What the Rabbi wrote—that it comes from the fact that we do good and know how to distinguish between good and evil—
one could seemingly reject by saying this is an evolutionary development [coming from the fact that someone who did evil—for example, murdered—would obviously also get killed, or at least punished; and therefore we are nice and social [generally speaking].
And by the way, this isn’t only true of human beings; there are lots of social animals. We’re just smarter and know how to define it better.]
And Kabbalah—the tradition—is also a bit difficult, because it says, for example, that the children of Israel did not observe Passover for a certain period.
That is, they weren’t told that God took us out of Egypt, let alone told that God is such-and-such. It seems they simply received nothing in that period. And all this is only if we assume there really was a giving of the Torah, and rely on a tradition more than three thousand years old. There’s a lot of pressure here. Doesn’t the Rabbi think so???

People say God is good only in order to feel good, nothing more.
God is not good. The opposite. The good is whatever God says.
God precedes the good. Certainly, the good is not a property of God.
If God says “an eye for an eye,” that means it is good. And those who think it isn’t good are the evil ones, not the other way around.

Nonsense. It says in the Torah that God has thirteen attributes.
And even the example you gave isn’t really all that moral in its plain meaning, and the Sages determined that it means monetary compensation. Why? Because that’s morality, right?!
True, there are some things in the Torah that are a bit immoral [slavery and the like], and there’s no difficulty in that, since the Torah was given 3,500 years ago, and God adapted the Torah to their situation [that is, the Torah could not change their lives from one extreme to the other]. [Besides, according to what you say—that this isn’t His attribute—it’s very difficult to understand why God determined it this way???]
And besides, according to this, God also doesn’t change [I guess I’ve said nothing], since God was always good]

Rabbi, then I don’t understand: are you basically claiming that there’s no proof that God is perfect? (It seems to me that Maimonides claims there is.)
And besides, even if I accept the tradition that God said He is good—who says I can really believe Him? After all, if He is evil, then He can also lie.
So what proof do I have besides the fact that He says He is good?

In the answer above, the Rabbi wrote: “You can of course keep asking them how they know that God is perfect. That’s an English-English dictionary. So in my opinion this whole discussion is unnecessary.” I’d like to examine this answer a bit, because it seems like a kind of conceptual pragmatism.
The answer says that since grounding the matter in perfection doesn’t help us establish the claim that God is good, we won’t ground it in perfection at all, but rather in a direct intuition regarding the good. But that very intuition is what led them to ground it in perfection, so what kind of pragmatism is this—accepting the intuition that God is good while rejecting the intuition that this rests on perfection? [Unless this is hinting at a philosophical critique that everything is founded on assumptions, etc.]

Elhanan Rhine,
First of all, you should know that God does not want [emphasis on “want”]; God has no wants and no needs.
Therefore God is obviously perfect, and when they say “God’s will is to do good,” what they mean is that it is His nature to do good
[emphasis on “His nature”]. It’s not a will external to Him, as the Maimonides you mentioned proves.

To Elhanan—greetings,

It seems that God is very patient, since He allows you to claim that He is evil and a liar and so on. That kind of patience testifies to a good temperament 🙂

Best regards,
An Endless Elephant

I don’t understand how you can talk about God’s desires and tell me that He is perfect and good?!
Have you met Him? Do you have evidence for what you’re saying?
What you’re saying is written in every Lithuanian yeshiva pamphlet.
Proofs, please.
And regarding the one who proved from reality that God is patient:
I hope that was a joke. There’s no shortage of proofs of evil acts by God. No shortage.

All those who speak about God’s nature are just impudent, and probably heretics too.

Impudent and heretics—true enough, but why “just”?

I don’t understand—you’re the one who came with Maimonides’ proof that He is perfect, so what are you writing: “I don’t understand how you can talk about God’s desires and tell me that He is perfect”? So I wrote about what you asked in the question:
“When both wills are equally problematic for the statement that He is perfect and all-powerful, let’s say the opposite: that He cannot have a desire to do good because that indicates deficiency, and that He is trying to harm us even though we don’t understand.?”
And this is what I wrote to you:
to answer what you asked—that God’s being good doesn’t imply that He is perfect—which is not true.
Because it is in His nature. This is very deep, but it’s after Maimonides proved that God is perfect and unchanging.
I took all this from Guide for the Perplexed, according to which God does not change, as I mentioned in the responsa on Knowledge and Choice, see there.
And in Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, all of Part I—and then come back and ask who God is.

