Logical Proof that there's only One G-d?

Dandelion1

Sun, Jun 15 2008, 10:11 pm

Quote:

Jellybean: There can be no doubt that the world was brought into existence by a higher being. This is a necessary truth, not just a random idea that we happen to embrace. There is no other way to view the world - there is nothing within the physical world that could have brought the physical world into existence!

משנה תורה;ספר המדע;הלכות יסודי התורה;א
הגלגל סובב תמיד, ואי אפשר שיסוב בלא מסבב
There cannot be eternal motion without an eternal mover

Morover, there can be no doubt that such a being is one. If you say this is arbitrary you are portraying our faith as equivalent to idol-worshipping, where the only thing setting it apart from other faiths is that we happen to accept it. This approach does not meet the requirements of Mishne Torah (and recited in Adon Olam, Yigdal, Aleinu, etc.). To say God happens to be one in our faith does not fulfill the #1 mitzva of knowing Hashem. You need to know that by virtue of Hashem being the higher being who created the world, there can only be one. If there is any way apply divisibility to something, then that thing is not enough of a "higher being" because it's not above divisibility - and worshiping such a being is avoda zara. There is nothing arbitrary about this!

Entropy, I think you misunderstood me-- what I meant is that for me, for us, the proof that Hashem exists, and our belief in the "description" of Hashem that we know is True, is from the Torah, and the generations of Rabeim and their teachings. For us there is nothing arbitrary about this, it is simple and profound truth.

However, when I hear the term "logical proof" I immediately assume that this is an exercise meant for those who do not believe in G-d. In their case, any description in the absence of empirical proof is by definition, belief based and therefore arbitrary. In which case, beginning an argument with the assertion that G-d exists and the definition of G-d is that he is without definition, and therefore, there cannot be more than one, is not a logical proof of anything because it presuposes the major premise-- that there is a G-d. If you presuppose that, you can attribute any definitions, and extrapolate from them. There is nothing "logical" about this.

We know Hashem because we know the Torah, generations of written and oral tradition passsed down from Har Sinai. This is all the proof we require. We could argue that it is more logical than the cold Western logic that is so prized. It is a knowledge that is in our hearts and souls.

entropy

Tue, Jun 17 2008, 3:11 am

Motek wrote:

entropy wrote:

מצוי ראשון. vs ממציא כל הנמצא;. Each follows logically from the other, and both statements attribute action to Hashem, why is one more defining than the other?

Matzui rishon is action? Confused

The action of "being", for lack of better translation.

Any definition of God is a reference to action, for example Shir Hakavod collects physical descriptions from the Torah, but clarifies:
דימו אותך ולא כפי ישך, וישווך לפי מעשיך""

Motek wrote:

what do you mean by "is nullified in comparison to Hashem"?

I was loosely paraphrasing this part of your citation:
הוא בטל במציאות ממש לגבי החיות והרוחניות

Jellybean: first, I owe you an apology if I gave the impression of accusing you of doubting. That was never my intent - my problem with your post is that you recognize other peoples' doubts as perfectly logical.

We have many ways to define God, and many of those ways are faith-based. However, the definition I borrowed from Rambam is not faith-based, and any faith-based definition is not enough to fulfill Rambam's first mitzva of knowing Hashem (including being able to back up that knowledge with logical proof!). We're not saying anything about the creator here besides "this, by definition, is God", so such a definition does not lend itself to logical negation. Clearly the world was brought into existence, I don't think anyone will tell you that there is not enough empirical evidence to support its existence. So whatever brought it to existence - that's what we're worshiping, and it follows logically that such a God has no physical attributes, including divisibility - therefore he is one.

Once we have established this, I agree with you that everything else we say about God is necessarily (by the same definition) faith-based - and must be understood on a mystical level that transcends logic. Or else we fall into the avoda zara trap again - worshiping something that is not God.
However, we are not commanded to know these additional things we say about God - let alone prove them to others - because it is impossible to know them - but we are commanded to keep the law of the Torah, and as we do that our spiritual level grows and deeper understandings of God are revealed to us accordingly.

