By HOLY LAND MAN
The podcast currently has 14 episodes available.
Holy Land Man has demonstrated to you, using seven different scientific methods of evidence, the existence of GOD. Holy Land Man has proven the existence of a very intelligent designer of life and of probably this universe.
At this stage and for the purpose of this research of "Is There a GOD?" Holy Land Man has not made any further conclusions (and you should therefore not intuitively assume) that:
As noted at the outset, around each of these evidences was written an entire polemical literature of criticisms, responses to criticism, evidence and counter-evidence. Anyone who is interested in refuting them is invited to be respectful and first of all seriously study the subject, and read the books and articles written about it. Unfortunately many atheist polemics do not bother to do so, but are content to present a "straw man" of the claim in order to reject it with contempt.
Even if none of the evidence is absolute proof, their great power stems from putting them together. In fact, they can be seen as a move that reveals a series of unexpected "jumps" within reality.
Atheists want us to believe that all these jumps happened by chance, that they are the result of inanimate particles of matter and blind natural forces and nothing more. In case the universe appeared, in case it has a permanent legitimacy, in case life appeared out of matter, in case they developed consciousness, in case moral sense appeared and so on. But how likely is it to believe that all this happened by chance?
If we were to ask someone who has no idea about our universe, what he thinks a planned universe should look like and what a randomly created universe would look like - he would probably answer that a planned universe will have laws, complexity, diverse creatures, consciousness and constant progress, while in an unplanned universe - if in general, such a thing is possible - there will probably be chaos that leads nowhere, and if something happens to it, it will soon be destroyed. Certainly there is no reason for it to have things like consciousness, morality or the people of Israel. Then we would remove the "veil of ignorance" and show the same questioner the universe as it is today, about its exact laws of nature, the variety of living beings, and humanity on the whole of its works and achievements in all fields.
Which of the two options is more reasonable? Is it not clear that our universe contains too many surprising "jumps'' to assume that it is the product of blind chance?
When one considers the arguments expressed in this evidence (and other philosophical evidence, which is not presented here), then the existence of GOD becomes extremely rational and plausible. This is not a blind belief, a "flying spaghetti monster" or an "imaginary friend" as many atheists mock, but a very rational belief, based on mental arguments, held by many good minds, philosophers and scholars in human history.
Even if there is no absolute certainty here, there are still very good reasons to believe in GOD. And so we live our lives in every area - not according to absolute proofs - that do not exist in any subject in the world - but according to what seems reasonable, logical, and convincing. And enough of the evidence we have brought shows that the existence of GOD is certainly plausible, logical, and convincing.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Don Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
It is said that the King of France once asked the philosopher Belz Pascal to give him evidence of the existence of GOD. Pascal replied without hesitation: "The Jews, Your Excellency."
The existence of the people of Israel, its survival throughout history and above all, its return to the land and the establishment of a renewed state, deviate so much from the laws of history known to other peoples, that they astonished quite a few historians and thinkers from the nations of the world like Mark Twain, Lev Tolstoy, Nietzsche, Ernest Renan, John Adams, Woodrow Wilson and others expressed their amazement at the miraculous existence of the people of Israel and their contribution to humanity beyond all proportion to its size. And all of this, even before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
The unique history of the people of Israel would have been preached even if the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) had not foreseen it in advance; The very fact that the Torah did foresee it, and described it in a clear and unambiguous and unambiguous prophecy, (at the end of Deuteronomy, chapters 28-21), clearly testifies to the truth of the Torah and that it was given by GOD.
Only a supreme power that controls history could have ensured the existence of the people of Israel when it was scattered in exile, under conditions in which every other people was soon assimilated or destroyed; Make sure he always stays small and persecuted and does not find rest in the Diaspora; To keep his country desolate in anticipation of his return despite the attempts of many to conquer and settle it; And ultimately to gather the outcasts of Israel from all corners of the globe, bring them back to their land, and help them establish a prosperous state while overcoming armies stronger than them, absorbing mass immigration and many other problems.
Some people claim they would believe in GOD if they saw a miracle. But what greater miracle than the history of the people of Israel? Isn't the return of Zion a much greater and more impressive miracle than a fire descending from the sky or a sea split in two?
Whoever does not see the wonders of these events, it is likely that even if he had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea he would have seen only the mud at his feet and the sweaty shoulders of the marcher in front of him. True, the history of the people of Israel was conducted in so-called natural ways, and not in masterpieces that transcend nature, but their anomaly compared to other peoples indicates that divine providence is what accompanied the course of events so that all prophecies appear in the Torah will be fulfilled.
This evidence testifies not only to the existence of GOD as some abstract "supreme power", but to the existence of the GOD and GOD of the GODS involved and the providence described in the Bible, and hence the truths of the Torah and the obligation to refer to it a source for GOD's existence.
"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk.
His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine and abstruse learning are also very out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world in all ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself and be excused for it. The Egyptians, the Babylonians and the Persians rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greeks and Romans followed and made a vast noise, and they were gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, and have vanished.
The Jew saw them all, survived them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmaties, of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert but aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jews; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality? "
This question is not as strange as it may seem at first glance. Let’s examine this free creature that was insulated and oppressed, trampled on and pursued, burned and drowned by all the rulers and the nations, but is nevertheless living and thriving in spite of the whole world.
What is a Jew that did not succumb to any worldly temptations offered by his oppressors and persecutors so that he would renounce his religion and abandon the faith of his fathers?
A Jew is a sacred being who procured an eternal fire from the heavens and with it illuminated the earth and those who live on it. He is the spring and the source from which the rest of the nations drew their religions and beliefs.
A Jew is a pioneer of culture. From time immemorial, ignorance was impossible in the Holy Land, even more so than nowadays in civilized Europe. Moreover, at the time when the life and death of a human being was worth nothing, Rabbi Akiva spoke against the death penalty which is now considered to be an acceptable punishment in the most civilized countries.
