Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 047

Thursday, June 13 2002

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:51:20 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Donations


On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 10:14:04AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: I looked it up in Hilchos Tzedoko in YD siman Remez (247). Working from
: memory: In the last se'if the Remo says that one may test Hashem (for
: wealth only) by giving tzedokoh.

: The classic Nose Kelim (I forget which) say this is only if you're
: careful to give a 10th as per the common minhag. (Others claim it's only
: for produce).

Note that they (which I will wait for you to name before checking)
consider this a /not/ a given, but that one who wants to "test Hashem"
in this way should at least give the commonly given amount.

If it were really minhag in the technical sense, then the comment would
be redundant, no? Peshita -- someone who defies minhag yisrael in dinei
mamonus doesn't merit a berachah in his parnasah.

I'm looking for someone before our generation who wrote "tzarich" or
"chayav" or the like. I was under the impression tzadakah has no minimum
shi'ur.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:01:40 +0300
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
RE: rock solid foundations (was--first principles)


> It just seems like such a simple concept to me. Logic dictates that
> everything in existence must have had a cause. If you keep 
> goig back in
> time, you eventually have a first cause... the Infinite One 
> Himself who
> needs no cause. 

But you contradict yourself at this point:

1) Everything that exist must have a cause

2) God exists, but needs no cause

the real question is if any logical system is capable of proving #2.

Akiva

(Dare we start discussing Godel on this list?)


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:14:11 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: rock solid foundations (was--first principles)


On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 04:59:15PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> Reason can only explain ideas based on logically prior ideas. At some
:> point, we have to rely on first principles. Where are we to turn other
:> than our senses and experience?

: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "logically prior ideas."

When you assert Z because "Y implies Z", Y is logically prior to Z.

My point was that you've shifted the burden from proving Z to proving Y
(and, to proving that Y implies Z). So let's find some X (or W and X)
and show that X implies Y. This in turn shifter the burden to proving X.
But this progression has no end. Eventually you need to prove A, and
that A implies B, and that B implies C ... and so on to Z.

Aristotle called this the problem of First Principles. At some point you
have the things you consider not worth proving. Your givens, postulates,
first principles, whatever name you wish to give them. And, if you're
not using reason (logic) to know they are true, what are you using?

Rihal invokes tradition. Since we have a reliable tradition we don't need
to wonder about our first principles. For that matter, our mesorah takes
us a long way up the chain of deduction before leaving us on our own.

WRT science, we can add data by observation. The scientific process then
allows one to disprove theories that don't match observation. However,
as Karl Poppers points out, it offers no positive proof. Rather, they
rely on induction (generalizing from numerous examples, presuming that
you aren't ignorant of exceptions) and they presume Ockum's Razor. Neither
of which are proofs.

But what about in our discussion? Can you make observations WRT religion?

: It just seems like such a simple concept to me. Logic dictates that
: everything in existence must have had a cause. If you keep going back in
: time, you eventually have a first cause... the Infinite One Himself who
: needs no cause. He is the Prime Cause....

The Rambam makes this argument in the Morah.

However logic doesn't dictate that everything has a cause. The Rambam
gives it in his list of First Principles -- he simply considered it self
evident. But what if common sense is wrong on this one?

Big Bang theory begins with a singularity. A situation where that is
simply true -- common and even quantum sense can't handle it. A 0/0.

Second, we could have a situation like gito veyado ba'im ke'achad --
the cause is simultaneous with the effect, not before it.

Or a situation parallel to Zeno's paradox. Zeno argued that motion is
impossible (thus the label "paradox"). After all, for an arrow to go
from here to there it must first go halfway there. But to get halfway
there, one has the same problem -- you first have to go half of that!
Looking at it this way, any motion requires an infinite series.

The normal resolution is that while the arrow has to go an infinite
series of steps, the time it takes for each step also halves. So the
total time it takes to do the infinite series is finite.

Perhaps the same is true for the chain of causes... that at some point
you reach a series that while infinite, breaks down to smaller and
smaller intervals of time so that the total is finite.

:                       To say that it was spontaneous or random sidesteps
: the question and doesn't really address it. It just doesn't seem as
: logical to say that something always existed or "happened by itself"(IOW
: caused itself!) as it does to say that it was caused by a Prime Cause.
...
: Causality in a material universe... is THE default position IMHO.

This "doesn't seem logical" or "THE default position" is another way of
saying "seems obvious to me" or, to the cynic, "I assume".

