Request for help in matters of faith

Hello X.
Preliminary note. If you are already in a postmodern state, there is no point in discussing. A person in such a state cannot hear and consider arguments, because everything they are told they immediately say is a subjective hallucination of the speaker and in fact there is no truth and the opposite is equally true. And even if there is a convincing argument, it is psychological-subjective persuasion. So what is the point of discussing?
If you still want to discuss, then I assume you are not in that situation yet, but are just considering it.
For me, belief in God cannot be the result of a search for meaning. The desire for meaning is a wish, not an argument. Just because I want meaning to exist does not mean that there is one (remember, I am not a postmodernist or a pragmatist who identifies wishes or benefits with truth).
I have just written four (long) books that deal with the four types of evidence for the existence of God (three from the Kantian classification and one more). There I detail the path to faith. In my opinion, anyone who does not believe is simply irrational, meaning that faith in God is a very well-founded thing. And I say this as quite a skeptic. Of course, we are talking about a philosophical God (or philosophical Gods, because each piece of evidence assumes a different definition of Him). From here, religious commitment has a long way to go, and I wrote a fifth book about that. Two more books that I am currently working on are supposed to complete the picture of faith updated for today (throwing away all sorts of unfounded and unbinding slogans that we are all educated on).

Discussing all this in an email is of course very difficult. If you would like to start reading the philosophical arguments for belief in God, I can send you the above notebooks. The first deals with the ontological view, and I think most people will not be convinced by it. But it has value in clarifying the concept of proof and the concept of God and the methodology of the discussion in general. The arguments in the next three notebooks are, in my opinion, much stronger in terms of their persuasive power.
The notebooks are apparently intended to be published as a book, so I would ask that they not be distributed for the time being.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Rabbi, what do you say about this statement by Rabbi Charlo? Maybe all the brochures are destined to fail? Maybe we can't even absolutely prove the existence of God?

"The request to base belief on evidence is indeed impossible.
The mind is incapable of containing things greater than itself. Just as it is incapable of containing the concept of "love" and proving its existence, or the term "morality" and proving its existence.
The mind has an important, but limited, role, like everything else.
Our faith is nurtured by the special intimacy we have with our ancestors, with our history, with what we are told about our God, with the partial intellectual proofs (the special history of the people of Israel; the special history of the Land of Israel; etc.), and with many other aspects of personality.
In this respect, faith is more like the process of falling in love than the process of mathematical proof."
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
A very common statement, but clearly wrong. It is true that there is room for personal impressions of the tradition (see Booklet Five), but this is certainly not the whole picture, and certainly not necessarily the whole picture (perhaps a person can base his belief on such impressions, but Rabbi Sherlow claims that one must base it on it because there is no other way). Read what I said and you will see that it is not true. The fact that it is about something greater than us is a slogan in the abstract. If I believe in something, then I am supposed to understand what I believe. And when I understand some claim, I see no reason to prove it. On the other hand, if I do not understand something, I cannot believe in it.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
I can take pictures of the brochures for myself, would that be okay with you?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
yes
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Do you see it as a legitimate claim, but it doesn't have a place in your world of faith? If so, or if not, why?
What about the Jewish God? Do you think that someone who doesn't believe in him and believes in a Muslim or Christian God is also irrational?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
It has weight. In general, my world is built on a complex of claims. It is not right to discuss each claim separately (see booklet E).
Rationality requires belief in some kind of God.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
First of all, thank you very much for the answer and also for the amazing speed.
Regarding the search for meaning – I understand your argument. But can we ignore the fact that all humans seek meaning? And a person without meaning is a depressed person. This is not a philosophical argument, but it says that if it is like this for everyone, then there is something to it. I have rabbis in my yeshiva who say this and this is the basis of faith. I see that there is a gap between you and them because they would say, I think, that it is above all philosophical discussion. They simply will not accept that it is such a strong motivation in a person and it does not indicate a certain truth. What do you say?
I would really love to receive the booklets! (I hope I understand them… I was told your books are difficult)
By the way, is anyone who doesn't believe in the Jewish God also irrational in your opinion?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
The claim that everyone is looking for meaning is an indication that there is meaning is a completely legitimate claim, and sounds reasonable to me. There is a philosophical assumption here, not a psychological one like the previous formulation (that we want meaning).
Here are the brochures. Of course, this is what I have written so far. The wording is not final.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
As a result of my doubts, I don't know whether to continue praying or even keep the commandments at all right now. Even though I was very connected to them and very enthusiastic about them,
The question constantly arises to me, "Could it be that this is just a fad? After all, Christians, Buddhists, and many others also claim enthusiasm and complete devotion."

