Q&A: A Question About Faith
A Question About Faith
Question
Hello and blessings to the honored Rabbi Michael Abraham, who brings merit to the many.
First, I would like to apologize for intending to trouble the Rabbi with responding to my inquiry. I do not have internet access (the last time I had temporary access, I used it to go through the fascinating responsa on the Rabbi’s site); only through kosher email can I ask.
And now to the question. Is there a formula for crowning God as a “necessary existent”? Alongside this, why can one not argue that primordial matter (or more precisely, energy) is the necessary existent? After all, the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter establish that matter neither disappears nor is born, but is always present in one state or another. If so, it may be that it is the necessary existent.
With your permission, I would like to present things I wrote to Rabbi Leib Mintzberg, author of the book Ben Melekh, regarding his remarks on this matter.
Rejecting the logic of “necessary existence” proposed in the book Ben Melekh – Wisdom and Morality
The core of the argument is that regarding every substance in the world, one may ask why it exists, since it ought not to have existed. When we eventually arrive at primordial matter, we will discuss it too and say that it also ought not to have existed, and we must search for the reason for its existence. Our only answer is that necessarily it was created by an external entity that is a “necessary existent,” about which we will not ask why it exists, since that is its nature. This entity fills all reality in its simple unity, for if there were another place or another entity in the space of reality, we could again argue regarding it that if there is a place where it is not present, that means it is not supposed to be everywhere—so why is it present in this place? Consequently it is not the necessary existent of all reality, and therefore it ought not to exist at all.
The basis of the argument is the assumption that we know of no substance whose very definition is such that it cannot be “non-existent.” If every substance could have been non-existent, then without a prior cause it indeed ought to remain that way and never come into being at all.
However, this assumption is apparently incorrect. The basic laws of physics (the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter—it is known that Saadia Gaon already formulated this law in his book Beliefs and Opinions, chapter 7) establish that there is no matter in the world that came into being or ceased to be; matter only takes on form and changes form, but remains at one state or another in the universe without diminution. So too with energy in all its forms. Therefore, there is no question as to why the chair in front of us exists in the world, since if it did not appear as a chair, it would exist as a block of wood, as smoke, as vapor, or in some other form. The only legitimate question is who made the chair from other material and brought it to its present form.
When we come to discuss that same primordial basic matter that existed at the moment of the world’s creation (according to the accepted research hypothesis, it was a ball of energy that turned into matter at the creation of the world), we have no way at all of knowing its nature or whether it is possible to ask why it exists. Just as the matter we know may have always existed forever and ever, so too primordial matter may also have always existed and be the necessary existent.
Even though there may have been a creator for that primordial point (that is the truth as written in the Torah, but our discussion here is of course purely philosophical-logical), by the same token it may be that there was not, and matter existed forever, for we know of no matter that did not remain forever. Therefore the claim that we must find a factor that preceded matter falls away.
It is indeed certain that that initial ball of energy required an organizer and planner, and statistically it is impossible to imagine that it arranged itself on its own in such a brilliant and sophisticated way. But this organizer exists not philosophically but mathematically. Another problem is that the claim falls away that this primordial organizer is unique; since there is no proof for the original assumption that anything that ought not to be necessarily would in fact not have been, one may assume that there were two organizers or more.
Please do not trouble yourself and your precious time if it is difficult for you to answer me.
In advance, thank you
Answer
Hello.
This is a broad topic, and I’m not sure I understood all the arguments and counterarguments in your remarks. In general, the proofs for the existence of God are divided into two types: the cosmological and the physico-theological. The cosmological proves His existence from the fact that every existent in our experience must have a cause. And the physico-theological proves His existence from the complexity of the world (a complex thing does not create itself). Much can be discussed regarding both proofs, and I have done so at length in my notebooks on the site (they are long and detailed). I do not know whether they are accessible to you within the rules of “kosher” access, and therefore I am attaching versions of the four relevant notebooks. The second and third are the main ones relevant to your issue, although there is also good reason to look at the other two (especially since those two also refer to them).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ntopyRzKrJ8McwwQeKxIWhiXQQK6lxVK
All the best,
Discussion on Answer
Thank you very much. I started going through your material, and I can already formulate the question that troubles me regarding the cosmological argument.
Granted, everything in the created world that we know needs a cause, but all this applies only to the particular form of matter or energy. On the other hand, one could argue that the total energy of the earth, which is constant and never changes, also did not begin at any point in time and therefore does not need a cause, because it always existed.
