Q&A: Moving from the Standard Proof to the Proof from the Laws
Moving from the Standard Proof to the Proof from the Laws
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi.
I am nearing the end of your third notebook, and I ran into a central question that I’d be happy to get an answer to.
It concerns the move from the standard proof to the proof from the laws.
At the beginning of the notebook you discuss the standard proof for God, and you give the following justification for why this complexity is not primordial:
“Of course here too, as in the cosmological argument, the option of an eternal world stands in the background. If this world had always been as it is, there would be no need to posit the existence of a Creator. This is not really a refutation of the argument. In fact, this challenge only exposes another hidden assumption in the background of the physico-theological argument, namely, that the complex reality we are talking about came into being at some stage (it is not eternal). The challenge from eternality is really asking what the justification is for this assumption… Physically, we already know that the universe has a finite age, about 14 billion years, and not an infinite one. This is the justification for the assumption that our world is indeed not eternal.”
You are basically claiming here that the Big Bang showed that the complexity of the universe is not primordial, and therefore the atheist no longer has the option of saying: “Why are you so amazed by the complexity of life? It’s primordial!”
But later in the notebook you move on to the ‘proof from the laws,’ and I did not find a parallel justification there for why the laws/constants are not primordial. Once we move the proof outside the laws, the atheist can again say: “Why are you so amazed by the uniqueness/complexity of the laws? They’re primordial!” Here the Big Bang no longer helps us.
Thanks in advance, Rabbi!
Answer
That is addressed by the principle of sufficient reason. Special laws ought to have a lawgiver or a sufficient reason, even if they are primordial.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know why I wrote that, or where I wrote it, or what the context was. Do you have some question about what I’m claiming?
Yes. You wrote that one of the assumptions of the argument is that the complexity is not primordial. And now you claimed that this is not one of the assumptions.
As best I recall, I made two claims: if it is not primordial, a creator is required, and even if it is, a sufficient reason is still required.
So why, before the move to the laws, did you write:
“In fact, this challenge only exposes another hidden assumption in the background of the physico-theological argument, namely, that the complex reality we are talking about came into being at some stage (it is not eternal).” What changed?