Age of the earth is the one the Rishonim were busy with. Nishteneh Hateva is already in the Rishonim (i think even earlier). Its spiritual is already in the rambam. Scientists are kofrim anyway is also in the Rambam (Bshinui Lashon). Blah Blah Blah I think ive seen on one of slifkins blogs.
Nishtenu Hatevah is found in precisely ONE tosfos, discussing one particular thing. It is not found anywhere else in rishonim. Its a modern response, which in any event makes no sense. The talmud was only written 1,500 years ago. Are you suggesting that 1500 years ago the science of human beings, disease and cures has changed so much, such that the featus of a dead cat, or other wild cures in the talmud, provided healing, but now it does not (that change itself leaving no evidence).
You are also wrong again in your sources, and was your final straw, so I will no longer be answering you. Here is a short incomplete list of rishonim and early achronim who use the concept of shinui teva to explain why certain talmudic realities do not seem real.
Tosfos Moed Katan 11a "Kivra" (in regards to medicine)
Yam Shel Shlomo Chulin Chapter 8 Siman 12 (Also in regards to medicine)
This list was one I had access to off hand, and took me five minutes to compile. You are an ignoramous, even by secular standards of Talmud Torah, and have no place in this discussion. You have repeatedly made verifiably false claims about sources, and this latest one undoubtedly not be your last, but will be the last one I respond to you. I suggest you take some time to self-reflect. Ask yourself, if I know nothing, why am I attacking those with far superior knowledge and intellect.
I just checked the biur hagro and rema even ha'ezerand the chavos yoir are all on the same topic (that's not intellecutally honest). Discussing a fetus's viability. Of course, when you see in front of you a change you have to say nishtanu hatevah, but that change of viability can easily be explained by better healthcare. Try that with biziarre medicinal cures. Chazal were just quoting the medicine of the day. We know that, because we now have evidence of the identical cures from the medicine of the day.
I just removed this from my next post because it was getting too long. So here is a possible answer, to keep you busy in the meantime, as to why Hashem created these two realities to have such drastically opposing spirits:
The Illusion of Reality
Our senses give us a very definite picture of reality. We sense that the objects around us have an inherent color, have weight and substance (mass) and that they are intrinsically either hard or soft.
Science has shown in a large number of ways that these very perceptions are just an illusion. Scientifically, the different colors are just how our brains process different wavelengths of photons interacting with our retinas. In fact, color is not actually an inherent property of an object, rather that when light hits an object, it absorbs certain wavelengths and reflects others. These reflected wavelengths are then detected by the cone cells in our eyes and sent to the brain for interpretation. The object isn’t “actually blue”; it merely contains certain properties which absorb the longer wavelengths and reflect the shorter ones. An apple appears red to us because it’s surface contains pigments called anthocyanins, which absorb blue and green light and reflect mostly red light. The reflected red light enters our eyes, and our brain interprets this as the color red. A blue toy, on the other hand, appears blue to us because it’s surface contains pigments that absorb light of longer wavelengths (like red and orange) and reflect mostly blue light. (The sky is blue for a different reason, along the same lines, because the Earth's atmosphere scatters short-wavelength blue light more than other colors, making it more visible to us.)
Another illusory aspect of reality is mass. We perceive objects as having weight and substance, but according to modern physics, matter is not quite as solid as it appears. In fact, most of the space in an object is actually empty, with the particles existing as tiny vibrations in a field of energy. The particles that make up matter are constantly in motion, and they are not as tightly bound together as we once thought. Interestingly, as per Einstein equation of E=mc2, if one were to take a bunch of massless particles which are pure energy (e.g. a light particle, a photon) and place them in a box and have them bounce around back and forth, this energy (if there were enough photons), would be perceived as actual mass. In fact, 99% of our own mass comes from the fact that within the atoms that we are made of, specifically within the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of the atom, there are these massless particles (called gluons) which are constantly exchanged between the constituents of the protons and neutrons (known as quarks), and this constant speed of light movement is what results in more that most of our mass. (For those familiar with the Higgs field understand that the other 1% is basically the same thing, though its details are a tad more complicated.)
