Q&A: A Question About the Existence of God
A Question About the Existence of God
Question
Hi Michael,
There is a claim according to which, from a certain perspective, there is no difference between God existing and God not existing, because God is outside the dimensions of space and time, and only something that exists within the dimension of space can either "be" or "not be."
Seemingly, I assume it is easy to refute this claim by means of the law known as the "Law of excluded middle" — according to which anything can only either "BE" or "not be."
And nevertheless, there is a refutation that does not "use" that law, but does use the law of non-contradiction:
If something is outside something else, then it must be within spatial reality, because "outside" is a description of location, and descriptions of location are relevant only to what exists within the dimension of space,
and therefore saying that God is outside the dimension of space is equivalent to saying that God is in a place within the dimension of space that is outside the dimension of space.
So in your opinion, is this refutation correct (apart from the law it does not use)? Or is there some logical flaw in it?
Thank you.
Answer
Hello.
There are several fundamental mistakes here.
1. Let me ask you: Is the current king of France bald? If you check the list of bald people, you’ll discover he’s not there. But if you check the list of people with hair, he’s not there either. Simply because there is no current king of France. This means that sometimes there is an exception to the law of the excluded middle. But for our purposes that is not enough, because seemingly the conclusion is that God does not exist (and therefore it makes no sense to discuss whether He is or is not). But that is not correct, because "exists" and "does not exist" do deal with His existence, and to say that He does not exist is already to state one of the two sides.
2. Another example will make this clearer. Is virtue triangular? Seemingly, either yes or no. But in this case neither of the two answers is correct, because it has no shape at all. Virtue does not belong to the semantic field of geometric shapes. Does that mean it does not exist? Of course not. Does the law of the excluded middle break down here? Certainly not.
3. You assume that existence is only within the framework of space, and I do not see why that is true.
4. Beyond that, you assume that God is not within space, and here too you are mistaken. He is within space just as a photon is within space even though it has no body and no bodily form and also no location (according to quantum theory, a pure photon has no location. It is spread out across all of space). The Talmud in Berakhot says that God is like the soul: just as the soul fills the whole body, so God fills the world. Is the soul "located" in the body? That is a definitional question. It is connected to it in some way, but the verb "to be located" is not necessarily relevant here. The same applies to God. By the way, in quantum theory one can describe reality without spatial concepts at all (but rather in what is called the momentum picture). Space is a possible axis, but by no means a necessary one for describing reality. Thus a photon has definite momentum, while in space it has no location. It has a description in the momentum picture and not in the position picture.
And one more remark.
I once explained the words of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin regarding contraction through an example of dimensions. There is an old question whether there is anything outside the Holy One, blessed be He (like me or you or any other existent thing in the world, and the whole world itself). If yes — then He is limited and not infinite. And if not — then we do not exist, because we are Him. One can see that this question collapses if one accepts the relation between us and Him in terms of different dimensions. For example, if we were two-dimensional and He were three-dimensional, then we are not Him, and yet we do not limit Him. And if we are three-dimensional and He is something in a higher dimension, then again the dichotomy assumed by the question collapses.
Discussion on Answer
I mean also within space. Admittedly, the concept of "being in" is not well defined in this context. He doesn’t occupy space there, but He presumably also has influence / presence there.
Could the expression "surrounds all worlds" — which tries to express divine presence in space, as we perceive it — perhaps parallel what is called the "momentum picture"? As opposed to "fills all worlds," which tries to express what exists in another dimension beyond our perception?
First, there is no reason to assume that the Zohar or the Sages knew quantum theory. Second, I don’t see any connection.
I certainly didn’t assume they knew it. But I didn’t understand why they chose specifically "surrounds" for what is according to our perception, and "fills" for what is beyond our perception. (Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, whom you mentioned, also mentions this. Nefesh HaChaim, Gate 3, chapter 6.)