HindaRochel

Fri, Jun 20 2008, 1:47 am

entropy wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind. There can be a doubt and is a doubt in many people's minds. Simply because nothing that exists in the world today could have created the world and the universe does not mean that nothing existed before, or that the only way the world could have come to be is by deliberate creation.

Not being able to understand the process does not mean that the process can then, logically, lead to a Supreme Being. Neither does the conclusion that there must have been a Supreme Being necessitate there being only one. (so hard to write when I obviously believe in only One.)

Quote:

Morover, there can be no doubt that such a being is one. If you say this is arbitrary you are portraying our faith as equivalent to idol-worshipping, where the only thing setting it apart from other faiths is that we happen to accept it. This approach does not meet the requirements of Mishne Torah (and recited in Adon Olam, Yigdal, Aleinu, etc.). To say God happens to be one in our faith does not fulfill the #1 mitzva of knowing Hashem. You need to know that by virtue of Hashem being the higher being who created the world, there can only be one. If there is any way apply divisibility to something, then that thing is not enough of a "higher being" because it's not above divisibility - and worshiping such a being is avoda zara. There is nothing arbitrary about this!

_{משנה תורה;ספר המדע;הלכות יסודי התורה;א

אלוה זה אחד הוא--אינו לא שניים ולא יתר על שניים, אלא אחד, שאין כייחודו אחד מן האחדים הנמצאים בעולם: לא אחד כמין שהוא כולל אחדים הרבה, ולא אחד כגוף שהוא נחלק למחלקות ולקצוות; אלא ייחוד שאין ייחוד אחר כמותו בעולם.

This God is One - Not 2 or more than 2, but one, and his unity is unlike any of the unities that exist in the universe. Not one like one type that encompasses many instances, and not one like one body that can be divided to sections, but a unity that is like no other.}

If one says what is arbitrary? I don't think anyone is saying belief in Hashem is arbitrary. Neither does accepting Torah as belief, reducing Judaism to idol-worship. There are many things that separate Judaism from all other religions and belief systems. Internally it is a very logical system. But a priori I believe that Hashem exists, that Hashem is one and that Hashem gave us the Torah.

Quote:

Motek:I do agree that God defies definition, I'm just pointing out that defying definition, in itself, is not a complete definition of God (as the wording in the article seems to imply), and not the best choice to answer someone who is asking if the higher being who created the world is necessarily one.

Motek wrote:

Your definition omits Rambam's first point and only tells us what G-d does, I.e. create. That doesn't define Him.

I also agree with you that my proposed definition is incomplete, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. re מצוי ראשון. vs ממציא כל הנמצא;. Each follows logically from the other, and both statements attribute action to Hashem, why is one more defining than the other?

No definition of Hashem is complete because G-d is beyond nature, and we can not really understand something that is beyond our abilities to imagine. We are limited, Hashem is not. Our understanding is limited, and so we can only have a limited definition of Hashem. All are inadequate.

Quote:

Motek wrote:

How do you understand what we say in Aleinu that there is nothing but G-d? Here is how we can understand it while still having a creation:

The straightforward understanding of "efes zulato" is that everything other than hashem is nullified in comparison to Hashem.

The text you cite provides a mystical understanding, and needs to be approached appropriately. If one ch"v understood it to mean Hashem is IN the creature (in the way humans otherwise understand the concept of being IN something) one would be mekatzetz benetiyot . There is apparently a mystical relationship between a creature and its divine creator, and far be it from me to understand it properly, but in the conclusion, Hashem remains other than the creature:

כי הוא בטל במציאות ממש לגבי החיות והרוחניות שבו

Whatever "shebo" means, we can all agree that Hashem is not in the part that is being nullified ("hu" =the creature = efes)

I agree that it is mystical, but Hashem is ALL. There is no place that exists, no atom, no electron, that exists that isn't part of Hashem. Even empty space is part of Hashem. Hashem can't be IN something because that would imply that something could be outside of Hashem. Hashem can't be outside of something, as if He were the container, because that would imply an area where there wasn't Hashem. The created isn't Hashem, but Hashem isn't separted the way we see a separation, for example, between me and this keyboard. Simply put; there is nothing in the end but Hashem, but what that really means is
beyond the ken of all mortals. No one can fully understand the meaning.

entropy

Fri, Jun 20 2008, 4:37 am

Motek - Thanks for sharing that. I think we actually agree on the action thing. I should have clarified that any definition I speak of is just a definition of an aspect of God that we can relate to, Not ch"v a definition of God.