I also want to remain objective in the investigation. It is very possible that I will decide that Judaism is not true, despite the regret I will have about it.
Maybe I should continue to save "youthful kindness" for times when I had experiential certainty, and it's okay to have certain doubts, I always have (to a lesser extent).

I really don't know, right now I'm making a little "salad" – I'm doing the minimum (it's not that defined, of course) and going back to learning about the subject.

What do you think?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I meet a lot of people in this situation, and I think many of them confuse truth with certainty a bit. The fact that you have no certainty is only logical and natural. There is no certainty in anything. But the fact that there is no certainty does not mean that what you think has the same status as any other thought (=postmodern skepticism). You have to decide whether it seems reasonable to you or not, and not bother yourself with the question of maybe there is a deceiving demon. Such objections can also arise in relation to science and just things that you see with your eyes. But you think it is true, so it is true, and that is it.
I too have no certainty, neither in the existence of God nor in the status of Mount Sinai nor in anything else. And yet what I think is what I think, and if in my opinion it is true then I go for it. A person cannot reach more than this, and therefore it is likely that he is not required to go further than this. As for comparison with other religions, see the fifth notebook I sent.
It is important to clarify that I am not offering psychological therapy or a prescription for relaxation here. I am talking about the truth. Our tools for reaching the truth are the ones we have, and therefore anyone who believes in the ability to reach the truth on any level (science, theology, morality, or any other field) trusts them and has no reason to doubt them. He must of course understand that there is no certainty, but I mean doubt here in the sense that it does not give them status because the chance that everything is an illusion is the same as the chance that everything is true.
In other cases, the sufficiency begins with realizing that some of what we were educated on is questionable (at best), and then we begin to wonder about everything. Here too, I suggest (from experience) not to get excited. Throw away what doesn't seem right (without hesitation, but after serious investigation), and keep what does seem reasonable. Contrary to what we are taught, our tradition is not a package deal. It is permissible and appropriate to select what is reasonable from it and throw away other things. What is reasonable is not necessarily what we understand it to be, but what is appropriate to do (given from Sinai, or by a prophet, or in the case of practical instructions – received in an authorized halakhic institution, as opposed to intellectual principles where you are supposed to decide for yourself and there are no considerations of authority.
These are all general statements. Feel free to talk to me if you would like to elaborate on them in more detail. It's hard to do everything in an email.
All the best and good luck,
Michi
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Yes, I would love to talk to you. Do you have any classes I can attend?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I have a regular class on Thursdays at a quarter to nine in the evening at the BAKN in Petah Tikva. But if you want to talk, make an appointment with me at the university (Bar Ilan).
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
I'll come to class. Is there one this week? Which synagogue is it at?
Yes, I also want to make an appointment, what times can you?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
The class is on Thursdays at a quarter to nine at the Mishkan Israel Center on 7 Glitzenstein Street, Petah Tikva. If you plan to attend regularly, payment must be arranged with Yitzhak.
Of course, one-time is no problem. And of course, it's also not related to a conversation with me, which must be arranged separately. I prefer at the university. It's possible on Wednesdays from 10-12, or on Tuesdays at 3. Or on Mondays or at night at my home in Lod. 052-3320543
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:

Do the lesson topics talk about the kind of things that bother me?

Regarding the meeting, when do you think it would be more effective for us to meet after I read the brochures and then I won't arrive completely ignorant. On the other hand, I can't understand the ontological proof, so maybe so I can hear from you orally?
And if you have time and I'm sorry if I'm bothering you;
Is this similar to the proof you are presenting? It just seems like he is making up all the parameters:

Step 1: Settings.

God = the absolutely complete Being (that is, the absolutely perfect).
Clarification: God can be defined in different ways, but I am allowed to choose any definition I want, since what I chose to define is what I chose to prove its existence. You will choose to define God differently – for health, you will prove the existence of something else.

Absolutely complete = having all the perfections (all the positive qualities) and not a single deficiency (negative quality).
Clarification: When we talk about positive and negative qualities, we do not mean the moral or social standard, since this can be divided, etc., but rather our criterion is: whoever has something, then he has a "positive quality," and whoever lacks that something – then he has a "negative quality."

The proof:
Among the positive traits, indicate which are positive and which are negative:

Smart – stupid.
Powerful – powerless.
Good – bad.

It is clear that the wise man possesses wisdom and the fool lacks it, therefore the wise man possesses the positive attribute. The same is true of those who come later.

And here's another pair:

Existent – non-existent.

It is clear that 'exists' is the positive attribute, as above.

