Q&A: A Question About an Argument the Rabbi Used in Debates I Saw
A Question About an Argument the Rabbi Used in Debates I Saw
Question
As I understand from the Rabbi, the Rabbi uses the claim that it is not plausible for a world to come into being with the precise parameters of our world that allow for the creation of intelligent life. Therefore, there is probably a God who chose our universe from among all the options. Because otherwise, it is not plausible that we would exist.
In relation to that claim, I have two questions.
1. What is the Rabbi's view regarding the claim that given the fact that I am asking and am aware of the question of the existence of intelligent life, intelligent life necessarily exists, because I am asking this question—a question that only intelligent life could be aware of and ask
2. Even if we assume that a universe that allows intelligent life is improbable, why is the goal intelligent life? Why does that require divine intervention? After all, any other universe with some essential property of its own could have come into being. Put differently, why do you assume that there is some higher purpose of the existence of life that God had to intervene in order to create? Why is the essential purpose of the existence of life something special?
Answer
- This is a sloppy formulation of the anthropic argument (as Hawking formulated it, and he was quite a weak philosopher). The fact that without those conditions we would not be here changes nothing at all. Right now we are here, and we are wondering how that happened. The more precise formulation is to assume that there were infinitely many attempts to create universes, each with its own laws, and in the one suitable for life, we exist. There is of course nothing surprising about that, but now we have to ask: where are all those infinitely many other universes? The hypothesis that there were such universes, without our having even a hint of that, is wilder speculation than the assumption that there is a God who created our universe. I also wrote in the past that if there are infinitely many universes of all kinds, then in some of them there could also be gods who created our world. In my book God Plays Dice I called this the Mad Hatter's tea party (from Alice Through the Looking-Glass).
- Again, a sloppy formulation. There are two different questions here. A. This sort of uniqueness cannot happen by chance. In a random universe, uniqueness could also arise, but not at that level. B. If the existence of intelligent life is not plausible, then it was probably created by someone. And if it was created by someone, then it was done for some purpose.
Discussion on Answer
1. Ah, what a shame you didn't tell me that Nati Rubin (who is that?) mocked it. I would never have dared raise this argument. Especially in light of the crushing lottery example, which only proves exactly what I wrote. In short, instead of quoting other people's stupid arguments, you'd do better to invest a minute in thinking for yourself. I assume that would make this discussion unnecessary.
2. What it reminds you of is your business. It doesn't really interest me. As for your new questions (which I won't tell you what they remind me of), I have answered them in detail several times in the past.
I'll summarize briefly here so as to finish off this foolish logic.
The assumption that if someone did something, he has a purpose/reason, is a logical assumption, not an empirical one. Therefore it applies to every being, not only to humans (we assume this about animals too, for example). It is roughly the principle of causality. And regarding the leap, I refer you to my book The First Being, where I spelled this out ad nauseam. Without reading it, you can go on formulating your profound theoretical doctrine on the basis of clinging to one sentence that I'll write to you here, as well as so-and-so's snickers and your associations. Best of luck to you.
His honored glory, our master, may he live long and well, Israel Netanel Rubin, a genius and foundation of the world—it is a disgrace not to know who he is and then presume to descend to the depths of his mind. Be careful with their burning coals!
Just to clarify, I'm not the one who asked the original question; I just jumped into the discussion (I assumed you got confused because you wrote "your new questions").
As for the substance of the answer, I still continue to wonder about the comparison of God to human beings and other animals. "And to whom will you liken Me…?" But apparently, in order to appreciate its brilliance, I'll have to read an entire book until I bleed dry.
Does the Rabbi really not know Nati Rubin? He's the one who wrote the book What God Cannot Do, about the Holy One, blessed be He's ability with respect to logical impossibilities, and it surveys a developing process in which Kabbalah, then Hasidism, and then Chabad try to maintain the view that the Holy One, blessed be He, is exempt even from logical impossibilities.
I know him. I didn't know his nickname was Nati and that he was the one being referred to. And all my remarks still stand, of course.
1. I once saw Nati Rubin mock this argument and compare it to the winner of the American lottery sitting there and wondering how he won out of 300 million people.
2. Your leap that if they were created by God, then it follows that He wants something from them, is puzzling. God is not a human being (who also does not always do everything for a purpose), so why should we compare Him to us and draw conclusions about Him? And even if we assume He has some purpose that we can understand, the leap from there to saying that He wants us to keep commandments or be moral (according to contemporary morality, of course) is such a huge leap that it reminds me of arguments made by outreach-to-repentance people, beg pardon for your honor.