HindaRochel wrote:

There can be a doubt and is a doubt in many people's minds.

The people who doubt, are doubting a god that is not compatible with Rambam's definition of God.

HindaRochel wrote:

Simply because nothing that exists in the world today could have created the world and the universe does not mean that nothing existed before,

(bolding mine) I'm not talking about what happens to exist or not in the physical world today.
If anything existed before, then that IS part of the physical world I'm talking about, and Hashem, as identified by Rambam, created that too.

HindaRochel wrote:

or that the only way the world could have come to be is by deliberate creation.

What does that even mean, deliberate creation? As humans there is no way for us to understand what it means on a logical level.

What we do know from logic, is that the physical world exists in the sense that logic refers to existence, and we know that whatever brought it into existence is above and beyond anything that exists whithin it. And Rambam tells us - that is God, that is who we're worshipping. Anything else you worship, is idolatry.

HindaRochel wrote:

Not being able to understand the process does not mean that the process can then, logically, lead to a Supreme Being.

OK then, let's say that there exists (or existed) within the physical world, a force that brought the physical world into existence.

Oh wait, I already have a logical contradiction right there!

HindaRochel wrote:

Neither does the conclusion that there must have been a Supreme Being necessitate there being only one. (so hard to write when I obviously believe in only One.)

If you can enumerate it, it ain't supreme enough! Enumeration only applies to creations.

HindaRochel wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying belief in Hashem is arbitrary.

There are statements on this thread, that imply that although subjectively our belief in Hashem is not arbirary, objectively (and therefore ultimately) it is.

There are mitzvot that are objectively arbitrary. For example not eating animals without hoofs. For us, it is not arbitrary at all, it is Torah. Objectively, it could have been pink animals or anything else, there is no logical way to conclude that animals without hoofs are not allowed. That's what I mean by arbitrary, and that's what I understood other posters to mean when they said, in error, that Believing Hashem is one is an arbitrary belief.

Even if Hashem had never chosen us to receive the Torah, we still would have been able to know that he is one. Avraham knew that Hashem is one way before all the other mitzvahs were given. We require that every human, as a descendant of Noach, recognize this truth, because that's the way it is.

HindaRochel wrote:

Neither does accepting Torah as belief, reducing Judaism to idol-worship. There are many things that separate Judaism from all other religions and belief systems. Internally it is a very logical system. But a priori I believe that Hashem exists, that Hashem is one and that Hashem gave us the Torah.

Why do you believe, a priori, that Hashem exists?

One possible answer, is because the Torah tells me to believe this. And why do I accept the torah? becuase it is from Hashem. and by saying this I am stuck in a circle of faith that has no anchor. This is not enough for the Rambam. In addition to this God->Torah->God->Torah infinite faith cycle, there needs to be absolute, universal knowledge that Hashem is the creator of everything

Another possible answer is: "I just do, I feel it". That is not enough for the Rambam either. And yes, that is, according to the Rambam idolatry, becuase it's based on our dimayon, which is a physical creation.

A Rambam-compatible answer would be: I believe it because with my sechel (intellect) I recognize it to be so.

HindaRochel wrote:

This is pantheism. Pantheism can be idolatry, or not - depends what level you understand it on. It is not necessarily incompatible with the Rambam. I think we agree here.

HindaRochel

Fri, Jun 20 2008, 5:20 am

[quote="entropy"]

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

There can be a doubt and is a doubt in many people's minds.

The people who doubt, are doubting a god that is not compatible with Rambam's definition of God.

EXACTLY. That is what the original arguement was about. Proof of one G-d. Defining G-d and according to Rambam and then using that as proof that there is only one G-d is not proof.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Simply because nothing that exists in the world today could have created the world and the universe does not mean that nothing existed before,

Again, you and I agree. But the logical proof is trying to PROVE Rambam's definition is accurate.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

or that the only way the world could have come to be is by deliberate creation.