A Jew is a pioneer of freedom. Back in primitive times, when the nation was divided into two classes, masters and slaves, Moses’ teaching forbid holding a person as a slave for more than six years.
A Jew is a symbol of civil and religious tolerance. ‘So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt”. These words were uttered during distant, barbarian times when it was commonly acceptable among the nations to enslave each other.
In terms of tolerance, the Jewish religion is far from recruiting adherents. Quite the opposite, the Talmud prescribes that if a non-Jew wants to convert to the Jewish faith, then it has to be explained to him how difficult it is to be a Jew and that the righteous of other religions also inherit the heavenly kingdom. A Jew is a symbol of eternity.
The nation which neither slaughter nor torture could exterminate, which neither fire nor sword of civilizations were able to erase from the face of the earth, the nation which first proclaimed the word of the Lord, the nation which preserved the prophecy for so long and passed it on to the rest of humanity, such a nation cannot vanish.
A Jew is eternal; he is an embodiment of eternity.
"They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern."
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
This argument for the existence of GOD is very simple: we know that GOD exists, because many people have testified that they have met Him. Even if we have not seen it ourselves, the very existence of evidence on the matter is evidence. It may not be the GOD of Moses, Mohamad, or Jesus or a GOD that is affiliated with any religious sect, but "a GOD".
For a moment, let's not think of GOD as a religious GOD but as an entity which is superior to us. It can even be a particle. Crowds of people throughout history have described experiences of divine revelation they have had, religious or mystical experiences, visions, prophecy, and the like. Some of those experiences occurred in daydreaming, during routine activities, and some were achieved as a result of activities like meditation, or in exceptional situations like near-death experiences.
There are many differences between the same experiences, but also many similarities are common, as William James demonstrated in his book "The Religious Experience to the Issue." Professor Yehuda Jerome Gelman, in his book "Experience of GOD and the Rationality of Theistic Belief," presented a philosophical argument that the accumulation of so much evidence constitutes proof of the existence of a GOD, just like any other phenomenon that we accept for its existence based on evidence.
Many find it difficult to accept this argument. They claim that while the people who have experienced divine revelations believe in their truth, it is possible that these are all hallucinations caused by various reasons. The hallucinations can be very tangible and make a great impression on the person who experienced them, and yet they exist only in his head and not in reality.
The problem with this critique is that if we doubt tangible experiences that seem certain to us, and treat them as hallucinations - what can we say is true? Maybe the reality we are experiencing at the moment is also a dream or a hallucination?
Although it seems completely tangible to us, so do the religious experiences for those who experience them. If these can be hallucinations, then our perception of reality can also be such. It will not help us to turn to other people and verify with them that they too see what we see, because those same people can be part of our hallucination, like the people we see in a dream ...
In other words, our default is to assume that what we perceive to be true is indeed true, unless proven otherwise. There are things that seem real to us at the time, like dreams or hallucinations resulting from drug use, but once they pass we recognize that they never really came true.
Religious and mystical experiences, on the other hand, are often perceived by those who experience them as real even decades after the experience. Anyone who claims against them "perhaps it is a delusion" can equally direct this claim towards the reality he is experiencing at the moment and question it; But if he does not do so, and does not provide an objective criterion that makes it possible to distinguish between reality and hallucination, then our default is to believe in experiences that seem real to us and treat them as part of reality. Whoever wants to claim otherwise, has the burden of proof.
I say, they are similar in the experience but different in the interpretation and the methods of what pleases their GOD. I also believe that most religions manipulate "GOD's will" so it will fit their political agenda in the form of "in the name of GOD". For me, only the source matters, the original Word of GOD in the original language of the Bible, Hebrew. Everything else is only human interpretations and self-interest manupulations.
Some argue that religious experiences cannot be trusted because they contradict each other: some describe a revelation or encounter with the Jewish GOD, others with the Christian, Muslim or Hindu GOD. Since it is not possible for all of them to be real, at least some of them are hallucinations; And since some of those experiences are hallucinations, it is quite possible that they are all hallucinations and none of them are real.
I will answer this critique: First, there are not only differences but also many common similarities between religious experiences, and if the differences are a reason to reject them - then the similarity is a reason to accept them.
Secondly, the critique assumes that not all of those experiences are real. But the difficulty in accepting them all as true is that such an understanding raises theological difficulties. But theological difficulties can be discussed in the theological field, and the present discussion concerns the epistemological (cognitive) plane, which should be approached with as few prejudices as possible.
If there is much evidence of religious experiences that seem credible and there is no particular reason to doubt them, it makes sense to conclude that they do express a real reality, which can be discussed, and the difficulties it raises later on the theological level. On this level, one can say for example that revelation itself is real but man interprets it according to his religious concepts, or that the transcendent deity "dresses" in tangible images appropriate to the person receiving it, or perhaps that deity itself has different aspects and each religion has a core of truth directed to one.
In any case, there is no evidence in the multiplicity of different testimonies that these are hallucinations. If aliens had come to Earth several times, they would probably describe it in completely different ways: one would see a sea, the other a forest, and the third a large city. Is the conclusion their friends were supposed to draw that the earth is nothing but a hallucination?
Another critique would argue that there are people who "see" many things that are difficult for us to accept as real, such as aliens, ghosts and so on, and that according to the above argument we will have to treat all of these things as true unless proven otherwise, which seems unacceptable.
The answer to this is that each case must be examined on its own merits. In many cases, it turns out that people who testify to such things have not really seen them clearly, or that they are not mentally healthy, or that they are lying for some reason, and so on. In many cases the same people themselves will later recognize that they were wrong, this or imagined. But if there is an intelligent and sane person who testifies to things he has seen clearly, and he usually knows how to distinguish between imagination and reality, and is convinced even after a while that what he saw is real, and the things he describes do not unequivocally contradict our knowledge of reality. His testimony at least as a reasonable possibility.
