random events and God

[Tumah]

Ah, would it be logically impossible for me to believe in something logically impossible? If I understand you correctly that is an interesting challenge. I suppose what I'd say is that at the very least such a belief seems very strange. Can I believe in something I can't comprehend, or define at all? Something I can't assign any properties to? If I can, what am I really asserting belief in? It seems challenging at least.

It's not so hard, I do it every day! The Ramcha"l asserts that there are two things we can say about G-d. He is there and He is one, to the utmost possible concept of oneness. And I recall that Maimonides takes the apophatic approach as well.

But take the Israelites at Sinai. They were there and saw things comprehensible to their senses, demonstrations of power over nature, and so on. They could take away some properties about God, in this case, God has great power. God cares to communicate to them might be another. If those things are true, then those are comprehensible things about God. So if that is the case, were they genuinely understanding something about God's *intrinsic* properties?

Right, but what they saw, wasn't G-d Himself, but a higher degree of the Bridge that connects the Infinite with the finite. Moses had the highest state of prophecy called the "clear lens" (as opposed to the "unclear lens" of later prophets). Rashi explains, this means that when he looked through his prophetic lens, he understood that he wasn't seeing G-d Himself.

 

[brokensymmetry]

It's not so hard, I do it every day! The Ramcha"l asserts that there are two things we can say about G-d. He is there and He is one, to the utmost possible concept of oneness. And I recall that Maimonides takes the apophatic approach as well.



Right, but what they saw, wasn't G-d Himself, but a higher degree of the Bridge that connects the Infinite with the finite. Moses had the highest state of prophecy called the "clear lens" (as opposed to the "unclear lens" of later prophets). Rashi explains, this means that when he looked through his prophetic lens, he understood that he wasn't seeing G-d Himself.

Maybe I should ask. What does it mean that God is one? I have heard this often but it occurs to me now I have not given it much depth of thought.

This talk about bridges between infinite and finite I have heard in Christianity, as a possible explanation for Jesus and the incarnation. Besides the obvious of God not becoming a man in the Moses case, is the concept of 'bridging' between infinite and finite different between the two religions?

What I find interesting here is, if God is ultimately incomprehensible to us, at the most fundamental level due to God's non-binding-ness to the rules of logic, how are we get any clearer or less clear picture of God at all? If that doesn't make sense I can try to re-explain.

Thanks for your insights. I am finding this very interesting.

 

[Tumah]

Maybe I should ask. What does it mean that God is one? I have heard this often but it occurs to me now I have not given it much depth of thought.

That means there is completely indivisible. There is no way to refer to two different aspects of G-d in once sentence correctly. And anytime we say "His" or use " 's ", we're really just using it to make something describable in human terms. Also, emotions do not exist by G-d. He is not something happy and sometimes sad. Letting alone that these are human concepts, in relation to G-d, they also suggest changing states and G-d's "state" is One.

This talk about bridges between infinite and finite I have heard in Christianity, as a possible explanation for Jesus and the incarnation. Besides the obvious of God not becoming a man in the Moses case, is the concept of 'bridging' between infinite and finite different between the two religions?

No, I don't think we are talking about the same thing at all. We are talking about a chain of, I guess dimensions might be an accurate word, where the Unity becomes gradually less unified until we reach this world of multitude. I understand this concept is found in Greek philosophy as well. Although the Jewish version is decidedly more complicated.

What I find interesting here is, if God is ultimately incomprehensible to us, at the most fundamental level due to God's non-binding-ness to the rules of logic, how are we get any clearer or less clear picture of God at all? If that doesn't make sense I can try to re-explain.

Thanks for your insights. I am finding this very interesting.

I don't understand why we need to get a picture of G-d. That will only make G-d more human and less G-d. Personally, when I asked my Rabbis how to picture in my mind that I am approaching G-d, they told me to just picture the Tetragrammaton.

What is important for us, is that in order to get closer to G-d in Judaism, we need to become more like Him. But if He is incomprehensible, then that would be impossible. That Bridge among other things, also provides us with Divine traits with which to do that. The Bridge is not G-d and not us, but it makes the Divine Oneness able to do what it does, without completely destroying the world. And conversely allows us to be able to attain degrees of closeness to the Infinite Oneness.

 

[brokensymmetry]

That means there is completely indivisible. There is no way to refer to two different aspects of G-d in once sentence correctly. And anytime we say "His" or use " 's ", we're really just using it to make something describable in human terms. Also, emotions do not exist by G-d. He is not something happy and sometimes sad. Letting alone that these are human concepts, in relation to G-d, they also suggest changing states and G-d's "state" is One.