Hence, according to the above definition, God is necessarily wise, necessarily powerful, necessarily good – and necessarily existing.

parable.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:

The topics of the classes don't necessarily talk about the kind of things that bother you. I deal with different topics. The class has been going on for 11 years. This year I talked about definitions, about right and left and public and individual, etc.

It's better to meet after you read. As I wrote, the ontological argument is not convincing to most people, and I included it mainly for methodological reasons. But various objections to it are discussed in the notebook. If it interests you, try it there and then we'll talk.

In any case, I didn't understand your argument against the evidence. You wrote some logical arguments and didn't say what you wanted to conclude from them. Did you mean to say that you can prove anything you want this way? This is a similar objection to the island's existence: the assumption that it doesn't exist leads to a contradiction and therefore it necessarily exists. This is dealt with in the notebook.

I will note that your clarification is also problematic in my opinion. Why do you define wisdom as an entity and stupidity as an absence? We will define stupidity as an entity and wisdom as an absence.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
I wanted to ask about the cosmological argument.
You raise this appeal but I didn't understand the answer.
How can you say that there is an infinite supreme being? This is infinite regression.
You answer there that God is potentially infinite, but if he is potential, then how does he exist?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
It exists concretely, but its infinity is potential. That is, all we can say about it is that it is greater than anything we know. This is the meaning of saying that it is infinite.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
I don't understand, if you say it is potentially infinite then how did you make it exist concretely?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
His existence is an ordinary existence. Now I discuss his properties/characteristics. Regarding these, it is customary to say that he is infinite. The question is what does this term mean, concrete or potential? Here I said that his infinity is potential. When I say about someone who has a property that is described in potential language, this has nothing to do with the question of his existence itself. This is a question about the language used to describe him.
For example, Maimonides says that his descriptions are made only in a negative way (negative adjectives), does this mean that he does not exist except through negation? He does exist, and the language Maimonides uses to describe him is negative language.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Well, I think I understood more or less.
Another question that occurred to me.
Regarding the God of the Gaps – in the cosmological argument and perhaps also in the physico-theological argument, the claim is based on the premise that what existed before the singular point is God (or what caused the laws or caused it to expand), but one day they will also resolve this question of what preceded the singular point.
It is true that we cannot conceive of this and at the moment it seems to us like a question that belongs to philosophy and not science, but in the future the problems will be solved by science.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I explained this both in the notebook and in the book God Plays Dice.
At least in the terms we know today, they will never be able to solve it because when they find what created the big bang, I will ask who created what created the big bang. In the end, we arrive at something that has always existed, and that is God.
Of course, one could say that they might discover something with a completely different logic (I can't even imagine what it could be, and I don't think anyone today can imagine it), but it sounds ridiculous to me to build something on it. It's like someone bringing me a good argument in favor of claim X, and I would reject it on the grounds that while it's very convincing, maybe someday someone will find some way to refute it (although today there's no way to even see a way that they could). That way you could also throw all the laws of science or any other of your conclusions in the trash, because maybe the inferences that led to them and even the scientific method that underlies them will be refuted in the future? That's not serious. It basically means that we can't use our logic in any field or context because they might one day find it wrong.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
There is a difference between proving God and natural laws like gravity, because natural laws can be put to an empirical test and attempts can be made to disprove them.
Sorry it's taking me so long to answer, I'm just looking for things to counter what you're claiming.
Thanks again for the answers 🙂
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
It is clear that the claim that there is a God is not scientific. I wrote it myself in a notebook. And so?
I'll mention the context: there's a good philosophical argument for its existence, and you said that maybe science will someday explain it. I responded that it was ridiculous to reject a good argument on such a claim, and I didn't understand what was not agreed upon in that.
By the way, it's not really clear that the laws of nature can be subjected to a refutation test either. There is always the possibility of ad hoc arguments, and there is always the possibility of an alternative theory that also explains all the facts. As we know, if something has not been disproven, it is not proof of its truth. The existence of God has not been disproved either.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
Rabbi, is the offer to talk to you still valid? Can we make an appointment?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Possible. Contact me by phone: 052-3320543
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:

Hello Rabbi.

Thanks again for our tray yesterday.
I wanted to ask if you know a serious atheist philosopher who would be willing to talk to me via email or in a meeting, like you do?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
No. Maybe through the websites?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:
I'll try. Is there a specific site you know of or just search?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I know there's a website called "Freedom." Not very impressive in my opinion, although I haven't delved into it.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Asks:

Hello Rabbi.