But we aren't debating what is or is not idolatry. The original post asked to prove that there wasn't a multiplicity of gods. Again, you I believe in Hashem. I don't need anyone to prove G-d. BUT if one needs a proof one can't start with Rambam.

Current science thinking posits an accidental universe. Don't ask me to go into it heavily as it isn't important to me, nor do I completely understand it, or believe in an accidental universe. BUT we aren't talking about me or others on the list. It is logical proof that G-D exists, and is a single entity.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Not being able to understand the process does not mean that the process can then, logically, lead to a Supreme Being.

OK then, let's say that there exists (or existed) within the physical world, a force that brought the physical world into existence.

Oh wait, I already have a logical contradiction right there!

Because you start with the physical world. The world could have come into existence without G-d, scientifically speaking as scientists have been declaring this for years. Scientist don't understand how it could have happened, but that doesn't negate the idea that it could have happened. They (not I) are banking on science coming up with the answer someday. I don't understand it or believe it, but again I'm not the one to be convinced.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Neither does the conclusion that there must have been a Supreme Being necessitate there being only one. (so hard to write when I obviously believe in only One.)

If you can enumerate it, it ain't supreme enough! Enumeration only applies to creations.

Perhaps I should have used a different word. I think of G-d as the one and only, however the Roman's and Greeks did not. They had a head diety and lesser dieties. And again, you aren't proving anything to me, but to someone who accepts that a or several beings must have created the world, but they don't necessarily believe it was a single being.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying belief in Hashem is arbitrary.

I did not get the feeling that anyone felt that it was arbrtrary in any fashion. And again, how are you going to prove to those who DO NOT believe that way that there is only one G-d. One can't. And the original attempt to prove a single G-d was flawed. That doesn't mean there isn't one G-d, I know there is. That doesn't mean I think it is okay to believe in multiple gods, or no god, I don't. But you can't prove G-d exists or that there is only one god.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

I recognize Hashem with my neshama.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

This is pantheism. Pantheism can be idolatry, or not - depends what level you understand it on. It\\
is not necessarily incompatible with the Rambam. I think we agree here.

That there is one G-d and we really can't understand G-d fully or completely.

entropy

Fri, Jun 20 2008, 7:30 am

First, HindaRochel, what I told jellybean applies here too: I am not proving to you that hashem is one, I am proving to you that any other belief is illogical.

HindaRochel wrote:

EXACTLY. That is what the original arguement was about. Proof of one G-d. Defining G-d and according to Rambam and then using that as proof that there is only one G-d is not proof.

The original argument was about this question: "Given the universe was created by a supreme being, how do we know there was only one such being?"

Later some posters said: wait, but that "given" is not a given to everyone!

And I exclaim: yes! it is absolutely given, with no logical alternative! and if you don't believe me, read Rambam!

Quote:

But the logical proof is trying to PROVE Rambam's definition is accurate.

How can it not be accurate? Any attempt to negate it results in a direct logical contradiction.

HindaRochel wrote:

Rambam doesn't tell you to start with Rambam. Rambam tells you how to figure it out for yourself, using logic.

And you can't separate this discussion from the definition of idolatry, It's the flipside of the same coin.

HindaRochel wrote:

Current science thinking posits an accidental universe. Don't ask me to go into it heavily as it isn't important to me, nor do I completely understand it, or believe in an accidental universe. BUT we aren't talking about me or others on the list. It is logical proof that G-D exists, and is a single entity.

It so happens that I do have a degree in Physics from a prestigious University, so I can tell you in the name of science that there is nothing in science that even tries to explain how the physical world came to existence.

In order to have this physical "accident" you speak of, Hashem would have had to create the particles or the forces or the laws that can be subject to accident in the first place. Science has no inkling of a clue about where that stuff came from.

HindaRochel wrote:

(bolding of 'banking' mine)
banking is a fancy word for believing, and what this or that idolatrous scientist believes is not logical proof or disproof of anything.