No, I don't think we are talking about the same thing at all. We are talking about a chain of, I guess dimensions might be an accurate word, where the Unity becomes gradually less unified until we reach this world of multitude. I understand this concept is found in Greek philosophy as well. Although the Jewish version is decidedly more complicated.



I don't understand why we need to get a picture of G-d. That will only make G-d more human and less G-d. Personally, when I asked my Rabbis how to picture in my mind that I am approaching G-d, they told me to just picture the Tetragrammaton.

What is important for us, is that in order to get closer to G-d in Judaism, we need to become more like Him. But if He is incomprehensible, then that would be impossible. That Bridge among other things, also provides us with Divine traits with which to do that. The Bridge is not G-d and not us, but it makes the Divine Oneness able to do what it does, without completely destroying the world. And conversely allows us to be able to attain degrees of closeness to the Infinite Oneness.

If God doesn't have parts it's hard to conceive of God doing or being anything interesting at all. For instance, how does God have mental events? Anyway, I get that God is supposed to be beyond our comprehension in this way but I still can't help but wonder what we mean when we say God (or you).

As far as a chain of multitude and unity, the comparison with Platonism is an interesting one. Excuse the following as I am trying to draw out the ideas from my current understanding of things. I can get a sense from it how it might be different from Christian notions insofar as the latter focus on sin and righteousness distinctions. I have seen some Christian thought, from the eastern orthodox, talk about infinitude vs our finitude and Christ as an ontological bridge, it might be interesting to do a comparison there. Even then as I am trying to recall the concepts involved in the eastern orthodox conception the focus is on God's ontological 'bigness' and the fact that we are categorically different types of beings that cannot possible 'join' God without an ontological bridge. What you are saying seems to focus more on an indivisible unity vs our necessary multiplicity...

So let me ask you this. How does say, observing kashrut help us become more like God in God's unity?

 

[Tumah]

If God doesn't have parts it's hard to conceive of God doing or being anything interesting at all. For instance, how does God have mental events? Anyway, I get that God is supposed to be beyond our comprehension in this way but I still can't help but wonder what we mean when we say God (or you).

Well that's kind of the point. We're can't conceive of what G-d does. and G-d doesn't have mental events because that would mean G-d has a mind that it is separate from His actions.

As far as a chain of multitude and unity, the comparison with Platonism is an interesting one. Excuse the following as I am trying to draw out the ideas from my current understanding of things. I can get a sense from it how it might be different from Christian notions insofar as the latter focus on sin and righteousness distinctions. I have seen some Christian thought, from the eastern orthodox, talk about infinitude vs our finitude and Christ as an ontological bridge, it might be interesting to do a comparison there. Even then as I am trying to recall the concepts involved in the eastern orthodox conception the focus is on God's ontological 'bigness' and the fact that we are categorically different types of beings that cannot possible 'join' God without an ontological bridge. What you are saying seems to focus more on an indivisible unity vs our necessary multiplicity...

So let me ask you this. How does say, observing kashrut help us become more like God in God's unity?

I can't answer for every commandment, because I just don't know enough. But let's take for example, not eating non-Kosher animals. So I would say that we know the difference between kosher and non-kosher animals is a division between pure and impure animals (Gen. 7). G-d is perfectly pure. When I eat an impure animal, I incorporate impurity into myself. So that would make me less similar to G-d.
Also, all Biblical commandments have an "ideal" and "minimum" method in various aspects of their performance. So one aspect of the ideal, is that one actually intends to be executing the Biblical requirement. We understand that the Torah represents the physical manifestation of the Will of G-d (as it manifests along that bridge). So in that respect, by thinking of a Biblical command, one is actually connecting one's will and thoughts to G-d's "will" and "thoughts". This is called "attachment".

 

[brokensymmetry]

Well that's kind of the point. We're can't conceive of what G-d does. and G-d doesn't have mental events because that would mean G-d has a mind that it is separate from His actions.



I can't answer for every commandment, because I just don't know enough. But let's take for example, not eating non-Kosher animals. So I would say that we know the difference between kosher and non-kosher animals is a division between pure and impure animals (Gen. 7). G-d is perfectly pure. When I eat an impure animal, I incorporate impurity into myself. So that would make me less similar to G-d.
Also, all Biblical commandments have an "ideal" and "minimum" method in various aspects of their performance. So one aspect of the ideal, is that one actually intends to be executing the Biblical requirement. We understand that the Torah represents the physical manifestation of the Will of G-d (as it manifests along that bridge). So in that respect, by thinking of a Biblical command, one is actually connecting one's will and thoughts to G-d's "will" and "thoughts". This is called "attachment".