He who rejects in advance any testimony that sounds "delusional" to him only because of his prejudices about reality, and what may or may not be in it - is not a rational person but dogmatic and closed. Anyone who is willing to accept extraordinary evidence after reasonable criticism, may indeed sometimes err and believe wrong things; But he who denies them all resolutely may be much more mistaken.
To sum up: in the pre-filming era, people would believe the stories of travelers to faraway lands about the animals, people, and places they saw there, even though they did not see them themselves. If many reliable people testify that they saw something with their own eyes, why not believe them? If so, there is no reason for us to deny the innumerable testimonies of divine revelation and religious experience, simply because they cannot be photographed.
When millions of people throughout history and in our time are witnessing encounters with the Divine, there are two possibilities: either everyone is hallucinating, or they are actually seeing something that not everyone is seeing. And since the choice of the possibility of hallucination drops the ground beneath our ability to recognize reality as real, the obvious choice is to treat those testimonies as real and see them as evidence for the existence of GOD.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
Most mentally healthy human beings have basic and very strong moral intuitions embedded in them. They have intuitions that things like murder, robbery, and harm to innocents are negative. The way in which the same moral intuitions are applied varies, of course, from society to society, as do the definitions to whom moral rules apply, but there is no society in history that has not recognized the existence of morality and justice even at the basic level. Not only do people feel intense moral feelings, but they also lead their lives by them, sometimes with significant concessions to pleasures and satisfaction to the point of self-sacrifice. They even go to war against those they perceive as behaving immorally.
A careful examination of those moral intuitions leads to the conclusion that we perceive morality not as a subjective emotion but as an objective, absolute, and binding reality. If morality was a purely emotional and subjective matter, there would be no room for moral controversy. Just as taste and smell should not be argued, so there is nothing to argue about personal feelings that reflect only the person's feelings. And if morality is subjective, there is also no room for criticizing people or companies who behave differently from us - for they are not really wrong or bad, but simply have different preferences.
Yet although many outwardly claim that morality is indeed relative and not absolute, very few actually believe it. Most people feel deep down that groups like the Nazis and ISIS are utterly wicked people with blatantly corrupt morals, and not just "different from us." Not only do we feel that way, but as mentioned we will be prepared to go to war against such figures and force them to change their behavior. All this because we tend to perceive morality as an objective reality.
Of course, it can be argued that the fact that we feel that morality is objective and binding does not prove that it is. It is possible that our moral intuitions are a feeling that has evolved in us for evolutionary reasons, and although they make us feel that morality is absolute, it is only an illusion. There is no objective and absolute morality, but only gut feelings and desires that we project onto reality. This approach is called the moral error theory because all talk of morality or moral laws is wrong because such things do not exist.
Unsurprisingly, many proponents of error theory are atheists, for, in a world that has nothing but inanimate matter and blind laws of nature, there is no reality that can be a source of objective morality. All that exists are molecules, and since the laws of morality are not made of molecules, they do not exist.
It is possible to adopt such an approach, but the price it charges the person is enormous. Adopting the theory of error will force us to deny some of the most intense existential feelings burning among us, and to treat our greatest and noblest ideals as personal gut feelings altogether - feelings that are neither better nor right than those of the most wicked and corrupt people in our eyes.
This means that we will not be able to pass a moral critique on any person or any company, because there is nothing to argue about personal taste, and everyone can act according to their personal preferences. And if we eventually decide to go to war with people or values different from ours, it will be coercion that has no moral justification other than our personal desires.
While it is possible to pay these prices, many are not willing to do so. It is not for nothing that many philosophers, including atheists, try to find a basis for the existence of an objective and realistic morality that matches our basic intuitions instead of denying them. However, most of these attempts fail. In a world that is perceived as entirely material and blind, it is difficult to suddenly bring in ad hoc absolute moral facts that go beyond nature.
The only way our moral intuitions can be justified is by acknowledging that in reality there are absolute moral facts, which are not part of the material nature but are beyond it, and whose inner intuitions are a reflection of them. The origin of these facts and of their binding power can derive only from a supreme will, of which the laws of morality are an expression and which created the universe in such a way that the laws of morality would suit it.
The same power is also the one that has instilled in us the moral sense that allows us to recognize those moral facts and feel our commitment to them. This supreme power is of course GOD, the Creator of the world, who established both the laws of nature and the laws of morality.
This position does raise questions in itself, such as the well-known question of the epitaph - whether GOD set the laws of morality as He pleases or whether they exist separately from Him. However, these questions are easier to answer than the existential difficulties posed by error theory.
In other words, one who feels within himself that there is absolute good and evil, justice and evil that are not determined by the different desires of human beings, and do not change from person to person and society to society - then this belief inevitably leads to belief in GOD, which alone can justify belief in absolute morality.
This vision is good only for those people who do feel that there is absolute good and evil, and are not willing to see this feeling as a "mistake." But there are many such, and this observation can definitely prove the existence of a GOD for them.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
While the cosmological argument is based on the very existence of the universe, the argument from design (also called the complexity argument, or the physio-theological argument) is based on certain features of the universe or parts of it, the high level of complexity. According to this argument, there are phenomena in the universe with such a high level of sophistication, chief among them living beings in general and humans in particular. It is inconceivable that they were created by chance. The existence of these phenomena indicates that some intelligent Factor planned and assembled them. Suppose we were to walk in the desert and find on the sand not just a glass ball, but an elaborate and complex clock. Certainly, we would conclude that some intelligent creator designed it.