First, I don’t think the difference between "surrounds" and "fills" is between what is perceived and what is beyond perception, and certainly not in the order you wrote. And the relation between the momentum picture and place is also not one of perceived and unperceived. In short, I don’t see any connection.
Could you explain how you understand the difference between "surrounds" and "fills"? If appropriate… I got a bit tangled up with this phrase.
In philosophy/theology they distinguish between an immanent God and a transcendent God. Although the overwhelming majority of the discourse surrounding this distinction is meaningless nonsense (for example, see the entry "Immanence" on Wikipedia). In general, the surrounding (the transcendent) is God as existing beyond our grasp, beyond the world. We stand opposite Him. The filling (the immanent) is God as existing within everything in reality and animating it. The kabbalistic claim is that this is not a dispute but two aspects of Him. In the description of contraction, the surrounding is the Infinite Light that withdrew and is found around reality, and the filling is the line that entered into reality. There are finer resolutions too: what is within the vessel and what surrounds the vessel, and so on.
If anything, then it is דווקא the surrounding, not the filling, that describes God as ungraspable.
Thank you. That makes sense. Where can one find sources that explain it this way?
(In Nefesh HaChaim he explains the opposite: "And the things revealed to us — according to our grasp, and this is from the aspect that is 'from our side,' He, blessed be His Name, is called from the aspect of 'surrounds all worlds'.")
And another question — have you written anywhere about the meaning of the holiness of place? That is, the meaning of holiness dependent on place as opposed to holiness in general, the meaning of the phrase "He is the place of the world, and the world is not His place," etc.? In my search I only got to this question here.
I don’t know. That’s the standard explanation, and I’m sure any search will lead you to it.
Indeed, Nefesh HaChaim writes that from the standpoint of our perception the Holy One, blessed be He, is surrounding and not filling, but it seems to me that he means that this is how the relation between Him and us is perceived by us, not that this aspect of Him represents our perceptions of Him. That is a different claim. When one reflects on the relation between the Creator and the world, the result is the surrounding, which is opposite us and above us. The aspect that He fills everything is not a necessary outcome of the philosophical perspective. But this is a distinction between two conceptions of His relation to us. A distinction between modes of His conduct that are understandable to us and modes that are not understandable to us is a different distinction. Precisely here, the surrounding represents what is not grasped by us.
I haven’t written, and I don’t know what there is to write about it. "He is the place of the world" — simply put, the intention is that He has no place within the world. Does that mean that the world is in Him (pantheism or panentheism)? I’m not sure.
Thank you very much.
If the meaning is that He has no place within the world, that doesn’t fit with what you explained in section 4 of the first answer. Actually what is explained there is pantheism, no? (About the Talmud in Berakhot.)
But maybe the meaning is that He sustains the world, meaning that the world really has no meaning and no place without Him. Then maybe that is panentheism.
And how does all this fit with holy places? Places that are more "holy" than others, like the Land of Israel? Are they holy only because of what they represent, or could there really be something different there? Divine Presence? Surrounding/filling?
Anyway, thanks, and sorry for the late hour.
Again, a mix-up between the transcendent and the immanent. Beyond that, even if He is the place of the world, one can still relate to that as if He is present at every point in space.
Holy places are places where He is more present (less hidden). Whether you interpret this as something ontic (that He really is more present there) or in a normative way (that we were commanded to relate to those places as holy, because they are a symbol of divine presence).
Okay, that’s clearer now.
But the connection between the human soul or psyche and divinity still isn’t clear. Is that different from the rest of the physical world?
How do you explain that from the two aspects of the transcendent and the immanent?
With regard to the soul as well, there are those two dimensions: God around it and within it. The soul, however, is spiritual, and as such it is closer to Him than the body is.
Ah. That’s satisfying.
A continuum that will always have those two dimensions.
Hope I really understood.
Thank you very much
Why does God need to be within space? Seemingly that’s a physical limitation there’s no need to assume, no?