Regarding the claim that valid morality cannot be derived from facts without God.
I saw that Isaiah Leibowitz wrote that even with God, there is no answer to valid morality here, and this is also a "decision."
I wanted to ask what you think?
And if I understood correctly the reason he says this, it is because we can also ask about God, "And who said that God is just?"
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
It is clear that it is impossible to prove moral obligation. My argument is that only faith allows for this obligation (but does not compel it).
It is also not about whether he is right but whether his command is binding. This is what I think is meant by "decision" (an axiom that cannot be imposed on principles that precede it, but not an arbitrary decision). Leibowitz was confused on this issue, because of the limitations imposed on him by his positivism (positivists are unable to recognize that there are principles that are true without proof, and therefore confuse unproven with arbitrary).
——————————————————————————————————————–
Asks:
I didn't quite understand, can you give an example of how a moral with God is binding and how a command without God is not binding?
——————————————————————————————————————–
Rabbi:
See the fourth notebook in part three.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Asks:
Hello Rabbi, every time I talk to you about morality I am convinced that it can be a witness,
So I talk to some nice guy, an atheist, who agreed to help me and he convinces me that there is no need to bring evidence from morality.
I'll talk to you again and again, God forbid.
I don't know if this is a normal and not excessive request. I know you are very busy, but the issue is very important to me.
I wanted to ask, if you have time to meet with me and him, you guys can talk and I can sit down and decide which side I'm taking, or we can do a conference call together on the phone,
Whatever is most convenient for you.
That guy agreed, (after I pestered him a bit :)) and he appreciates you very much.
I would be very happy if the answer were positive, but I would understand if the answer were negative.
Besides, thank you very much for the answers and the meeting so far, it's not obvious to me.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Rabbi:
You can come to my house in Lod. Make an appointment with me here or by phone. I am currently on vacation with a flexible schedule.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Asks:

Hello Rabbi.

Thank you again for meeting with me and Shai at your home.
I'm talking to a neuroscientist, I presented him with the psychophysical problem, from which it turns out there is a soul. He answered me that although science currently has no answer as to how there is that "mental" one, it's only in the physics we know today. I told him that it seemed wrong to me to refute an argument with a counterclaim that "maybe they'll find another answer." And he answered that if I understood physics better, I would know that physics is changing, just as in physics before Einstein there were different laws than physics after him. It's not the same physics, and therefore there can be and will most likely be many more changes.
Besides, he claimed "it is a fact (that the "mental exists") that we are witnesses to, but we have no external way other than ourselves to confirm it."
What do you think?
——————————————————————————————————————–
Rabbi:
It is always possible to argue that physics will change and explanations will be found for everything. But to argue on the basis of this that there is only matter seems problematic to me. What is more, in today's physics the problem is not a lack of knowledge but there is not even a language that can describe the emergence of the mental from the material brain. Physics is indeed changing, but on the basis of this I can also argue that there are fairies and that the fact that physics today cannot explain this is only because it has not changed enough. This is a rather weak basis for arguments.

I didn't understand what it meant that we have no external way to confirm the mental. Do you have an external way to confirm that there is a chair next to you? You know this because you have an image of the chair in your consciousness. And any confirmation is also based on something else that will be in your consciousness. In the prologue to the book I explained (as in our conversation) that Descartes' cogito showed that our belief in the mental precedes our belief in the material, since our knowledge that there is material is based on our consciousness recognizing it.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Asks:

Thank you very much for the answer.

Two questions:
1. Does the conclusion that we have a soul bring us closer to recognizing that there is a God, apart from the fact that we now understand that not everything in the world is materialistic? For example, maybe we could say that the soul is supposed to come to us from somewhere, or something else you thought of?

2. In your notebook "From Deism to Theism" you write that if we accept that God is the giver of the validity of morality, then we can deduce from this that morality is not enough, because if God created the world for a specific purpose, it cannot be moral.
"If the purpose of creation was moral correction, then what is the point of it?! It would have been better not to have created us at all, and then there would have been no need for correction"…"For the true purpose of created human beings must be found outside of them"
Also regarding the commandments, one can say, "What need does God have for us to do this? And if you say that it is to make us good, then one can also say that if He had not created us, then we would have no need for good."