There are so many more examples of this, and we’ll just use one more, that even our sense of space and time is illusory. Einstein's theory of relativity showed that time and space are not fixed and absolute, but rather depend on the observer's relative motion. Time can appear to pass more slowly for someone in motion than for someone at rest, and distances can appear to be shorter or longer depending on the observer's perspective. As an object speeds up closer and closer to the speed of light (close to 300 million meters per second), its time slows down. According to this theory, if an object were to travel faster than the speed of light, it would travel backwards in time! Famously, in a black hole, where the mass creates such a strong gravitational pull that the escape velocity (the minimum speed required for an object to escape the gravitational pull of another object, used when sending rockets beyond) is greater than the speed of light, the light being pulled back in has to be travelling faster than the speed of light, and you know what that means for time! If so, time itself is not only not fixed, but it can move backwards. Our entire understanding of cause and effect - the bedrock of what science is - which is wholly dependent on time’s forward motion, is but an illusion!
(This is already enough to highlight my point, but anyone who is familiar with the quantum world knows all the more just how true it is that reality as we know it is just an illusion of the quantum world where energy is seen for what it is.)
This is the first point we wish to make, that science has shown us that the universe as we know it really is but an illusion. These examples we provided are isolated, but the point holds true for all of modern science. According to Einstein’s E=mc2, everything we see is just different forms of energy. We hardly know what energy is; all science can say is that it is the ability of a system to do work. (Incidentally, the Vilna Gaon points out that חכמה is “כח מה”; it is a כח - a force, an energy; but מה, what is it really?) Despite that we don’t understand the illusive nature of energy, reality is nothing but different forms of this.
The entire scientific system is a perfect reflection of its true illusory nature...
"This is the first point we wish to make, that science has shown us that the universe as we know it really is but an illusion."
You are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. A picture is an illusion. The universe is not. The man in the street is mistaken when he believes a table is mainly solid, true, it is mainly spaces between the components of an atom. But because he is mistaken, that does not make the table an illusion. Go bash your head on the table, tell yourself the its an illusion, the pain is an illusion, all is illusion. Nothing really exists or matters, right? Why does it matter if I destroy somebody else's table, why am I odom hamazik? You have just told me its an illusion anyway.
What are you on about and what are your trying to say?
"The entire scientific system is a perfect reflection of its true illusory nature..." What precisely is a reflection of what, what are you trying to say?
You really don't get the distinction between Mazik, for example, and what I'm saying? You really don't know what I mean by illusion? That really everything is just different manifestations of energy? I'm not solipsistic, you know that, but there is something to this point.
Whatever, if it doesn't talk to you, it doesn't talk to you. It was a side point anyways. To me, personally, I find it pretty cool.
Huh? Did I say that our religion is about being cool? Or being yeshivish? I just said that I find this one specific idea pretty cool. If you don't, np, it's not for you.
About the Mazik etc. problem - yes we live in a very real world with very real repercussions and consequences. But that is because of our human perception which God instilled into our world. If Hashem would set up a different world where we really lived in a matrix-esque simulation, the halachos and realities we'd experience would still be just as real because they are in the context of the world Hashem set up for us to follow. The fact that it really was just a simulation wouldn't affect that in the slightest.
I, apparently very personally, find it super-duper interesting that the real world which we do live in and experience ends up being a scientific illusion, a simulation of sorts, being that the entire idea of scientific reality itself is just an illusion of non-existent permanence! But that's just me.
It's not an illusion on non existent permenence. The atoms exist. The electrons exit. The photons exists. The 'certain properties' that make an apple look green exist - hence 'properties'. They all exist. Permanently. Conservation of matter and all that.