Such assumptions lead to the situation that got the Kuzari to reject
the philosopher's position. For every well-developed argument held by
one philosopher, another can equally well prove the opposite.

Back to the Rihal's route, argument by tradition doesn't work too well
in this post-Reform world. Too many of us didn't recieve this tradition,
or did so only later in life. And even for those of us who were raised
with it, the presence of so many questioners makes it hard to assert
that it's reliable without trying to prove that reliability.

I think this is why so many turn the Rihal's notion that "the people of
national revelation need no proof" into a proof, that "national revelation
is a claim that can't be faked".

So one approach could be accepting such a proof. And its principles pose
the same problem all over again.

Another could be to speak of the experience of following the religion as
something that one can make an internal observation of. This was why I
was distinguishing between the experience, and one's emotional reaction to
that experience. Both are in the same mind, but they're different things.

:> When we find some sevrah (or math proof or scientific theory) to be
:> beautiful there are also two parts: the aethetic judgement, and the
:> intellectual features of the sevarah that we are judging.

: I'm not sure that I get what you were saying here...

When we call a theory beautiful, there are two parts to that statement.
a- That we noticed certain qualities about the theory;
b- That we found those qualities to our liking.

(a) alone can play the role of observation, since (b) might involve
personal biases.

If in learning, one repeatedly comes across sevaros that are not
only elegent, but elegently explain topics that they weren't written
to address, or that even seem unrelated at first glance, then one has
strong reason to believe the truth of the TSBP that produced it.

This notion of how to validate first principles is a core question of
epistomology, and not something we're going to resolve too well here.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:19:39 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: makom sakanah


On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:37:31AM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: To rephrase Micha I assume that under ordinary circumstances one dies
: only if he deserves it. However, in a makom sakanah and certainly in war
: one is saved on if he has special zechuyot...

I would have said it slightly differently. A person could have the zechus
to be saved from a long shot, and yet lack the zechus to be saved from
something likely.

This dovetails well with REED's (and it's not his chiddush) formula of
bitachon + hishtadlus. Someone with less bitachon requires more derech
hateva to get to the same point.

Which implies, IMHO, that if things go really awry biderech hateva, such
as sakanah, one will need more bitachon, and more lema'alah min hateva,
to get out of it.

In a slightly different way it dovetails well with the Rambam. People
are more or less subject to hashgachah peratis (HP). Someone who is
more subject to teva will be affected by a wider range of teva events.
Someone who is less subject may only be affected by bigger sakanos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:36:33 +0300
From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannys@atomica.com>
Subject:
Re: Seeing around the moon


On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 09:42:25AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Any reason a "backlit" moon wouldn't be good for Kidush Hachodesh? (Not
: that this one was visible in Israel.)

To which R' Micha Berger answered: A solar eclipse only occurs at solar
noon during the exact minutes of a new moon. Even with the difference
between the molad (an average) and the actual new moon, AFAIK it's never
more than 3 days apart. So an eclipse would be too early in the month,
and not during "melei'as pegimas halvanah".

I think I'm either lost or misunderstood. From what I understand, R'
Micha is talking about Kidush Levono and I'm asking (a theoretical
question, unfortunately) about Kidush Hachodesh.

- Danny


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:42:32 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Seeing around the moon


On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 10:36:33AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: I think I'm either lost or misunderstood. From what I understand, R'
: Micha is talking about Kidush Levono and I'm asking (a theoretical
: question, unfortunately) about Kidush Hachodesh.

Yes, you were misunderstood. I saw "kidush hachodesh" and read "qiddush
levanah".

Technical issue: Sanhedrin would have to know enough about eclipses
for potential derishah vechakirah. You can't simply ask which way the
"horns" were pointing.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:37:46 -0400
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject:
R Akiva and TSBP, according to RSRH


RHS related that he was at a chasuna and saw a pamphlet that asserted
in the name of RSRH that TSBP became more organized via the Talmidim of
R Akiva such as R Meir and R Yehuda, because R Akiva was descended from
a ger and understood the imoportance of "seder" or order, a principle
that was important to Greek philosophers. RHS asked both RSK who also
asked RES ( all were at the same chasuna) where this wa cited from. No
one had an answer. Parenthetically, RHS pointed out that the Rambam
organized the TSBP and the Tur and SA reverted back to the order found
in the TB. Anyone know where this comment of RSRH can be found?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:04:49 GMT
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Location of quote


I recall Rabbi Reisman quoting someone to the effect that zacha, ezer,
lo zacha, kenegdo means that the wife is always right (!)and the only
question is whether the husband is zoche to understand that or not.
Obviously, it refers to such things other than whose house to go to for
Shabbos or what tie matches which suit.