This evidence seems intuitive, so it occupies a central place in discussions about GOD’s existence. It is based not only on our intuitions, which identify the Designer's imprint in complex works but also on experience. In our experience, we have never encountered an intricate work that is clear to us that it was created by chance. We know complex works created in intelligent design (all kinds of artificial works), and we know complex works that are not clear how they were created (living beings and humans), but we do not know any complex work that we know was created unplanned. In any case, we learn from our experience and conclude that living things and humans were also created in an intelligent and planned way. The same intelligent and planning factor is GOD.
There are some reviews on this argument. The philosopher David Day argued that we could not make an analogy between clocks and other familiar works of art and the universe and living beings, since we know from clocks that they are man-made. Still, the universe and living beings have no idea how they were created. We can rely on our experience alone, so we have no justification for concluding that the universe and living beings were designed in a planned way like clocks.
But Day's critique is rejected because the design argument did not require an analogy or direct experience to infer the Planner's existence from the complex work. Imagine that whoever finds the watch in the sand will be a primitive tribe member who has never seen how watches are made. Will he, therefore, have to conclude that the clock was created by chance? Certainly not. The very structure of the clock as a complex, precise, and versatile system indicates the underlying design, even if we have no idea who designed it.
Similarly, suppose any technological object is found on Mars. In that case, it will be immediately apparent that an intelligent entity designed it, even if we have never seen how such items are made. Clear intuition obviates the need for direct experience or analogy to familiar objects. And as stated above, experience teaches us about the rule that every complex object we know is intelligently created, and we have no experience that shows the opposite example. One can doubt this intuition, but as long as there is no particular reason to deny it, it certainly makes sense to trust it and deduce from it the existence of a planner, Just as we rely on intuitions in many other areas. For more information on intuitions and their reliability, see here.
Another direction of critique argues that evolution refutes the argument from design because it shows how complex beings can emerge from a simple process of mutations and natural selection without the need for a planner. But even if we assume that all the complexities that exist in nature can be created in this way (which is not clear at all and even seems unreasonable), evolution does not refute the argument from planning at all but only takes the question one step back: what explains the existence of the universe? Life, and of the processes leading to them? This is similar to someone who claims that the watch was not built by a human watchmaker but was created on an automatic production line in a factory without human hand contact. Of course, the conclusion is not that the clock was not designed, but that the factory and the production line were designed to lead to clocks. Scientifically, the conditions necessary for the appearance of life are so precise that the entire universe must be tuned with unimaginable precision from the most basic level of the laws of nature to have the potential for the appearance of life (the so-called "fine-tuning"). This is, therefore, strong evidence that it was indeed intelligently designed for this purpose.
The prevailing atheistic response to this argument is that even in our universe, there is nothing special, since there may be an infinity of other universes in which life did not appear, and from which our universe was also created by chance since it is suitable for the appearance of life. That is, it is all about a required statistical result and not deliberate planning. The great difficulty with this claim is that there is no evidence that there is an infinity of universes or any explanation for the mechanism that is supposed to create them. Why then load on our worldview an infinity of strange universes that no one has ever seen, with laws of nature entirely different from ours, instead of assuming the existence of one more factor that designed our universe, GOD?
Another widespread atheist response, brought up by Richard Dawkins in his book Is There a GOD?, is the question "Who designed GOD?" After all, if complicated things indicate an intelligent Planner who created them, it is seemingly straightforward that GOD Himself is immeasurably composed of His works, and if so, there should be someone above Him who designed him, and so on.
As noted by the philosopher (atheist!) Daniel Kam, this is an old and unfounded argument that any philosophy student in the first year with good talent can point to his failure. For an explanation to be successful, there is no need for an explanatory answer. When we see the complexity of the world, we are asked to offer the existence of GOD as an explanation for that complexity, and this is indeed a successful explanation. Even if the question arises as to what is the explanation for the existence of GOD himself, it does not at all detract from the evidence for His existence. For example, why is this similar? Suppose there is some complex device on Mars. When we look for an explanation for the existence of the device, we conclude that the most successful explanation is that intelligent aliens created it. The existence of the device therefore constitutes evidence for the existence of intelligent aliens.
The fact that we do not know who designed the aliens themselves does not usurp our explanation for the design of the device and the aliens’ existence. An explanation can be successful and satisfying even if it is impossible to find out the whole chain of reasons that led to it. Had it not been so, the entire Big Bang theory would have been refuted as an explanation for the cosmic background radiation, For it is not known what caused the big bang itself, and even the theory of evolution was refuted because it does not explain the appearance of the first cells. In other words, an explanation can be successful even if it does not explain everything. When we ask ourselves who created the complex universe, the most successful explanation for it is GOD, and even if we do not know how to explain GOD Himself, it is irrelevant.
All this on the assumption that GOD is indeed something "complex.” Before Dawkins, many philosophers and theologians argued [8] that GOD is not complex at all, but merely the purpose of the raids until any definition can define it. This raises the well-known question of how simplicity is created by diversity, which was dealt with extensively in the Middle Ages, but is not of interest. What is important is that Dawkins' argument is also unfounded in this respect. GOD is not necessarily complex, and certainly not material. Our assumptions that anything complex must be planned do not apply to him, but only to complex material works that we are familiar with within this world.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
The human consciousness is an absolute wonder. It is the thing through which we think, understand, and perceive reality, create, feel, experience, and feel. It is in fact the only thing we experience directly, in the first person, with absolute certainty. And yet, the essence of consciousness itself is a mystery. Its very existence is an appeal to the materialist worldview, which holds that the only thing that exists is a matter, and an acknowledgment of a mystery that opens up the possibility of a more spiritual worldview, which may include GOD as well.
Materialists claim that consciousness is nothing but a product of matter, something that appears in some way from brain activity, just as the kidneys excrete urine, so the brain excretes consciousness. Not only does such a claim sound very strange on the face of it, but it also has no end to the explanation of how it happens. Of course, it is clear that there is a correlation between brain processes and mental processes, and that influence on one leads to influence on the other. This has been known since the first man struck his friend's head and caused him to lose consciousness, and the neurosciences have not renewed anything essential here except for the refinement of the subtleties of that correlation.
