Q&A: Question about Refuting the Eternity of the World According to Current Science
Question about Refuting the Eternity of the World According to Current Science
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I would appreciate a prompt answer. Please note that my questions are about whether there is clear proof, and not merely some probability.
Y.
In the Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, chapter 71, he rejected the school of the theologians who proved the existence of the Creator on the basis of the proof that the world was created and is not eternal, and since it is originated it necessarily has an originator. Maimonides says this is not the proper path, because since the origination of the world has not been demonstrated conclusively, we should not base our knowledge of God’s existence on this assumption. His language is: “For everything they think is a proof for the origination of the world is subject to doubts, and is not a decisive proof except for one who does not know the difference between demonstration and argument and victory in debate, etc. But for one who understands the matter, it is clear and evident that all those arguments contain doubts, etc.” “And this question, namely whether the world is eternal or originated, cannot be reached by a decisive demonstration.”
That is, he did not find a conclusive proof to reject the doctrine of eternity. And now we will cite one passage in which Maimonides says explicitly that this view, for which there is no decisive proof, holds that the world came forth from God without intention and will.
This is the language of Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, chapter 20: “It has already become clear to you that Aristotle believes that all these beings do not exist by chance, but that because of a cause they exist as they do; however, that it should necessarily follow, not from themselves, that they are by the intention of an intender and the will of a willing being—this has not become clear to me as something Aristotle believes. For the combination of existence by way of necessity and origination by way of intention and will, such that the two things should be one, is close in my eyes to the combination of two opposites,” etc. And see there further the analogy Maimonides brought for this.
And earlier, at the beginning of chapter 19, he wrote regarding Aristotle’s view as follows: “According to this opinion, then, these things would not be by the intention of an intender who chose and willed that they should be thus, for if they were by the intention of an intender, they would previously have not existed thus before they were intended.” He also wrote there: “And even clearer than this is the existence of the specificity of the sphere, for which a person cannot find any particular cause other than the intention of an intender.”
And see earlier in chapter 19 how much effort he expended, with difficulty and without decisive proof, from the paths of the heavenly spheres, to show that here in creation there is the intention of an intender; but from the human body and animals and the like, he never brought a proof that in creation there is the intention of an intender. And not only that, but in chapter 1 of Part II he brought four ways to prove the existence of God (which also works for those who hold that the world is eternal, because they hold that the world necessarily followed from God as the intelligible follows from intellect), and in none of those proofs did he argue from the wondrous order existing in the world. Nor does that order contradict the thought that creation came forth from God by way of the necessary relation of the intelligible to intellect, as he wrote in chapter 20 mentioned above.
However, see the Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, chapter 13, where he wrote as follows: “Know that among the greatest proofs for the origination of the world, for one who admits the truth, is what demonstration establishes regarding natural beings, namely that each one of them has another end, and that this exists for the sake of that—and this is a proof of the intention of an intender; and the intention of an intender cannot be conceived except together with origination by an originator.” That is, from the fact that he found in creation things intended to serve something else, he saw in that a proof of the intention of an intender.
And apparently the reason he did not decide that this is a complete proof, and also did not bring it in the main discussion in Part II, is that he had not decisively concluded that there is indeed any existing thing of which one can definitely say that it is directed only to some other end—that is, to serve human life; and perhaps everything here has its own intellect and purpose in itself.
These ideas also somewhat recall what Darwin said—that the contradiction to his whole theory would be if one were to find something that was not meant for itself at all, but only for the sake of another purpose.
- Therefore I would like to ask and know whether, since the time of Maimonides, science has advanced in this matter and discovered much material proving clearly and with many proofs that there are many things here whose purpose is not for themselves at all, but for human use and the like. In that case we could say that if Maimonides had known this, he would have said that this contains a complete proof for the origination of the world and creation with intention and planning. I do not mean a proof that is only theoretical, such as the proof from the Big Bang, which is not a scientific proof but a scientific explanation for several things. Rather I want to know about proofs that can be seen through science clearly and without room for doubt.
I would also appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit on this matter, or refer me to material that was written on this specific point in a detailed way, and also suitable for beginners who are not scientists.
- And by the way, one may note regarding what people commonly point to about order and design from the location of the sun in relation to the world, which requires great precision: one can ask about this, since there are an infinite number of stars here, all of which have no conditions for life and are not in the right balance relative to the sun. If so, it is not far-fetched by chance that one star out of infinity should happen to land in a perfectly precise place.
- And nowadays people bring proof for origination from the distancing of the stars from one another, and he quoted from the book Betukhot Chokhmah in rejection of this proof: We see only a small segment of motion over a short time period, and one can suppose that the universe breathes—that is, it expands and contracts alternately—and we cannot infer from the distancing that the universe began from a point at the center. Perhaps it remains fixed in its present state with slight outward and inward motion, like a human being breathing. End quote.