Alright I'm pretty curious about this last part. The first I responded to you on a separate thread basically the same thing.

What makes a crab impure? What makes it less similar to God than a cow? I have a similar question about family purity laws too. I don't know if I you want to have a big discussion about all that in this thread or not I realize it's off topic etc so I understand if not. It's always seemed arbitrary to me, as if I am given a box of crayons and told not to color with the red one and given no reason for it.

 

[Tumah]

Alright I'm pretty curious about this last part. The first I responded to you on a separate thread basically the same thing.

What makes a crab impure? What makes it less similar to God than a cow? I have a similar question about family purity laws too. I don't know if I you want to have a big discussion about all that in this thread or not I realize it's off topic etc so I understand if not. It's always seemed arbitrary to me, as if I am given a box of crayons and told not to color with the red one and given no reason for it.

Purity is a matter of its spiritual state. G-d created some animals to be pure and some not. I imagine it has to do with where the specific species' souls come from, but I couldn't say for sure. The idea that some things are naturally closer to G-d and some are not is not so difficult to understand. There are angels and there are rocks. This is just somewhere less drastically different along the scales.

Why the specific animals and signs were chosen to be pure, I don't have enough knowledge to answer. But the concept is not so difficult to understand. G-d created good and bad so that we can choose good.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Purity is a matter of its spiritual state. G-d created some animals to be pure and some not. I imagine it has to do with where the specific species' souls come from, but I couldn't say for sure. The idea that some things are naturally closer to G-d and some are not is not so difficult to understand. There are angels and there are rocks. This is just somewhere less drastically different along the scales.

Why the specific animals and signs were chosen to be pure, I don't have enough knowledge to answer. But the concept is not so difficult to understand. G-d created good and bad so that we can choose good.

Alright. I suppose it just doesn't seem to me by anything else that there is a reason to consider a pig less pure in that sense than a chicken. It also seems a little difficult to me to consider angels more God-like than rocks if God doesn't have any properties. I'm not sure how we can talk about such things! Before, for a while, I thought, maybe humans are created in the image of God insofar as humans have a special consciousness, or conscience, or both. But if we aren't conceiving of such things in God it all seems mysterious to me how to proceed in terms of making sense how some things are more pure or less, closer to God or not etc., what are we comparing if not properties that God has?

 

[Tumah]

Alright. I suppose it just doesn't seem to me by anything else that there is a reason to consider a pig less pure in that sense than a chicken. It also seems a little difficult to me to consider angels more God-like than rocks if God doesn't have any properties. I'm not sure how we can talk about such things! Before, for a while, I thought, maybe humans are created in the image of God insofar as humans have a special consciousness, or conscience, or both. But if we aren't conceiving of such things in God it all seems mysterious to me how to proceed in terms of making sense how some things are more pure or less, closer to God or not etc., what are we comparing if not properties that God has?

Remember, we aren't talking about G-d Himself, because its impossible for us to speak about G-d's nature outside of His Unity...and even that we can't really comprehend.
What we are talking about is the Divine along the bridge He created for us to connect to Him. The nature of the bridge is that is works through layers of concealment of Divine unity. To some extent concealment is necessary (Ex. 33:20). After that point, concealment becomes detrimental. That is impurity. These layers represent a creation whose purpose is to conceal the Divine.

This impure source is important because it gives us a two sided job: on the negative side, we are to remove the concealment of the Divine and on the positive, we are to reveal the unity of the Divine (Psa. 34:15), both in ourselves and in our environment. That is why we have negative and positive commandments. In order to do this, there needs to be physical manifestations of this impurity. One of these manifestations are the impure animals. By refraining from eating them, I am refraining from adding more 'concealment' to myself.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Remember, we aren't talking about G-d Himself, because its impossible for us to speak about G-d's nature outside of His Unity...and even that we can't really comprehend.
What we are talking about is the Divine along the bridge He created for us to connect to Him. The nature of the bridge is that is works through layers of concealment of Divine unity. To some extent concealment is necessary (Ex. 33:20). After that point, concealment becomes detrimental. That is impurity. These layers represent a creation whose purpose is to conceal the Divine.

This impure source is important because it gives us a two sided job: on the negative side, we are to remove the concealment of the Divine and on the positive, we are to reveal the unity of the Divine (Psa. 34:15), both in ourselves and in our environment. That is why we have negative and positive commandments. In order to do this, there needs to be physical manifestations of this impurity. One of these manifestations are the impure animals. By refraining from eating them, I am refraining from adding more 'concealment' to myself.

