Chapters
Transcript
Automatic transcript; may contain mistakes, especially in Hebrew.
Given where we left off We left off saying that the theory of intelligent design gets us to the point where there is a beginning. A supernatural beginning, and that's what pops that natural thing into existence. That was clear, and now everyone should, at the very least Think that's a considered opinion. Now the question is why. So we now move from the world of science to the world of religion. Here's what I mean. Remember when we said that the difference between religion and science is the difference between what and why. Meaning, science measures what And it tells you how something works. Religion tells you why something is. So we start with the fundamental question: Why is there something instead of nothing? That's the basis of all religion. In other words, science, as we said yesterday, ends here. Science would tell you the only thing we know is that something popped into existence, and from that pop into existence, everything else came. That's the universe as we know it.
From a philosophical perspective, from a religious perspective, we have to ask ourselves the question: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why not just have nothing? Now you understand that science does not claim to answer this question. Not only does science not claim to answer this question, science has not developed, as we finished off saying yesterday, the technology of words to be able to answer the question because it's the wrong discipline. Does that make sense? Cheta. When you say science, do you mean the when you are trying to take the community or trying to take the ideal conception of what science is? In other words, science has developed a language to be able to measure the known universe, which is amazing. And every time we discover something new within the known universe. We have to develop a technology of language to be able to speak about that thing. So we used to think the atom was the smallest thing in the world and we cut it open.
Read the full transcript
Killed 250,000 Oriental people. And now we know it's not the smallest thing. So we had to develop a new language. And we use that language to be able to describe it. But science can't develop a language that could speak to something that's non-existent. It's not within the purview of what they do. It would be no different than a musician coming over to a scientist and saying, 'Explain to me the notes of evolution.' You're using the wrong technology of words. So when we move, when we shift from point B, namely something, into point A, the realm of nothing, science has nothing to say about that. It's just to understand the gedarim in which it lives. So now the question is as follows: Once we've entered into this portion of the world, we have to ask ourselves a question: Why is there something instead of nothing? And that leads us now to a concept called revelation.
We all agreed yesterday, or we should have all agreed by now, that this nothingness we're going to call God. That's the point. Before it gets into something, that's called God. So once you have the concept of God, a creator, now the question why becomes relevant. Why did the Creator do something? Let the Creator do nothing. Make sense? And that leads us into Revelation Because if God did in fact create the world, if we're right That this didn't just pop into existence for no reason at all We need to know two things. Number one Was it just an arbitrary activity? Which is possible. Maybe God was bored. Right? Whatever that nothing is, maybe it was bored. And as a result of its boredom, it decides, "Let me create something." In which case, it doesn't really matter if that God ever lets the universe know what its purpose is, because it was just a random act.
But if your notion of God is that it's purposeful, meaning it's perfect. Then, by definition, we have to talk about revelation. In other words, when we speak about God At least from a Judaism perspective, from a Judaic perspective We're not speaking about a what; we're speaking about a who. You understand the difference? We've moved into the realm of God having a personality, so to speak. And then the question becomes: Well, why did that personality decide to do something instead of nothing? Perhaps it was arbitrary. He got bored. He decided to snap his fingers, creation. In which case, what's the relationship between the creation and the creator? Nothing. Right? Alternatively, we could consider the following opinion. He did for a reason. And the reason needs to be communicated. No different than, for example, let's say I hired Tovia to come work for me And I give Tovia all of this equipment.
And I say, Tovia, you've got your computer, right? You've got your desk. You've got a team of people that are working with you, right? What's the only thing I haven't told you? What's the job So if you come to sit down and work, and you're sitting there in front of your computer, and you see all these people running around, there's numbers on the board, and people running around like crazy. What's the thing you're going to ask yourself? What am I supposed to do? What's my role? Why are you asking that question? Because you assume that if you were hired You were hired for a reason. Exactly. So ask yourself the following question: When you consider your own design What does your design tell you? Yeah, All of it Everything about you. You're exceptionally intelligent. You're the most intelligent animal out there. I mean you. I'm joking. I'm sure you're very smart, though. What I mean to say is.