We can have this discussion if you want. (The properties of the apple was not the example I gave, my main point was that the colors themselves are illusory.) Things really exist, but what about them is 'really existing'? Just different forms of energy (whatever that is) which we perceive as the word in front of us. What about the atoms 'really' exist? Atoms are actually protons and neutrons and electrons. What about them 'really' exists? The electrons are just energy probability waves which move and 'spin' and obtain 'mass' through interacting with the Higgs field which gives it the illusion of mass as we know it. What about that is "real" in the conventional sense? Or as physicists call it, in the "classic" sense? What about the proton is "real"? The quarks aren't charmed or up or down. They too are just forms of energy being acted upon in different ways. What is 'real', in the classic sense, about this? I used more layman examples earlier but really, ask any physicist.
I sincerely try to understand the reasoning of those that cling to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Torah. What you have written here is proof of the adage that nonsense is still nonsense regardless of who said it or how it's packaged.
My last post showed why I think the rishonim held of a pretty fundamentalist view of the six days. All I showed was how modern science, in my opinion, doesn't change that...
Actual science, as I have been calling for consistently from the start. And simultaneously appreciating Ma'aseh B'reshis.
Allegedly, Crete, 500 miles away, in silhouette in front of the setting sun. From an elevation of 200 feet.
The clouds observably move. The features I am referring to don't. They are therefore "not clouds."
BE"H I hope to reproduce the feat again in July. Not sure if I can time the exact alignment (the offshore platform certainly helps!), but hopefully close. If I can, and the peaks and valleys match what was recorded yesterday, what say you?
Even if not, if such a spectacle is again present, on a cloudless day, I expect, well, not much. Many of you are pretty stubborn. But it will still prove the same point, a second time. This world is not what we are commonly taught.
When you do the calculations for Crete (500 miles distance, roughly 6000 feet max elevation), lens, and camera, the scale of what you see in the video actually matches up pretty well with my claims.
Why would something so deep need to be taken so literally? There are sources for there being worlds before ours. What's wrong with just saying that we're only concerned about Adam and onwards? We obviously don't know what happened in Gan Eden as the rishonim argue about trying to figure it out. Science should not be a threat to Torah. They are describing a physical reality, not explaining its significance.
If you're happy with that, np. About those sources of worlds before ours, נמנו וגמרו that they aren't talking about physical worlds. The rishonim argue about gan eden etc, but there is a basic consensus about these things. But you are right - science is no threat at all! I am just offering what I believe to be an important point regardless, which so happens to take care of the problem that some people have from science.
No individual is and the Arizal wasn't the final say in everything, but in things like this most people followed him because he knew what he's talking about more than others. And hey didn't follow him blindly either; they understood that he had what to offer, and so he was accepted by the top "academic" Torah circles because he was right and it showed. The Ramak accepted him too. And precisely because of his adherence to the mesorah, not because of what seemed new.
This is a silly comment. The Rishonim are not 'trying to figure out what happened on Gan Eden'. You are merely projecting. Just because you don't know, it does not follow that no one else does either. The Rishonim KNOW exactly what they are teaching, and they are revealing different facets of eternal truths.
One can't take a Machloket to be פשוט פשט? How is it silly? Am I supposed take the Rishonim as omnipotent? They had tremendous knowledge, some learned kabala some used philosophical concepts. If they have different conclusions it means it's uncertain. Plain and simple. You can't just convince me saying oh, they know what they're talking about. It's not what the Gra said about the Rambam!
Sorry, Avraham, but I have despaired from teaching people how to learn via comments on social media. You have a lot to learn. Try harder and stay away from those people who have corrupted your thinking.
The ideas of the Rishonim are also תורה שבעל פה. Each one is revealing a different perspective and a different facet of the Torah. They are absolutely certain of what they are saying, which explains the sharp language sometimes expressed in their disputes. This has nothing to do with the Vilna Gaon and whatever was written regarding Rambam.
Not at all. You have revealed enough of your ignorance. Yes, I understand that you are a novice and beginner, and perhaps even a nice person Bein Adam L'Chaveiro.
That comment is limited to one ruling of the Rambam, and is not in any way meant as you portray it - to minimize or discredit the Rambam's stature and authority. There is ample evidence of the Gaon's high regard for the Rambam, including the philosophically oriented Moreh Nevochim.
