Judaism 101 - Shiur #9 - Is a Godly Revelation Necessary?

2:48 What might you naturally do? You might see if it fits. Now let's say you do that. Nothing happens at this point. You start fiddling with the buttons on the machine. Like a skate room. Correct. Like in a skate room. You start fiddling with the buttons on the machine. What happens? The machine turns on. You start testing it out. You pull the plug out. The machine turns off. Now you know what? What do you know right now? Naturally, without any revelation. If you touch those buttons The lightener goes on. I need to be plugged into the wall, and I need to press that button in order for this machine to do something. Now your only question is: What does the machine do? So let's say you saw that the machine started sucking up the dirt, and what went from being a dirty carpet is now a clean carpet. What would you say about the nature of that machine? That's a vacuum cleaner. How do you know that's a vacuum cleaner? Because you saw it work.

3:35 In other words, it could be that there is another purpose for it But right now you would feel confident and comfortable to know that at least one purported purpose of this machine is to clean up the dirt. That is what we're going to call. An internal—it's not really a revelation, but it's an internal expression of purpose. Is it possible to use that machine? Knowing what you know In the way that's not the most effective way to use it? Meaning, is it possible to look at a vacuum cleaner and think to yourself, "That's something I could balance a cup of coffee on"? It's possible. Why is it possible? Because I could. Just because I can use it for that doesn't mean it's the object's best use. But it'll work. Why would you not naturally, without any revelation, look at a vacuum cleaner and think to yourself, "That's probably for coffee"? In other words, when you look at the design, that's what's critical here. When you look at the design itself, it tells you that there's something about this machine that seems more sophisticated than just a resting place for coffee.

4:45 The fact that it has wires, the fact that it has buttons, the fact that it has electricity—it tells me there's something more going on. Could you use it for that? You could. Should you use it for that? It's not really what it's designed to do. Here, when we speak about an external revelation What's the difference between that and internal? Play it out before we talk about what it actually is. Let's see what you think it is. Difference, I would think that. In other words, when you have an external revelation, the creator of the thing is telling you "This what I designed it for." Is that what you were going to say? In other words, I can look at an object and I can naturally say, by looking at the object, "This what the object does." Say that. There might be more features that I have not yet discovered.

5:39 But at least I can say, with an external revelation, what do I know for sure? I know for sure that the intent of the creation. That, in other words, maybe it could be used for more than that, but at the very least, the creator intended to create that vacuum cleaner to be a vacuum cleaner and not to be more than that. Make sense? Everyone clear on that? If you had to choose What would you say would be a more effective way of communicating purpose? And don't say one or the other. Tell me, I want you to present arguments for both sides. I would say external is, but internal is It's subjective, and they can get it completely wrong, and then you're, it feels like. I want you to do that And then. You could. And then First the. A bunch of zombies. Y'all say amen. I don't even know if the, I don't even know, I haven't even spoken about religion yet. Shlomo's like, I'm not saying amen.

6:40 So you're saying very well. In other words, you're saying this: You're saying when there's an external revelation. I know for sure I have clarity in the purpose. All encompassing clarity. You're taking a chance if you right. In other words, maybe that's what I think its best usage is. But perhaps there's another usage that I don't know. Very fair point, Tovia. Maybe internal could be better because you can say that everyone's here for their own purpose. Their own script, their own reason. You're getting a little too frum for me. Define it. What do you mean? In other words, you're saying look at the internal. What does that help you do? If you examine the internal, let's see without external. Just looking at yourself, and you say I clearly have design. What would be the value of looking at your design over other people's design? We're trying to figure out the purpose of that. I think you're saying similar to Tuvia. You're saying, in other words, without looking at the cosmic universe for a second, I could look at my design and say something. Hey, but what are you saying?