When you consider your design, the first thing that's going to jump out at you is your intelligence. You're complex. What ways are you complex? Everything that needs to work together. First of all, you're a modern miracle. The fact that all the body parts work together, the blood is pumped to the rest of the body, the human eye is capable of focusing, turning things into color. It's unbelievable. You're exceptionally complex in terms of your biological makeup. We're very physically capable. You're definitely physically capable. Perhaps not as physically capable as a horse. You can't run at that level or speed. No horse can't swim. And as you're capable of doing a lot of things. You can be in the water to a degree. You can be on land to a degree. I'm with you. What else? You guys missed a pretty basic one. Social. You're social. That's great one.
That's a great one. We have language. You have language. Correct. Huge. What else? We can talk. Same thing. Social and language. That's we'll get to that. I'm not so sure about free will yet. We built the society. Absolutely, you're not just a creature that knows how to interact with others and communicate with others. You've built empires. You've conquered the known world with government. Chabra, you left out one really basic one. I'll give you a hint. If I was teaching a class of girls, it would have been the one they go first with. Yeah. We have exceptionally complex emotions. And the interplay between intellect and emotions. What should all of these things tell you on some level? At the very basic, what should these things tell you? We are different from other creatures. And therefore, what? No different than if I gave you a computer and said, "Get to work" And you would and Tuvia is going to say to me, 'What do you want me to do?' What am I going to say? Same thing. If I look at my design, what am I going to say?
I've clearly got a design And as we go into the realm of design, I want to know what the design is for. What's more likely? Again, just from a logical perspective, I have two arguments in front of me. One is that God designed the world arbitrarily, for whatever reason, nothing decided that something should exist, and why arbitrary? But if that was the case, we have to ask ourselves a question: Why the design? That's what I felt like doing. I felt like creating social creatures. I felt like creating complex creatures. I felt like creating emotional creatures, intellectual creatures. It's just the nature of the design. Right? Or alternatively, what would be a more logical approach to this? You're designed for a reason. Anybody who wants to go with the first argument, you realize again, I'm not saying it's I'm not saying it's impossible But it seems ridiculous.
You would never do that with anything else in your life. Us being designed for a reason, does that mean that this supernatural creator needs something from us? That's a good question, and we're going to deal with it. We're going to have at least one shear exactly on that topic. Why does God need God? For sure, a super important question. But you're jumping the gun, and I'll tell you why. Because when I say reason, I know why you're. I know where you're running to. You say if there's a reason, then there's a lack. I'm with you, and we'll see. But right now, all I want to know is if the design of point B indicates something about the rationale of point A. I think the answer, if you're being intellectually honest, would have to be yes. And here's the argument for no. That is Even if there was, even if you want to say the logic wasn't reason, doesn't mean there was a reason.
For sure, hundred percent. Watchmaker's theory: God set the watch and then let it go. Great. It's a great question, but that means you more or less agree with me at least on this point. It's ridiculous to look at the complexity of the design of the universe and think to yourself This design has no purpose. Could it be arbitrary? Sure, you could make the argument. Is that a reasonable argument? If you're weighing the rationale of that argument, is that the first thing that jumps out of you? That's the stretch. The more reasonable argument is there. There's probably a purpose, and here's the rule for today. And this is what's critical. Is there an eraser? There is. Here's what's critical for today. If point A. What we're going to call God now If point A begets point B, which we will now call the universe And this is what's critical now, the universe clearly has design.
It's reasonable to assume purpose. And therefore It's reasonable—and here's the key word—to expect revelation. This is not just a logical conclusion. This is an expectation. Why is it reasonable to expect revelation? Toby, why is it reasonable? Because if we're here, and this correct? In other words, you're right. That's why you jump to intellect. That's why we all jump to intellect. When we see design, the primary feature of the design is that we question our own existence. That's clearly got to be one of the defining features, and it's not the only defining feature, but it's clearly one of the main defining features in the fulfillment of our purpose. It's clear that human beings have a tendency to question why they exist to begin with. Ergo. Revelation is going to speak to the intellect of a person, not only to the intellect, but certainly to the intellect. Fair.
