Ultimately I think the question of whether God exists is irrelevant to religion.
God = a creator, an infinite being, a first cause, etc. None of these understandings of God say anything about religion.
It is possible that God exist? I have no idea, maybe he does maybe he doesn't. However let's say he exists. Let's say one accepts proofs of a first cause or something to create ex nihilo. What have you gained? Nothing about these proofs tells you that God has an interest in men or in giving a strict law code. None of these proofs tell us that God cares about men and most importantly none of these proofs have anything to do with Judaism. You can firmly believe in God but deny Judaism.
Ultimately the only important proof in Judaism is that God revealed himself at some point. Certain thinkers understood this, notably the Kuzari who doesn't base Judaism on a philosophical proof of God but rather on a "historical proof" of the "Kuzari proof".
So why do kiruv agencies and speakers etc. bother "proving God"? Why is it important to them?
I think this is just evidence of the way many of these proofs are formulated. What I mean is that proofs of God are generally made as post-hoc justifications of one's religious beliefs. People believe something and then try to look back at their rather irrational beliefs and try justifying it.
However since these people firmly believe anyways its not so important that the proof exactly match up with the belief.
As long as rational activity about one aspect of the religion can be demonstrated a believer can reflect upon his/her religion and say "hey this religion isn't irrational it's rather clever and it can be proven".
What's important to the believer is the activity of making rational justification not the actual thing proven. Because ultimately the believer doesn't need the proof. The proof is just a way of showing that religion in general is rational. And once God can be proven rationally we make a la pligi and say that all of religion is rational even if we can't quite show how....
Posts
No New Post Today
1 day ago
15 comments:
I don't have anything to say about kiruv organizations. I don't like the way they act either. (I'm not sure you got their thought processes right, but you might be right.)
I do have something to say about the first part of the article:
God and religion aren't as disconnected from one another as you make out. If you believe in a Creator, it's not a big step to say that He also cares for this world. I think a more problematic belief is to claim that He created the world and left it. You'd be admitting that at one point He cared and He no longer does. More consistent would be to say He once cared and still cares.
Furthermore, a lot of the reasons that people believe in a Creator also point towards a caring God. If you believe in God due to the incredible design of this world or because of its beauty, this would also seem to point to a caring God. The argument from design God created a magnificent universe which seems to point to the fact that he cares.
I think a lot of the "proofs" for God also point to a caring God. Perhaps not in a rigorously philosophical way, but that doesn't really matter to most people that accept these so called proofs of God.
I've read Berkovits who makes a similar argument to you, but I think he might be wrong as outlined above. God and religion are intrinsically intertwined. There was a place in the world for religion before Matan Torah.
I agree that Judaism ultimately stands or falls on whether matan Torah happened or not. I was merely critiquing your view that God and religion have nothing to do with each other.
>If you believe in a Creator, it's not a big step to say that He also
cares for this world. I think a more problematic belief is to claim that
He created the world and left it. You'd be admitting that at one point
He cared and He no longer does. More consistent would be to say He once
cared and still cares.
I couldn't disagree with this more. You are imputing human emotions to a non-human being. God (at least a Maimonidean one which is all one can prove from any of the God proofs) has no emotions and does not "care". Nobody can explain why he created the world and nobody knows what his relationship is with it now. In short you don't know anything about this God you've proven unless you think of him as some sort of big human who has human emotions. (And what right do you have to assume he's a big human anyways?)
All we know from "God proofs" is "something" started it all. But we don't know the ESSENCE of that "something" and we don't know if it cares or not and we don't know if it has motivation or love or anything. Because the proofs don't tell us anything about the essence of the "God".
>Perhaps not in a rigorously philosophical way, but that doesn't really
matter to most people that accept these so called proofs of God.
Well that was my point...
The question is not "Does God exist?" When we define God as the first cause then He must exist and atheists are idiots for arguing that He doesn't.
The question however is "Does God care about the creation He made?" For this, logic would imply that any sentient being that went to the trouble of creating something as big and complex as our universe and also went to the trouble of creating lifeforms capable of comprehending that He exists would want some involvement with those creations.
If you say that God is some big machine that just spit out the universe one day and then went about His business elsewhere you have to then explain who created the machine.
"You are imputing human emotions to a non-human being."
He did create us. We may be similar to Him in some kind of way. I'm similar to my parents who created me.
God (at least a Maimonidean one which is all one can prove from any of the God proofs) has no emotions and does not "care".
I thought that whether God "cares" or not is exactly what we were discussing.
>Perhaps not in a rigorously philosophical way, but that doesn't really
matter to most people that accept these so called proofs of God.Well that was my point...
No it wasn't. You're point was that proving God is pointless because it tells us nothing about this God. I argued it does. (Also kiruv workers use proofs for God such as the intelligent design argument. As I wrote, that may point to a caring God.)
If I can prove God created the universe, then by looking at the universe, I may be able to discern things about God.
Anyway, thanks for your response. As someone that believes in God, the question of whether God cares or not is a bothersome one. On the one hand, of course He doesn't care. What sort of kfira is that to say God cares? That's nearly as bad as saying He has a body. On the other hand, of course he does care. He created us. He created a magnificent universe. The Torah says he cares. The biggest question of them all - the paradoxical nature of God. The God of Aristotle versus the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The absolute God versus the personal God.