All those who speak about God’s nature are just impudent, and probably heretics too. Last Decisor, a request from you:
if you could stop your comments, it would really help all of us.
Every time, another cryptic comment.

With God’s help, 23 Tammuz 5780

To E.R.—greetings,

The intensity of God’s patience is testified to by the fact that even when you attribute evil things to your Creator, He continues to give you life, health, and strength, and to operate the sophisticated supercomputer called “man.” Without your Creator’s constant help, you would not be able to type your words on a computer, send them over the network, and see them published.

And from here Rabbi Moshe Cordovero learned in Tomer Devorah the greatness of the Creator’s attribute of “slowness to anger,” which allows even those who violate His will to carry out their rebellion against Him.

Divine long-suffering involves temporary suffering in the world, since many exploit it for evil, but in this way the world is improved and repaired. Suffering causes a person to aspire to the good and draw out from within himself powers and capacities for action he never dreamed he had. Revolt against evil and suffering stirs up the person and the world and moves it upright toward a better future.

Best regards,
S.Z.

I don’t know who sent that comment—it wasn’t nice. But the main point of what you said is certainly incorrect. Maimonides, who discusses the issue, was neither impudent nor a heretic.

Regarding evolution, see the fourth notebook. Evolution does not produce morality, but actual good behavior. And the two are nowhere near one another. Of course, one can cast doubt on whether we have moral obligation and attribute it to an innate tendency (an impulse to do good), but that is no different from any other skeptical question.

Shuli asked me about pragmatism, but that is a mistake. When I trust something because I have a feeling that it is true, that is not pragmatism.
But what I answered the questioner was not pragmatic in any sense. I told him that I don’t understand how he accepts God’s perfection yet questions His goodness. What is the connection between the two? If he asks me about His morality, I ask him about His perfection. I did not write that I adopt His perfection in order to reach the conclusion that He is good. On the contrary, that is what the questioner suggested.

I’m talking about Mandatory Request.

The Rabbi answered me as follows: “Regarding evolution, see the fourth notebook. Evolution does not produce morality, but actual good behavior. And the two are nowhere near one another. Of course, one can cast doubt on whether we have moral obligation and attribute it to an innate tendency (an impulse to do good), but that is no different from any other skeptical question.” End quote.
When I asked whether it comes from evolution, I meant that we have this attitude from birth, of course.
That is, the Rabbi says God is good because we do good. But that’s the question: who says this comes from morality?

Dear Jacob!!! That’s exactly the point. I didn’t understand what the proof was when I read it, that God is perfect. Because of course He has great powers, but who says He is all-powerful? And also regarding what you tell me—that it is His nature to be good—that’s exactly the question: maybe His nature, at the deepest possible level, is to do evil.

The questioner suggested deriving goodness from perfection in order to prove that God is good. You answered him that this is “unnecessary,” because we would still need a grounding for perfection itself. Meaning, even if the derivation worked (perfect implies good), it still wouldn’t “help” us prove that God is good. And that is what I asked about: assuming my presentation is correct, what are words like “unnecessary” and “help” doing here? I didn’t understand the mistake.

[It seems to me, as a mere hypothesis, that this is how you see the matter: those who derive goodness from perfection think justification can only be by derivation, but direct recognition of some principle (such as that God is good) is not legitimate. But if only they realized that they too need direct recognition of the principle of perfection, then the closed heart of their understanding would open and they would return to their source and accept as legitimate their direct recognition of the principle of goodness.]

Elhanan, I didn’t come to answer whether God is evil or good [if you didn’t notice, I asked the Rabbi about evolution].
I only said that God’s being good does not imply deficiency in Him [as you asked]: “that He cannot have a desire to do good because that indicates deficiency, and that He is trying to harm us even though we don’t understand.?” And regarding what you asked—who said God is perfect—I already wrote that this is the subject addressed by Guide for the Perplexed [see also Part II]. I also sent you to look at the responsa on Knowledge and Choice; if you read carefully there, you’ll understand the idea.

Maybe I was excessively harsh, but you can’t jump into other people’s argument, answer, and then after Jacob refutes you, say that this is an argument among heretics and insolent people. And besides, Jacob argued well that this is an ancient dispute—to say they are all insolent and heretics. [But what mainly bothers me is that you’re the one who wrote here that God isn’t really good. If anyone here is a heretic, it’s you.]

What do you mean?

