Q&A: Renewal of the World
Renewal of the World
Question
Seemingly, the Holy One, blessed be He, is eternal and without change, so there is no reason that He would suddenly decide to change His mind, since for Him there is no time. Especially since there is no change in circumstances for Him.
And how can one say that the world is newly created? Even according to evolution, exaggerating, 21 billion years ago—why would He suddenly decide to create a world, so that it is created at a certain point in time?
And to say that the world is eternal is also difficult because of its complexity, which seems to require a Creator.
And I understand that it makes no sense to divide eternity into time, since it is infinite.
But there is a complexity here that I am not managing to formulate precisely and understand.
Thank you very much.
Answer
First, in my opinion the assumption that there is no change in Him is not necessary. That is a philosophical assumption borrowed from ancient philosophers, and I do not see any necessity for it.
But even if we assume that there is no change in Him, it is still possible that from the outset (when?) He decided on some timing for the creation of the world—even by lottery, even if that particular time had no special uniqueness. After all, at some point the world had to be created. That does not involve any change in Him.
Beyond that, it is commonly accepted that the time axis itself was created with the world, and before creation there was no time.
The fact that the world is eternal does not contradict its complexity. It can be complex and eternal. The complexity still requires an explanation, but not necessarily a cause.
Discussion on Answer
Now you are making an even more far-fetched assumption: that if there is change in the Holy One, blessed be He, it is caused by something external. This is His choice, and it has no external factor activating Him.
An explanation is not a cause. I elaborated on this in my book The First Existent. You can also search for it here on the site. Therefore, a complex and eternal thing requires an explanation (why it is as it is), even if it has no cause (that preceded it in time).
I did not understand the last remark about eternity.
Usually change comes because of an initial lack of understanding, or because it becomes clear that the first thing is not suited to the existing circumstances.
One does not change something perfect and good except out of boredom and the like. And none of that applies to the Holy One, blessed be He.
Unless you say that it does apply to Him! And we have no grasp of why—but if so, that should be included in the premise before saying that one simply cannot ask.
What I mean is that infinity cannot be divided into times, because if we remove one minute from infinity and set it against an infinity from which a minute was not taken, it would come out that the second infinity is bigger because it does not lack that minute. And it is not reasonable to divide things so that there is a bigger infinity and a smaller infinity. Rather, eternity is one thing that is not divisible.
So eternity, as I understand it, is a synonym for infinity, and one cannot speak of it in relation to time. So from within our time-framework we can say “it began,” but in relation to infinity it makes no sense to point to a starting point, because it is not divisible.
Your entire analysis is human and not relevant to the Holy One, blessed be He.
Your description of infinity suffers from mathematical misunderstandings about infinity, which were also held by the author of Duties of the Heart. I have already answered this several times here, and you can search.
Do you have a more specific reference?
I’d be glad.
This is what I found just now:
https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%25A9%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA/%25D7%25A9%25D7%259C%25D7%2599%25D7%259C%25D7%25AA-%25D7%25A7%25D7%2593%25D7%259E%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2594%25D7%25A2%25D7%2595%25D7%259C%25D7%259D-2&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiQycvzhLqBAxUxdqQEHXo8Cd4QFnoECAIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3t1hcAhgTaqokS9PikCAlK
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A3-%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%99
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A3
https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/posts/82279&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiQycvzhLqBAxUxdqQEHXo8Cd4QFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1fPdD4FHgAddFB4WBxzHT3
“First, in my opinion the assumption that there is no change in Him is not necessary. That is a philosophical assumption borrowed from ancient philosophers, and I do not see any necessity for it.”
Interesting. After all, as long as autonomy was not given to man, there is no reason for something to arise that He had not thought of before, and no reason for the data to have changed. And the Holy One, blessed be He, is perfect, so on what grounds would there be change?
“The fact that the world is eternal does not contradict its complexity. It can be complex and eternal. The complexity still requires an explanation, but not necessarily a cause.”
I didn’t fully understand why an explanation answers the problem. Wouldn’t that still be subject to causality?
“Beyond that, it is commonly accepted that the time axis itself was created with the world, and before creation there was no time.”
So that means one cannot really speak at all about the relation between time and eternity, since they are two different concepts. Since there is no part of infinity, as Duties of the Heart writes in chapter 3.
Thank you so much. I’m right in the middle of your book “God Plays Dice”—a wonderful book and a deep, rational work that doesn’t give the feeling of faith at any price (like various classic books from the religious sector).
Thank you very much.