Although the near-scientific consensus accepts the assumption that the world was created and is not eternal, with respect to that initial ball of energy that existed before the “Big Bang,” in which the total matter of the cosmos was contained, we have no information whether it was created or originated anew (correct me if I’m wrong). Therefore abstract matter does not need a cause, and it itself is the necessary existent.
A side question: is it only in the study hall of Orthodox Oral Torah that it is forbidden to disagree with medieval authorities and later authorities (it seems that you disagree freely with Kant and the like)?
It would help me a great deal if you could answer me already this evening.
Thank you very much in advance.
Hello.
The claim of an eternal world is indeed immune to the cosmological argument. It seems to me that I discuss this in the notebook. The full argument is a combination of the two arguments together.
However, if we are talking about matter as we know it, and the singular point that preceded the explosion is also matter, then it is not reasonable that it was eternal, since it does not appear to be a necessary existent. Something that is a necessary existent is something different from the matter familiar to us. Therefore it is not reasonable that this point is primordial.
What does it mean to say it is forbidden to disagree? Who forbids it? When there is no authoritative body, it is impossible to speak of prohibitions. At most, you can ask whether people customarily disagree or not.
By the way, even in the world of the study hall there is no prohibition against disagreeing with medieval authorities and later authorities. People simply do not usually do so (and I am not particular about that). The final authority that one may not disagree with is the Talmud.
I still haven’t understood. The quantity of matter (and energy) known to us has not changed at any point in the last billion years. Everything has just been games of states of matter and the like. How do we know the assumption that it was ever created? The complexity was certainly created by someone, but the matter itself—from where do we know that?
I’d be glad for clarification.
By the way, what did you mean by “the full argument is a combination of the two arguments together”? Which two arguments?
Have a good day.
I’ll try to clarify further.
A. The fuller argument for the existence of God is the combination of the cosmological and the physico-theological (mainly the second). The separation between them is mainly for didactic purposes. The cosmological deals with matter, and the physico-theological with complexity. Therefore the distinction you made between them is not really important.
B. Indeed, if you are willing to accept the thesis that the world (= matter-energy, the singular point) is eternal, then there is no room for the cosmological argument (though the physico-theological still remains). I only noted that regarding matter or physical entities in general (and that includes the singular point), it is commonly assumed that they are not eternal and are not necessary existents. If you do not accept that, then indeed the cosmological argument is not valid for you. But this is still an assumption of common sense, and on that basis one can build a cosmological argument. By contrast, God is a different kind of being, one not found in our experience, and therefore one may accept the conclusion that He is a necessary existent and has always existed.
Let me speak just this once more, and pardon me. It seems to me that you still haven’t understood me.
In my view, we have no experience not only regarding God, but also regarding the singular point! It lies beyond our filtering for the simple reason that we still have no experience at all with matter or energy that were created or completely annihilated! We have never heard of matter being created, so why should we think that singular point was created (as opposed to what is known to us about every other matter in creation)?
I hope that now I’m understood.
What was in that singular point became the matter familiar to us. Therefore it is completely unreasonable that this point is a necessary existent and that it always existed. But as I said, this debate is sterile. The physico-theological proof complements this proof, and it is a shame to discuss it separately.
I have a reason why I insist on the cosmological argument (because I want to examine whether one can argue about every matter that if it has no reason to exist, it ought not to exist, and thereby argue that God is the first cause. And then I would go on to argue that if there were two gods, I would also ask regarding them why each one is not the other, and I would need a cause external to them, and thus I would prove the unity of God).
I will end the discussion with abundant thanks, and with the blessing that you continue to learn and teach with peace of mind and mental composure.
(I am reading with great eagerness the articles you attached for me on the proofs for God, and enjoying them very much. By the way, do you also have notebooks on belief in divine unity and on the negation of corporeality?)
I should note that a friend of mine from the kollel, who read about you on Wikipedia—that you don’t mind being defined as a heretic according to most of the medieval authorities—warned me not to dare correspond with you. I hope no harm comes to his eyes.
Hello.
Indeed, that is true. I wrote that I do not care what people call me or whether someone considers me a heretic. As far as I am concerned, the only thing that matters is arguments on the merits, not this label or that. If I think X, what good does it do if they call me a heretic? Even if it is true that I am a heretic, that is still what I think.
All the best,
You made me very happy. This is exactly what I’m looking for. Many thanks. May you merit to continue spreading the clear light of faith.