Obviously, after “The Last Decisor” has issued his ruling that it is impossible to discuss God’s nature—anyone who dares disagree with our final decisor is certainly insolent 🙂

And on the hem of our final decisor’s cloak I would note that even in the words of “Petach Eliyahu” in the holy Zohar it is explained that God Himself is such that “no thought can grasp Him at all.” What can be discussed is only the modes of conduct by which God governs His world. And in this we trust the testimony of the Torah that even when there is suffering in the world, its purpose is “to do good for you in your latter end.”

Best regards,
Tuvia and Zigud

Jacob,
I answered that. I myself understand directly (through introspection) that this comes from moral obligation. If you want to argue that this is an illusion and really an evolutionary construction, the burden of proof is on you. That is a purely skeptical claim. Even if I answer you on this, you can still ask who says I’m not mistaken. I see no point in such a discussion.

Shuli, sorry, but I really don’t understand your pilpul.

But that was the whole question: who says that the fact we are good is because God is good? You could say it’s an evolutionary process. [And assuming evolution does not develop morality], then let’s say we are built to do good???
And I, who don’t have that introspective recognition, unfortunately need to think of another answer.
But even according to the Rabbi there is uncertainty here and no proof of it [emphasis on proof].

Rabbi Michael, thank you. But there is one point you didn’t answer for me:
How can one prove that God is good from the fact that God claims He is good, when if He is evil, then He can also lie that He is good?
So is there any outside evidence that His will or nature is good rather than evil?

What a shame to miss such a genuine pilpul.

After thinking more deeply, I understood—and with the Rabbi’s permission I’d like to add a little to his words.
The Rabbi’s answer is excellent [by the way, Elhanan, I didn’t understand what you want from the Rabbi—the Rabbi answered from the fact that we are good, and this isn’t from God, whom you feared might perhaps be lying; this we see. And evolution is not such a difficulty, because]
Of course God also operates evolution, just as God operates all of nature. And one who operates evolution is clearly continually good. [This is somewhat similar to the proof from the world, which I really didn’t understand why you rejected, Elhanan.
After all, the fact that you see much evil in the world has a clear reason—[if one person murders another, it is because God decided to give human beings free choice; and animals, because of sins and such—see Guide for the Perplexed Part III on this.
But only a fool would deny the good in the world, and an evil God would not do this. (That is, the good God can do both evil and good [what is called “reward and punishment”], but your imaginary lying god—why would he also do good?)
That’s how it seems to me. What do you all think?

To E.R.—greetings,

In order to receive “outside proofs” that the Creator is good and true, you would have to go “outside,” to be found in a system that is not under the Creator’s control. Because as long as you are “inside,” He could plant in you a “false consciousness” regarding His goodness and truth.

And of course there will be a problem in this wondrous journey outward, because we could never know whether we really succeeded in getting outside or whether we are still “inside” and only imagining that we are “outside.” So the journey to the “outside” is a bit stressful 🙂

With the blessing of “come on in,”
S.Z. Levingenrhein

Nochi. It’s just that. There’s no intellect there. It comes from stupidity and lack of understanding.

Mandatory Request. Indeed so. My comments are cryptic for the cryptic.

Amen—may I continue to remain too dense for your cryptic comments, so nonsense won’t get into my head.
But seriously, don’t you think you’re being problematic? Let me remind you what I wrote: “Maybe I was excessively harsh, but you can’t jump into other people’s argument, answer, and then after Jacob refutes you, say that this is an argument among heretics and insolent people. And besides, Jacob argued well that this is an ancient dispute—to say they are all insolent and heretics. [But what mainly bothers me is that you’re the one who wrote here that God isn’t really good. If anyone here is a heretic, it’s you.]”
I think you should apologize to Elhanan Rhine and to Jacob.

I think this is an excellent answer. Think more deeply and you’ll find that it’s so.

P.S. The topic seems finished to me. I don’t think I’ll write more about it [unless there is a good argument].

Last Decisor, I tend to agree that there’s no intellect there and that it stems from stupidity, but I completely disagree with you that it has to do with lack of understanding.

I didn’t see Jacob’s response.
Now I see that he decided that he and Maimonides are on the same intellectual level. That too is a bit impudent.

Certainly God is not good. If He were good, that would mean the good preceded God.

And worse: when a person says God is good, he means that God follows that person’s own distortions regarding the definition of the good.

I wrote that God precedes the good. If God says “an eye for an eye,” that means it is good.