There are rules to when verses can be taken not literally. The issue of the age of the universe does not fall into the exceptions. For sources and explanations about this you might like one of the Jewish Thoughflow Episodes that deal with this.https://jewishpodcasts.fm/jewishthoughtflow/3423
Interesting. There were shitot among the achronim that took the 6 days to be non-literal. How can there be time before the sun, moon and stars? I believe rav Hirsch explicitly stated this and Rav Kook held that evolution fits with kabala. The Rambam in his More Nevuchim was quite free with reinterpretation as he stated that Malachim don't actually come down to the earth and that the story of the three angels was a prophetic dream.
I cannot answer to Rav Hirsch and Rav Kook. I can only show you what is quite clear in the Gemaros and Rishonim and mainstream Achronim. I was never able to track down the specific qoutations of Rav Hirsch or Rav Kook as it could be they are misunderstood. In either case, neither represent the normative Hashkafic view, nor can really be defended in the traditional sources. (As a side, there is what to say about the apologetics of late German achronim as they were dealing with the brunt of the Haskala movement and should hardly be held up as pure representatives of the Mesorah particularly when they are go against the seeming explication of Gemara and Rishonim.)
In terms of the question of time. The sun, moon and stars dont create time. They are move in time. So we can measure time by their movement (or our movement visa vi them). For example, it takes the best marathon runner 2 hours to run a marathon, this does not mean you cannot have two hours without people running a marathon. If the sun stopped moving, time would continue to tick. For example, if the sun stopped moving and it had no effect on the rest of the natural universe, your clock would still accurately measure a 24 hour period.
In fact, the Gemara in Chagiga 12a states that the amount for night and day was created on day one. Rashi over there states this means the 12 hours allotted for each time period. This does not require any measurement of that time
In terms of your question from the Rambam. First of alll, from a methodological standpoint, giving examples of where things are not taken literally does not mean there is carte blanche permission to take anything not literally. There are rules, some verses fall in those rules other do not. The age of the universe verses with their accompanying universal agreement in the mesorah (such as shemitta counts, molid counts and many other proofs ) that the world is 5783 years old, do not (there is a shita in the rishonim, based on chazal that the six days took no time at all, and therefore hold of an even younger universe. But again it is more a daas yachid and is firmly based on chazal)
Secondly, the Rambam does not take those verses not literally. He merely read the verses as Avraham's nevua vision extended longer than most people read. It actually read quite nicely into the literal interpretation of the Chumash. Also, the Rambam's torah idea of melachim is incompatible with their physical manifestation on earth and therefore in his view is as if the mesorah itself commands the read of the verses (which would be on of the exceptions)
This Gosse's classic Omphalus hypothesis, which isnt too bad.
I still fail to see how this deals 1) with the evidence of human civilization pre creation. (Gosse himself had no problem positing God making such evidence as well, but IIRC you did). 2) The mabul, which is a far more serious problem.
I believe this series was meant to deal with all the contradictions between Torah and science, not just creation.
It is Gosse, as I said it would be in the last post. My main addition is that Gosse's hypothesis is necessary because the very nature of physicality is that it requires a physical system which means having a built in history. This crucial point bring's Gosse's idea to a whole new level in my opinion. Actually, it changes it to be a very reasonable possibility instead of mere apologetics.
I did deal slightly with pre-creation civilization problem at the end and the answer I gave for fossils covers that as well. But in the next post I will add one more important point which I hope helps.
I do hope to address the many other contradictions in the next post, but the mabul and its ramifications I will not be addressing specifically, I will leave that up to discussion.
very nice idea, but a bit lengthy. mind if i try and summarize? (correct me if i'm misunderstanding)
being that Hashem did "poof" the world into existence less than 6k years ago (see last post, the challenge of slifkin), very much like what a wizard would do, this seems to contradict science's account. but in truth there is no stira because Hashem created things with a gashmi (what we call physical) side, and so by their very nature automatically come with a history because that history is what makes them what they are. but, not to get confused, this is not what they actually are - really they are Hashem's sheimois - but this gashmi is what they actually are physically i.e. scientifically, which is the place for science to exist. science discovered the scientific nature as science would, but that isn't even the real nature of the world, just the one where things exist as a scientific continuum, where they exist because they did a second ago, which happens to be a farce. (not to say it doesn't exist, because we have cars and airplanes and cellphones) but this existence isn't as real as the real one which is not scientific.
did i get this right?
if someone else could summarize better (perhaps in more sophisticated english) i'd appreciate
1. The closest star is a few light years away, and many stars are many light years away. When Hashem created the first stars, their light was already visible on the earth. A scientist would have said on the very first night that the stars were visible, that the world has to be many years old for us to be able to see the stars. The scientists would have been wrong.