7:32 Define it. This internal is your truth. You're all hovering around the same thing, just defining. That it's true to you. The other one could be external. Could be. Good. In other words, Kushner comes along and he says, "The best usage of the vacuum cleaner is to be a vacuum cleaner. Why? Because the creator of the vacuum cleaner told me the best usage is to be a vacuum cleaner. Very fair, right?" On the other hand, Abe comes along and Toby's coming along and Phoebe's coming along. Everyone's saying the same thing. They're saying, "Yeah, but that seems to be generic." Whereas now I have my unique individuality. And what I'm trying to establish is not just purpose in general, but I'm trying to establish my unique purpose. Fair point. But is there something even generic about looking at the entire human experience and just wondering on an internal level? Is there something valuable about that without external revelation?

8:27 Like the journey of the process of finding it. Is there something inherently valuable about that? If you find it within yourself, then. Feel more connected to actually. This would be the difference between the teacher teaching you the information and you discovering the information. For example, do you guys know how they teach math in China? It's amazing because they're doing all these studies now because the Chinese kids are so far superior in math to the American kids. So they're doing all these studies as to why they're doing it so much differently. My wife is a mathematician, so that's why I know this. And she told me an amazing thing. What do they do? Math teachers in China don't teach equations. What they teach is methodology. So this is how you would solve a problem. Then they give the kids the problem and let them go through the journey of figuring it out. What happens is they're more adaptable to figuring it out. Let's say an American kid is going to look and say, 'I've seen equations like this before, so let me plug in the answer or the solution that I know.' Whereas Chinese kids are looking at it totally differently. They are starting from the ground up. They know the theory. They understand how it works, and they're naturally teaching themselves, not the teacher teaching. They're naturally teaching themselves how to discover. There's value in the process of discovery.

9:44 Let's do the following. If you had to, let's ignore external revelation for the rest of this class. External revelation perhaps is possible, but not yet necessary. If you looked at the design of humanity. What would you say the features are? Remember, when it came to the vacuum cleaner, we had the plug, we had the switch, we had the fact that it sucked up air. What are the features of the human experience, the cosmic experience, whatever it is you want to say, that would tell you something about its design? Ellie. Intelligence. Number one, we have intelligence. Very important. What is? What does that tell you? That we have the ability. So you're looking at yourself and you're saying, as I look around in the world. Human beings are different than animals. Animals have instinct. Human beings have intelligence. Flowers have some sort of biological intelligence, but it's not conscious intelligence like a human being. The Earth certainly has no level of intelligence. So you're saying right away there's a distinction that a human being has an intellect.

10:54 Do you know anything about the purpose for which you were created based on the fact that you have intellect? Right now, let's leave it as a question mark. Ellie says it's a question mark. Maybe it will be. Maybe it won't be. Going on what he said with the intellect We could find the eternal meaning, and not only the external. So you're supposing you're saying perhaps it's not just a question mark, but an intellect allows you. What do you want to call it? What would be the word? Pursue meaning. Pursue. Pursuing. And also I would say another. What's another feature? Emotion. But you guys are only dealing with the human experience right now. I want you to think more globally because I don't just want you to ask it. Remember, the question today is: Why is there something instead of nothing? So God, we're calling God X.

11:49 Existence came into being. There's a purpose. There's a reason. We're looking at the internal right now for the humans. We can at least say there's intellect and emotion. Abe. What do you mean by that? That's not external revelation because external revelation would be from above. You're examining your own physiology. You have to tell me what it is about it. You could do like there's tangible and intangible things because there are things like DNA is a physical thing you just can't get. So but let's take DNA. In other words, you are a living, breathing what? How would you describe that? Your code that creates new code That's good for you. You like that. That's what you are? I'm just code. I'm code that creates new code. Here's the point I'm getting at. Maybe I'm reading too much into what you're saying. But what I really want you to get to, and this is what I'm pushing you guys to, is if you look at this world, if you look at this universe, one thing above all stands out: we're alive.