Any Scientist that tells you the world may have been created without God, is using the word 'God' to describe something else, an Idol, not the God that we are commanded to worship. If you pressed for the world's true origin, s/he'd end up turning to abstract words like 'singularity' or 'infinity' and if s/he doesn't have an atheistic agenda s/he will be honest and tell you "we can't say anything about it". Just like what our sages have always been saying.

This scientist could have been doing holy work, demonstrating the greatness of Hashem, if s/he was using the same language as our sages. Instead, s/he does chillul Hashem by likening Hashem to an idol, subject to scientific disproof.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

I recognize Hashem with my neshama.

This is the Torah answer (the first one out of the three I adressed). Without Torah, you would not be in touch with your Neshama.

Last edited by entropy on Fri, Jun 20 2008, 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total

HindaRochel

Fri, Jun 20 2008, 8:40 am

Quote:

[quote="entropy"]First, HindaRochel, what I told jellybean applies here too: I am not proving to you that hashem is one, I am proving to you that any other belief is illogical.

Well I implied that I thought when I stated, I forget where, that Judaism was internally logical/

HindaRochel wrote:

EXACTLY. That is what the original arguement was about. Proof of one G-d. Defining G-d and according to Rambam and then using that as proof that there is only one G-d is not proof.

Quote:

But the logical proof is trying to PROVE Rambam's definition is accurate.

How can it not be accurate? Any attempt to negate it results in a direct logical contradiction.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

There isn't an adequate explanation, but there is a statement that small blips can occur in nothingness and from there creation could start. I think it is hogwash. But it is a theory that the void isn't really completely empty.

Quote:

In order to have this physical "accident" you speak of, Hashem would have had to create the particles or the forces or the laws that can be subject to accident in the first place. Science has no inkling of a clue about where that stuff came from.

From the void. And like I said, I don't completely understand it but neither do the scientist. In any case simply lacking knowledge does not automatically mean CREATOR (deux ex machina and all that)

Quote:

[quote="HindaRochel"]Because you start with the physical world. The world could have come into existence without G-d, scientifically speaking as scientists have been declaring this for years. Scientist don't understand how it could have happened, but that doesn't negate the idea that it could have happened. They (not I) are banking on science coming up with the answer someday. I don't understand it or believe it, but again [b]I'm not the one to be convinced.

Quote:

(bolding of 'banking' mine)
banking is a fancy word for believing,

I know what I meant by banking on and of course it means "They believe/count/rely upon the idea that someone in the future, not necessarily in their own future, will probably come up with the answer on how the universe was created sans any G-d." Okay, please don't try and tell me what I mean by what I say.

Quote:

and what this or that idolatrous scientist believes is not logical proof or disproof of anything.

Well did I say they weren't idolatrous? Or rather they are atheists, which are not really the same thing unless you argue they have made science into gods. Which I'll accept if that is what you want to state. But isn't that the point? What an idolator will say or ask.

Quote:

EXACTLY. Scientist may not believe in G-d, some do, some don't, but they won't, in general, deny the possiblity. Many however deny the probability.

And I agree, we can't really say anything about G-d, we can't really prove G-d.

Quote:

This scientist could have been doing holy work, demonstrating the greatness of Hashem, if s/he was using the same language as our sages. Instead, s/he does chillul Hashem by likening Hashem to an idol, subject to scientific disproof.

Well I agree completely.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Perhaps I should have used a different word. I think of G-d as the one and only, however the Roman's and Greeks did not. They had a head diety and lesser dieties.

And again, you aren't proving anything to me, but to someone who accepts that a or several beings must have created the world, but they don't necessarily believe it was a single being.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

I recognize Hashem with my neshama.

This is the Torah answer (the first one out of the three I adressed). Without Torah, you would not be in touch with your Neshama.