So it is the case that the bridge has properties we can meaningfully talk about? Am I correct in thinking this bridge has gradients of divine-ness, if I can put it like that? I mean, you can 'go up and down it' via the commandments and such? And when you say there needs to be physical manifestations of physical impurity, is that so that we can choose to 'go up or down'?

Also, if I may ask, where did you learn all this?

 

[Tumah]

So it is the case that the bridge has properties we can meaningfully talk about? Am I correct in thinking this bridge has gradients of divine-ness, if I can put it like that? I mean, you can 'go up and down it' via the commandments and such? And when you say there needs to be physical manifestations of physical impurity, is that so that we can choose to 'go up or down'?

Also, if I may ask, where did you learn all this?

Right. Part of the purpose of the bridge is to gradually "hide" the Divine Unity, so that we can exist and still receive G-d's "sustenance". In fact, the Hebrew word for "world" is "OLaM" which stems from the same root as "L'Ha'ALiM" meaning, "to hide".

And yes, the physical manifestations are the mediums that allow us to make spiritual changes to ourselves and our environment. We are physical beings, so we need a physical environment to do our work.

Mostly the Ramcha"l. Some other works as well over the years.

 

[zenzero]

Friend brokensymmetry,

random events and God

God is simply the WHOLE and the Whole includes randomness too, it includes your empirical formulas and its limitations as of NOW; guess we just need to accept it.

Love & rgds

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

My answer to that, is that we say that all the things attributed to G-d are not referring to G-d Himself, but our perception of the result of His actions. Meaning, G-d creates mankind, then destroys mankind. So to us it seems like G-d regrets having made man, which is what the verse describes. But G-d knew it would happen and doesn't experience emotion to begin with. The same for anger, love, jealousy. G-d is, and sometimes we experience G-d's being as anger and sometimes as love or jealousy. But the reality is that its all the same and its just our perspective that interprets it differently.

So I would say that in reality, or G-d is not logical, not because He is illogical, but because logic is something He created for this world and doesn't apply to Him. He created Logic as we perceive it as a natural law for this world and maintains that law in his dealings with this world, since that's how He wants the world to run.

I don't think G-d can't make a circular triangle. Only, it would go against the natural laws that He wants this world to run by. Creating a stone to heavy for Him, though is not something that makes sense. G-d doesn't lift things. The existence of "stones" and "heavy" and things that are only relevant to the physical world, they lose their meaning when you apply it to G-d.



Why should G-d be bound by the logical rules that He Himself created?

It would go against more than logical. It's a test of onimpotence...which is bound by logic. When asking whether or not god can create a stone so heavy even god can't lift it isn't about the stone but how illogical the statement is. It's a nonsense statement.

However you worship God so there must be a reason you find logical to have done so.

 

[Tumah]

It would go against more than logical. It's a test of onimpotence...which is bound by logic. When asking whether or not god can create a stone so heavy even god can't lift it isn't about the stone but how illogical the statement is. It's a nonsense statement.

Exactly.

However you worship God so there must be a reason you find logical to have done so.

Because that is what He wants and He created the world in such a way that it is beneficial for me to do so. I don't know this because I understand Him. That is impossible. However, this is the Will that He formulated for finite beings to comprehend and told us about.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Friend brokensymmetry,



God is simply the WHOLE and the Whole includes randomness too, it includes your empirical formulas and its limitations as of NOW; guess we just need to accept it.

Love & rgds

If God is nothing but everything that exists why label that differently than 'the cosmos' or 'the universe'? Typically when I think about the term God I think of some sort of agency.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Right. Part of the purpose of the bridge is to gradually "hide" the Divine Unity, so that we can exist and still receive G-d's "sustenance". In fact, the Hebrew word for "world" is "OLaM" which stems from the same root as "L'Ha'ALiM" meaning, "to hide".

And yes, the physical manifestations are the mediums that allow us to make spiritual changes to ourselves and our environment. We are physical beings, so we need a physical environment to do our work.

Mostly the Ramcha"l. Some other works as well over the years.

Alright, this was an interesting take, thanks for sharing. I'll take a look at your link.

 

[Desert Snake]

If God is nothing but everything that exists why label that differently than 'the cosmos' or 'the universe'? Typically when I think about the term God I think of some sort of agency.

Pantheism is the term, thiugh many Xians and others also believe this. Even if they don't use the term.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Pantheism is the term, thiugh many Xians and others also believe this. Even if they don't use the term.

That doesn't answer the question though. Is there agency somewhere? otherwise this is just mislabeled materialism.

 

[Desert Snake]

That doesn't answer the question though. Is there agency somewhere? otherwise this is just mislabeled materialism.

Lol I'm not a pantheist.

I'm telling you what that idea is.