This issue really bothers me. I’d appreciate it if you’d make an effort to read this and respond here (it’s not long) – https://abc770.org/article_node_5628/

If there is some argument there, please post it here and we can discuss it.

A few days ago I wrote a long comment here. Did it get lost because of hackers? Do they have something specifically against me?!…

Or maybe the hosting company responsible for the backup frequency has something against you.

I found it in my email trash:

Comment from A:

This is a bit long, but in any case I think the claim can be formalized like this (at least in general form):

First premise: the world is created anew. (The detailed reasons for this can be seen in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed; in Tanya this stands as a clear premise.)
Second premise: something that is newly created requires constant renewal. (This is the logical rule used by Tanya.)
Conclusion: the world is renewed at every single moment.

Now, the second premise—that something newly created requires constant renewal—can be broken down like this:

First premise: by definition, a newly created object always comes after a prior state of nature (and that is why it is newly created).
Second premise: the prior state of nature is stronger than the object itself (implicit premise: what comes first indicates a stronger kind of existence).
Conclusion from these two premises: without an injection of energy into the new creation, nature will overcome the creation and cancel it.

[As an illustration, maybe think of a person throwing a stone: the force of flight is newly introduced into the stone, and therefore after the force ends, the stone falls.]

Translated into the context of creation: the static nature of things is that only the Creator exists, and there is no existence outside Him. Therefore the new creation, which is the world, stands in contradiction to nature (it contradicts the Creator, who had existed alone without external reality). If so, without an injection of energy into this new creation (the world), it ought to be nullified at every moment by the force of the natural state in which only the Creator exists. Yet the world is not nullified, because it receives an injection of energy stronger than nature. So we arrive at the conclusion that the world needs the Creator’s push in order to exist. Which is what we wanted to prove.

It seems that the main point of the argument rests on the second premise. And whoever does not accept that axiom, the argument is irrelevant to him.

What do you think?

Clarification: the assumption is that there is something that threatens to wipe it out. The very existence of the Creator stands in contradiction to creation. It—by definition—does not tolerate independent creations. If the Creator does not renew the creation, then it should be nullified.

Possibly there is a hidden assumption here about the essence of idolatry. In this conception, the very fact that there is a reality that does not need renewal, meaning an independent reality, is a subtle form of idolatry.

—————————-

I didn’t find my response:
But I remember that I wrote that these premises don’t seem right to me. I see no reason to oppose inertia in the existence of things. I don’t see anything that threatens them.
As I recall, you wrote that the Creator’s existence does not tolerate the existence of other things (because of His infinity). And I wrote that I don’t see why. Certainly not after He decided to create them. These assumptions are the kind of common speculations that I don’t understand where they came from.

If the Creator is unlimited—meaning, present in everything and permeating everything—then the moment there is another reality, even the smallest one, it follows that something in His “limitlessness” has been damaged. In a very subtle sense this is like idolatry, except that idolatry threatens His rule, whereas this threatens His abstract existence in a subtle way.

Therefore, when He creates something, He is forced to sustain it at every moment so that His limitlessness should not be negated.

Not reasonable?

Not at all. If the Creator sustains it, then it doesn’t exist? There is no contradiction between the existence of something and the Creator’s limitlessness. Like three dimensions and two dimensions. Beyond that, who said He is unlimited?

The fact that a certain reality exists (and does not need renewal) is not some arbitrary definition; it is a property that follows from the essence of that reality. If on the essential level it is supposed to be here (the reality, in and of itself, can justify its own existence), then it will be here, and by definition there is no reason to assume it depends on some other force to enable its existence (since it itself justifies the reason it is here, as stated). In other words, for a certain entity to meet the definition of “reality,” it is not enough that it merely exists; one must also be able to say of it that it “ought to exist.”

Now, you are claiming that God may have created a world that exists by virtue of itself.

Let us consider, first of all, the essential level: is the world the kind of reality that is necessary in itself? Clearly not (after all, it was created at some stage). It follows that on the essential level, the world does not meet the definition of “reality.” The fact that the world is here is not the result of some private “engine,” but because another force brought it here.

Now, theoretically, it is possible that God created such a world that on the level of actuality it does not require constant coming-into-being. But clearly that property would contradict its own essence (“non-reality”), so why assume that the Holy One, blessed be He, would impose on the world a definition that contradicts its own essence?

Clearly, that is a novelty. It makes more sense to assume that the properties of the world correspond to its own essence (“non-reality”), and therefore it requires constant coming-into-being.

The claim is that an independent reality threatens the Creator, but a reality that exists at every moment from the Creator’s energy does not diminish Him.

And in logic I think this distinction can be understood. The point is that there is such a thing as “idolatry.” And in a subtle sense, that is anything that stands as a real and independent reality against the Creator. A world that is renewed at every moment does not stand in contradiction to the Creator, because at this very moment the Creator is renewing it.

As for His being unlimited, that seems to me axiomatic. It is built into the concept “God”; it is built into the term. Whoever doesn’t see that, in my opinion, is blind. And if you want, it is even built into Anselm’s argument. A limitless creator is more perfect.

