For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)


TORAH & SCIENCE-----who created the creator?

Answers, cont.

The position of Carl Sagan, the big shot Harvard and Yale physicist and "biggest teacher of science of the century" is not only easily debunked by every single sefer of the rishonim that discuss Hashem (again - I cannot think of a single exception to that), but - rememebr I promised we will find answers only in YeshivishePublish seforim - it is given by the Chazon Ish (Emunah Ubitachon 1:9) as an example of the thoughts of a person who does not think!

He writes about how some people use their heads - their sechel - to analyse critically what they hear, as opposed to others, who only use "dimyon" - something like "first impression" or "instinct" - to make judgements without really thinking with their minds.

As an example of one such non-thinking "thought process", he cites the very question posed by Slifkin, the very position of Carl Sagan under discussion - what do you gain by proving that the world needs a creator, for now we must ask who created the creator?

And the Chazon Ish says "aval ain l'dimyon binah" - but this unthinking, shoot-from-the-hip thought has no analytical thinking behind it, for only things that are efsher hametzius, things that are subject to time and space and physicality, need to be created, since there has to be a reasonn they are here; but mechuyav hametzius - things that do not just happen to be here, but are intrinsically existent (please see the explanation of this in the "G-d" section referred to above), do not ned to be created since they do not need a reason (i.e. a cause) to make them exist.

As examples of things that do not need creation he gives the rule, that 2+2 = 4, or that the hypotnuse is greater than the sides of a right triangle. None of these ideas need to be "created" - they just are here. As an analogy, he says that Hashem is analagous to those non-physical facts and not comparable at all to physical things.

No comments: