But Rabbi, he is the author of the book How to Be God.
As I recall, the Rabbi also referred more than once to his website (because his site has a library of Rabbi Nachman, and when the Rabbi quoted him more than once he sent a link to his site, although he thinks that Rabbi Nachman is the true tzaddik—in fact he was and instructed people to deny faith).
Also, he is considered an internet guru.

I've listened to him a few times and it's not clear what he's talking about.

Rabbi, I do understand what he is saying; I only posted his words in order to stay faithful to the source and not quote him incorrectly.

And it's life-saving because he rejects Judaism in particular and any value-based worldview in general.

I would be glad to hear your opinion, Rabbi.

For example, there is an article in which he criticizes Descartes

Content Friends Books Counseling 📞
I think, therefore I am (René Descartes) — really? Or maybe? And if so, then what? What is the full truth? – Sleep – Dreams – Self-awareness – Imagination – Reality – Logic – Philosophy
⭐Favorites📝Notes
💎 By: Eliezer Cohen, counseling by the EIP method
I think, therefore I am (René Descartes). Is that really the truth? What is the real truth?

.
I think, therefore:

1 – Something or other exists = some reality exists = some entity exists.

2 – There exists someone who thinks the “I” = the person who thinks the thought.

3 – There exists something that is being thought of as “I” = the thing that exists within the thought of the thinker.

4 – There exists some thought that connects the thinker of the “I” with the “I” that he is thinking about = the thought itself.

Before we discuss the true essence of the question and its true answer, first we will present several questions for thought.

.
General:

Does a baby think “I”? Is a baby self-aware? Does a baby in its mother’s womb think about “I”?
Do animals think “I” and are they self-aware? Are plants aware of their own existence? And is inanimate matter aware of itself?

.
* If inanimate matter is silent and does not complain about anything, does that make it lacking in self-awareness?

Is it possible that a robot thinks “I”? Is it possible, on the other hand, that a person says “I,” but feels like a robot saying “I”?
If a person grew up alone in the desert without any other people, would he think “I”?

.
* If a baby were not taught about its “I,” would it think there is a difference between “I” and “you”?

What exactly characterizes a person’s knowledge of his “I,” as opposed to his knowledge of anything else such as “table” and so on?
What makes knowledge of the “I” different from all other kinds of knowledge?

.
* What is the essence of that “I” that thinks “I”?

Is the “I” even capable of understanding the essence of the “I”? To understand something you have to put it into a thought. But the thought itself is inside the I. Can the I enter fully into itself and understand its own essence completely?
Can one understand what “I” is without understanding its essence completely?

.
The world of dreams and sleep:

During sleep, is the “I” in the world inside the dream or in the world outside the dream?
From the perspective of the “I,” is there any difference between the dream while dreaming and the world when the person is in the world?

.
* Does the “I” experience the dream differently than it experiences the world? (When a person in a dream knows he is dreaming, then by definition it is not considered that he is fully in the dream. The question is about a full dream in which the person does not know that he is dreaming.)

When a person wakes up inside a dream, meaning wakes from one dream into a dream at some level, can he know whether he is indeed awake, or still asleep and dreaming?

Free choice in a dream:

.
* Does a person have free choice in a dream?

Does a person choose what to dream about while dreaming? (Daydream / lucid dream = a person’s self-guided imagination, as distinct from: a full dream.)
Can a person choose to wake up from a dream whenever he feels like it?

.
* What can a sleeping person who wants to wake up from a dream and is unable to do so, do?

Self-awareness in a dream:

Are the people in the dream self-aware?

.
* When the people in the dream say “I” and make various choices, are they self-aware?

Is the dreaming person the one who chooses how the people in the dream will act, or do they have independent free choice?
Is it possible that when the person wakes up from a dream, the people inside the dream mourn him because he died?

.
* Is it possible that when a person wakes up from a dream, he is actually causing the people in the dream to die?

And more generally:

Can a thought think about itself?

.
* Can imagination imagine itself?