Tell me where I've made a logical fallacy. I don't know. I feel it's like I want to validate all of your emotions But when you start a question with "I feel like" In a philosophy class, I'm going to have to nail you to a wall. What do you mean when you say "I feel"? I believe. Are you prepared to make a logical argument? Knocking off any one of these points? I can try. I would love to hear. I don't feel like. You did it again. You understand why I'm giving you a hard time about that? This is what happens when I teach seminars. But I feel like I'm okay, I totally validate that feeling. I really hear that you feel it. But now what? I believe. That just because the world has a purpose doesn't mean that we have a purpose. And so you've now this is the move. Your move is the world, the universe has a purpose because the universe why? Why do you believe the universe has a purpose? Because it has a design. But we don't have a design.
So does everything else? Everything would have a purpose then. How is it more important then? I did. Why did you say more important? Have I made that argument yet? No. So you're attacking. First you started off feeling. Then you moved to believing. Now your argument is to split between the universe and humanity. Even though both have a design, because of an argument that I might make about man being more important. gotcha. Yeah. Why can we say that despite all these designs are amazing We could say that so is art. Art is. It doesn't have a purpose. But yet it's. If there was an artist in the room, what would they say to you? You're right. I can't. I can't make sure that my walls are very structured because of your art. The old house will look nicer, but it won't be more functional. You could have all these nice looking designs, but are they going to be functional?
So I would think that if I was speaking to an artist, he might say something more profound than the reason that I draw art. The reason I make art is it's more than just the. Fixing the lines in your home, but art is a feeling. So when you're saying that is when I look at the world. But what's that? The design of the art is to evoke an emotion, right? Now I may not feel that emotion, and you may not feel that emotion. But the design of art is to evoke an emotion. So when you speak to an artist, what would they tell you? I made the art like this in order to evoke the emotion. The design indicates purpose. And I would even argue one step further. The design of the thing will be in and of itself a revelation of the purpose for which it was created.
Why are we saying the mountains are the same? They are supposed to work hand in hand with humans. And therefore it's supposed to be a perfect world with humans. But I didn't make that argument. But I'm saying is that if you would make the argument that art is not I would make the argument that anything that has design, whether it's a mountain, a rock, a person, or a piece of art, indicates a purpose. If there's a purpose, then the one who was created must have some capacity to know that purpose. That's all I'm saying. It's a reasonable expectation that if I have a purpose There should be a revelation of that purpose. The design, in and of itself, should communicate that purpose. That's my only argument. Don't ask me about the interplay between trees, mountains, and people yet, because I haven't made that argument. Back to our evolution. So we. The question of our evolution is saying because we know we're designed We know we have a purpose.
Not on one second. You skipped a couple steps there. Make sure you have the steps. There could be nothing. Why is there something instead of nothing? That's a reasonable argument. Why is there something instead of nothing? If this thing is God and there's a universe, and the universe has design, and we have features. Then those features indicate not randomness but purposefulness. In which case, I would expect that the very thing that is designed knows its purpose and is capable of fulfilling it. So there's an expectation of revelation. Not know your purpose. You may not know your purpose Even if you have one. I agree. I wouldn't know. I might not know it. And therefore, what would you expect? If I hired you for the job and you don't know your purpose, I can't ask you to just look around the office and feel your way out and figure out what your job is. What's my responsibility as your boss?
To reveal it. Expectation, revelation. Fair. Yeah. So are we expecting the creator to reveal to us? Maybe. Good, good question. Where does the revelation come from? Does the revelation come from within? Does the revelation come from without? Is it a combination of both? Would it be possible for me? Chazal discusses. Would it be possible for me if the Torah was never given? If there was no revelation? Would it be possible for me to learn the things I need to know from looking at the world around me? So, great question. We'll get there, God willing. When I say again, when I say revelation, I'm not speaking right now. I'm not saying. This is what I'm not saying. I'll say in a minute, but I'm not saying it this second. I'm not saying God came down from the mountain and revealed. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying just a logical argument.
