Question

Hello Rabbi!
I read your second booklet on the cosmological argument, and I have to say that two problems with the argument came up for me.

1. In order to avoid an infinite regress in the claim that every existing thing has a cause, you raised the argument that everything we know has a cause, which may be something we know or may be something we do not know. But in my opinion this argument has no real substance. The whole point of the argument is our basic intuition that every existing thing has a cause. The moment we understand that this intuition leads to a failure, the argument itself no longer has validity. There are two claims that I am willing to accept as intuitive: every existing thing has a cause, or a second, more cautious possibility: everything in our experience has a cause within our experience. The moment we leave the basic intuition contained in these two claims because they lead to an infinite regress, then all kinds of arguments can be raised, but they will have no basis. Just as one can say that everything existing within our experience has a cause either within our experience or outside it, so too one could say that everything existing within our experience has a cause within our experience, unless we can no longer identify the next cause as something within our experience, in which case it no longer needs a cause. That is, the singular point does not need a cause because we are unable to identify the cause of the singular point. Since the second option lets me view reality with fewer “entities,” according to Occam’s razor the more reasonable thing would be to take the second and not the first. What I mainly came to say here is that you did not explain why the argument “everything within our experience has a cause that is either within our experience or not” is valid, and I showed why, in my opinion, this is not an intuitive statement. In your debate with Aviv Franco on Head to Head you said that according to David Hume, and there you agreed with him, “the principle of causality is not derived from experience but rather from reason” (57:15). According to that, the statement that everything existing within our experience has a cause either within our experience or not is fundamentally mistaken, since the principle of causality always applies, even to something not in our experience. I really recommend listening again in the video itself—you literally said there that everything needs a cause regardless of experience. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVTmRwitEUI)
2. What does it mean for something to be in our experience and something not to be? I feel you did not explain this well in the booklet. In my opinion, a point so dense that speaking about its time is factually incorrect because it does not contain the concepts of before and after is sufficiently outside our experience to define it as something that does not require a cause even according to the claim you raised. So what is the definition of something in our experience and what is not? After all, even God is in our experience according to the theory of Torah from Heaven, since the people of Israel experienced Him, unlike the singular point, which no one has experienced. Everything has an aspect that is in my experience and an aspect that is not. God too—you identify Him as good and as the cause of the universe. (And perhaps also as the greatest being that can be conceived? In different places I understood that you had different views on the ontological argument, and besides, you do not come out with a conclusion in booklet 1, so that is even more confusing.)

In any case, thank you very much for your great work on behalf of the rationality of faith. I really appreciate and love your writing and talks!