Does the world think about itself? If so, which part exactly thinks about itself—the tiny atom or its joining into a large rock?
Does the air think about itself? Does all the air in the world think about itself as one thing that exists everywhere?

.
* Since there are different levels of depth in reality, from the most external form down to the inner level of atoms / quanta and the like, is it possible that each level is aware of itself separately?

When a person dreams a dream, do two “I”s actually exist: the one inside the dream, and the one outside the dream such that if someone called his name it would wake the “I” inside the dream and unite it with itself?
Can a character in an animated film think about itself?

.
* When an animated character says “I,” is it really self-aware?

Is there an essential difference between the people in the dream and the rest of the inanimate / plant / animal beings in the dream? And is there, and why is there, such a difference in the world outside the dream?
When a person daydreams about someone else performing some action, is he actually creating an entity that is aware that it is doing what it is thought to think / do?

.
And now let us move to the issue itself of “I think, therefore I am.”

Whoever reflects on all the above questions immediately understands that “I think, therefore I am” still does not answer all of the above questions.

The fact that I think means that: something definitely exists + that someone is thinking + that there exists something being thought about + that there exists some thought.

.
* But is it possible that someone is thinking all worlds altogether?

When a person is asleep, all of space exists within his thought.

Is it possible that the entire dimension of space also exists within someone else’s thought?

.
* Is it possible that someone is thinking everything that happens?

Can a fish imagine the sea in which it swims?
Can a cartoon character understand the essence of the one who draws it?

.
* Is a person’s finger capable of being aware of the existence of the whole body?

Is a person’s finger capable of being aware of the existence of the thought that the person has?

And of course, what is the truth? How can it be known? And what practical difference does it make anyway?

.
So before we approach understanding the truth, let us explain why knowledge of the truth is critical.

Knowledge of the truth is critical because it saves unnecessary confrontations / suffering and afflictions.

All troubles stem from the fact that a person does not know his place, his alternatives, and his true essence.

.
When a person is truly aware of and understands the essence of reality, then all confrontations / conflicts are automatically spared him, and naturally he enjoys reality.

When the finger understands the mind of the person and is able to connect to it, then naturally it merges with the person, is in harmony with him, nullifies its independent existence to the existence above it, wants exactly the will that the mind above it wants = happiness.

But if the finger thinks it is an independent entity apart from the body, then troubles arise, and so on.

.
So too with the human being.

All evil is created solely because of a person’s separate “I” from the rest of the things in reality.

The “I” wants what is not currently in reality. The “I” fears reality. The “I” feels disconnected from reality. The “I” struggles against reality.

.
By contrast, harmony = the person would feel toward his own “I” exactly what he feels toward other things = perfection.

So knowledge of the truth regarding the “I” is absolutely critical.

So what is the truth? What really is the “I”?

.
So as I have already explained several times, an independent truth is one that does not contradict anything, and therefore the following explanation contradicts nothing, but rather explains everything.

Whoever reflects on the matter simply will see that the truth is really very simple to understand and self-evident.

The truth does not negate the existence of any thing; rather it explains the existence of all things.

.
So what is the real truth?

The truth is that the essence of reality, which is one, is what constitutes all things.

The essence of reality = the innermost layer of reality, which does not change in any external form of reality.

.
The essence of reality = that which exists equally in every place and at every time.

The essence of reality = that which constitutes, at every moment, the axis of time and, in every place, the dimension of space.

The essence of reality = the root of reality = the cause of all causes / the first cause = the will from which all wills derive / the first will = the root of all thoughts / feelings, and so on.

.
The essence of reality = the only thing that always exists and whose existence depends on nothing.

What is the essence of reality? What is this essence that constitutes everything? That is another matter, but the essence of reality constitutes everything.

A person’s “I,” the things the person thinks about, and his thought itself—all of these things have one inner essence.

.
The thinking I / the world being thought about / the thought that connects the thinker and the world—all these are different garments / different contractions of the one infinite essence.

Since a person’s thought can contain only things that can be limited, it is therefore impossible to insert into it the infinite essence of reality.

But one certainly can understand that all things, at every moment / place, everything, all that exists, is recreated at every moment through the essence and root of reality that constitutes everything.