2. There are many species that live in tall trees. When Hashem created the first trees, did the birds have to content themselves with nests on the ground until the trees grew tall enough? No, they did not have to wait for such, the trees were created tall enough for the first birds to have their needed nesting sites. Did those first trees have rings? Whatever answer we choose to give, it will not fit with what we know about the age of trees and annual tree rings. If the first trees had rings, we know it takes years for trees to grow all of those rings, not seconds. If the first trees did not have rings, we know that trees that height should have lots of rings.
You can ask, why did Hashem have to make the world this way? Could He not have made it that there is no such things as tree rings, and all trees, no matter their age and no matter their height would look the same inside? Yes, He could have. We don't know why the Divine Plan calls for there to be tree rings. This is not an apologetic answer, there are VERY many things that scientists can describe, but don't know why. Why did Hashem design the world so that E=MC^2? Why exactly this number? We don't know. Why did Hashem create a world where light can be divided into exactly 7 different colors? Why not 8 or 6 or 600? Again, we don't know this. Why did Hashem create the world so that a falling object will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2? Why not 9.9 or 9.7? Once again, we don't know. Why did Hashem build into the world so many examples of the 'Golden Ratio'? Why did He not use a different formula? Once again, we have no idea!! The fact that we don't know why Hashem created such a thing as tree rings, is not such a strong question. The fact that we don't know the 'why' of almost all aspects of creation, is a simple fact.
Well said (except the color example, but I get what you mean;)
I do still think a bit of insight can help because it really is confusing to understand why Hashem would "trick" us. But like you said, which is the first point of my next post, that we are asking to know the mind of God and we're never going to understand but a fraction. I still plan on explaining what I believe to be a solid basis of a pshat from Chazal.
Hashem did not trick us. Using the Torah that He gave us, we can know exactly how old the world is!! People who wish to deny the Torah allow themselves to be tricked.
Hashem wrote נעשה אדם, even though heretics might take that to mean there were 2 deities. Hashem did not trick them. He clearly wrote ויעש האדם to show that He is the only one. A person who anyway does not want to acknowledge that, will allow himself to be 'tricked' by the words נעשה אדם.
When you say the words 'created the world to look old' that sounds like something devious. If you say, Hashem created the world in a mature state because that is what the world needed, you are saying the same thing, but it sounds much more neutral. If we think about it, this is really what had to happen. Scientists say that it takes millions of years for coal and diamonds to form. They are right...if you would make them in a laboratory. Hashem wanted us to have coal and diamonds, so He made them available to us when we needed them. He created the world with these resources to be available to us. This was not done to trick us, but to give us the resources we need. One can ask why did Hashem create the world so that coal takes millions of years to form, why did He not do it so that cola takes only 1,000 years? That is no more question on those who say the earth is young, than to to those who say the earth is old. Slifkin has no better answer to that question than we do!
"If you say, Hashem created the world in a mature state because that is what the world needed, you are saying the same thing, but it sounds much more neutral."
Indeed. As I have oft-said here, this blog is all about playing with words.
Nope. Animals feel permancence without caring how old the earth is. Humans can feel just as much permanance even if the world would look 5783 (ignoring the problamatic missing 300 years or so). You haven't actually explained why Hashem needed to create a world that appears per the science to be millions of years old and thus contradicts the torah.
If the world would so clearly have popped into existence, at any point, an intellectual human would realize that he is nothing more than the product of God's will. As I explained, Aristotle assumed the universe was eternal due to the scientific reality. The fact that science agrees that it was originally nothing is very, very recent. And they struggle with it (Lawrence Krauss makes sure that we understand that it truly is eternal in the scientific sense).