12:54 This entire thing sustains life. That's going to be very important. Shlomo, I was going to say survival. Survival sustains life. Survival. That's the number one feature. Eating, but every animal has an instinct to survive. So it really separates humans from other animals. But remember, that's exactly why I was saying I don't want you focusing just on humans, because this question is not why did God create humans. What's the question? Why did God create anything? Why is there something instead of nothing? As we look and take an inventory of the talents of this universe, looking at humanity, we have intellect, emotion, right? But ultimately, there seems to be some drive in this universe for life. What it's uniquely designed to do is to sustain life. That's something we know. But looking at a person, you can't base their instinct of survival on that. I'm not saying a person. I'm saying anything. I'm saying everything.

13:56 Everything exists, and it exists in a way. That's balanced for it to continue to exist. I know, but if an outside observer not knowing this were to look at any person here or anything For that matter, he wouldn't think right away that it's survivable. But the good news is that we're not any person. We've been living in right. You've been a part of this something right for eighteen years. And what do you know about yourself? Alive. You're alive. That's a fact. Like, few things that like guide us toward like, or if you think that like. Got just away from dying, things that hurt. And so in other words, it's not just an instinct during survival. It's not just design. It's actually designed to sustain life. So pain, for example, tells you stay away from that thing because that thing doesn't sustain life. Usually Pain are things that are bad for survival and pleasure.

14:50 Usually things that are usually good for our survival. An apple. When you hold an apple, if its peel is brown, what does it let you know? Don't eat the apple. If its peel is appealing, I didn't mean it to be a pun. It just happens to be. I really didn't mean it like that. I'm not that much of a rebbe. If the peel is appealing to you, what does it tell you? It's naturally attractive, and it says this sustains life. Everything about this world is going to get. This is so. See now you lost me Because that's superfro. That's superfro. You're right. I believe that. And maybe we'll get to that. But you're getting to the essence, and I'm not at the essence yet because I'm going to maintain that essence requires an external revelation. So I'm impressed that you got there, but I don't think we can say that purely from an internal perspective.

15:41 I think perhaps when you get an external revelation, you can put all the internal revelations in context, as we shall see. Yeah. Avram. That's what he did. He took everything from. I remember there was no external revelation before Avram Avinu started. When Avram Avinu started, it was a purely internal revelation. It was a purely internal thing. It wasn't until much later that supposedly God revealed Himself to Avram. Now I don't know if He did or He didn't, but the myth is because we're involved in involving mythology here. The myth is that Avram Avinu looked at the world himself and everything around him, and he said, 'Why is there something instead of nothing?' And this is where he ended up because of all those. We'll see. Not done yet. Ezra. Communication. In society Society itself We really revolve around our communication. In other words, what's another way of saying that?

16:46 We're social. You've been hanging out with me for too long, right? But yes, ultimately. A social community hopefully will create an intimate community. I would agree with you, but not yet. I know that we're social. Do you know why we're social? I think it's to survive. I think it's okay. In other words, you're pulling it all back. I've got intellect. I've got emotions. I'm a social animal. Everything is going to revolve around sustaining life. That's the goal of living. I didn't say that. Correct. In other words, from a purely internal revelation, what you would know if you examined the talents of the design. Is it that you say this machine is designed to sustain itself? That's what you would say about it. Go with the most primitive animals to keep living and then make more of them. That's right. Just code creating more code. And the other evolution guided us toward.

17:37 But we still haven't answered one fundamental question. Why? The strangest thing in the world. Do you mind if I start? You want to go one more? I was just going to say something off the road. What are you going to say? When he said soul, you said that would be external. It's too. I would say it's more internal because external just whatever is there. This is like soul would go along with the intellect and emotion and everything, which is internal. But looking more beyond. Can I ask you a question? I'm with you 100% because I actually 100% believe what you believe, but I just want to know one thing: How do you know to identify intellect and emotion with soul? Who told you that a soulful person is an intellectual person or an emotional person? Who told you about nefesh asichlus? For example, that's only because there's a concept of external revelation where some rabbi already taught you that.

