The Rabbi's Letter and My Response Part 2

Second installment. The Rabbi's comments are in black and mine are in blue:

I hope I find you and your family well. I am sorry for the long delay in my reply. I have been very busy with the Holidays and work and simply did not have the time to answer.

Regarding the topic:

You wrote a lengthy reply addressing numerous points in what the Rebbe and I wrote. I however do not have the time, and don’t see the worthiness in addressing an answer for each and every issue which you may have taken to par with, despite the fact that I do have what to respond. I would like the correspondence to stay on the point. So long as the core issues are agreed upon then side issues, examples brought etc should be discarded in terms needing feedback. I hence will only address the core issue under discussion.

That sounds fine to me. I only wished to address each point so as not to miss anything important. I agree that a lot of the side issues are not important enough to discuss at length.

As an introduction though I want to repeat what I already wrote in our first correspondence, that I am not interested in a debate. I am simply here to send information on why I see that even intellectually [in addition to faith] one is obligated to conclude the truth of G-d and the Jewish religion as absolute. I am well aware that not all minds are alike and that many aspects influence one's comprehension, including and especially predetermined notions which are difficult for one to overrule, as well as emotions, experiences in life and the like. I am hence not surprised if one may try to intellectually attack the given information, and it is precisely for this reason that I feel debate is of little use and of much time waste for one who is coming to question rather than to understand. Of course I do not know for certain as to what your position is regarding your questions on G-d, is it a question of seeking understanding, or is it a question of disproving. Again I do not know you personally so it is hard for me to asses as to what are your intents, but one can only judge based on what he sees, and the gist of feeling that I receive from your reply suggests that you are at the current moment coming to disprove rather than to understand. Please forgive me if my assessment of your intent is mistaken. In any event, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will reiterate and clarify the main points which lead to an intellectual comprehension and obligation of G-d's existence and the truth of our Torah.

I appreciate this and in turn would like to clarify my approach. I understand how it may seem to you that my only concern in this correspondence may be to disprove your position. All I can say this is not my intent. I feel I have a good understanding about what concepts and beliefs are traditionally held by believing observant Jews. I have no problem in accepting these beliefs upon myself if in fact I have good reason to believe them. I am not here simply to shoot down your arguments for the existence of God, etc, but if I am presented with an argument I find flawed I feel it would be necessary to explain to you why, for purely rational reasons, I fail to be convinced by such arguments.

To explain by example, if I were having a discussion with a Christian Missionary I would not mind conversing with them on the subject. They could very well explain to me the concept of the Trinity and I could understand the basics of that belief. However, while I am not actively trying to disprove everything they say to me, if they present an argument in favor of the Trinity which I find flawed for purely rational reasons would it not behoove me to explain to them why such arguments fail to convince me?

While I can definitely understand your reasons for why you believe, they have as of yet not been arguments I haven’t reviewed before and after reflection determined them to be unconvincing. I don’t have any motive to disprove what you are saying, if in fact what you propose is true then I wish to be convinced of its truth.  However, if you present me with your reason for your belief and they are in fact lacking I plan on explaining where I find them to be lacking. This is for two reasons; 1) I could be misunderstanding the rationale or argument and my response can reveal that to you and 2) To show you that my reasons for not being convinced are simply rational ones.

I will write the main points of the presentation in a concise format. For your future questions on these points [which I trust will be forthcoming] let me suggest the following: Write to me one question at a time and try to be as concise as possible in your question, mentioning only the main points. I will then send my answer, and we can continue from there to the next question. I apologize for this procedure, but I don’t see how it will be possible for me time wise to be able to deal with a lengthy discussion over writing. Hence let’s break it into short segments of question and answer.

The proof towards G-d's Existance:

·         Clarification: Definition of G-d in the context of the proof given: When we discuss the subject of proofing G-d’s existence there involve many aspects about G-d[1] which are generally consistent with our belief in G-d, although not all of those aspects are necessarily intellectually proven. The proof to be given is solely addressing the intellectually forced conclusion of a supernal power without proofing the exact details of what this supernal power is.

