In the end, there still isn’t a process here that turns the simple into the complex, because it was always complex.

Exactly, like K says.
I’m not claiming that the proof doesn’t exist, only that the Big Bang did not advance us at all.
You write in the booklet that in principle, if an eternal thing is complex, then it doesn’t need a cause (although it does need a rationale), and therefore for the physico-theological argument to be valid, one must assume that this complexity is not eternal.
The justification you give for this assumption (aside from an actual infinity) is that the Big Bang showed that the universe is not eternal (or at least that its complexity is not eternal), and I am claiming that the Big Bang did not advance us at all on this issue, since it merely compressed the universe into a unique and complex point, and again the atheist can claim that it—and its uniqueness—are eternal, exactly as atheists said in Aristotle’s time (before the discovery of the Big Bang).
I think that even in Aristotle’s time, in the absence of any positive justification for the non-eternity of the universe, it would have been proper to conclude that there is a God. But for some reason the Rabbi sees some difference between the two situations, and that is what I didn’t understand.

The transition of complexity from potential (in the singular point) to actuality (in our world today) is a wild increase in complexity. The fact that it was there in potential changes nothing, because the laws of nature are what are responsible for this indeed being a potential that can emerge into actuality in such a way. De facto, it is clear that there was a drastic increase in complexity here, except that given the laws of nature you can say that this complexity emerged from the point by natural means. And that brings us back to the uniqueness of the laws.

We can talk, for example, about an assembly line that is itself complex.
It has gears and arms that uniquely connect simple parts into complex robots.
Does the fact that there is now an addition of complexity (assembly line + robots) compared to the initial state (just the assembly line) advance us toward proving God any more than a situation in which we do not know for certain that the robots emerged at some point in the past from the complexity of the assembly line? It isn’t clear to me how.
So too in our world: the structure of the singular point (= the primordial laws that governed the process, because laws are only the structure of the primordial singular point) completely included the complexity, and actualized further complexities (human beings) according to the structure within it (the laws). How does that advance us toward a proof of God more than Aristotle’s eternal universe?

The laws are not the structure of the singular point. What does that even mean?
Think about the Book of Esther. It is full of various events whose meaning you have no idea about, until you get to the end. At the end everything takes on meaning, and you understand what each stage contributed to the overall course of events. From this the conclusion arises that the whole business was directed in advance toward its goal.
Compare that to another hypothetical situation in which Haman plots his schemes, and then suddenly in one moment he dies. You could interpret that as his having died by chance, and therefore we were saved.
Don’t you see a difference between the two?

(1) What you’re saying here is really fascinating.
If I understood you correctly, you are actually giving here another reason to prefer stopping the infinite regress at God rather than at the singular point and its laws: because our universe is processual and developing, and not just an object that is “complex and standing” in a static way like God. So the universe looks even more like the result of an intelligent being than Aristotle’s universe, where the difference between stopping the regress at God and stopping it at the world is less sharp and clear. Right?
(2) The laws are not entities, nor are they a description of the actions of entities, because if they were, then let’s prove God directly from the existence of the laws right now in 2017, without needing any complexity at all. The laws are the structure of our space (and in the past, of the singular point), just as the laws of the assembly line are the structure of the assembly line. And if the laws are indeed a description of the actions of entities, then the entity they describe is the universe itself, just as the entity described by the laws of the assembly line is the assembly line itself, not something external to it. No?
(3) How happy I was to find support for my words from the words of a world-class genius known as mdabraham in his own glory, where he writes: “[Does the fact that there is gravity in our world, and we are not familiar with a world without gravity, prevent us from wondering about the origin of this force?] (unless in our opinion it stems from ***the very nature of masses themselves***. And even about that one could argue at great length)?”

1. Indeed.
2. But the uniqueness present in the laws strengthens the proof for the existence of a lawgiver. And that uniqueness is learned from the fact that over a long and winding course of 14 billion years they took us from a singular point to the world of our time with all that is in it. So now the laws can indeed prove the existence of a lawgiver. True, even without this there is not a bad argument.
3. And those are indeed the words of that obscure genius, may he live a good long life. And I, the insignificant one, am dust and ashes beneath the soles of his holy feet.