Millions or billions of years is surely enough to grant the feeling of eternality.
If you don't know the answer to that question you are basically saying that Hashem chose to mislead humanity and the world was created to look old. Which is of course a well trodden answer with a well trodden question on it.
Also because the detail in the world we know is that complicated and specific that it takes billions of years to have what we see today. If light travelled faster and the strong force were weaker and gravity's mathematics were slightly different, our human experience would be very different, and Hashem wanted it this way
Again, the cart before the horse. Hashem could have created our human experience the way it is now, the age of the earth at 6000 years, and all the other factors and science varied to fit!
Wow! Mamesh Al Derech Slifkin, testi. Take a long, well-reasoned and expansive explanation, which is trying to give over deep ideas, and then just reduce that to a one-liner that you can ridicule. You learn well (but this is pure רשעות, just like him...ימח שמו)
I would agree about a misguided person. My problem with Slifkin is that he is a חוטא ומחטיא and has devoted the best years of his life to undermining the Talmidei Chachamim and Gedolim in a lifelong quest to avenge his martydom.
At the end of the day they destroyed him Many of them didn't speak with him or even read the book before issuing a ban. The chareidi gedolim brought this on themselves. They regret all the publicity their ban caused as ppl began to smell a rat with all the thought control. Nowadays they wouldn't be listened to if they issued such a ban.
There is no 'they'. He was spoken to good and plenty. Yes, the world of communication has changed, and a semi-ignorant rich boy can pretend that he is smart enough to argue with the Maharal and the Vilna Ga'on (yes, I know, he doesnt argue, he graciously acknowledges that they have their own perspective). The ban didn't cause publicity - Slifkin HaRasha sought out the publicity by pretending that he was an innocent victim. Perhaps the issue could have been handled better, understanding that they were dealing with a man who learned how to control media spin, but time has proven that they smelled a rat and ferreted it out of the cracks in the Bais Medrash walls. The only thought control is coming from those who portray a sly conniver as a sincere Torah scholar searching for truth.
Why should he be bound to achronim? The achronim didn't agree with the rishonim on all non-halachik matters? Im Not sure why you don't think that there was a time that he was actually asking honest questions. Also unclear why you would acuse me of thought Control. I don't go around banning books and forbidding ideas.
Those type of summaries contain within them great depth, like the Rambam's introduction of the Mitzvos in each section of Mishne Torah, or the Roshei Perakim in Rav Gustman's seforim. But, you are simply reducing and minimizing, cutting down the Torah to Slifkin's size 0.
I sincerely try to understand the reasoning of those that cling to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Torah. What you have written here is proof of the adage that nonsense is still nonsense regardless of who said it or how it's packaged.
Well done, though a bit overlong. I've used something similar in discussing, for example, Makkas Dam, in answer to someone who claimed that it was impossible. Given that water and blood are both made of the same subatomic particles, then if you had an infinite number of scientists with an infinite amount of time and resources on their hands, then they could indeed take every molecule of the water in the Nile and reconfigure it into a molecule of blood, and in fact to claim that this is impossible is to deny basic physics. All we need, then, is to replace the infinite number of scientists with the One Infinite Hashem, and there we are.
Yah, I was worried it was too drawn out, hope the point was clear though. (I'm not sure your Makkas Dam example is the same though, because what you are describing requires alchemy-type science, which isn't feasible by any physicist's standards.)
"If a scientist found this cake a few minutes after it popped into existence, he would be able, through the classic rigorous process of experimentation and trial and error, to figure out the scientific reality of the cake. Most notably, he would be able to use the scientific method to duplicate this very same cake!"
Right. And we rightly dismiss the idea that cakes pop into existence via wizardry. I'm not sure how this whole analogy helps you.