Anyone know where this is?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:54:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject:
anthropic principle


I am staying out of the debates about primal causality.

On defining the anthropic principle-- This is how I would present it:

Arizona winning the World Series against Rivera is highly unlikely. My
existence (and yours) is highly unlikely. It is therefore extraordinary
that the world has unfolded in such a way that these events occurred
and these individuals exist.

Is the above a proof for intelligent design? No, because any alternative
outcome would be just as unlikely.

So in order to mount a good argument for intelligent design you have to
find an unlikely state of affairs that would be less unlikely given the
hypothesis of intelligent design. Many religious philosophers would argue
that the existence of human beings (i.e. entities capable of understanding
the laws of nature etc.) qualifies. The question then is how likely it
would be for human beings to evolve in the absence of intelligent design.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:30:11 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: anthropic principle


On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 09:54:32AM -0400, Shalom Carmy wrote:
: So in order to mount a good argument for intelligent design you have to
: find an unlikely state of affairs that would be less unlikely given the
: hypothesis of intelligent design...

All you can do is note that the probability is REALLY low without the
assumption that the universe was designed, and designed to accomodate
the existance of sentient beings.

But what can you compare that really low numbr with? Given the notion
of Intelligent design, one no longer has a random variable.

You then have two "probabilities" to work out:

1- The odds of G-d existing. Not a quesation of probability. Either the
first principles require Him to exist, or they don't. You're really just
asking the odds that our conclusion is right.

2- The odds that G-d would be the sort Who would want sentient creatures.
Again, computing these "odds" rests on your assumptions. So, you're still
just asking ther likelihood of your assumptions.

Your answer to this question boils down to presupposing your answer.

A mashal:

Say you have a coin that you know is weighted, but you can't tell which
side is heavier. Until you flip that coin, the best you can do is assess
the odds as 50:50.

People who think they can prove it's the heads side that is weighted will
try to argue it's 80:20. Those who think they can prove it's the tails,
20:80. The difference between them is in their assumptions.

But here, it's 1 in some-incredibly-huge-number (> 1 ^ (10 ^123), by
Penrose's estimate, just for the odds of a low-entropy universe) vs
certainty -- since G-d wouldn't do anything different than what He did
do. It's entirely in the assumptions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:30:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Subject:
Kabbalah On Line


Recently discovered resources:

1) Works of R' Ashlag and son, including the whole Zohar with the Sulam 
commentary, the Talmud Eser Sefirot, and more, scanned in as huge PDFs:
<http://www.kabbalahmedia.info/index.php?index=books>

2) For fans of Chabad, www.otzar770.com has recently added the maamarim
of the Rebbe Rashab, but unfortunately not the more important years such
as 5666 and 5672.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:53:43 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Kol Korei: Join the Chevrah!


The pace at which AishDas is crystalizing has accelerated a lot recently.

We're now discussing how to best articulate our goal. We started with
the charter <http://www.aishdas.org/charter.shtml> as a draft, and
are sharpening it up.

If you think you ought be participating in this dialogue, send
<chevrah-request@aishdas.org> an email containing (in the body) the word
"subscribe". You're asking a program, so no need to write a sentence or
to say please.

So far we're pulling more ideas from places like Slabodka, Telz, Mussar,
R' Nathan Birnbaum and haOlim, and RAEK.

Along with that is a conversation on the next step toward implementing
it. Topics suggested (primarily by RGS) for the next few event or
events include:

    Choosing to Have Faith: the relationship between shemiras hamitzvos and
	emunah
    Finding Meaning in Shemiras haMitzvos
    Living in The Shadow Of Death: Existentialism and Shemiras HaMitzvos
    Yiras HaOnesh in Daily Life
    Finding HQBH in Daily Life

You'll notice a pretty even mix between heavier hashkafah-philosophy (but
not necessarily of the rationalistic sort) and of mussar and emotion.
Not too surprising given the role models I listed.

Again, if you want to join AishDas (rather than use Avodah as a service)
and help shape what we're building, join <chevrah@aishdas.org>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:59:08 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: z"l vs a"h


In a message dated 5/23/02 8:00:40pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> What about the popular phrases David HaMelech alav hashalom (DHA"H) and  
> Moshe Rabbeinu alav hashalom (MRA"H)?