(1) So if we want to be honest, the Big Bang did not really prove the fact that there was nothing and now there is a complex thing (in which case it is obvious that there is a composer/designer), but rather gave us additional intuitive reinforcement that the universe is not a suitable candidate to be the foundational link of the world, since it has a developmental direction and bears the “signature” of a planner. In the booklet it doesn’t quite sound that way.
(2) So I didn’t understand your view on the issue. Why not say that the laws of physics are the structure of the singular point, just like the laws of the assembly line?
(3) But one also cannot ignore the end of the holy genius’s words, where he wrote that perhaps the law of gravity is due to the very nature of masses—that is, a consequence of the structure of masses—and so too regarding the other laws. Did the genius retract his view and now hold that the law is something external to matter?

1. Always be honest. Obviously that is the argument. I’ll check the booklet again.
2. And I did not understand what your understanding is on the issue. What does it mean that the laws of nature are the structure of the point? That they are built into it? Then again the question returns: where did they come from?
3. Indeed, the holy genius held then (as far as I remember his earlier teaching) and still holds today that it is something external to matter. But even if not—see the previous section. Essentially, the question is whether another world is possible in which there is mass like ours, but it behaves differently (obeys different laws). I see no reason to say that this is impossible. Otherwise you have identified the laws of physics with the laws of logic. And that is what there is “to argue at great length” about in the words of that genius, and may his lips continue speaking from the grave.

2. How do you define the laws of the assembly line? As built into it? If so, then that is what I mean regarding the laws of nature. The laws of nature are a function of the structure of matter/space. Just as the laws of the cellphone are built into the cellphone and are not something external to it, and if they describe an entity, then that entity is the cellphone itself.
True, the proof exists even if they are built in, but then the answer to the question why it is better to stop at God than at the universe is not logically decisive (= that God’s complexity is eternal, while the universe is not eternally complex), because the atheist will say that the laws can be eternal (because they are only the structure of matter, not an existing entity, as with the assembly line), and then the Big Bang advanced us only in terms of general impression regarding the object called “the universe,” and its development causes us to say that this thing probably is not the foundation of reality.
3. What is the justification for that genius’s view that the laws are external to matter? Why not simply say that they are the structure of space/matter, like the assembly line example?

2. This whole discussion is not clear to me. I already explained, and I’ll repeat one more time. If we don’t agree, then we don’t.
If there is a complex structure inside the singular point, then it itself requires an explanation for why it is specifically like that (special). It makes no difference whether the laws are external or embedded in it (I’m not at all sure there is a difference between those possibilities). The option of stopping at the point changes nothing. Either it is its own cause, in which case it is God, or it is not, in which case you need God.
3. I explained. They can be part of it, but not a necessary part of it (otherwise you have identified physics with logic). And as far as the proof is concerned, all this makes no more difference than the peel of a garlic.

Thank you very much to the holy genius, may he live a good long life, who bears the heavy burden of answering skeptical Jews.
The Rabbi should know that he is doing work that will pay off in the long run (and of course in the short run too): in the next generation of rabbis, there will be 100 like you, and then the burden will be shared equally among all the rabbis. Today our choice ranges between your site and Hidabroot…

Here, for example, is a paragraph in the booklet that is worth correcting: “But again the answer here will be the same answer. If you continue this further, you arrive at an infinite chain, or actually at the conclusion that this information is eternal. It has always existed. Where was it? We have already seen that according to modern physics our universe is not eternal. So where was this information? The place where it was will be called by us God.” According to the discussion here, we concluded that the Big Bang theory does not show me that the singular point is not eternal, and therefore if an atheist claims that the singular point and its laws are eternal, that would not contradict science. So the Big Bang only brought us closer in terms of intuitive impression, not by anything logically decisive. There is no proof here from the very non-eternity of the universe, but only from its development.

With the blessing “Who gives strength to the weary”—or rather, “Who gives brains to fools,” Itamar.

P.S. It seems strange to me that you now claim that it is not certain there is a difference whether the laws are within matter or not, while earlier you wrote to me: “The laws are not the structure of the singular point.” But as is known, you have taken a timeout from proofs of God, so I will forgo an answer on this point (although of course I would be endlessly delighted if it nevertheless arrived by miracle).
With the blessing “Who casts the bonds of sleep,” Itamar.