But where does the very consciousness in which those mental processes take place come from? We assume that simple chemicals have no consciousness, and if so how can a certain complex organization of theirs lead to the appearance of something so different from them? It would be similar to the claim that if a sufficiently complex card tower is built, at some point the cards will be able to speak and play on their own.
While there are features of complex things that are not in the details that make them up, So-called emergencies (like the moisture of the water, which does not exist in the individual molecules but exists in the whole). But in these cases, the transition from the individual to the whole is clear and scientifically understandable to us.
Consciousness, on the other hand, is so fundamentally different from matter that there is no explanation for how it supposedly "grows" out of it. The materialist claim that matter is capable of producing consciousness expresses only a blind belief and provides no explanation or justification for its claims.
Not only is the very existence of consciousness a miracle that is not understood in a materialistic world, but also its ability to understand the universe. Through our minds, we are able to understand the universe, the laws of nature, and the way they operate, from the subatomic level to cosmic processes. The same laws require mathematical understanding and high abstraction ability, and it takes many years to learn and understand them, while scientific knowledge itself is advancing.
Is it obvious that the human mind will even have a chance to understand the universe? After all, according to the atheist worldview, consciousness is something that evolved evolutionarily only because it had some survival benefit. But it is clear that there is no need for consciousness to survive, and certainly not all the secrets of the universe need to be understood to do so.
Countless species on earth, such as insects, do not have real awareness as far as we know, and yet they survive and thrive for much longer than human existence in the world. Think of an ant for example it has no mental capacity to understand even the tip of the iceberg of the universe in which it lives. For her, it is a foreign and clearly incomprehensible place, And it amounts to a few inches that she is able to feel and pursue food. It does not prevent it from surviving and reproducing successfully.
Compared to the whole universe, our size and our brain size are no different from those of the ant. Where then did we get the ability to understand the universe? How is it that we do not experience it as inconceivable chaos, but as an orderly system that obeys the equations we are able to understand? In other words, what is the source of the match between human consciousness and the universe?
One of the great mysteries is the meaning of the miraculous correspondence between mathematical concepts and the structure of the universe and the laws of nature, as the physicist James Jeans put it: "The universe seems to have been shaped by a pure mathematician". Mathematics is used in all areas of life, from the natural sciences and physics to economics, social statistics, computer science, and sociology.
How is it possible that mathematics, seemingly created by human thought, fits so perfectly into physical reality? Is mathematics a human creation, or a discovery of an existing reality that underlies the universe?
These mysteries and many more illustrate how unlikely it is to see in human consciousness something that "grew by chance" from matter, as a result of blind evolutionary processes. In fact, it is easier to treat the material world as a product of consciousness than to consciousness as a product of matter: we know that consciousnesses can create images of tangible reality, as in dreams and hallucinations, and yet we have no evidence that matter can create consciousness or explain how it is possible. It, therefore, makes more sense to assume that the universe we perceive is a mental product of our consciousness, than that consciousness is a product of a material universe.
But even if we do not take it in this direction (although quite a few philosophers and scientists follow it), it is clear that consciousness is a miracle that requires explanation, and that the atheist-materialist approach is unable to explain it.
While this is not direct evidence of the existence of GOD, there is certainly an appeal here to the material worldview, the absence of GOD. In addition, the existence of GOD can certainly explain the existence of consciousness, and the wondrous fit between it and the universe. If the same GOD who created the universe and set the laws of nature is the one who created our consciousnesses, it certainly makes sense that He would imprint in our consciousness the ability to perceive and understand the universe.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
Philosophical evidence for the existence of GOD is a relatively late phenomenon. Belief in GOD is essentially an intuitive sense of persuasion, sometimes accompanied by religious and spiritual experiences. In the ancient world, people believed in GOD or the gods naturally without any logical proof. The very fact that this belief appeared in all ancient cultures without exception testifies to its intuitiveness. It was only at a later stage, around the sixth century BCE, that philosophers began to appear in Greece, China, and India. They formulated logical and intellectual arguments about the existence of GOD. This question became one of the most central and debated philosophical issues of all time after this era. The prophecy and the inspiration of the Divine departed, creating a distance between humans and GOD.
Infinite philosophical literature has been written around the evidence for the existence of GOD. These words are binding, and these words are deceiving; these words are claiming, and these words are rejecting. This article will not touch even the edge of all that literature on its many twists and turns. Our purpose here is to present an overview of the main arguments in favor of GOD’s existence.
It is essential to make clear in advance that around each of these arguments, many pens have been broken. The best philosophical minds in the world have devoted themselves to establishing or criticizing them. Therefore, one should take them seriously and not think that any argument is "unfounded," just because it has been criticized. As in any field of expertise, here too, a long and in-depth study is required to understand concepts about ignorance. Quoting sentences from the Wikipedia page that deal with logical failures is not a "refutation" or a substitute for such a study. We invite anyone wishing to give a serious opinion for or against these arguments to study the issues in-depth and thoroughly.
It is also essential to understand that "absolute proofs" do not exist, neither here nor in any subject in the world. Every proof, including the logic itself, derives from assumptions, which in themselves are not provable or reasonable, but simply seem logical and intuitive. In any case, the rational approach is not to insist on demanding evidence but instead to examine the arguments and accept those that seem more reasonable and convincing. After all, this is how people decide the most critical issues in their lives - not based on evidence but reasonableness and common sense. There is no reason to raise the bar when it comes to believing in GOD.