18:29 You can just say fine. So skip the rabbis and go back to what he said about Avram. Then, Avram's soul was internal, and you take no authority. We'll see. We'll see. Last one. Just because External revelation brings in the word but gives me something to label it. That's right. It doesn't mean it's not there. Internal. Of course, I agree with you. But it's one of those things that I required an external revelation to know that was the technology of language that I was meant to use. In other words, if you remember, I don't know anything about the vacuum cleaner. I'm a neophyte. I've never seen a vacuum cleaner before in my life, so I'm not familiar with all the gadgetry that make up a vacuum cleaner. Now I have what? Now I've got an instruction manual, right? Where the creator of the vacuum cleaner told me that this is the engine, for example, of the vacuum cleaner. I didn't know that it had an engine. I just knew that I plugged it in, I flipped that switch, and then dirt got sucked up. I didn't necessarily understand the mechanism. And even if I took it apart, I wouldn't necessarily know what to call it. Soul is the technology of language. It came with external revelation.

19:37 It's a very good point that you're making. But your language is impacted. By years of yeshiva training Fair. The problem is this. Let's say you went to one of these high school competitions, like one of these science competitions. You guys ever see that? What they call them? The Westinghouse Science Competitions. They have that still. Many years ago, they had that. It was a kid in Rambam. We still have that sign. It was a big sign hanging up in Rambam for years. The kid won a Westinghouse Science Competition because there were tires. I think they were Firestone tires that, for whatever reason, were losing their tread. And they were very dangerous in water and snow. This kid actually came up with a solution, and he won the Westinghouse Science Competition. It's like the biggest thing in the world. He patented it. He's set for life. This kid doesn't need to work a day in his life because he's got the patent on fixing all tires—it's an amazing passion to have. He was like sixteen when he did it. Classic ground, right? So just like you, just like me. We were in the same place. Nice.

20:55 If you went to the Westinghouse Science Competition All the judges are going around And everyone's presenting their invention So somebody presents my invention cures cancer. Another person presents my invention, cure. Fixes climate you know climate change, right? If they were going around, the judges were going around and saying, and the guy comes and he goes, I invented a machine that sustains itself. What do you think? How is that guy going to score? Hundred. No. It's just there to be there. Do it. He's going to get a zero. Why would he win? Because of the laws of conservation of energy, you have to. Let's say that it's not that. Let's say he's just got a machine that whirs and levers move and pulleys move, and the whole nine yards is plugged in. He didn't go against the laws of conservation of matter and energy. So he's not.

21:55 Let's do anything else. That's exactly right. So we're stuck now. You guys hear that? You just say because the life on Earth is here just to be here. Everything we just said came down to my intellect helping me sustain life, my emotions helping me sustain life, my social community helping me sustain life, everything I do helping me sustain life. What's the one thing we didn't answer? Why in the world would you create a machine like that? The goal of the machine is to sustain life. That doesn't make any sense. There's something fundamentally off about internal revelation just by itself. I can't arrive at a meaningful conclusion. That's my thesis for today. Now try to beat me up on it. The question I'm going to have is that let's say the same hot science competition. We have a guy who says his machine sustains itself. The business machine sustains itself, and the machine adapts to changing times. You could say this machine will last.

22:51 Millions of years, and whatever happens to the world, my machine is going to be able to adapt. It's still going to work no matter what happens. Work to do what? Very cool. I admit it's exceptionally impressive that you've managed to create something that can adapt to no matter what's going on around it. It can adapt over time to be able to continue to sustain itself. And perhaps that technology will be meaningful if I have a machine that actually needs to be sustained. Wait. Do you get that? That's really important. In other words, I'm with you 100%. This is all really impressive. And if I took that to another technology that was purposeful, it would be really amazing. For example, if I had a car, and I told you, I'm going to give you a car that will be forever. It's the eternal car. You buy it once, you're finished. It's a hundred thousand dollar purchase, and you never have to think about it again. And no matter what the weather condition, no matter what, you get into an accident, it sustains itself. It will always adapt. That's impressive. Why? Because I want a car. But you've created a machine that does nothing except adapt.