So we need humans to explore and figure out potentially. Potentially. If you were in a job and you were sitting in a corner office, and you look around and everybody else has small cubicles. You might naturally look at yourself and say "It seems to me that I have, I am of a higher order within the structure of this office." That's a reasonable thing to believe. You might think to yourself then Naturally, does that give me some sort of managerial powers You might look at the software on your computer and realize that you're tracking all the other office workers, which means that your job by itself, even just intellect alone, there's been a revelation that you've looked at the design and wondered to yourself. Now your boss still didn't come down and tell you, but you've certainly figured it out by the power of deduction at least somewhat. Eli.
Can you explain? What's the premise? I'm. We start. We said yesterday that in the open model of the universe, what we know to be true is that something popped into existence. We ran through two shirim. You can check them up online if you need to review. We ran through the different arguments for and against intelligent design. But we certainly arrived at the conclusion. Two things. Number one, just because I don't know anything about the designer doesn't mean that I don't believe in intelligent design. Because the object itself has design that indicates a designer. And last year, what did we say? Last year we went against Dawkins' argument. Chance. That the infinite creator didn't have a creator that designed it. Right. So now. Ultimate point. For that. Dawkins argued that he was the ultimate Boeing 747, that God is the ultimate Boeing 747, which would have resulted in a loop of who created that and who created that? Scaling back on levels of intelligence, we debunked that argument, and that is what led us to this point.
Now that we know that there was nothing and there was something, and whatever this supernatural thing is, because it's clearly beyond the realm of what we can measure, because it's a non-existent thing Why is there something instead of nothing? That's the beginning of all philosophical and religious arguments. That's where we leave the realm of science. And now, from a logical perspective, even without getting you don't have peyus, you don't have yamak, you don't have tzitzis, you don't put on tefillin, it's reasonable to say as follows. Supernatural related became natural. Something shifted. Right? Why did it shift? If you say why, then you're already talking about design. Because you're looking at it and going, this is exceptionally complex. Why did we develop this complexity? Ergo, there's a purpose. We would expect to have some sort of revelation, either internal or external. Of that purpose. Why is complexity necessary in design?
Because we don't generally look at complexity that's functional and think random. You wouldn't look at a Boeing 747 and think that randomly got together. Would you compare the universe to a Boeing? I would say that the universe is a Boeing 747 times a zillion. And it's the complexity of the universe and the way everything is positioned, the way every cell and molecule work. At least to me, logically, it indicates there's massive levels of design in the fact that everything works together. Why does everything work together? Does that mean that the current state is the perfect way it can possibly be? Do you have to assume it's perfect? I'm. I'll tell you what. There's a little bit too much religious overtones to that question. Give me a couple days of the no of the shiur and see if when we get back to it. I'm just trying to play out the formula in my head.
Does the question make sense? It does make sense, and I know what you're saying because you're saying if there's like if I was making a computer right and I would want that computer to be the best possible computer it could be. Like if NASA's creating a computer, they don't want to create They don't want to create a computer that's not going to function. They want to create the perfect computer. Now they may only be able to create the most perfect computer they can make, which is not to say perfect at all, because it's going to be limited to their capacity to understand what's perfect or not. But here, where we're speaking about God, you're saying there must be a level of perfection here. The reason why I'm hesitating is because when we actually discuss the purpose of the world, we're going to discuss whether that purpose is perfect or imperfect. So that's why I'm in my head. I have these equations. So when guys ask questions, I'm like, okay, where are we holding in the equation? Your question really speaks to a couple shiurim from now, probably maybe two or three shiurim from now, where we discuss what exactly was the purpose, and it is perfection the purpose, or is imperfection the purpose? So it might be the most perfect form of imperfection.
That's what I'm saying. That's why I'm hesitant to answer Elon's question because if I answer his question, then you're going to ask me that. It's like, why is this the best version of perfect? But that for that we would have to understand the purpose. We have two minutes left. But I want to show you something fundamental before we leave. By the way, we don't have share next week, Wednesday, Thursday, because of school. So I won't see you for two weeks. You're gonna have to hold this in your head. Don't worry, we'll review it. But revelation now gets complicated because we're gonna talk about an internal revelation Meaning when I say internal. Meaning the design of the thing itself tells you what it is. It tells you its purpose. Okay. Or an external revelation. An external revelation. What would you say? It's not possible. This is what you'd have to get to. It's impossible to determine what your purpose is only internally. There needs to be something external that communicates what we call higher purpose.