- And likewise he refuted the proof they brought that if there had been eternal radiation, the world would be filled throughout its whole expanse with the energy of solar radiation and it would envelop all the spheres. He refuted this by saying that perhaps excess radiation is absorbed into black holes, and also that perhaps the radiation escapes over infinite time to infinite edges, and therefore does not gather around the world.
- Seemingly there is proof from the fact that we do not find infinitely ancient remains in the living world, but this can be refuted by saying that perhaps everything very ancient has already completely decomposed and therefore left no trace. And for this same reason, there is also no proof, apparently, from tests of the age of the world, since everything that existed before this time has already decomposed, like the entire known course of our world, which is constantly decomposing, and from the seed that decays a new tree grows in a natural cycle.
Answer
Hello,
I should begin by saying that the concept of proof in this context is questionable, since every proof is built on assumptions, and the question is which assumptions are the correct ones on which you can build your argument. Therefore your questions are not clear to me. If the Big Bang or evolution are not clear facts in your eyes, then from my perspective there is no point discussing anything at all.
I am not expert in Maimonides’ words in the Guide for the Perplexed, but I seem to recall that he cites (also in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah) the midrash about Abraham, who asked who turns the sphere. That is a proof from the nature of the world. But I do not see any point in discussing Maimonides’ outlook on this issue, since I do not see him as an authoritative source, and in matters of thought there are no authoritative sources at all. In my view, the argument from complexity is very strong, and I explained it in the third notebook on my website.
The claim you brought in Darwin’s name (if I understood correctly, because the phrasing is unclear) is not relevant. If something is found that was not intended for anything, that is not proof of anything. Today many think there are such things (like the appendix), and nevertheless they do not abandon evolution—just as I do not abandon belief in a Creator because of such things.
As for your questions, see my third notebook on the site, where I explained the physico-theological proof as I understand it. I do not see any point in addressing all kinds of proofs brought by various people and the refutations you quote in the name of others.
May you be sealed for a good year,
Discussion on Answer
Hello.
Questions that deal with metaphysical speculations do not say much to me. It is a collection of hypotheses floating in the air, tied to one another in all kinds of strange ways. It is not interesting and does not tell me much. Can what is different come or not come from its source with or without will? Is will a deficiency or not, and does He have deficiencies at all? I have no idea about any of this, and I do not think anyone does. Many of these questions do not even have meaning. Therefore I do not deal with these ancient Aristotelian questions.
As for the source of science and its laws, that is not a scientific question but a philosophical one, and therefore there is no reason that science itself should address it, or that scientists should or would know how to answer it.
The Big Bang is a theory with scientific confirmations, and it is what led people to abandon Aristotle’s eternity.
Hello Rabbi,
And thank you very much.
What I brought from Darwin—I meant what he said, that if we see something that is unnecessary from the standpoint of the body in which it is found, and exists only for the sake of the existence of another species, then that is proof that there is an external planner here who made this detail. For the body does not need that thing for itself, and if we see that the thing is needed for another item, then there you have proof of a planner.
And I pointed this out because it is remarkable that this is also the proof Maimonides brought to refute eternity. For in all the wondrous order prevailing in the universe he saw no contradiction, because since everything is built from intellects, then it is only fitting that things should come in proper order. But in the fact that we see that one thing is intended for the purpose of another—for example, plant life for the sake of man—if that can be proved, then that is proof of an external planner and not of intellect by itself, because then intellect would not make something for the sake of something else.
That is why I asked whether, since the time of Maimonides, science has advanced in proving that there are things intended for the sake of others.
For it is evident that Maimonides was uncertain about this and did not bring it as a conclusive proof, because it may be that plants do not exist only for the sake of man.
Many thanks.
In my opinion there is no proof from this at all. Even if something is meant for the sake of something else, that can still help it survive evolutionarily. There are known phenomena like that of symbiotic existence. So the answer, as far as I know, is yes: today people do speak about things that are for the sake of others. As for the question whether they are only for the sake of others, that is hard to answer, because even if creature A benefits creature B, that does not scientifically mean that it is intended for B. It can also be an end in itself (science does not deal with purposes).
In any case, in Maimonides’ view, as far as I know, everything in creation is an end in itself, and in this he disagrees with Maharam Gabai, who sees all creation as being for the sake of man. The Leshem discussed this at length (as I recall, in Hakdamot u-Shearim).
I would like to ask you a question that greatly troubles me regarding Maimonides’ view. Of course, it does not seem plausible to me that the answer would be in the style that Maimonides was somehow forced not to deny Aristotle entirely in order to save the people of his generation, and so on. It seems to me rather that one has to understand their way of thinking, which was apparently different from ours. And in this I am asking for your help.
Maimonides wrote that were it not for divine revelation, it would have been possible to understand that Aristotle was indeed right—that God has no will, and that the world proceeds from Him necessarily, by analogy to a shadow from a person. Meaning, the world proceeds from God necessarily, and was not created by will.
It is very hard for me to absorb this, and I cannot find any opening through which to admit such a thought. After all, there is no common denominator at all between God, who is a necessary being, and the reality of the world, which is deficient, limited, and not itself the truth or what must necessarily exist.