.
In addition, a person must remember that the only reason it seems to him that there is a difference between the “I” and anything else is solely because he does not fully understand the inner essence of himself, which constitutes his very self.

If a person understood the infinite essence that constitutes his own “I,” he would naturally understand that there is no difference at all between anything and anything else, because everything is the same in its essence.

I didn't understand. The fact that someone makes claims is life-saving? Do you know how many people make claims against faith?
I'm not intending to get into these things. It seems very wearisome to me, and on the face of it it looks like mere gibberish. If there is a specific argument you want to discuss, bring it up and we'll discuss it.

There is a claim that God lacks perfection because He has will, and will is a deficiency.

An old and mistaken claim. For us, will sometimes stems from deficiency (and even that is not always so; see Column 120). There is no necessity that will express deficiency. And even if will did express deficiency, then He has a deficiency and He Himself fills it by means of His will. What's the problem with that?!

Michi,
regarding your first claim here in the comment above me: I bothered myself to go to Column 120 in order to understand your claim that will does not always stem from deficiency. I skimmed it, but I didn't find any discussion of that there.
Could you present your claim in a sentence or two?

Second, you seem to be claiming here something like this: insofar as will is a deficiency, it is at the same time also its own fulfillment. If that is indeed your claim, in my view it fails because it confuses three different "moments" of will: 1) will as a value and as a point of departure, 2) will as the action that realizes the value, and 3) will as the desired result.

For example, if I want to put on tefillin (I don't, but it's an amusing option to imagine myself doing it): first I recognize the value of the commandment and want to fulfill it, second I begin the action of the commandment (putting on the tefillin), and third I complete it successfully. Only then has the will fulfilled itself (been fully actualized).

Now let us return to a God who wills. In your view, can the will of a personal God toward human beings achieve in advance (a priori) all that it seeks, that is, successfully pass through all three moments? That seems absurd to me, since limited creatures like us will never fully realize the complete divine expectation. In the absence of such a “full” realization, God would remain in His deficiency. Conclusion: if God has will, He is a deficient being.

That is the topic of the column there, so I do not understand what further clarification is needed here. My claim is that there are altruistic acts, and by definition such an act is one done not for the sake of satisfying a need. My claim is that there is not necessarily a fulfillment of a need to behave properly, but rather a value-based decision to do so. One can agree or disagree, but that is my claim there, and I think that if someone raises an objection, he first has to explain why he disagrees with what I wrote there.
As for will and its fulfillment, think about a completely autarkic person—that is, someone every need he has he can fulfill by himself. Is that called being deficient? Very doubtful. All he has to do is act and fulfill each of his needs. Lack in the sense of deficiency is something that requires someone else in order to fill it. So even if we assume that the Holy One, blessed be He, is indeed “lacking” and has a need, as long as He can act by Himself and is not dependent on anyone else in order to do so, that is not a deficiency. But as I said, I do not need this argument because of what I explained above; this is only an additional point.
As for the Holy One, blessed be He, being deficient (even in the essential sense, meaning that He needs others to fulfill the need), I discussed that in Column 170 and elsewhere.

I also agree with you that there is a sharp distinction between an altruistic act and a self-interested act. That still does not solve the fundamental philosophical problem. Even a clearly altruistic act comes to realize some purpose. Hence there is always a principled gap between the intention, the action that realizes it, and the final product (when the action is completed).
Regarding God, perhaps you could say that had He not created the world, He could have realized His altruistic will a priori (for that will is outside time and acts simultaneously).
However, from the point at which He created the world and time and placed it among limited creatures like us, a new situation arose. His altruism is mediated by creatures who are in an endless process and will not be able to attain, at least not in their lifetime, the full goals that God expects of them. Consequently, even God’s pure altruistic purpose will not be fully realized. In this sense, God too is deficient.

I wrote that in my opinion God is deficient. But logically you are not necessarily right. It is possible that His goal is that there be creatures who strive for perfection, and that already exists. The fact that people fall or do not succeed does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that His goal was not achieved.