Following the booklet and the Friday answers, I’m starting to connect with your approach.

As for God being first: people attribute that to time—that time is not a necessary reality logically or scientifically, and therefore if there were no concept of time, then nothing preceded anything else, and therefore He can be first.
Do you agree with this?

God is first because He was first. Because He created everything. I don’t see any connection at all to the question of whether time is a necessary reality or not (I’m not even sure I understand the question).

The explanation that the need for something to create God does not apply, because time—that is, one thing preceding another—is a created thing and not a logical necessity, according to relativity.

There is no need for something to create Him, but not because of the nature of the time axis. Before Him there was nothing, because He always existed, regardless of the time axis. And the connection to relativity is really not clear to me. In my opinion, it doesn’t exist.

First, answer my question: is the claim about the addition of time correct, that it is not a logical necessity, and if the answer is yes, is the issue connected to the Creator’s primordial existence? The theory of relativity is a quote that someone else wrote to me on the subject; maybe it’s not connected.

As for your claim—that this is an additional argument that neither contradicts nor strengthens the argument I made—you write that He always existed. You are citing the Jewish faith’s view, but not explaining it, and therefore your claim has a substantial deficiency. After all, it is apparently clear to you that a sentence like “He always existed” is not a logical sentence according to experience and our perception of reality. So if you claim it, explain it logically.

I already answered that I don’t know. And I also answered that in any case I don’t see any connection to the Creator’s primordial existence. I’m not going to repeat things I already wrote.
That He always existed is not connected to Jewish tradition. It is the result of a philosophical consideration that appears in the second booklet (or in the second talk on the First Being). And even if it were a result of tradition, you want to prove something, and I wrote to you that there is no proof. We’re repeating ourselves.

I didn’t see that you answered and explained; rather, you wrote that it isn’t connected because He is the first, etc.
By the way, many scholars say this, and also in the Arachim organization and elsewhere. If you have an explanation for why you don’t accept it, I’d appreciate it, because it sounds very logical.

Also, I’d appreciate reading, in brief, the philosophical logic behind this. I read in your writings that there must be a first, and that this does not apply to Him because He is not within the concepts we know. It still apparently sounds like an argument not solid enough to build faith on, because there is still no perfect explanation.
Thank you.

The anonymous “scholars” you mention, and especially the well-known scholars of “Arachim,” do not impress me in the least. If you have an argument or a concrete question, ask them.
B. Do you actually have some question? Because this is only a statement.

A. The argument sounds logical, so what is the reason not to accept it?
B. Could you explain more than what I wrote? Maybe it will be understood better.
Thank you.

I’d appreciate a response 🙂
Interested in exhausting the discussion, and we’re in the middle of it..