23:52 Maybe, but that's not what we're talking about. As we're talking about a purposeful existence, not a purposeful existence for something else that's purposeful. But the cage with the Wait, let me get to it one more time. Purpose of being a good predator because we've got people want. I'm gonna create a bunch of these species. Let's just see who lasts the longest. Hey, let's see survivable the fittest. So your answer. Let's play it out then. Your answer as to why, when you look at this and you look at the world and you say, 'everything here is designed to survive,' so then your answer is, so maybe the creator, the reason he created it for, was what? Some cruel vision of what was that? The Hunger Games. To say there, it's a possibility. Let's acknowledge that it's a possibility. The reason God created the world is because he just wanted to see what would happen.

24:41 Frankly, you take it all from there, and our intellect shows that we're winning. And why does he do it? Because he's cruel. That's exactly the point. I agree with you. From an internal place alone, you would totally have to speculate as to why he did it. I have no idea why he wants to sustain life, and since I have no idea why he wants to sustain life, I can say whatever I want, including he's this cruel Hunger Games type of God. I agree. Great question But you're already talking about the external revelation. Remember, I haven't gotten there yet. I'm just trying to see if we can knock out one side. Ellie. I think this is the point where people start incorporating religion into life. People try to. Together, so that you know the first part, the first half is everything you just said right now and then once you get to this point Just code of religion right then And then the second half of the question is I agree with you 100. Let me just spell out what Ellie's saying so that we all get on the same page. Then I'll get to you guys, three of you.

26:06 Ellie's jumping the gun a little bit. I'm with him. And he's saying as follows: This universe is not like the vacuum. Because I can infer everything I need from the vacuum cleaner. But when I take an inventory of the talents of this universe, I fall short. And therefore now I need something—one cogent equation. We'll call it the theory of everything. One cogent equation that's going to take all of these things and give a reasonable reason why it actually happened. So far, we have the theory that God created the Hunger Games. But at this point, you would naturally look towards an external revelation to get your answer to that question. I'm with you. Let's see what happens. Loud. I'm a little deaf. I'm saying that I know two things. I know the existence came from something. And now I'm asking a reasonable question, philosophical question: Why is there something instead of nothing? When I look at the design of existence, it's clear to me that there's purpose. Now I want to know: Why is that design a purpose?

27:25 Two possibilities: internal or external. Internal, we can take an inventory of the talents, but we seem to fall short as to why those talents are there. Yeah. That's a reasonable right. So you're saying, right? I agree. And if we had something very simple that did not have massive amounts of design, I would probably argue with you. I would probably agree with you and say, I don't know, it was just like a game. And forget God is advanced. Existence is advanced. We're perfectly situated between the sun and Jupiter with the perfect amount of moon in the perfect orbit to sustain life. That doesn't seem like just throwing some blocks on top of each other. My son plays with Magnatiles. It seems a bit more sophisticated. Right. Right. Because my kid has a desire. I'm with you to sustain that tower. Maybe there is to him. But isn't playing a purpose also something?

28:39 No. Yeah. Um. But can you like? It's not completely. But can you infer That like Maybe it would be bad to hurt other people's existence. Maybe it's bad to hurt other people's survival. I shouldn't kill somebody. I shouldn't hurt somebody. Why? Why is it bad, especially if that ensures my own survival? If my purpose is to survive, and I like surviving Then I can. I could make a difference. That you probably also like surviving. So we should try to survive together. So not even that. Just because I would be mad if someone tries to kill me. So I know that he's gonna be mad if I try to kill him. And there's a gap there. Of like okay, so why do I care? This bad, but no, because the truth of the matter is that the people that we look up to in this world don't make that equation.

29:36 For example, when you look at the great CEOs of the world today They're actually not interested necessarily in the other people's survival. What they're really interested in is maximizing their own chances of survival. It's why they're amassing the amount of stuff that they are. A few things. One is you said that maybe playing in itself is its own. Don't get into that. That's going to be a deep conversation we're going to get to. Just for a second, because then you could say that if this world was created for the Hunger Games, that could be something out there doing it for fun for itself. That's a reason. Again, I said I don't think it is the reason, but it's at least a reasonable possibility. The second thing I was gonna say is that it could be that we're looking at it wrong. Tell me how. The internal, the external is everything we just listed.