I don't how to answer this question. I don't think this question disproves God either (although it may mean I cannot precisely define what I mean by God, but I was never claiming that I could.)
Right, anyone that does not believe in god is an idiot.
Jeez
Anyone that calls these folks ipan idiot, is a schmuck
>He did create us. We may be similar to Him in some kind of way. I'm similar to my parents who created me.
Am I similar to this computer I just built... or this chair... or this hammer...? And even if I am maybe God is different. Who knows? How can you bring an analogy to something unknowable?
>If I can prove God created the universe, then by looking at the universe, I may be able to discern things about God.
Again not necessarily true.
> On the other hand, of course he does care. He created us. He created a magnificent universe. The Torah says he cares.
=Rambam = its just an allegory, there is no paradox, he doesn't care.
> For this, logic would imply that any sentient being that went to the
trouble of creating something as big and complex as our universe and
also went to the trouble of creating lifeforms capable of comprehending
that He exists would want some involvement with those creations.
You're imputing human emotions. Since the only sentient beings you happen to have met care about things you assume that another sentient being also cares.
>If you say that God is some big machine that just spit out the universe
one day and then went about His business elsewhere you have to then
explain who created the machine.
Lol and if he cares then we don't have to explain who created him? Really? How does this make sense to you? god cares = don't need to explain his existence but if he doesn't care then you do?
First you prove God, then prove Torah from Sinai. It's two steps.
">He did create us. We may be similar to Him in some kind of way. I'm similar to my parents who created me.
Am I similar to this computer I just built... or this chair... or this hammer...? And even if I am maybe God is different. Who knows? How can you bring an analogy to something unknowable?
>If I can prove God created the universe, then by looking at the universe, I may be able to discern things about God.
Again not necessarily true."
Although maybe it is true (and there is reason to think it's true). And therefore "proving" God is not irrelevant! (I also think you're demanding too much proof. Nobody lives that way. If a man's wife acts like she loves him, he's justified in believing that she does even though he can't prove it "philosophically".)
(Just to make things clear, I believe that it's impossible to prove or disprove God. Apparently Kant convincingly showed this and I'm willing to take his word for it.)
Also, I think kiruv organizations aren't going for 100% proof nowadays. They go for "beyond a reasonable doubt" type proof.
"> On the other hand, of course he does care. He created us. He created a magnificent universe. The Torah says he cares.
=Rambam = its just an allegory, there is no paradox, he doesn't care."
Rambam's God may well be closer to Aristotle's God than the Torah's God. But even the Rambam believed in some sort of personal God. Unless you take an esoteric reading of the Rambam, he believed in miracles, he believed in God being involved. How do you explain that?
Anyway, I don't feel myself bound to Rambam's conception of God or the world. His thought is based off of Aristotilean metaphysics which nobody believes in nowadays. (I love the Rambam, but I don't believe in everything he says.)
And one final point, you seem pretty convinced that we can't know anything about a God we theoretically managed to prove. At the same time, you're quite certain that this God cannot have human emotions. Why? Isn't your position self-contradictory?
Here's a philosophical argument for God that also claims to prove a personal God (from wikipedia):
Classical argumentThe Kalām cosmological argument:[10]1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2) The universe has a beginning of its existence;Therefore:
3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
4) Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just thought you'd be interested to see a philosophical "proof" for God that also claims to prove a personal God.
Also, how would argue with the first 3 points of the argument. Would you reject assumption 1 or 2 and why? (Note, this proof does not have the problem of infinite regress.)
I think you're missing the point here, I'm talking about proofs and evidence not "what you feel like". Faith has no place in this discussion so don't say "i'm demanding too much proof" I'm just saying that if you prove God you still need to prove that he has all these lovely human emotions that you impute to him. He may have them he may not. However you can't prove it. So any God proof is pretty much equal to no God proof because it doesn't get you any closer to a personable sort of god.
This is all a theoretical discussion, if you believe in Kant's assertion that you can't prove God good for you, I agree with you on that point. This post was merely meant to highlight that God proofs (and I mean scientific/logical ones) are not very useful from a religious perspective.
>At the same time, you're quite certain that this God cannot have human emotions. Why? Isn't your position self-contradictory?
I'm quite certain that we have no way of KNOWING that God has human emotions and therefore appealing to human emotions in a God explanation is pointless. He could have emotions who knows!? But don't say "if god exists he must care because etc. etc. etc." because you first need to prove that he has any emotions and is in any way similar to a human in that respect.
That is interesting thanks.
Honestly, I don't know why I bother.
Ksil missed my entire point. God = First Cause. Since we're all sitting here there must have been a first cause. Done. If you can't follow that, take your pills and try again.
SHS, you also missed my point. I'm not imputing human emotions but simple logic. Emotion would be suggesting the opposite, that God cast aside the universe he worked to create since such a move - effort to no purpose - makes no logical sense.
Further you missed my other point -you don't have to explain who create Him because - and pay attention to this - He's the First Cause so He has no creator of His own.
Thanks for the replies and purim sameach
"When we define God as the first cause then He must exist and atheists are idiots for arguing that He doesn't." Amusing, but who wants to pray to a definition? A first cause need not have empathy, love, morality or even intention. And, if you say that God is the one "who created the machine" you've solved nothing-- only punted. After all, who created God?
Post a Comment