The cosmological argument begins with a simple question: Why does the universe even exist? When we see an object, we assume that there must be some reason for its existence. If, for example, we walk in the desert and find a ball made of glass on the sand, we ask ourselves how it was formed and how it got there. An answer such as, "He is just there for no reason," will sound absurd to us. If so, as Richard Taylor argues in his book Metaphysics, “Suppose the whole universe is the same glass sphere: does not itself require a reason to explain its existence?”
We, therefore, assume that everything that exists does so for a reason. It is also clear that nothing can be the cause itself. The glass ball could not have created itself for the simple reason that it did not exist before it was created. There must be another reason that made the sphere, and the same is true of the universe. The problem is that whatever that cause of the universe is, it also needs a reason for its existence. That reason needs a reason for existing as well. As a result, we may find ourselves in an undesirable state of infinite regression, that is, an endless chain of causes that does not begin anywhere. But if the chain of reasons has no beginning, it is not clear how something could have been created at all.
Consequently, philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas have concluded that there must be a first cause of its own. This cause cannot have a cause. The chain of causes that led to the universe’s existence and all that is in it begins from this cause. This first reason, the philosopher Ibn Sina stated, can not only be possible in reality (i.e., something that exists but could also not exist), but must be committed to reality (i.e., live substantively and necessarily, and not accidental). If that first cause were only possible in reality, the question would arise as to what then caused it to exist in practice, and again we would need the cause preceding it, and so on to infinity. Therefore the same first cause, which is the cause of causes, is committed to reality: it necessarily exists and does not depend on any other factor for its existence. This first reason is GOD.
A common erroneous critique says that if everything has a reason, then GOD’s existence must also have a reason, and if something created it, it is not GOD. This critique indicates a lack of understanding of the argument since the argument is based on the assumption that not everything has a reason (because then we will end up in infinite regression). Still, there must be one first reason why there is no reason, which is called GOD.
Here the question arises: if there are still things that have no reason, why need GOD as the reason without reason, instead of assuming that it is the universe itself? Why not believe that the universe has always existed in one form or another, without requiring another more fundamental reason for its existence?
The answer to this is found in Ibn Sina's above-mentioned words: only something committed to reality can be the first reason. The universe is not bound by reality since any part of it can cease to exist. The universe itself can also cease to exist entirely. There is no logical necessity for the universe’s existence, and certainly not for its familiar existence with its present properties. Therefore, the universe’s existence, limited and defined, requires a reason to exist and be as it is. In contrast, GOD, who is not limited and defined but infinite, perfect and eternal, can be bound by reality, and by this power be the first cause.
While this argument proves only the existence of GOD, no attributes can be attributed to him based on the discussion other than being the first reason for the existence of the universe. But this is a starting point from which one can move on.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments). He reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, who refer to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
We live in a universe made up entirely of moving particles of matter, from electrons’ rotation to galaxies’ motion. We are not surprised when we see living things moving and moving, but we would be surprised if we suddenly saw inanimate objects starting to carry on their own. If the table in our living room were suddenly hovering in the air, or ping pong balls were beginning to surround each other in circles, we would look for an explanation. But in our universe, matter is constantly moving. Not only do inanimate objects move, but they also do so according to a fixed and precise regularity represented in the equations of physics. This phenomenon begs the question: how can inanimate objects move, and how is it possible that they all move precisely according to the same rules?
If asked, most people will simply answer that the laws of nature drive matter in the universe. For example, apples fall from the tree because of the force of gravity. But this answer is not an explanation at all. The laws of nature describe the way objects move but do not explain the movement.
Suppose the table in our living room were to begin to rise in the air at regular intervals, once every half hour, for example, making a few turns around its axis and descending back down.
Of course, we would very much like to find an explanation for this phenomenon. If someone were to announce: ‘What's the problem? The table is moving because of a special and new law of nature that can be formulated, according to which your table rises every half hour, does a few rounds, and goes back down. Let's give it a scientific name and put it in the list of laws of physics …’ Would we be satisfied with that? Certainly not, since this law only describes the movement of the table and allows it to be anticipated, but does not explain at all what moves the table. The same is true of the motions of matter throughout the universe, which the laws of physics only describe but do not explain how they are possible.”How, then, can the motion of matter be presented?
We know that there is a power capable of moving material things: desire. Humans, and other living things, can move their bodies through their will. According to which willpower moves the objects in the universe, an explanation would be a legitimate explanation of the "position on the seller" - using a familiar phenomenon to explain an unfamiliar sensation. But what desire can move the universe?
Aristotle thought that every object in the universe has its own will that drives it. Thus, for example, the stone falls because it wants to return to the earth’s element to which it belongs, while air bubbles rise from the water upwards because they aspire to the essence of air from which it originates. Even the stars and celestial bodies move because of the desire that causes them to do so. This perception is possible, even if it sounds strange today. Still, it raises various questions, such as what explains the exact motion of objects throughout the universe - how do the atoms and molecules on planets and other galaxies behave, as far as we know, just like those on Earth? Does everyone want the same things? Do they know the equations they should follow?
Therefore, a more straightforward explanation would be that which drives the universe is not the personal will of each particle and object in itself, but a supreme will that coordinates the whole universe in a coordinated way. It is the will of GOD. GOD has determined the equations of the laws of nature, according to which the universe will be governed, and He moves it at all times following these equations. This explanation answers how inanimate matter can transfer and how it is possible that matter in the whole universe behaves exactly according to the same equations. Matter can move because GOD's will motivates Him, just as man can voluntarily move his body and the objects around him; And he behaves precisely according to the equations of the laws of nature, because these equations are the way GOD wants to move matter.
In fact, the presentation of GOD and His will as an explanation for motion in the universe is not fundamentally different from the way physicists presented the laws of nature as an explanation for phenomena arising from observations. After all, no one has ever seen gravity, for example, or one of the other physical forces; Newton simply asked himself what the explanation was for objects falling and the like, and when he did not find an explanation for this in the context of the known phenomena, he concluded that there was an unknown force that caused it - he called the force of gravity.