Nochi. Of course you don’t agree, since you don’t even understand how impudent and stupid it is to talk about God’s nature.
When you understand, you’ll understand that what you thought before came from lack of understanding.

I don’t know whom you’re discussing. But today I saw thousands upon thousands of people donating to two cancer patients. I saw anonymous donors giving large sums. I saw people who have very little and still gave from what they have. And honestly, tears flooded my eyes. How could they not? I saw purity of heart in action before thousands. It was something special.

Obviously this Jacob isn’t even close to being at my level [the Last Decisor]. Not everyone on the site can be the Last Decisor. You don’t see me and don’t know how important I am.

Shameful. Arrogance is repulsive. Retract quickly.

Anonymous is right. Revolting.

Who appointed you to be the Last Decisor anyway? Maybe delete that from the site [ask the Rabbi].

I saw that you wrote that Jacob compares himself to Maimonides. I think there’s someone else problematic here.
And Maimonides did not deal with this on his own; rather, he wrote for the perplexed [Guide for the Perplexed], and I’m on the level of being perplexed. True.
And anyway, you yourself discussed this, impudent one.

Dear Jacob/Shmuel!!! Not every bad thing that happens in the world is a result of human choice. It can be something like a plane crash. You can’t take the fact that there is good in the world as proof that God is good when, at the same time, crazy atrocities are happening. For some reason, when God does evil, He has immunity.
If you decide your proof is through the reality we see with our eyes, then I see with my own eyes half a million people killed by coronavirus. Maybe God does a little good because He has a conscience after all the atrocities He committed. Maybe He’s a psychopath. I have no idea. But this isn’t proof, because if so, then I can also bring proof from the other side that He does evil.
And that’s why I didn’t accept Rabbi Michael’s answer (who for some reason doesn’t answer me), because you can’t prove from the fact that people have a good trait that God is good. Because if so, then I prove the opposite: from the fact that people have a trait to murder, it follows that whoever designed them is wicked or a psychopath. I don’t mean to be disrespectful and I don’t mean to claim that God is a psychopath or wicked, and therefore all the zealots and such are out of place in what they say. I’m giving a theory in place of the conventional immunity. I just want proof that He is good. Believe me, I wish I already had proof that He is good.

I didn’t write that comment, even though there’s something correct about it. Something here got a little confused.

Who is it and what is he that commented in my name?

Do not take the name of the Last Decisor in vain.

I’ll address your claims, great sage of the generation [“The Last Decisor”].
A] You wrote: “I didn’t see Jacob’s response.
Now I see that he decided that he and Maimonides are on the same intellectual level. That too is a bit impudent.”
I already answered that.
B] You wrote: “Certainly God is not good. If He were good, that would mean the good preceded God.” No. This is what Maimonides discusses in Guide for the Perplexed: the good and God are one forever.

C] You wrote: “And worse: when a person says God is good, he means that God is according to that person’s own distortions regarding the definition of the good.” That’s nonsense. Like it or not, there are moral things and there are not. And I already wrote:
“Nonsense. It says in the Torah that God has thirteen attributes,” above.
D] You wrote: “I wrote that God precedes the good. If God says ‘an eye for an eye,’ that means it is good.”
I already wrote that Maimonides disagrees with you, but you’re the Last Decisor, so what’s the problem?!
And as for what you wrote—“If God says ‘an eye for an eye,’ that means it is good”—I already answered you above:
“Even the example you gave isn’t really all that moral in its plain meaning, and the Sages determined that it means monetary compensation. Why? Because that’s morality?!” See Guide for the Perplexed on this subject.
In short, I’m too small to argue with the Last Decisor, but here you overdid it. You wrote nonsense. There’s nothing to do about it.

Maimonides defined the good as something that exists. He was an existentialist.
That was his definition. And it is not the usage that you and others make of the concept of the good. And that only proves the latter part of my words—that everyone defines “good” however it suits him, and says God fulfills his definition of the good. That’s not how you build a wall.

A musician will come and say that God and music are one.

The fact that the Sages determined that it means monetary compensation says nothing about what is good and what is not good. They had their own constraints. And they do not determine what is good. And the concept “moral” is fairly uninteresting, because it stems from the psychological distortions of human beings. The Nazis thought it was moral for Jews to be burned in crematoria. They wanted to resemble God. So does that make it so?

Jacob, I explained everything. I see no point in repeating myself again and again.