A. First proof- ex-nehilo:

G-d’s existence is intellectually proven and concluded based on the fact that the human mind cannot comprehend how the first matter or existence came into existence unless a power which is  unlimited to the limitations of time and space had created them and therefore would not be subject to time/beginning/end/space etc.

In other words: The human mind innately comprehends that all must have a beginning, a start, and a cause [this is the most basic principle that all science and intellectual inquiry is based on]. Hence we are boggled by the question of how did the first existence come about [irrelevant to what that 1^st existence was[2]]. The only answer that can explain this phenomena is a conclusion that there must be a Supernal Being which is not limited to the concept of time, space or any form of limitation. To clarify: Any being with a limitation demands of the human intellect to explain who created that limitation, how did it come about. Hence one must conclude that an infinite Being without any form of limitation at all exists and created the first existence.

1.      How does one conclude that if all things must have a cause, that there must be one thing that doesn’t? This to me seems like a contradiction.

B. Second Proof- complexity of creatures and life:

The creations in the world, its many creatures, planets, scientific discoveries, medicine, and human anatomy, testify to the great complexity of creations which is beyond fathom. Personally I gasped when I learned of how my body works and all of its intricate and complex functions and abilities regarding every limb and its duty etc. The same way no one will believe an airplane was created by a coincidental wind that put it together much more so can no honest mind fathom in reality that the world and all its complexity came about through coincidental occurrences. Thinking so is absurd and does not need to be addressed.

Nonetheless this still remains us with the question of who is responsible for the complexity seen in creation. Some offered a theory called natural selection although in truth even if we were to accept such a theory it does not explain how the original items became programmed to do the natural selection. The fact that these items theoretically are subconsciously doing acts with much complexity itself shows that they themselves must have been programmed. This then brings us back to the first proof that one must conclude that there is some being out there which has programmed the creations. This proof however does not offer anything about this Beings identity, limitations etc, it simply proves the existence of a Programmer. This however draws us to the previous question: Who programmed the programmer for him to have the ability to program. This then leads us once again to conclude the existence of a programmer which was self programmed –an infinite Being that is not within the limitations of needing programming.

[In the wording of Chassidus the former proof proofs G-d in a form of Soveiv Kol Almin while the latter in a form of Mimalei Kol Almin]

1.      What are you referring to when you ask “how the original items became programmed to do the natural selection”? (Natural selection isn’t a program, it is simply an observable condition that drives evolution. An organism reproduces like organisms, which are slightly different than the host organism due to small random mutations. Those mutations that increase the overall probability of the organisms survival and ability to reproduce against the backdrop of its environment will overtime increase the number of organisms that have this mutation. Over many generations this results in the complex organisms we see today, such as humans.)

2.      If evolution’s explanation of how complex organisms form from simple organisms can be dismissed since it doesn’t explain “the original items” how is this argument from complexity at all distinguishable from your 1^st argument from ex-nehilo? They seem to be the same argument and as such should be treated as one argument instead of two.

3.      If the complexity of a system indicates a more complex system is needed to produce the lesser complex system, how is it not a contradiction to say that an infinitely complex system needs no system at all to produce it?

I will suffice with this for now. Other matters which I will IY”H address in coming letters [time allowing, after your response]  These will include:

1.       Proving G-d’s existence based on the Historical account of Matan Torah

2.       Proving Matan Torah based on the Historical account

3.       A list of many sub topics which show the Holiness or supernatural abilities within the Torah, Judaism. Such as codes, predictions, miracles etc.

I once again conclude with the above mentioned request: Please do not nit-pick at the information above. It really obscures the core of the issues. Send me the questions you have which you feel interfere with accepting the above proofs. As I said before let’s do it one question at a time as I do not have much free time to answer everything right away.

Wishing you all the best in all your endeavors.

---

[1] For example: His existence, that He is one, that he is not made up of parts, that he is infinite, that he never undergoes change, that He is the only true existence even now, that he governs the worlds very move, etc ect.

[2] Hence from here and on let’s not get carried away on a tangent regarding Drawin’s theory which gives absolutely no explanation for the first existence or cause.

Looking forward to your response.

Daniel Rosenberg