From the booklet "Know what you will answer to the merchants of religion" published by the Freedom website
Syberdine
For many generations, the best philosophers have been trying to find the perfect picture of the world, which leaves no room for any uncertainty. For this purpose, most of them needed the definition of some primary force that created the universe, "wrote" the laws of nature and preserves their validity and/or the existence of the universe. The most modern example of such a model can be found in Yuval Steinitz in his book "A Logical-Scientific Missile to God and Back" (by the way, in this book he falls into exactly the same logical traps as the philosophers whose arguments he cites as proof!). This primal force they called, for lack of a better name, "God", but he was also named "the God of the philosophers". The difference between him and the religious God is that the God of the philosophers is really completely abstract; He has no intention, awareness, purpose or desire; He does not interfere in human life in any way. His existence does not prove the existence of souls or hell and heaven, and certainly there is no need to worship him.
Repenters, as well as ordinary religious people, are well versed in these arguments and use them as proof that indeed God - as they see him - exists. This is eye catching, for two reasons. One, these philosophers (not including Steinitz of course) were mostly Christians, so if their proofs are used, their way of life should also be reached and for some reason this disappears in the process of persuasion. The second reason is that it is not logically valid. For example:
Adam A: I've never been to Australia
Person B: So I'm telling you there are marsupial creatures in Australia that speak the Zulu language
Adam C: I was in Australia and I did see marsupials
Person B: This proves to A that I am right in everything I said.
Even if there are jumping marsupials in Australia, that doesn't mean they speak the Zulu language. B simply took a proof of some of his arguments and turned it without any justification into a proof of all his arguments. Even if the philosophers were successful in proving that there is a God, and they did not succeed, this does not mean that it is a God as the religious believe in him. Apart from the issue of the creation of the universe and the common name, there is no connection between the two.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~354747698~~~100&SiteName=hayadan
4 תגובות
You are actually justifying, as if in passing, the inability of science to provide explanations for the most significant and important thing, the essence of life and its purpose.
Your claim shows ignorance in the whole subject of Jewish advocacy. You are aware that the rabbis use the proofs of the philosophers, but you do not know the sequel. Or you just don't feel comfortable getting to know each other later.
I will try to prove in a concise and quick way the main points of the basis of the rational religious belief in G-d:
God's existence
Scientific evidence: I saw in Rabbi Reuven Fairman's book that there is a theory called "the entropic principle of cosmology", according to which the huge number of combinations of the processes that made the appearance of man possible requires that "intelligent information processing is an integral part of the universe". Apart from this, the rabbi brings the philosopher René Descartes' proof of God's existence based on the second law of thermodynamics, which according to one of his formulations (while the others say the same thing in different formulations) is: "In an isolated system (in our case - the universe), in a spontaneous process, entropy (disorder/lack of (energy) can only grow." It is simple that if there is order, there is order.
Philosophical proof: the question "how do stationary objects move" has no answer in modern physics. She did formulate the legality of the movement, but did not explain its origin. We see that we, human beings, move by the power of our will. We want to move the hand, the brain sends a command to the hand, and it moves. Accordingly, if we generalize from the human body to the entire universe, there must be a general force of will that moves the entire universe. The laws of nature do not make the need for God redundant, on the contrary, they require his existence.
The beginning of the world
The claim of the philosophers that the world is ancient has been refuted by modern science, and needs no reference here. It was also said in one sentence that scientists discovered that the world is constantly expanding and hence it started from a certain point.
God's will
Now we will go one step further and prove that the claim of the philosophers that God has no awareness or will, is not true. There are countless testimonies of clinical death, as well as séances and the like. If so, how does this work out, because if God is perfect - how does he have a will, which shows some deficiency that he wishes to fill? Rabbi Fairman draws our attention to the concept called "carrying opposites". We will briefly explain this idea, which is very broad - everything also includes its opposite. The greatness includes the smallness, separation will only be revealed in eternity, and perfection also includes learning. Static perfection is not real perfection, dynamic perfection, which pays off and goes is the real perfection.
From God to religion
If so, why is Judaism the righteous and not Christianity or Islam? Or maybe no religion is right at all? Let's start with Christianity. Christianity simply takes the Jewish religion and adds to it illogical and unproven facts such as the birth of the Son of God from an Israeli virgin. Miracles alone cannot prove anything, because it is possible that he was a sorcerer, such things already happened in the distant past. We will convert to Islam. This proof is also relevant to Christianity. We cannot believe only one person who said that God revealed himself to him, we need at least one additional person to confirm things. Miracles, as above, are not proof. Judaism, on the other hand, is based on the status of Mount Sinai that happened to the majority of people. Miracles do not constitute an indication, but as it is written in the Book of Exodus - the Hartomim, who were great sorcerers, that even the children knew how to turn a staff into a snake! They said themselves that there is no explanation for what happened there other than: "It is the finger of God" (the subject of this TSA).
The religious use the philosophers' proof of God's existence, refuting their claim that he does not have any consciousness or will, and proving that he is involved in everything that happens. The Jewish religion specifically also refutes the other religions and logically and philosophically proves its main points (for proofs see the Khazari books by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi and Amona Berura by Rabbi Reuven Fairman).
In my opinion, this passage above is inconsistent, biased and untruthful.
A. The philosophers proved the existence of God. By the way, not only Aristotle and his group, but also Descartes and others. In fact, after the existence of God has been proven, the question remains as to whether this is a "casual" reality, devoid of any will or intention, from which reality (the God of the philosophers according to the above designation) is ennobled. Or is it about someone who acts out of desire and inclination and certainly did not create the world and man in vain. Which leads to say that if he has a desire for creation, he will probably make it known and lead creation to him (the religious God as he was called above). In fact, this discussion is also philosophical, and it can be proven that it is impossible to say like the first option, since then it turns out that God is necessary, that he acts in vain (action without a purpose) and other logical difficulties that there is no place to detail them here.
It was found that those who agreed to the proof of the philosophers or to Steinitz's book actually did more than half way through the full proof. In this sense, a repentant who uses these proofs does not sin against the truth, since for many people the difficulty is actually the first part of the proof, but after it has been proven that God exists, they will easily admit that he certainly has an intention in what he does.
B. The fact that those philosophers were Christians does not change the discussion at all. Since Christianity also believes in the religious God, in the Bible and in the status of Mount Sinai. Regarding the later developments added by Christianity - the same man, the Trinity, etc. - they are indeed completely unproven and even absurd in their essence. It was found that the proofs brought by those philosophers can definitely be used by the believers in the Torah of Moses, and there is no interference from the fact that they were Christians. This is already the part that is not related to those proofs and in any case it can be argued about easily.
The two arguments contradict each other, and for the same reason also excuse each other. The second claim that not everything A says is true from B's evidence. She is the answer that not everything the philosophers say is the truth. But it's really possible that only some of them are true. That is, there is a God. But not that it is abstract. And therefore should not reach their way of life either.