Elhanan, I don’t understand the problem. When you ask a person how to get to Bialik Street and he explains it to you, why do you believe him? After all, there are two possibilities: either he is a good person and tells you the truth, or he is a bad person and then he has no problem lying to you. This is what I called skeptical arguments above.
I explained that from our inclination to do good and our commitment to morality one can infer that this matters to the Holy One, blessed be He. It also follows from the fact that He commands this of us in the Torah in several places. In addition, He also tells us that it matters to Him and that He is good. You are proposing a conspiracy theory—that in truth our inclinations are an evolutionary construction and we are living in an illusion; that God’s command in the Torah is a manipulation; and that of course His own testimony about Himself is not credible (an interested party is disqualified as a witness). To outlandish claims of this type you will never find an answer. Every answer will itself be met with the question: how do you know that’s true? Maybe it’s an illusion? That is exactly skepticism, and there is no point at all in dealing with it.
That’s it, I’m done.

A note to the rest of the group: the discourse here deteriorates from time to time. If this continues I’ll start deleting messages. You can poke fun at people now and then, but when the whole give-and-take is about so-and-so’s character or the insolence of someone else, that’s not acceptable.

To discuss God’s nature (including the “thirteen attributes”) is disgraceful. And whoever does not understand the disgrace suffers from both intellectual and emotional dullness:

A certain prayer leader went down before Rabbi Hanina and said: “The great, mighty, awesome, powerful, valiant, revered, strong, courageous, certain, and honored God.” He waited until he finished. When he finished, he said to him: “Have you finished all the praises of your Master?! Why do I need all this? We—even these three that we say—had Moses our teacher not said them in the Torah, and had the Men of the Great Assembly not come and instituted them in prayer, we would not have been able to say them. And you said all that and went on! It is like a human king who had a thousand thousand gold dinars, and people praised him with silver ones. Is that not a disgrace to him!”

With God’s help, 24 Tammuz 5780

To R.M.A.—greetings,

Although in general I am not fond of ad hominem discussions aimed at the defenders themselves, in this discussion such discussions are in place. For after we have put God up for examination regarding His goodness and integrity and removed His immunity from an “ad hominem discussion,” why should the created beings who comment here fare any better, and why should they not be granted, like their Creator, a discussion of their own goodness and integrity? 🙂

Best regards,
A.D. Hominophobe

With God’s help, 24 Tammuz 5780

The question of the good and its opposite in the world is not a simple one. On the one hand, a person’s life is full of wondrous goodness from the Creator. A human being’s entire body and spirit are a marvelous machine made with such wisdom that no “supercomputer” has succeeded or will succeed in imitating it.

On the other hand, all of a person’s days are “pain and vexation”—many moments of happiness and contentment, but also much suffering and disappointment. And the greatest disappointment of all is death, which seemingly returns a person to the “zero point” from which he began.

And here rises the Tslelafonit’s question: “If the Lord meant to kill us, He would not have shown us all this.” It does not seem plausible that all the wonders and kindnesses and moments of happiness in a person’s life are only an illusion and mirage.

Here comes Naomi Shemer’s answer, that shortly before her death, as she was sick and suffering, fading toward the approaching death, she turned to her son and said: “Even so—I put in a day’s work…”

All the acquisitions of this world—wealth, honor, and pleasures—remain here. They will all be taken from a person. But the sense of “I put in a day’s work,” I used my time to leave behind a world a little better and more beautiful than the one I received—that cannot be taken from a person.

That is the eternal kindness our Creator gave us: the ability to “put in a day’s work.”

Best regards,
S.Z.

I’m really sorry that the Rabbi had the last word,
because I disagree. This isn’t just skepticism coming out of nowhere. The doubt that maybe God is evil—and therefore also a liar—is supported by the enormous atrocities that happened and are happening in the world.
This is not skepticism in a vacuum. I have grounds for doubt.
I understand the direction of the answer, but it isn’t enough for me.
Thanks anyway to the Rabbi, and to everyone.

“And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day long. And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart. And the Lord said: I will blot out man whom I created from off the face of the earth—from man to beast, to creeping thing, and to the birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them.”

1. Human beings do the atrocious deeds, not God.
2. Therefore they are punished.
3. Therefore there are more atrocities. They cause them.

So where is the problem?

In your opinion, was a good God supposed to destroy all human beings? Is that what you would want to happen?

