A.B.Z. asked Staff ago I am an 18 year old and I learn in the Chevron Yeshiva in Givat Mordechai, Jerusalem.
I come from a very open home; it can be said that I became Charedi on my own (I learned in a Charedi high school). I have read many of your article and the truth is — I wasn’t very impressed. But if you answer one question at length, I will take off my hat (literally) before you.
My question is: According to your argument, there is a possibility that life evolved, and I agree with you: evolution may have happened, because the holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the world through nature. But you claim there is no G-d, so what (or who) created the point of origin which created the Big bang? Where did it all start? Where did the particles or whatever it was come from?
Sincerely,
A.B.Z.
N.B. Not connected to the question: you claim that Maimonides was not orthodox? Or did I simply misunderstand you?
jsadmin Staff answered 19 years ago
Dear A.B.Z.,
The question of creation ex nihilo is one which has no answer nor can it have an answer — man (religious or non-religious) is not capable of imagining or understanding creation ex nihilo or infinity.
You innocent faith that your “god” created the world is, in fact, the same exact answer, just phrased elusively.
One who says that G-d created the world is basically saying that he does not know who, if anyone, created the world.
The word “god” represents man’s wonder and astonishment at the existence of creation, which cannot be understood.
What is the difference between one who says that “nature” is primordial and one who says G-d is primordial? Both are stumbling in the dark like blind men.
N.B. Maimonides would have rejected with disgust the current Orthodox worldview.
Sincerely,
Daat Emet
Charles Joseph answered 3 years ago
Neither satisfied nor convinced. You took one side of a conundrum and presented it as if it were the only side. “Man cannot understand.” Why not? Because, perforce, there is something higher than man’s intellect. You call it “man’s wonder and astonishment at the existence of creation, which cannot be understood.” The bochur calls it G-d. Why is your position more logically than his question? You take it as an axiom the the G-d hypothesis is wrong, and you proceed from that axiom. And you didn’t address the question of order.
Charles Joseph answered 3 years ago
Neither satisfied nor convinced. You took one side of a conundrum and presented it as if it were the only side. “Man cannot understand.” Why not? Because, perforce, there is something higher than man’s intellect. You call it “man’s wonder and astonishment at the existence of creation, which cannot be understood.” The bochur calls it G-d. Why is your position more logically than his question? You take it as an axiom the the G-d hypothesis is wrong, and you proceed from that axiom. And you didn’t address the question of order.