Q&A: The Question: Who Created God?
The Question: Who Created God?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
- I wanted to ask regarding the analogy of a factory that carries out complicated assemblies. You think it requires a planner. In the case of a factory, we know that human beings create factories, so it is not reasonable to say that the factory is accidental and self-caused. But with regard to the world, why do you prefer to assume that the initial link is not the world?
- I saw a debate of yours with Rogel, where he raised various puzzlements about the fact that the world does not function the way we would expect if there were a God. You mentioned Paley’s broken-watch analogy. I think you didn’t understand him. From a certain stage, when we go down to finer resolutions, it may become clear to us that what from afar looked like a broken watch is actually just a lump of stone and sand. In that case, even you would agree that we should stop attributing it to the watchmaker. That is how he feels about the conduct of the Jewish God. There is a stage at which, because of so many questions, we discover that what we saw as a broken watch is not a watch at all.
Answer
1. You assume this is based on experience, but it is not: it is an a priori statistical consideration.
2. That is the question. If in his opinion our world (and not divine conduct) is just a simple rock, then indeed, on his view, there is no proof. But anyone who thinks that is an idiot.
Discussion on Answer
I hope you understand what you wrote. In my eyes this is a collection of meaningless words. Mere insistence. Be well.
Again, what is the mistake in 1? There is no insistence here at all.
A complex thing needs a composer—that is a claim with an a priori source.
It cannot be applied to everything. Otherwise we will reach a regress.
So we exclude one factor from it.
The factor we exclude is not from our experience.
You accept that the creation of the world is a factor that is not under our experience, so why not stop there?
And moreover, if the source of the proof were synthetic a posteriori, like an analogy, you agree that the proof would not work. So the world is an excellent first factor.
1. The world is exactly what is within our experience, and therefore it needs a creator. The creation of the world is not a thing. The topic is the world.
2. I take it that this sentence was written as a reflection on your own words.
1. That itself is the point.
A. You admit that if the proof were based on experience, then we really would stop at our world.
It’s only that the proof is from an a priori consideration.
B. Therefore, we would arrive at an infinite regress of explanations and would have to stop the chain of causes. So it makes sense to stop the chain at a factor that is not within our experience. God is such a factor (you just admitted that this very moment).
Therefore it is reasonable to stop at the world.
2. I understand. That’s what’s called believing because it’s absurd 🙂