Similarly, the existence of the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force, as well as of particles that cannot be directly observed, were also determined. When there is a phenomenon that requires explanation, and cannot be explained on the basis of any known force, scientists conclude that a new force exists. And that is exactly what this argument does.
There is a phenomenon before us that requires explanation: the motion of the inanimate matter. Since we do not know of any known factor capable of driving it, we can conclude from this the existence of a new force that does so. This power must be strong enough to propel all matter in the universe, and to know all the laws of nature to propel matter in accordance with them, and therefore be called to call it GOD.
The existence of GOD is thus proved no less than the existence of gravity. If someone comes and claims that there may not be a GOD moving the material, but that the material just moves alone - it would be a statement similar to the statement that there is no gravitational force that drops apples, but apples just fall by themselves. One can of course choose to remain without an explanation for any phenomenon, but asking for explanations is the way of science, and there is no reason to avoid it when the explanations lead to the existence of GOD.
Don Juravin was born in the Holy Land, not far from the birthplace of Jesus (and where Moses met GOD and was given the wisdom of the Ten Commandments), and he reads the Bible in its original language, the Word of GOD.
Mr. Juravin, therefore, understands GOD’s direction and even intentions, and as a result, he does not believe in any religion but instead in GOD and the original Bible. With almost three million followers, referring to him as HOLY LAND MAN, he is devoted to bypass religion and share the love of GOD directly with the people. On different occasions in his life, he was inspired by further readings of the Bible and produced additional articles.
These sacred documents are HOLY LAND MAN’s divine inspiration and are intended to make the people of the world think and debate. They are not intended to tell people what to do or what to believe. Each soul will find its truth in the relationship with GOD.
When considering belief in GOD, it is usually assumed that belief is merely a matter of attitude and not open to rational discussion. Since when should a subject of faith be proved? After all, the whole idea of faith is to be convinced without relying on our five senses. If there was evidence, it would be knowledge and not belief.
Not that there is a fundamental problem with knowledge about the existence of GOD, but most believers openly declare that their belief in GOD is nothing but — surprise, surprise — faith. And if this is indeed a belief, then why suddenly demand to prove it? You can ask them to try to persuade you, explain what leads them to this belief, and so on, but once you start talking about evidence, you move from the plane of belief to that of knowing — and there is no reason to fall into that trap.
Because something can still be said about evidence. Contrary to popular belief, the existence of GOD is one of the most proven facts there is. In fact, it is proven at least as much as the existence of gravity, as I am about to explain.
It is in man’s nature that when he encounters a phenomenon, he seeks an explanation for it. If he finds an object, he asks what the reason is for his possession of such an object in such a place. If he sees a natural phenomenon, he asks what the explanation for its occurrence is.
What is an “explanation”? There are two types: the position on the familiar, and the position on the unfamiliar. The position on the familiar means to explain phenomenon X by relying on phenomenon Y, which is already familiar to us. For example, if we see a clock lying on the table in front of me, we explain its existence by humans making it and placing it on the table. This is because we know the existence of human beings, and know that they make watches and place them in all sorts of places.
The position on the unfamiliar, on the other hand, is required when there is a phenomenon before us, for which we do not know the cause. Although we do not know it, the existence of the phenomenon requires an explanation. We therefore assume in this case the existence of a new type of factor, which we have not previously known, that will serve as an explanation for the phenomenon.
For example, if the first person to land on Mars discovers an unfamiliar electronic device there, an explanation for the existence of that device will be required. In this case, since we do not know any factor for it being produced and put there, we will have to add to our picture of reality the existence of a new factor —some entity, with the power and intelligence needed to produce such a device. While we cannot know much about the features of that entity, beyond what can be deduced from the examination of the device, the existence of the device will be considered as the strongest proof that a foreign entity actually exists.
When the question arises: Who said that every phenomenon must have an explanation? How can we conclude the existence of such and such only on the basis of the existence of unfamiliar phenomena? After all, the whole chain of explanations has to stop at some point. If one explains Z by Y, and Y by X and so on, at some point one arrives at the “brute facts” of reality. These facts are the infrastructure upon which the whole of reality is built, and there is no prior explanation for their existence other than “like this.” That’s the way it is; this is the reality, and this is it. If we do not acknowledge the existence of such harsh facts, we will end up in endless regression, and in any case we will not be able to explain anything.
So if we admit that there are hard facts that cannot be explained, on what basis do we add entities in explanations of the type of position on the unfamiliar? Perhaps the phenomenon before us is simply a rigid fact of reality, and there is no entity behind it? In the example we gave, maybe the electronic device on Mars, has just been there ever since time began, and no one made it? Why multiply entities unnecessarily? The principle of logic is to seek the simplest explanation that accounts for the most data.
There is no clear answer to this question, other than human intuition, which pushes us to seek as basic explanations as possible, and not to stop the chain of explanations too soon. The claim that the electronic device has always existed seems ridiculous and unreasonable. The tendency of man in general, and of science in particular, is to try to reduce as much as possible the number of basic facts. If a basic explanation for some phenomena can be found, it is better to adopt it, than to attribute to each of these phenomena a status of a hard fact in itself. In fact, one of the tests of a successful scientific theory is its ability to economically explain as many phenomena as possible — , even if it explains them through the position on the unfamiliar.
Here we come to gravity, for example. Newton was not the first person to have an apple fall on his head. People have known this phenomenon since time immemorial. Nevertheless, Newton was the first to give a comprehensive explanation of all the phenomena of various falls, and of many other phenomena, such as the tides, and the motion of the stars in the sky. This is through his conclusion that there is one force behind all these phenomena: gravity.