It depends on what you mean by w/o Torah. Do you mean if Torah wasn't created? Or what? Because my decision to become an Orthodox Jew was first whether or not I accepted the idea that Hashem existed. Why did I believe? It was because deep down there was a voice in side my that said YES, G-d exists. The second question was "Is this the G-d that is of the Torah?" Of course I had been introduced to the Torah, but we weren't frum. It was "casual" or traditional Judaism. I do not believe in G-d because the Torah told me to believe in G-d, but I believe in G-d and I don't see any other religion as having the beauty or logic of Torah. If that is all the debate is about, then yes, Torah Judaism as I understand it is the most logical of religions. But you are not correct regarding my belief that I believe in G-d because the Torah told me so, that is the exact opposite of my belief. I believe in G-d because my NESHAMA told me that G_d existed. I can't explain to you how that belief arose in me it simply did. I felt the truth that there was a G-d and a creator and a master of the world.

Our sechel is also part of the physical world you know. My neshama is not. It isn't a matter of feeling or thinking or anything else, at least with me. It is knowing quite deeply. Please avoid calling people, or implying people are idolators.

NOW:
I can see someone arguing that just as it is possible for there to be one Supreme Being, there is a possiblity of there being two or more dieties, and using the same arguments about how there can be people as how there can be gods. I don't buy it, but simply saying there has to be a creator to have a created, well fine, but there could be more and of course that would make it idolatry.

entropy

Fri, Jun 20 2008, 10:56 am

First thing's first, apologies:
1) I got my quotations jumbled, which in turn made your quotations jumbled, so it's a little hard to follow who says what; I hope I fixed mine to be clearer. I'm sorry if I made it look like you were saying something you weren't.
2) I wasn't apologetic enough above, I am not suggesting, ch"v, you hold anything but our true faith. I truly apologize if I gave any other impression.
3) the banking thing came out rude and I apologize - I knew you knew wwhat you were saying, I was trying to keep our vocabularies aligned because I was about to accuse certain scientists of idolatry.
4) I accept your request not to imply any particular person is an idolater, and I hope it will improve my derech eretz, but I think we can speak of general rules, no? As in, if someone does X, then according to Y source someone is guilty of Idolatry.

HindaRochel wrote:

OK, So you and I agree:
The "void" that this scientific theory speaks of is not an absolute void. It's definitely not the void we speak of when we say "tohu vavohu". If this incomplete void ever existed, that would be because Hashem created it.

HindaRochel wrote:

In any case simply lacking knowledge does not automatically mean CREATOR (deux ex machina and all that)

Well, maybe not necessarily CREATOR as we humans, can understand "creation" to be, but what other description do we have for causing the existence of something?

HindaRochel wrote:

I wouldn't say all atheists are idolaters, or even that scientists are atheists, but how about this: Anyone who believes science encompasses the highest level truth we can strive for is an idolater.

An atheist is not necessarily guilty of idolatry, but IS guilty of chillul Hashem by saying that Hashem is like any idol that can be denied.

HindaRochel wrote:

EXACTLY. Scientist may not believe in G-d, some do, some don't, but they won't, in general, deny the possiblity. Many however deny the probability.

Right, but when scientists speak of the probability of god (Pascal's wager etc.) they are referring to an Idol, not to the true supreme creator. If that's what they think god is, they're better off denying god altogether than allowing for the possibility that such an Idol created the world. Our God transcends probability - probability means: In X% of the possible scenarios God exists, and in Y% of the scenarios God doesn't exist. a being that fits this paradigm is not Hashem.

HindaRochel wrote:

The sechel and the neshama relate to Hashem in differnet ways. The sechel is the rational recognition of God, the neshama is the mystical relationship you have with God as a Jew. My best understanding of your journey is that you were exposed to enough Torah for you to be able to embrace Hashem and then take on more Torah to become closer to Hashem.
This debate is about sechel, though - the neshama trancends the type of logical proof I was discussing here. Rambam speaks of the sechel when he says in Mishne Torah that we are commanded to know God.

HindaRochel wrote:

I can see someone arguing that just as it is possible for there to be one Supreme Being, there is a possiblity of there being two or more dieties, and using the same arguments about how there can be people as how there can be gods. I don't buy it, but simply saying there has to be a creator to have a created, well fine, but there could be more and of course that would make it idolatry.

Hmm I'm not sure I understand this part.. can you try explaining further?

I've enjoyed talking to you, but it's time for me to say Shabbat Shalom! I Look forward to reading your comments next week.