30:25 And then the internal is what he said about going towards religion. I think you're just confused in the way that we're using internal and external. When I say internal, I mean internal. I agree with you that these are all external things. I'm saying the discovery is internal. Meaning nobody came from the outside and told me. That's interesting. Last one. Then we're moving on. The whole question of why involves some type of thinking behind it. Why couldn't it just be a supernatural, unthinking cause? When you look at the supernatural unthinking cause And then you see plan, purpose, and design That doesn't link up. In other words If I was unthinking, sort of like just doodling. So then, what comes out of my pen has no design to it. Because there's nothing. There has to be no thought. Because if there's even some thought, something is going to happen.

31:28 So when you look at exceptional design, what would you naturally conclude? Designer, and not just designer Purposeful design Thoughtful, conscious design. There's also the thing is there are hundreds of millions of plants that life isn't sustainable on. You put enough plants out there with enough possible leaves. Agreed, but we answered that question already. We've already gotten to the point where we understand that there was a first cause. But you're moving from the first cause to a first cause. But I would turn exactly what you said on its head. In other words, Shlomo, I would say if I have this entire cosmos, and of all of the entire cosmos, one of them sustains life. That to me is the unique point within the tapestry of existence, and that's where my focus is drawn to. What you're doing is looking at all the other things and saying, okay, ascribe purpose there because they're clearly not sustaining life. I'm with you. Great question. But that doesn't take away from the fact that one of them sustains life in an exceptional way.

32:32 If you give a monkey a typewriter and give it an infinite amount of years, eventually it comes out with Shakespeare. You're not going to say the monkey's smart. You're just going to say if you give it enough time. I agree. I don't think there's anybody that thinks that even in an infinite amount of years the monkey would come up with Shakespeare. And that's how it works now. I don't think so. The number of possibilities has been for hundred years. But again There's so many possibilities in this universe. I'll take your argument and I'll turn it on its head again. I agree. It would require an infinite amount of years and an infinite amount of time to do something that random. Fair. We ended up at the same place anyway. Knock me around. I love it. That's my point. I want that to be the case.

33:29 That's exactly the point. In other words He's right that God, maybe this is just God's Hunger Games. I'm with you. That's all you could say from a place of internal revelation. I'm taking an inventory of the talents of the universe, the talents of human existence. I'm looking at why, and you're coming up with a fairly absurd reason. But you're saying again, it's not illogical. I don't think it's. I don't even think he believes in it. But it's not illogical. You're saying, look, if it's designed to sustain life, it sustains life. Ergo, what do I know? God wants to sustain life. More than that is speculation. Douwe, you would agree with that. More than Douwe, would you agree with that? More than that is speculation. You don't actually know. You're just speculating. So God wants us to sustain life. And therefore you can tell you I'm not going to kill life.

34:21 So you could have some moral bounds. But I have, I still don't. I still didn't answer the question of why. But if you But I don't know why God wants me not to kill life. Could you use your intellect to extrapolate more and more? Can you say, okay, if there's a God, and I say the God's perfect, then you have one. Okay, God's perfect. So you have to be giving, and I like extract from that. But you said God is perfect. I'm not up to that. I know, so I'm saying could use your intellect. You could use your intellect to look at something and say it seems that modesty is a critical component of sustaining life. Ergo, modesty is important. You could establish a moral code that way, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question of why. We don't really just die. In other words, we're creating more code.

35:17 Then why? Two-minute question. That's not a good question. That's a great question. Can you reframe that question? Because if you reframe that question well That would be amazing. What do you really mean to say? Some code dies and some code doesn't. So what does that tell you? Then there has to be some sort of purpose. Because why would you get rid of it? This is going to be really important because that's the punchline. I'll give you one shot, but then I'm going to do it myself. Why does some code have a better? What's in that specific code that's lasting longer? What's the survival in that code that the other code doesn't have? Mister, ready? This is the punchline that I wanted to get to today. So you set me up. Why suffering? Do you get it? Your question is: why is there suffering? I can look at all these things and I can say the entire world is designed to sustain life.