When there is such an inconceivable gap between the two, how can one speak of it coming about without will? There is no continuity linking the true God to a creation that is not necessary, other than that this is His will.
In other words: even if we have an insoluble difficulty (in the philosophers’ opinion) as to how there can be will in God, still to say that He has no will is far more impossible, because there is here a world that is not God Himself—so how did it come to be? On the contrary: if you deny will because you do not understand how will can apply to a perfect being, then all the more you should wonder how a world that is not self-subsistent truth could emerge from the perfect being. We should have found only the perfect being and nothing more.
If the philosophers had said that the world is eternal and is, as it were, the source of itself, there would still have been some way to entertain that intellectually. But since they too correctly grasped that something merely possible in its existence must necessarily have the cause of its existence come from elsewhere, then how can this be without God’s will?
In short, even if there are difficulties, one cannot say on that basis something that seemingly has no entry point in the mind.
Of course, in the matter of a shadow coming from a person, and a physical body, we understand very well the continuity of the process. But here they linked two things between which there is the greatest gap our minds can bear. It would be a far-fetched analogy, like saying that an idea has a shadow and takes up space. How much more so, a thousandfold, with the difference between the true God and the possible, limited world. If the philosophers had no grasp of God’s perfection, then I would not be troubled, because in that kind of thinking God too is just something resembling a body. But I am asking specifically about them, from the very place where they came and understood God’s perfection. How then could they continue to say that the world could come out of Him without intention and conscious will?
And I will explain in somewhat different wording: how is it possible to conceive that there should be a world that is not necessary in existence and is not the source of itself, and nevertheless did not come from God’s will, after there was nothingness and zero here before? There is no room in my mind to understand this, because…
After all, God has an entirely different character—He is necessary existence and truth—whereas the world is not like that. So how could such a thing come out of Him without a deliberate will to make something totally different from Himself? That is, there neither is nor can be any continuity between the Infinite and the Truth and something limited and not necessary. So how could it even enter the mind, in the remotest possibility, that this should come out of Him without will and intention?
In short, they too knew that God and the world are things utterly different in every way, so how did they think there is continuity here?
Even if the possibility of creation ex nihilo was beyond their grasp, they should have said that the world is necessarily eternal on its own side. (Which of course reason does not accept, because then we would have had to think of the world as a necessary being and not something merely possible.) But to say that the world comes out of God automatically—that seems completely absurd, and we should not say such a thing even if we are faced with immense difficulties beyond measure. However, it seems that the root of their thought lies in the fact that their minds could not accommodate the concept of creation out of nothing, as Maimonides argued against them—that they did not distinguish between after creation and before it, and that no analogy can be drawn here. But I still strongly maintain that to ascribe creation, with all its distinctions and divisions, to God as something necessitated by Him is impossible in any place or opening in our intellect. (And so I am especially astonished by Maimonides: after he taught us the understanding to grasp the course of creation, how did he not continue along that path and cry out that Aristotle’s words are therefore completely detached from reality? How can a world that is not truth be necessitated by the God of truth? There is no conceivable continuity at all.)
Especially in light of Netanel Rubin’s book, What God Cannot Do, in which he surveyed at length all the nonsense people said about God over the generations. There he explained extensively that it was the philosophers who pointed out that impossibility has a nature, and that you cannot attach to God whatever you want. “Perfect” means what is truly conceived as perfect, not something that includes opposites together. So I stand and ask: is what they said not an even greater impossibility than what the Christians said, that God became embodied? I think the philosophers’ opinion is far more impossible. For what the Christians said is that God is omnipotent and in His will can be whatever He wants. At least they explained some kind of sequence of logic, however weak. But in the philosophers’ words there is not the slightest trace of comprehension, nor any continuity, between God, who is necessary existence, and the world, which is only possible existence, and between the Infinite and the limited—things that differ from each other more than anything else in essence. We have no greater division than that. We are left only with the possibility of creation ex nihilo, after full intention and will, and with no sense at all that it is somehow necessitated by Him.
I think, apparently, that they had a different kind of thinking from ours, and that is why they could contain such an idea. It is that pattern of thought that I am trying to understand. I will give an example. Apparently in years to come we will stand and ask how so many scientists could investigate creation and not ask what its ultimate source is, and how their limited minds could accept a kind of answer that the beginning is not a matter for science and that that is enough. And we will cry out to the heavens: how can that be? How do you not think about the source? Can the Big Bang come from itself? But today, since we are familiar with such limited ways of thinking, we understand very well from what place their thought emerged. Once there is a lower type of outlook that deals only with what exists, one can arrive at such ideas. I want to understand something similar with respect to the philosophers’ thought, and I cannot manage it. Perhaps you can help me with that.
P.S. What was the philosophical reason that caused the sages of the nations to abandon Aristotle’s opinion? (Aside from the scientific reason. And in general, did science prove that the world was created ex nihilo?)
Thank you in advance. I would be very, very happy to receive a prompt answer.