HindaRochel

Mon, Jun 23 2008, 5:44 am

1. I really am enjoying the conversation here. It is intellectually stimualating. HOWEVER, it is quite difficult because in essence, as we both agree, Hashem is the creator of all and scientists will one day have to bow to that knowledge. It also feels some what apikorisacal(?) to try and state the world could have come into being without Hashem, when I know that on a spiritual, not physical basis, all is from Hashem.

entropy wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Absolutely. However I think a scientist would do better at explaining the idea and supporting the idea with evidence than I ever could, especially since I do not believe the world could have started by accident.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

In any case simply lacking knowledge does not automatically mean CREATOR (deux ex machina and all that)

Well, maybe not necessarily CREATOR as we humans, can understand "creation" to be, but what other description do we have for causing the existence of something?

A creator implies a personality. There is no proof that such an entity needs to exist according to the latest theories that I have read and only barely, admittedly, understood.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Yes.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

EXACTLY. Scientist may not believe in G-d, some do, some don't, but they won't, in general, deny the possiblity. Many however deny the probability.

I have listened to enough scientist to know they are speaking of a Supreme Being in much the way we think of G-d, though they are, for the most part, more at odds with the Xtian concept of G-d. But many scientist do not posit the possiblility of G=d at all. They challenge the concept of a being beyond nature/probablity etc etc and find that as a failure in logic in the first place.

Now you and I agree on the concept of Hashem. He is beyond nature, beyond probablity, beyond description really. What we do in trying to describe Hashem is somewhat like a child does when they draw four lines, a triangle and a rectangle with some swirls and rectangles inside and declare it a house. Which is why I say Hashem is beyond proof. It is logical to me to believe in Hashem, but that is because I already believe in Hashem. Those who don't are much better at arguing against G-d.

I think it is a dangerous to try and prove Hashem. The most we can do is prove it to our own souls, which is why I again state it is my neshama that is doing the knowing. Even when I am angry at Hashem for some slight I feel has been done to me I recognize that Hashem is there and loves me.

HindaRochel wrote:

Quote:

.

And you and I have different opinions in this regards as to what that means. I understand it as appreciating Hashem and coming to know guard in a more intimate way via the world and what is out there. We gain an appreciation for the marvels of the world and we gain an appreciation for what Hashem gives us. But this isn't logical proof that G-d exists. Belief in Hashem must exist first.

Quote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Hmm I'm not sure I understand this part.. can you try explaining further?

Just that as we say that "G-d made room for us, but we don't understand completely how", nor can we concieve of something as ALWAYS existing, not really, someone could say "Two beings always existed. They are separate. I don't understand how."

I've enjoyed talking to you, but it's time for me to say Shabbat Shalom! I Look forward to reading your comments next week.[/quote]

I really have enjoyed the conversation as well.

entropy

Mon, Jun 23 2008, 11:53 am

HindaRochel wrote:

A creator implies a personality. There is no proof that such an entity needs to exist according to the latest theories that I have read and only barely, admittedly, understood.

Ahh! well, personality is a very human-centric word. Even when the Torah portrays Hashem with a personality, it is because the Torah speaks to us in human terms, because that's the best way Hashem can be communicated to us.

I agree with you, logic can't prove that a personality is necessary for creation of the world. All logic can say is that something else, unlike anything we can possibly grasp, brought the world to existence.

Then again even logic can still tell us some things. For example, Hashem, by defintion, has no needs, and yet the world exists. We learn from this that Hashem has midat harachamim. (If this is confusing, nevermind, I might be jumping too far ahead before we agreed upon more basic ideas)

HindaRochel wrote:

I have listened to enough scientist to know they are speaking of a Supreme Being in much the way we think of G-d, though they are, for the most part, more at odds with the Xtian concept of G-d.

It's exactly as you say - if they can debate his existence and assign probabilities to it then they're not debating about Hashem, they're debating about an idol - the Xtian concept of G-d, similar to ours on the surface only.

HindaRochel wrote:

But many scientist do not posit the possiblility of G=d at all. They challenge the concept of a being beyond nature/probablity etc etc and find that as a failure in logic in the first place.