First of all, no one asked Him to create us. We lacked nothing, because we wanted nothing.
That’s the point: He gives us desires and then asks that we thank Him for His great goodness in giving us bread and water.
It’s like my giving you a crazy craving for cigarettes and then not providing you with cigarettes. Obviously I would then be obligated to provide you with cigarettes. He created us lacking; morally, He has an obligation to provide for us.
Only people do evil?!
Who made the coronavirus? Who made cancer? Who creates sick children?
And regarding what you wrote—that God punishes for sins: He’s all-powerful, isn’t He?! So let Him simply erase our sins without suffering. Who profits from this suffering?!
A father gives a slap to a child for the child’s own good because he has no choice, because only that way will the child be educated. But no “all-powerful” father would give a slap. He’d solve it with a kiss.

You didn’t understand the matter correctly.
The commandments did not come to satisfy God or to give Him pleasure.
The Torah came to repair man.
The reason people say it gives God pleasure is because there are those for whom this encourages them to continue performing commandments.

Let’s focus on the point:
You have very nice theories.
Bottom line—do you have proof that God is good or not?????????
I’m tired of hearing explanations without proofs.
Don’t you understand that if I ask for proof that God is good, then answering me that it’s for our benefit or because of sins is not an answer—it’s a theory. I’m asking for proofs.

On this issue too, you didn’t understand the point.

The Torah came to repair man.

God has no meaning in the Torah beyond the fact that His mention is there in order to enable the implementation of repairing man.

And if we return to the plane you’re talking about,
then yes.
The proof that God is good is that the world exists at all.

And I’ll strengthen that and say: this is the best world that could have come into existence.

With God’s help, ערב Sabbath, “And they journeyed from Mount Shepher,” 5780

To Elhanan—greetings,

The example you gave—serious diseases—is excellent. They come upon humanity because of failure to maintain a healthy lifestyle. When people pollute the air and water, live on junk food, fill their lungs with smoke, etc., the body loses the natural immunity that God gave it in its nature, and then they “come with complaints” against the Creator.

The Creator, who created in man urges and desires, also created in him the intellect to guard himself from them and the ability to repair through labor even the distortions and failures. The ability to choose is what makes man superior to the beast, and the more he uses this ability for good choices, the healthier and happier his life will be.

With blessings for a good Sabbath,
S.Z.

I have answered the question of evil in the world more than once here on the site and in the trilogy. I presented the proofs that He is good here. Beyond that, I have nothing to say. As I said, in my view this is pure skepticism.

The common denominator of the areas in which coronavirus broke out severely is that they “excel” in air pollution, both because of emissions from factories and vehicles and because of widespread cigarette smoking among the population.

And as a sign of it: God favored us with a “rhine” (= clean) world :)—let us keep it pure and clean and we will be healthy.

Best regards,
S.Z.

Come on, really???!!! Evil in the world happens only because of human irresponsibility???!!
Enough!!! Why are you dodging???!! There is plenty of evil that happens without any help from people!!!!!
And even the evil that happens because of people is fully God’s responsibility too!!!!!!! He created the world and the dangers, and if a pedophile raped children that too is the fault of the one who knew it would happen and nonetheless put the perversion into the profile.!!!!!!!!
Why do you say the world is beautiful and infer from that that God is good, but when it comes to atrocities you stay silent? Who is paying you for the immunity you’ve granted Him? Where is the fairness???!! To see only one side??!!!
Stop nitpicking my wording, and please understand what I’m exhausted from trying to explain:
This is a war of attrition. It isn’t fair.

And yes, if God created a bacterium that can kill and cause so much pain,
then even if people could have prevented some of the damage, if He knew so much evil would come of it,
He is guilty and responsible—exactly like I would be guilty if I infected someone with coronavirus.
You wouldn’t tell me I behaved fine because he smokes and caused himself a weak immune system and therefore he is to blame and I am innocent of action???
And why?
Because if there is within me caring and a desire to do good, then even if he was negligent, I will do everything so that he will be well!!!!
So what is this nonsense about people polluting???!!!

Elhanan, you didn’t understand. God did not create the bacterium. In our world there are laws of physics.
You would not be able to create a better world.
If you changed the laws of physics even a little, life would not form at all.

In short, in order to claim that you have a way to create a better world, you need to come with laws of physics that make it possible.

And a question for Elhanan:

Who invented air pollution, junk food, radioactive radiation, and wars and weapons of mass destruction?<

Who invented the crazy pursuit of money and luxuries, which bring tension and stress? Who invented the culture of gossip and shaming, and the pleasure people take in the humiliation of others, which bring jealousy and hatred?