36:24 But there's something that's off about this world. There's exceptional suffering in this world. Any human being that's examining on an internal level all of the talents of existence is going to encounter one fundamental question: Why is the world broken? That's really your question. So one second, this because this is super critical now. Up until now. We've been talking about everything that's good about the world. But what about this category? What about all that's wrong with the world? Why is that a powerful question? One second before you hit me. Why is that a powerful question? Let's understand and appreciate it. Because the people on it for design. Drive for pleasure more than pain. Then it would make sense that those same people be the ones to discover this idea. And there should be no what. There should be no. If everything is designed to sustain life There should be nothing that doesn't sustain.

37:43 And yet there's massive amounts of suffering in the world. I'm in the can here, Abe. Agreed. In other words, this runs so contrary. This question is so profound, and it runs so contrary to everything that we see about the world that's positive, that one of two things are possible: either we're missing the purpose, and suffering is a critical component, or the machine is broken. Or is it all that we really suffer? We messed up the machine. Except we might be the machine in this case. A little bit more complicated. I think this goes right back to the hunger and cancer because if you would, he would suffer as a result of other humans. You could say on the savagery. One group said, "Hey, let's win this thing. Let's subjugate another group of people, make them suffer, and show that we're dominant." We want to use disease.

38:39 Because you could make the argument that it's a little bad code. That's the point, right? Let's not let's make it. Let's make it easy, right? Let's not keep it complicated. Because when we speak about let's win this game right so that's slavery But death is not necessarily a function of slavery. Cancer didn't create slavery. The machine gets better over time. Now it's not evolution. So what's happening now? The machine's still working on itself. Machine still working on itself. Why? It wants to get better. So eventually it could be able to pull this same life. No reason. You see how you're? You see how you're? You see how you're stuck? You're not really ascribing. Earlier you ascribed purpose. You said God wants to see who's going to win the game. Why would an infinite first cause? Why would a God do that? To amuse Himself. That's your answer.

39:38 It's not a good answer, but it's at least a hypothesis. The point is that you appreciate at least the question of suffering. You had to end up in an absurd place to answer that question. Good. That's all. Good. I gotta answer the question before we leave, and we have one more minute. Would you guys mind asking me after class? Yeah. There's a medrash. It's a very profound rabbinic statement. And it goes as follows: Avram Avinu is walking along, and he sees a palace on fire, and he calls out and he says. Isn't anyone going to put out this fire? And who's the owner of this palace? Why isn't the owner of this palace putting the fire out? And then the medrash says that the owner of the palace sticks his head out his window and he says, "I am the owner of the palace." You ever hear this medrash before?

40:34 No. Well-known medrash, classic medrash. Now the question is this: What does medrash mean? So this is what the Medrash means, and this is basically the punchline of today's Shir. Avram Avinu is looking at the suffering, the palace is on fire. He's looking at the destruction of the world. And it goes against everything he knows about the world, which is namely that the world sustains life. This question is as follows: Watch the depth of this question. It's an amazing question. It's why external revelation is going to be critical Because Avram Avinu. You all asked me before, how did Avram Avinu do it? Now here's how he did it. He looked at everything that far he got. He couldn't comprehend how suffering is a part of it, because he said, by definition, the owner of the palace, God, the first cause, if he was creating a machine on purpose, he would have corrected course when it all went awry.

41:29 Because he could not accept the notion of a first cause that didn't know what was already going to happen. He couldn't accept the absurdity of your postulation. Therefore, he said "I can't understand any of this without an external revelation." And it was at that point that God sticks his head out the window. We'll discuss what the answer is next year. And he says, "I am the owner of the palace." In other words, if you're following what we're saying, this is the punchline of today's year. Internal revelation can get you only so far. It's not like the vacuum cleaner. I can take an inventory of all the talents, and I can see that I'm here to sustain life. And yet, the problem is, I can't comprehend human suffering within purpose. Therefore, external revelation is required. Any questions? You can ask me after show.