{"id":83817,"date":"2021-02-13T17:05:42","date_gmt":"2021-02-13T15:05:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=83817"},"modified":"2021-02-06T17:05:52","modified_gmt":"2021-02-06T15:05:52","slug":"13-05-61","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/?p=83817","title":{"rendered":"The Jewish Nation: Proof That the Impossible Is Possible"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>The Jewish Nation: Proof That the Impossible Is Possible<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n

Pini Dunner<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Moses Breaking the Tables of the Law (1659), by Rembrandt. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

William L. Rowe (1931\u20132015) was a distinguished professor of philosophy at Purdue University, who specialized in the philosophy of religion. Although he discovered and embraced evangelical Christianity as a teenager, in later years he evolved into an avid atheist, basing his transformation on what is known as the \u2018evidential argument from evil.<\/a>\u2018 This position is grounded in the existence of seemingly pointless evil, such as violent or painful death caused by natural phenomenon \u2014 prompting the question: why would a loving God allow such evils to exist? Surely, if God is all-powerful and benevolent, there would be no pointless suffering?<\/span><\/p>\n

In his anthology,\u00a0God and the Problem of Evil<\/em>, Rowe actually narrowed down his position to this: \u201cAn omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Various theologians, particularly from the group known as \u201cskeptical theists<\/a>,\u201d reject the evidentiary evil argument based on strong counter arguments, and even Rowe was\u00a0ready to acknowledge<\/a>\u00a0the power of their reasoning, although he was never persuaded out of his atheism. But his struggles with God-belief on the basis of our human concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God echo a profound theological debate that has raged throughout the history of religious faith, widely known as the \u2018omnipotence paradox.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n

If God is all-powerful \u2014 which is undoubtedly the central belief of mainstream monotheism \u2014 can He create something that would confound His own power? Or, as J. L. Cowan put it (Canadian Journal of Philosophy<\/em>, Vol. III, No. 3, March 1974): \u201c(1) Either God can create a stone which He cannot lift, or He cannot create a stone which He cannot lift. (2) If God can create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot lift the stone in question). (3) If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift, then He is not omnipotent (since He cannot create the stone in question). (4) Therefore, God is not omnipotent.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In another instance of this paradox, the 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher,\u00a0Thomas Aquinas<\/a>\u00a0(1225-1274), deliberated whether or not God could create a triangle in which the angles didn\u2019t add up to 180 degrees. Another problem he grappled with was this: can God create a flat circle where \u03c0 = 3? Such a shape could not possibly exist on a flat surface, only on a curved surface, and warping space to create such a circle would be the same as placing the object on a curved surface. Which proves that God\u2019s powers are limited by the laws of\u00a0mathematics<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 in which case He cannot be omnipotent.<\/span><\/p>\n

Before revealing why none of these questions should undermine our faith in God, let me turn to the source of our Jewish faith existence and belief system, the Ten Commandments, as found in Parshat Yitro (and again in Va\u2019etchanan), which begin with (Ex. 20:2<\/a>): \u201cI am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

What follows on from this is a series of do\u2019s and do-not\u2019s, the majority of which reflect the basic rules of any just society \u2014don\u2019t murder, don\u2019t steal, don\u2019t behave immorally \u2014 and as Rabbi\u00a0Adin Steinsaltz<\/a>\u00a0(1937-2020) observes, \u201cin part, at least, similar ideas are already found in the older law codes of Babylon and Egypt, India and China.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Putting this aside for a moment, it is the first commandment that is most puzzling. Throughout the history of Torah commentary, the great commentators have wrestled with two questions that arise from this opening verse of the Torah\u2019s most profound text. Firstly, why is it presented as a statement about God, not a commandment to believe in God? Second, why does God describe Himself as the \u2018One who took you out of Egypt\u2019? Why not simply instruct His chosen people to believe in Him, period?<\/span><\/p>\n

The great Spanish commentator, Don\u00a0Isaac Abarbanel<\/a>\u00a0(1437-1508), controversially suggests that this first \u201ccommandment\u201d is not a commandment at all, rather it is an opening preamble, setting the stage for what follows, and indeed for all the\u00a0mitzvot<\/em>\u00a0of the Torah. Without belief in God, and the power that He holds to do anything He desires \u2014 such as miraculously extricate an entire nation from persecution and slavery with the accompaniment of supernatural wonders \u2014 justice and morality are empty ideals, essentially self-serving vessels and an exercise in collective vanity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Can God prevent murder, theft and immorality from ever happening? Of course. That is exactly what the opening verse of the Ten Commandments teaches us. But does God actually prevent murder, theft and immorality from ever happening? No, he doesn\u2019t. He hands that power over to us.<\/span><\/p>\n

God\u2019s omnipotence is not compromised by the existence of evil, whether by human hands or as a result of natural phenomena. He deliberately created a world in which the natural order is an overriding power \u2014 except in exceptional circumstances, such as the formation of His chosen people, who are expected to be ambassadors of God-belief in a world where God-denial is not just possible, but a prevailing reality.<\/span><\/p>\n

As to the omnipotence paradox, it is not a paradox at all. The seminal French philosopher,\u00a0Ren\u00e9 Descartes<\/a>\u00a0(1596-1650), dismisses the whole idea that an omnipotent being is ever incapable of doing anything, even if the act in question makes no sense to us because it is profoundly illogical. Simply put, God can make contradictions true if He wants to, and could therefore create a stone too heavy for Him to lift \u2014 and still lift it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t ask me how this works, as I haven\u2019t the faintest idea. But the Jewish nation is certainly proof that the impossible is possible, and our existence flies in the face of any questions regarding God\u2019s omnipotence. As the Swiss philosopher\u00a0Jean Jacques Rousseau<\/a>\u00a0(1712-1778) observed, in wonder: \u201cThe Jews provide us with an astonishing spectacle\u2026 Athens, Sparta, Rome have perished and no longer have children left on earth; Zion, destroyed, has not lost its children\u2026 Any man whosoever he is, must acknowledge this as a unique marvel, the causes of which, divine or human, certainly deserve the study and admiration of the sages.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The author is a rabbi<\/strong> in Beverly Hills.<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Zawarto\u015b\u0107 publikowanych artyku\u0142\u00f3w i materia\u0142\u00f3w nie reprezentuje pogl\u0105d\u00f3w ani opinii Reunion’68,<\/em>
\nani te\u017c webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyra\u017anie zaznaczone.
\nTwoje uwagi, linki, w\u0142asne artyku\u0142y lub wiadomo\u015bci prze\u015blij na adres:
\n<\/em>webmaster@reunion68.com<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Jewish Nation: Proof That the Impossible Is Possible Pini Dunner Moses Breaking the Tables of the Law (1659), by Rembrandt. Photo: Wikimedia Commons. William L. Rowe (1931\u20132015) was a distinguished professor of philosophy at Purdue University, who specialized in the philosophy of religion. Although he discovered and embraced evangelical Christianity as a teenager, in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[26,24],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83817"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=83817"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83817\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":83825,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83817\/revisions\/83825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=83817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=83817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.reunion68.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=83817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}