Explaining these phenomena through the existence of gravity is an explanation of the kind of position on the unfamiliar. After all, until Newton, the scientific investigation did not recognize the existence of such a force. No one, including Newton himself, saw gravity directly. All that can be seen is the various phenomena of falling etc., from which it can be deduced that there is some force behind them. Newton added a new factor to the worldview, and through it explained the familiar.
Here the question arises: who said that there is one force behind all these phenomena? Maybe these phenomena occur simply because … they occur? Apples fall, tides happen, and stars rotate, simply because that’s what apples, water and stars do. Any such event can be a tough fact in itself. Why assume that there is such a thing as gravity?
The answer, as before, is that it is simply human intuition. This seems more true to us. Such a uniform explanation seems to us to make more sense than to assume that each event and each phenomenon is a separate hard fact. If one force can give such an explanation to many phenomena, it is better to see in it the basic fact, and not in every phenomenon in itself. If we do not assume the existence of gravity, we will have to assume the existence of countless basic facts —one for each event of a fall somewhere in the universe — all of which are independent of each other. And that seems less likely to us.
It is true that there are people who deny the existence of gravity. According to them, Newton did not create the existence of any entity whatsoever, but only accurately described what was happening. He did not explain the phenomena; he only described them. According to this approach, there really is no such thing as gravity. Every phenomenon of falling is a basic fact in itself, for which no explanation can be sought.
There are all sorts of issues with this approach, but we’re not going to go into them at this time. For that matter we will accept it as legitimate, although we must admit that it sounds very counterintuitive. Our human nature requires cost-effective basic explanations of the kind such as gravity. But perhaps the problem is with us, in our human psychology, and perhaps such basic beings do not exist outside our imagination. Not only gravity, but also the other entities that science has added to our world without anyone ever seeing directly — atoms, electrons, neutrons, quantums, and so on. All of these were invented to provide explanations by way of the position on the unfamiliar, and perhaps they really do not exist.
Having said this, one can understand why the existence of GOD is a proven fact just like the existence of gravity. Like gravity, GOD also constitutes an explanation for many separate phenomena: The existence of the universe, laws of nature, living and human beings, consciousnesses, miracles and experiences of revelation, and so on.
We will focus for the sake of interest on the existence of the universe and the laws of nature. Why does a universe exist at all? Why are there fixed laws of nature, which operate with such precision? These questions can be answered in the following way: The universe and the laws of nature are basic facts, for which no more basic explanation can be sought. Indeed, it is just as much that can be argued about the fall of apples and the rotation of stars. But whoever sees the occurrence of apples falling as sufficient proof of the existence of gravity, there is no reason why he should not see the existence of the universe and the laws of nature as sufficient proof of the existence of a more basic force behind them, which is GOD. The principle of frugality works here too: The less tough the facts are, the better. If so, it is better to see in the existence of GOD the explanation for the existence of the universe for all the phenomena and laws of nature in it, and to see in it this singular hard fact, rather than to attribute to each phenomenon an independent status of hard fact.
In other words, both gravity and GOD are an explanation for reality, through the position of the unfamiliar. He who senses gravity has no reason to not believe in GOD, and he who denies GOD, can equally deny gravity. In terms of their proofs, both are equal.
At this point some wise man will probably arise and claim: “Who said GOD is the reason for the existence of the world? Maybe it’s the flying spaghetti monster?”. Well, one might as well ask: “Who said gravity is what causes objects to fall? The invisible?” It’s clear that this is an out-of-place question, since the first reason for the existence of the world, we call “GOD”, and it doesn’t matter what other features it has.
There will be those who will argue that gravity has an advantage over GOD as an explanation for phenomena since gravity also has predictions for the future that confirm its existence, which is not true of GOD’s existence.
There are several answers to this: First, not every explanation must also have predictions for the future. For example, if we find a giant crater on Earth, we can explain it by assuming the existence of a giant meteor that collided with Earth somewhere in the distant past (even if we have never heard of such meteors). This is a perfectly legitimate explanation, even though it does not necessarily have predictions for the future — we are not obligated to say that a similar meteor will hit Earth again sometime. The same is true of the object found on Mars. The theory that someone created it does not have to be predictive, for it to be considered a good explanation for its existence. The same is true of the existence of the universe and the laws of nature. The existence of GOD is an explanation for them, even without a prediction for the future.
Second, one can say that the existence of GOD includes prophecies. For example, if GOD established the laws of nature, we can predict that they will be uniform throughout the universe, even in parts of it that we have not yet reached. Or that the laws of nature will continue to exist even in the distant future. There is something to be discussed in these claims, but let’s not go into that right now.
Third, if we go through a sharp transition from the GOD described so far, to the GOD of Judaism for example, and attribute to the Creator of the universe also the attribute of being the giver of the Torah, then we can say that the fulfillment of Torah prophecies, like the survival of Israel in exile, is a kind of predictive accuracy. For these are prophecies we would not expect to see without GOD.
The conclusion, then, is that the existence of the world is a phenomenon that requires explanation, and the explanation for the existence of the world is the existence of GOD, just as the explanation for the fall of apples is gravity. Of course, what we are allowed to say about GOD based on this proof is quite limited — it is impossible to jump from its existence to the conclusion that He also commanded to put on tefillin every morning. But still, it is of great importance.
And if the questioner asks: Why does the existence of GOD not require explanation? Why assume that it is a basic fact? The answer is that if we assume that there is a more basic explanation for the existence of GOD, we will not “gain” anything in terms of thrift. GOD is one, and any explanation can be no less than one, so why add such explanations to infinity? In contrast, in the transition from the multiplicity of phenomena of the world to the oneness of GOD, we do gain great frugality in assuming the existence of basic facts, so we have a justification for doing it and an explanation as to the origin and sustaining presence of the universe as a whole.
The podcast currently has 14 episodes available.