This hair-splitting is beyond me.

And the previous one too.

Just for the record:

There are two commenters here, me (A) and Israel. These are two different positions. Hope you can respond to both of us… and sorry for the bother…

I know. I saw that, and I answered both of you. These are two pieces of hair-splitting that I see no point in discussing.

Too bad. I think what I wrote is not some polished pilpul that just feels like nonsense (unlike what Israel wrote, which I agree is just empty verbiage). Too bad.

A,
As for the threats to the Creator, I’ll leave Him to defend Himself.
You came from the direction of the ontological argument, which speaks of the most perfect being one can conceive of. But one cannot conceive of an unlimited being, because if He is unlimited then I do not exist. So who is there to conceive of Him?
There you have a counter-pilpul.

Nice.

Okay, I certainly exist. Period. That is a given. The question regarding Him is whether God as I described Him is greater—I think yes.

In any case, that is really marginal. Let’s set that aside for a moment. Let’s assume that He is unlimited in some sense (that the world receives life from Him at every moment). My main point is about what you wrote, “I’ll leave Him to defend Himself” — I’d be glad if you would expand on that.

What I meant was that you spoke about threats to His essence. And I said that I do not understand that. Nothing that exists poses any threat to His essence, whether the Holy One, blessed be He, gives it life every moment or not. Especially since the Holy One, blessed be He, is the one who created it and could have chosen not to create it or to prevent its coming into being.

Maybe what is really assumed here is the view that divine contraction is not literal. Then the claim would be that the existence of something interferes with His essence. But if the contraction is literal, then He simply decided to limit Himself, contract, and that’s that. There is neither a threat nor anything hidden here.

[“A threat to His essence” — that may sound inflated and strange, but what I mean is that it dulls the property of His “limitlessness.” This is unlike a case where the thing is made and sustained at every single moment by Him, for then there is no flaw relative to Him. After all, the thing is being renewed by Him, and is not standing independently, which is the root of the problem.]

To tell the truth, it is really not clear to me why what I wrote above sounds so far from reason. With regard to all created beings, we find that their particular properties and definitions correspond to the creature’s own essence. Why assume that concerning the very existence of the world this would be different?

A,
I understood that. I explained why in my opinion it is not relevant.

Israel,
I truly do not understand this hair-splitting. I see no obstacle to God creating a reality that would not need constant pumping from Him in order to exist. I don’t know what follows from whose essence, and I don’t see why any of this is relevant.

1. If I identify that God created beings in a certain way, I assume this is a general approach that applies to the manner of creation of all beings.
2. In all beings, their characteristics and definitions correspond to their essence (“Platonic idea”) of that being. (In all beings one cannot find a property or definition that does not express its general essence.)
3. The definition of reality is: an entity that exists by its own power. (If its very existence depends on another power, then it is really an expression of that second reality.)
4. The touchstone for whether some entity is “reality” (on the essential level) is that it was, is, and will be. (For if you exist by your own power, how could it be that you did not exist in the past?)
5. The essence of the world is that it is “non-reality.” (For the world is not eternal; rather, it was created at some stage.)
6. The default state of an entity that is not “reality” (on the essential level) is the need for a power that allows it to exist.
7. To insert into an entity that does not meet the definition of “reality” the property of being independent is a novelty. (There is here a particular property that contradicts the essential layer of the entity [“non-reality”].)

Therefore, although God has the ability to create a world that stands on its own, if we claim that this is what He did, then we will need to explain why God departed from His usual pattern, and only in this creation inserted a particular property that contradicts its essence, unlike all other created beings. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that He really did not insert that property into the world, but rather continually brings it into being at every moment.

There is not a single sentence here that I understand, and I suspect you don’t either.

The main thrust of his argument is in points 5 and 6.

According to him: (5) the world is not “true reality,” by which he means that it is newly created and was not always there — that is a fairly trivial claim. (6) Every reality that is “not true” requires constant renewal at every single moment.

And if you ask why? How does claim 6 follow from 5? I do not know. I also do not understand. In my opinion this is just an illogical assumption.

I—unlike him—claim that something requires constant renewal only when there is a force opposing it (law of inertia), and it seems to me that on this you and I agree.

Rather, I claim that one could perhaps say that the Creator’s “limitlessness” opposes the world (and therefore renewal is needed), whereas you claim that there is no contradiction between the world and the Creator. But both of us agree that the world requires an “energy boost” only when there is opposition. By contrast, the commenter “Israel” claims that the very existence of a world that is not a necessary reality compels constant renewal, and neither you nor I know where he got this novel premise from.

Michi, do you agree?

With respect, I don’t have time to keep digging into this. I said what I had to say.

How can God create something from nothing? Granted, He is something, but still, you understand…
Though perhaps according to your approach this is not difficult, because as I understand it you claim that a human being also creates and offsets matter (though not from nothing?) by free choice in order to preserve the law of conservation of energy.