Who invented the nonstop 24/7 media that floods a person’s consciousness with sensual and violent messages and highlights, far beyond all proportion, only the bad in the world?

Are all these a “decree of fate,” or the acts of human beings?

I’m not pressing you to answer immediately, because you’re already tired. Make use of the wonderful gift God gave you—Sabbath rest—to restore peace of mind and renew yourself, “to declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”

With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath,
S.Z.

But God is all-powerful!!!!!
So let Him create, at the height of His power, a world with no pain and no evil and no suffering, and still allow free choice,
and also forgive our sins without Gehenna, since He is all-powerful!!!
Is this what bothers God?? A few lousy laws of physics? He can change nature!!!
He’s all-powerful—do you know what all-powerful means? It means He can do anything!!!
So if He really cares about us and wants us to have good, but has a few annoying laws of physics in the way, then He is not all-powerful!!!!
Or else He really can create a world with choice and without evil, and He doesn’t do it because He doesn’t care that we suffer.
Please read very carefully and think really hard before responding.

My answer to what you asked: God and people are both to blame for it!
And again I’ll repeat: when God creates such a dangerous world and places dark desires and urges in people, He is irresponsible, and the fact that He didn’t prevent it is a sign that He doesn’t care.
Even if people are guilty, if God’s love were really so great, He wouldn’t do this.
Your claim is comparable to a father who sees his son approaching a pit and doesn’t want to save him because the child is irresponsible. Maybe the child really is irresponsible, but that is not a father who loves his son.
Read again the parable about the father who slapped his child. Everyone understands that if he could solve it without a slap, he would be very happy to do so because he loves his son. And even if his son made a mistake, he does not want the slap.
Have you seen the film Escape Room? The film describes a group of evil people who throw a group of people into dangerous rooms and test the limits of their abilities. According to your words, there is nothing wrong with this, because the people should make every effort and escape from the room???!!!
And if one of them ate a lot of chips the week before and now can’t run and escape the room, then that’s his problem? Can such a thing be imagined???!!!!
Shabbat shalom!

Elhanan, you are insisting for no reason and telling people to read carefully before responding. Practice what you preach. Your question has been answered here on the site several times.

I promise I didn’t understand and I didn’t agree with what you wrote!!
And I’m not trying to insist for no reason!!!
I really want to understand!!!
You have no idea how much this bothers me!!!
By the way, you didn’t answer me on the point where I explained that I’m not doubting for no reason—I doubt because I saw in nature that He does atrocities.??
If in any case the Rabbi wants us to finish the topic, the Rabbi decides.
Thank you.

If you didn’t read what I wrote, how could you fail to agree with it? First read it, then we’ll talk.

I read it. Honestly, I read it!!!

You gave the example of a person I ask on the street where Bialik Street is,
and explained that there is no reason to doubt that maybe he is lying. But with God it’s different—there is reason to doubt, no?? He does evil???
And yes, you brought the proofs that goodness matters to Him, and all along I argued here that people are ignoring the evil He does, and for some reason not taking that as evidence.
I didn’t get an answer to that. And I read it again.

Since you are not reading what I write and continue insisting and claiming that you did read it, I will stop here.

Thank you. And sorry I drove you crazy!!
This is the subject most important to me in life, and I’ve been trying for 3 years to get an answer.
Thank you very much, I really appreciate it.

If it’s that important to you, that is exactly why it’s worth reading the proposed explanations instead of repeating again and again a question that has been answered. It is discussed in detail in the second book of my trilogy.

Elhanan, there is no answer to the problem of evil. One option is that God is not all-powerful and also not all-knowing with respect to what He created. I’ve already discussed this here on the site several times and broken it down into its components.

Beyond that, you have nothing to lean on in the God of the Hebrew Bible. There too there is evil. But the simpler explanation is [giving the benefit of the doubt] that the writers of the Torah used fear in order to educate. Or that some things there were written in humor altogether—there’s a researcher who claims this, and it seems broader than that.

God is all-powerful? Where did that nonsense come from? Can God pee?

Enough talking nonsense.
Instead, come propose laws of physics that would produce intelligent life that would be better than us.
And then come complain to God. Then it would be serious. Otherwise you’re like someone whining that he can’t go back in time and fix the mistakes he made in the past.

L.D.,

I really suggest to you, brother, and not jokingly, that you take a timeout with yourself to think about the things you write. That doesn’t disqualify you in general; it’s just that sometimes a person can be in a loop for all kinds of reasons.