The failure of logic is because they take the things we DO say about Hashem on a lower level then the level in which they are true. If I say Hashem exists in the way existence is defined within logic, then yes, that's a logical contradition. Rambam addresses this trap and warns us not to fall in it.

HindaRochel wrote:

I think it is a dangerous to try and prove Hashem.

Well we're not proving Hashem here. We're identifying him. And after we've identified him we can prove that he is ONE. Perhaps this is dangerous, and perhaps it appears unnecessary when Torah provides such a rich spiritual world for us to draw from. And yet - Rambam tells us we are commanded to do so.

HindaRochel wrote:

And you and I have different opinions in this regards as to what that means. I understand it as appreciating Hashem and coming to know guard in a more intimate way via the world and what is out there. We gain an appreciation for the marvels of the world and we gain an appreciation for what Hashem gives us.

absolutely!

Quote:

Belief in Hashem must exist first.

Faith is not a requirement for knowing this aspect of G-d:

יְסוֹד הַיְּסוֹדוֹת וְעַמּוּד הַחָכְמוֹת, לֵידַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם מָצוּי רִאשׁוֹן. וְהוּא מַמְצִיא כָּל הַנִּמְצָא; וְכָל הַנִּמְצָאִים מִן שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ וּמַה בֵּינֵיהֶם, לֹא נִמְצְאוּ אֵלָא מֵאֲמִתַּת הִמָּצְאוֹ. [ב]וְאִם יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת שְׁהוּא אֵינוּ מָצוּי, אֵין דָּבָר אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהִמָּצְאוֹת. [ג] וְאִם יַעֲלֶה עַל הַדַּעַת שְׁאֵין כָּל הַנִּמְצָאִים מִלְּבַדּוֹ מְצוּיִים, הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יִהְיֶה מָצוּי וְלֹא יִבָּטֵל הוּא לְבִטּוּלָם: שֶׁכָּל הַנִּמְצָאִים צְרִיכִין לוֹ; וְהוּא בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוּ צָרִיךְ לָהֶם, וְלֹא לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם.

HindaRochel wrote:

Ah, yeah, and we DO say that! As long as we are very clear that the separation is not something we can ever understand, and that it is beyond the reach logic etc - otherwise it's idolatry. On the logical level there is necessarily ONE, we can never apply divisibility to it. On the mystical level the Torah applies all sorts of things to it, but we've already checked logic at the door when we delved into mysticism.

Motek

Tue, Jun 24 2008, 3:45 pm

entropy wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

This is pantheism. Pantheism can be idolatry, or not - depends what level you understand it on. It is not necessarily incompatible with the Rambam. I think we agree here.

It is precisely what I quoted on the previous page from Shaar Ha'Yichud Ha'Ha'Emuna and that Hashem is the place of the world and the world is not Hashem's place.

entropy wrote:

Any Scientist that tells you the world may have been created without God, is using the word 'God' to describe something else, an Idol, not the God that we are commanded to worship. If you pressed for the world's true origin, s/he'd end up turning to abstract words like 'singularity' or 'infinity' and if s/he doesn't have an atheistic agenda s/he will be honest and tell you "we can't say anything about it". Just like what our sages have always been saying.

This scientist could have been doing holy work, demonstrating the greatness of Hashem, if s/he was using the same language as our sages. Instead, s/he does chillul Hashem by likening Hashem to an idol, subject to scientific disproof.

Quote:

This is the Torah answer (the first one out of the three I adressed). Without Torah, you would not be in touch with your Neshama.

I think there are Jews who even without knowledge of Torah "feel" that G-d is one. It's a truth inherent in our existence and people can believe it without knowledge of Torah. Moslems, l'havdil, believe in one G-d.

HindaRochel wrote:

I think it is a dangerous to try and prove Hashem.

I don't know about dangerous (depends what you mean by that) but I think it can be counter-productive. If Jews and maybe even all human beings have an inherent belief in G-d, it seems somehow "wrong" to prove it. As though "proof" has no place here. Maybe it's something like: prove to me that I exist and that I'm not in your dream. I don't know. Maybe this paragraph makes no sense.