Even from Judaism I know other things whose goal is to adhere to Him and how is the way to adhere to the Shekhinah?! To follow His standards, how merciful He is, even You are merciful…
"Adam has told you what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
And the Rambam at the end teaches those who are confused, etc. And I'm sure you know more examples than I do.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Rabbi:
1. Indeed. Both arguments are correct.
2. The difference is that in morality the goal is to correct ourselves. But we are the ones who were created. The commandments do not correct us (in my opinion), and therefore it is possible that they have a goal outside the created world. They are beneficial to God Himself (in the sense of "give strength to God" or "the secret of work is a high necessity").
3. There is a mitzvah to cling to Him, but that does not mean that this is our destiny and that we were created for this. In addition, even if our destiny is to cling to Him, this is still the goal we should set for ourselves. This devotion can achieve other goals for which this entire process was created (ourselves and the setting before us of the destiny to cling to God).
——————————————————————————————————————–
Asks:
How can we say that the commandments are beneficial to God?
——————————————————————————————————————–
Rabbi:
cautiously.
And seriously, this is what is called "the secret of high-need work." If it doesn't benefit him, why did he do it? The Ari opens the Tree of Life that God, the Almighty, wanted to reveal and bring to life His names. This is also a kind of benefit for him.

See the discussion about completion and further education at the end of my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%97%d7%99%d7%a6%d7%95-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%96%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%9f-%d7%95%d7%94%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%94-%d7%94%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%93%d7%a8%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%aa1/ Out That God's ability to repay depends on us, and therefore He needs us.

——————————————————————————————————————–
Asks:
A few questions:
1. Regarding God's development, it sounds to me like the phrase "it is the nature of good to be good," but the question asked about this and also about your theory is why is this the case?

Why is nature like this? And why does the perfect have to be paid for? If we say that it is simply logical, then did God have to create the world?

2. Another question that occurred to me while thinking about what you wrote is:

What happened "suddenly" that God decided to create the world? Why didn't it happen before?

3. I also wanted to ask about the conversation we had at your house:

What is the reason why it is forbidden, for example, to murder on a moral level? Is it an axiom? Because God commanded it? Or for rational reasons such as "finding a law that you would like to become a general law?"
——————————————————————————————————————–
Rabbi:

1. There is not and cannot be an answer to the question "Why?" regarding values. A value is a value like that. The entire chain of reasoning begins at a point that is supposed to be understood from within itself, otherwise the chain is infinite and there is no reasoning here. The basic point in the field of ethics is values. From them the chain of reasoning begins, and therefore the question of why a value is binding has no meaning. Anyone who does not understand this suffers from a kind of blindness, and it is like being unable to explain to a blind person what it is to see. The claim that one of the perfections is self-fulfillment seems understandable to me. If not to you, then no. Hence, if God is perfect, He cannot self-fulfill, but then He is not perfect (because self-fulfillment is one of the perfections). The only possibility is to say that He self-fulfills through us. And indeed, it seems that God was forced (by His nature, not because of external constraint) to create the world. Just as He is forced to the laws of logic, which are not subordination like the laws of nature.
It's like asking why he has to be perfect? ​​Can he become imperfect? ​​The answer is no. His nature compels him to be perfect and not to change in this regard.

2. It was necessary and it did not happen suddenly. The question of why it happened at a certain moment in time is not necessarily defined. After all, time itself was created with the Big Bang, and there was no time before that. Therefore, it could not have happened "before" because there was no time before.
3. See 1. A value that is binding from within itself. There is no prior reason that establishes it. You can always doubt the rationality of the foundation, but then by definition there is no answer. That is skepticism. From a religious perspective, values ​​are binding both from within themselves and because God commanded them. Although in my fourth notebook (and I think also in our conversation) I explained that without God there is no morality.

——————————————————————————————————————–
Asks:

I didn't understand what is considered a value? For example, is not killing a value a value? And if a person from ISIS tells me that he has a value for killing, and he even tells me that his God told him to do it, thereby validating his commitment. Are we simply told that he is crazy? And if we go down to lower resolutions like euthanasia, even there we will tell the other side that he is crazy? How do we determine what a value is?

Is the statement that "one of the perfections is further education" also considered a value?
2. I'm not sure I understand the words "there was no time," but I once asked you whether the argument that "there was no time before the Big Bang" refutes the evidence from cosmology, and you answered that you think it is still possible to ask the question of what was before. Isn't that the same case?
3. I understood the argument of "If there is no God, there is no morality." I am trying to understand how we can know what morality is commanded by God?

——————————————————————————————————————–
Rabbi:

Your question is not how do you determine what a value is, but how do you convince about it or how do you argue about it. That's a completely different question. How do you determine axioms in geometry? You simply look, think, and come to an intuitive conclusion. Values ​​are determined by moral intuition (answer to 3). When there is a debate about them – you argue. In my books True and Unstable, I explained that the debate about values ​​is conducted within the framework of rhetoric (which is something different from demagogy, in contrast to those who slander rhetoric) and not logic.

Further education is a value. Regarding the time before the big bang, this is currently under debate, and it depends on the question of whether there was anything before our universe (other universes). But before God created the universe(s), there was nothing, and then there certainly was no time.