Thanks for the suggestion.

One possible reason someone is in a loop is simply that others are not relating to what he says because they are in their own loop. So he repeats himself until someone gets out of his loop and listens.

With God’s help, ערב Sabbath, “These are the journeys of the children of Israel,” 5780

And perhaps the more reasonable option is that man is not “all-knowing”? We understand very little of the “what” of creation, so do we really presume to judge the “why”?

We see the great wisdom in every detail of creation. On the other hand, we see the difficulties, the “mess,” and we assume that the difficulties were placed before us as a challenge, so that we too might become partners in the act of creation.

Best regards,
S.Z.

Where did I write that I’m all-knowing?

I only wrote to Elhanan that before he complains about how bad this world is, he should come with proof that he has a way to create a better world.
But he may do so only through laws of physics that he proposes and proves lead to a better world.

Otherwise he’s just a crybaby.

Last Decisor, God is all-powerful and can bring about any defined state of affairs in the world. If you want God to saw a tree, the meaning of the words is to see a saw floating in the air and acting on the tree. God has no problem doing that.

Dear S.Z.,

Your answer is the answer of a believer. Even ten Holocausts he would explain away with faith. Faith means, as the Chazon Ish explained, confidence that everything is from Him, may He be blessed, whether for good or for bad. But He spits in your face—so what are you leaning on? Once you enter logical thinking, this issue has three possibilities: If God wants to prevent evil but is unable—then He is powerless. Is He able but unwilling? Then He is wicked. If He is both able and willing, then whence evil? And let me remind you that religious people believe He is both all-powerful and possessed of will, as in Scripture.

And your answer that there is no proof that there is a system of laws that brings about a better world is apparently the Rabbi’s answer too (and Leibniz’s). That is, God created the world so that people (perhaps animals too) can function with enjoyment only within a rigid and blind legal mechanism (that too is apparently otherwise impossible), and He has other obscure desires that override the marginal question of whether suffering is produced. I assume you can understand why this answer requires development.

And if you answer me with what Leibniz formulated—“this is the best of possible worlds,” which Michi uses in his arguments (is this really the best of possible worlds?)—I will answer you: let Him intervene. He is responsible for the injuries of natural evil and also for human evil, whose consequences He is responsible for. You see no intervention, so it is one of two things: either a spit in the face, as I wrote; or else it is all empty pilpul about nature itself, which by the way is more plausible.

With God’s help, ערב Sabbath, “These are the journeys of the children of Israel,” 5780

I answered your words in the last line.
The precisely tuned design of every detail in nature proves the Creator’s ability and wisdom, and therefore we assume that the “mess” and the difficulties too were placed before us so that we might also merit becoming partners in the joy of creation.

In the end, the “good” and the “evil” in our lives are determined by us. One who sees his difficulties as “a spit in the face” will always remain depressed.

But one who feels his difficulties are meant to toughen him will indeed emerge from them strengthened and tempered. He will work energetically to repair the world and merit seeing blessing in his labor, knowing that the light of the world comes “little by little.”

Best regards,
S.Z.

By the way, even in the Garden of Eden man felt bad. Passivity is a great psychological distress.

Shuli. Obviously God is not all-powerful. Simple proof: He cannot pee.

To sum up: you believe in Santa Claus and then whine about why he doesn’t bring you the gifts you want.

In general, it seems you don’t understand what the universe is and what the laws of physics are, and how human beings came into being.

A., the demand that God intervene means to destroy the world and create a new world.
You simply do not understand that. You think God is Santa Claus handing out presents.

S.Z.,

“the difficulties were placed before us”—or to commit suicide. In a moment I’ll check how many suicides there were this month; they hide it so as not to give others a push.

L.D.,

I already wrote to you that you need to take a timeout with yourself. I won’t repeat it again.

Last Decisor, you are mistaken—study it well.

“You are mistaken—study it well.” I’m especially pleased with those 3 words and am currently considering them as my national anthem.

I’ll repeat what I said [I didn’t notice there was so much chaos here]. I already wrote this:
“That is, the good God can do both evil and good [what is called ‘reward and punishment’], but your imaginary lying god—why would he also do good?” All the rest of the confused chatter here lacks explanation; the topic has become strange and unstable. Or to use the Rabbi’s wording:
“On the question of evil in the world I have answered more than once here on the site and in the trilogy. I presented the proofs that He is good here. Beyond that, I have nothing to say.”