And here's where the real breakdown is. All religions are going to assume that you need an external purpose, meaning you need something external to reveal to you your purpose, because your purpose cannot only be seen by an examination of the self. There's something more that's being communicated. And now here's where it really falls apart. Ready? Here's what really falls apart. Who got the communication? You understand? In other words, if there's a God and God created the universe, and we look at the design and we see that the design indicates purpose, now we expect revelation. The question is Who got that revelation? Why them? So let's look at the questions. Who got the revelation? Why did they get the revelation? When did they get the revelation? Because that time. How did they get the revelation? Trust is something else. Trust. You know what? Let's just do it. Trust is: should I communicate? Should I believe them that their communication was accurate, or should I believe them that they got the communication at all? It's all going to be built on something. All of these things are things that intelligent people should be skeptical of.
Why? And why should we be skeptical of that? Excuse me. That's very true. It's right. Exactly right. You could. I couldn't have said it any better myself. Exactly right. It's not just a lack of trust. Who are you? They're saying something huge. The claim is massive. They're laying claim. Wherever these people are, let's just say it's Steve. Steve, the one that got the revelation from God. That went to a David Cross and they created a woodshed. Whatever. Whatever it is, he's laying claim. You understand that this. Higher purpose goes all the way back to there. You understand? In other words, this point X. This where all of creation lives. His claim is that everything in the world is tied into that higher purpose. He's capable of having that conversation. That's a massive claim. Even if I had all the proofs in the world, I would logically be skeptical of that because I would be like, 'You're making a massive claim. You're not saying that you are the master of one discipline. You're saying that every other discipline falls within yours. You are the overarching oneness of all of creation.'
That's massive, Elon. I wasn't here for the first class. I came to the end. But what's the end? What did we do in the last class? Where will we be? Are we going to talk about the flora and stuff like that? How far will we get? My goal is. I mean. Depends if we choose to stop in January or not. Depends on what the guys are interest interested in. But my goal is to stop to go all the way to Pesach And not only to get. This is just the groundwork. We haven't even gotten to Judaism, right? And once we get to Judaism, it's to discuss. I don't feel we can reasonably get to Judaism and have a meaningful conversation about it if we're not all at least convinced that this is a meaningful logical argument, right? Then we're going to start taking topics within Judaism, right?
Gehennim, Gan Eden Scarva Onesh. Why does Judaism have so many restrictions? All those things are going to fit into the rubric of this. That's the goal. I don't see why there has to be a revelation. I see what you're saying, but I don't understand why there has to be a revelation for a group or a singular person. It could just be that everyone has their own theories. And that's what. And that's kind of what. One second. One second. But did God have in this scenario, right? This happened for a reason That's what we're assuming right now. We're saying it happened for a reason. So since it happened for a reason, this is where I get lost in the soft logic of today's hippie sort of philosophy. It's up to you to decide your reason. That's not logical. Because you are not your own creator. So if your boss hires you, you don't go like. I really think it's my journey to figure out what my job is here. What are you talking about? You got a paycheck here. Your job is to do whatever your boss tells you.
But I don't think there has I don't think there has to be a communication between. How am I supposed to know it then? Us, I think there. I think it's just like that's basically what religion is. Kind of, it's just. Why you're up to religion? I just want. I'm not. I'm only up to revelation, right? I just want to know the following. If God did something on purpose. It's not my job to figure out what I want. It's my job to figure out what he wants. Just in the frame within this equation that we've built for ourselves. It's on me to think about what's happening here in that moment between point A and point B. Why did that occur? For that, you need revelation. The revelation could be internal or it could be external. Religion is going to lay claim to an external motivation, to an external revelation. We will get to the role of morality and religion. That is also a fascinating question, and one we will definitely cover. Sorry, Rabbi, but we're out of time.
Is this shiur filed in the wrong place? Let us know.