Didn't Rabbi M. Boyde attiribute the original AH to Eved Hashem and that
later evolved to be Alav Hashalom

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:14:50 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Ikkarei Emunah on the Text of the Torah


In a message dated 5/29/02 11:40:59am EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Also, since we seem to have accepted lehalachah the Rambam's ikkarim, but
> not many of us hold of much of his philosophy in general, can we even make
> such diyuqim? What's relevent, the details of the ikkarim as the Rambam
> originally wrote them, or the ikkarim as accepted by subsequent posqim?

As you may know, LFAD it's not so much what the Rambam said but in how
it is implemented in reality that counts

Illustration {Mashal}:
Rebbe formulated the Mishnah into 6 sdarim and 60+ Masechtos. No one
questoins this structure, but is the Halachah ALWAYS like Rebbe?

Nimshal:
The Rambam structured the ikkarim of emunah into 13. Pretty much everyone
accepts his structure, but may differ on pratim

That is why the Yigdal is so useful in that it is admitedly a bit vague
on the details w/o surrendering any of the ikkarim.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:29:02 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Re: kavvanot


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
> In the artscroll siddur is brought down for Rosh Chodesh special kavannot
> in shem havayah for a person to think during Musaf.
> Do most people really do this?

I know little about such matters, but AFAIK this comes from the Bnei
Yissoschor (who probably had it bekabolo from his rebbes).

Many recently printed siddurim mention these special Sheimos -
(I suppose it's another easy segula [or whatever] - to fulfil...)

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: rock solid foundations (was--first principles)


Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>> It just seems like such a simple concept to me. Logic dictates that
>> everything in existence must have had a cause. If you keep going back in
>> time, you eventually have a first cause... the Infinite One Himself who
>> needs no cause. 

> But you contradict yourself at this point:
> 1) Everything that exist must have a cause
> 2) God exists, but needs no cause
> the real question is if any logical system is capable of proving #2.

You skipped the key word tying the two statements together... the word
"therefore" after 1) and before 2). The reason G-d needs no cause is
that if he needed a cause he wouldn't be G-d nor the Prime Cause. His
Cause would be the Prime Cause.

You cannot prove G-d's existence. But there is more than one way to
explain material existence. However, the MOST logical explanation to me
is for there to be a Prime Cause. It is a logical default to say that
there is a... "Force"... if you will (Wherin it is conceeded that His
eternal existence cannot be explained) that caused everything else. True
there still remains the question of how to understand G-d's eternity,
but at least you've explained everthing else.

So... even it is not a conclusive proof of G-d's existence... to say
that it is LOGICAL to deduce G-d as a Prime Cause, it IS still the best
of the logical possobilities.

[Email #2. -mi]

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> My point was that you've shifted the burden from proving Z to proving Y
> (and, to proving that Y implies Z)....
> But this progression has no end. Eventually you need to prove A, and
> that A implies B, and that B implies C ... and so on to Z.

> Aristotle called this the problem of First Principles. At some point you
> have the things you consider not worth proving. Your givens, postulates,
> first principles, whatever name you wish to give them. ...

My theory, in answer to Aristotle is that you don't have to prove the
first principle because the fact it is, that it is unprovable since it
is beyond human reason to prove eternal existence. A Prime cause is by
definition eternal. But it does answer the question of how everything
else got here.

Perhaps I should redefine it as intuitive logic. It is my intuitively
logical dedection that material existence exists because of the logical
necessity of causality... i.e. that everything must have a prior cause
to exist. One can find various philosophies to explain without need
of a Prime Cause but the MOST logical to me (intuitively, let's say)
is a Prime Cause. The reason for resorting to intuiton is only because
I admit the possiblity of other explanations that might fall into the
relam of logic. But there is a hierarchy of logic. Somthings are more
logical than others. To me a Prime Cause to explain material existence
is the MOST logical.

> Rihal invokes tradition. Since we have a reliable tradition we don't need
> to wonder about our first principles. For that matter, our mesorah takes
> us a long way up the chain of deduction before leaving us on our own.

The problem with tradtion is that it too subjective and does not fall
into the category of proof. I have no problem with it as the motivation
for behavior and/or religious practice or fervor. But I do not like it
as a proof of G-d's existence. I like it only after that proof. I do not
agree that Mesorah takes us anywhere on the chain of deduction. Tradition
can be wrong and has often been shown to be.

> WRT science, we can add data by observation....
> But what about in our discussion? Can you make observations WRT religion?

We can't prove G-d's existence directly. Science deals in the physical
world. G-d is not corporeal. He cannot be observed. But as I have been
maintaining we can deduce it.

>: It just seems like such a simple concept to me. Logic dictates that
>: everything in existence must have had a cause. If you keep going back in
>: time, you eventually have a first cause... the Infinite One Himself who
>: needs no cause. He is the Prime Cause....

> The Rambam makes this argument in the Morah.

I rest my case.  :)

> However logic doesn't dictate that everything has a cause. The Rambam
> gives it in his list of First Principles -- he simply considered it self
> evident. But what if common sense is wrong on this one?

The Rambam saying something is self evident doesn't say one way or the
other about proof of His existence. To me "self evident" can mean the
concept of Prime Cause is self evident. I beleive this is what he meant.

> Zeno's paradox. Zeno argued that motion is
> impossible (thus the label "paradox"). After all, for an arrow to go
> from here to there it must first go halfway there. But to get halfway
> there, one has the same problem -- you first have to go half of that!
> Looking at it this way, any motion requires an infinite series.

It's wonderful how logic can be distorted in this way. It is true that
is you define it that way which is a perfectly logical way to define it
then Zeno's paradox is a logical impossiblity... yet motion happens! The
obvious answer is that what Zeno was really doing was playing with
mathematical principles to "prove" an absurdity. You could just as
easily say that Yes it takes an infinite number of steps to get there
but so what... it gets there. It's the same as saying that the distance
from point A to point B if it is, say, 3 inches, can be divided into an
infinte number of divisions. But the distance is still 3 inches.

> To say that it was spontaneous or random sidesteps
>: the question and doesn't really address it. It just doesn't seem as
>: logical to say that something always existed or "happened by itself"(IOW
>: caused itself!) as it does to say that it was caused by a Prime Cause.
> ...
>: Causality in a material universe... is THE default position IMHO.

> This "doesn't seem logical" or "THE default position" is another way of
> saying "seems obvious to me" or, to the cynic, "I assume".

I didn't say "doesn't seem logical" I said doesn't seem AS
logical". And... it IS obvious to me which is why it is the default until
I hear of a better explantion. To me, all other explanations are not AS
logical. Hence, the default.

...
> Another could be to speak of the experience of following the religion as
> something that one can make an internal observation of. This was why I
> was distinguishing between the experience, and one's emotional reaction to
> that experience. Both are in the same mind, but they're different things.

It is impossible to separate emotion from experience. One's emotional
temperment is always a factor in how one experiences the world. So to
me experience is highly suspect as a proof.

> When we call a theory beautiful, there are two parts to that statement.
> a- That we noticed certain qualities about the theory;
> b- That we found those qualities to our liking.

> (a) alone can play the role of observation, since (b) might involve
> personal biases.

Both a and b are functions of subjectivity. That we find those qualities
of a theory to our liking is a function of one's personal bias which
is based on the totality of one's life experiences which includes
emotionality. The beauty of a theory is not my concern.

> This notion of how to validate first principles is a core question of
> epistomology, and not something we're going to resolve too well here.

I think you're right.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:36:52 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: rock solid foundations (was--first principles)


On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 07:23:09PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: The problem with tradtion is that it too subjective and does not fall
: into the category of proof. I have no problem with it as the motivation
: for behavior and/or religious practice or fervor. But I do not like it
: as a proof of G-d's existence....

Compare to:
: I didn't say "doesn't seem logical" I said doesn't seem AS
: logical". And... it IS obvious to me which is why it is the default until
: I hear of a better explantion. To me, all other explanations are not AS
: logical. Hence, the default.

So, neither is a formal proof. Of course not: formal proofs require
assumptions, not eliminates the need for them.

I don't find the Kuzari's approach convincing either. I tried to describe
my own more existential route to emunah. I pointed him out for his being
the only rishon I know of who rejects the idea of a formal proof.

BTW, another assumption in the Rambam and RHM's approaches is that it
assumes the world is created. "Create" is a verb, and verbs imply
change and time. But zeman itself is a beryah.

There is much in sifrei Qabbalah about beri'ah being a product of atzilus.
Hashem emanates the universe, or emanates a process of creation. Emanation
can be explained by mashal: Lightbulbs emanate light.

If you focus on atzilus, then you don't need the cause to precede the
effect. They coincide in time.  In fact, a problem with the notion of
atzilus is explaining why the universe isn't as old as G-d. (Answer:
because time itself is ne'etzal. The universe is as old as time.)

But in any case, it's a logical model that ends this chain of causes
without ending the chain of time. A counterexazmple to your
assumption of one being "more logical"

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht
, and I'll sto


Go to top.


********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >