. The laws are not within our experience, so they can replace God.

C. Why are the laws of the universe not possessed of sufficient reason (their own cause), while God is? After all, I can also define the universe as its own cause. Can’t I?

The laws are not a thing but a description of a pattern of conduct. Laws require a legislator, not a creator.

And the legislator does not require a legislator??
If you say the legislator is his own cause, then I will answer that the laws too are their own cause. No? I think the Rabbi does not know how the laws were created……..

Everything has been explained ad nauseam (already in the booklet). I’ve exhausted it and I’m exhausted. See also here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%A2%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A7/#comment-4710

I read it and still didn’t understand.
When can one say about something that it is its own cause, and when not?
I understand that one can say this about something when we know it could have had other options. For example, we had reason to think that the laws could have been different.

But we can also think that God could have been different, for example that He would not exist. So He too is not His own cause.

Isn’t that so?!!