"The answer depends on choice of perspective and on circumstances, which I not might even know. If that thing was designed to be a library and is characteristically used this way while I am gone, then it perhaps it really is a library. It is not a house, contrary of what I thought. Or perhaps it’s a garage. Or maybe it is an oddly constructed and misplaced paperweight belonging to a giant. There simply is no independent truth of the matter…”
Not sure what this is even supposed to mean. My house is my house by virtue of it being where I live. Exactly what is subjective about that? If someone lived in a an oddly shaped paperweight, that place would be both 1) his home and 2) an oddly shaped paperweight.
There are parts of the Talmud where animals are created ("pop into existence") and eaten, where vinegar burns, and all sorts of things. It is not wizardry. Though that exists too.
Not sure we're disagreeing. All I'm saying is that we don't generally accept the idea that things which to all appearances are old actually popped into existence 5 minutes ago. Or were specially created. If someone were on trial for a murder that happened month ago and he put on a defense that he couldn't have done it because he only popped into existence yesterday, that wouldn't get him very far.
But if there is good reason to believe that to be the case - i.e. the Torah and rishonim say so very clearly, what's the issue? We're not trying to win a case in a secular court of law.
If the moshol doesn't talk to you, going straight to the nimshal is fine with me. The purpose of the moshol is to have an objective look. If it doesn't work for you, np, as long as the point is clear
What is actually old? Do you know how "they" actually derive the age of the universe? Do you know that red shift as a correlation to velocity, distance, and age is actually a debated topic? That's about the argument they present, when you distill it.
No idea what that has to do with anything. If your point is that aging methods are inaccurate, that's got nothing to do with something being created old.
You keep referring to things created with the illusion of age. What are you referring to. How do we know something was created old? The reason we say something is old is both because of appearance and radiological dating methods. Are you are aware of the assumptions baked into aging estimates? Whether above or at our feet.
We know things are old by making assumptions. Just like we make assumptions that major league baseball player didn't start playing baseball a week ago, that trees with rings have grown for a while, and that universes with galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away aren't 5 minutes old. You can question/reject those assumptions, but they aren't inherently invalid simply because they're assumptions.
"And we rightly dismiss the idea that cakes pop into existence via wizardry." Well, Hashem "popped" the world into existence. Using Sheimos. If the moshol doesn't talk to you, going straight to the nimshal is fine with me.
"If someone lived in a an oddly shaped paperweight, that place would be both 1) his home and 2) an oddly shaped paperweight." If someone lived there, yes. But what if not? (Technically, since the designer designed the paperweight as what we usually use as a house, his intent was probably to make a house shaped paperweight, and in that case you are also correct. But if he was just making a paperweight and it so happens to look like a house, what about it is a house?)
"If someone lived there, yes. But what if not? (Technically, since the designer designed the paperweight as what we usually use as a house, his intent was probably to make a house shaped paperweight, and in that case you are also correct. But if he was just making a paperweight and it so happens to look like a house, what about it is a house?)"
Love your מראה מקומות but I fail to understand what you're driving at. Yes, even if the designer's intent wasn't for the current usage, it's current usage will still very much be the functional definition. But if it were not being used as a house rather as a library (or paperweight etc.), no one would call it a house, rather a library. You keep bringing up that if someone lived there it would be a home - yes, it would! But if not, it wouldn't be. No?
Never mind. Not really important. I was just responding to the extended Chomsky quote. It struck me as a whole lot of high-falutin mumbo jumbo. A home is what someone lives in. That's the sole definition. What shape or size it is irrelevant. What its builder intended it to be is irrelevant. Ve'su lo midi.
Okay, fine, the cake was 3D printed by an advanced food 3D printer that assembled the right atoms and molecules together, and if I never told you it was 3D printed you might assume it underwent the whole baking process and that perhaps some chickens were robbed of their eggs and cows of their milk. But it wasn't, and by chemical analysis you'd never know that. But it also makes no difference practically.
Nice, I personally prefer to be a little less intellectual about it. The world is however old we believe it is. What about x y z? Hashem could have aged the world.
I agree that the Torah reality is not compatible with the scientific reality, but since I'm Orthodox Jewish, I believe in the Torah one.
Who says that's our mesorah? Lakewood? Go back 1000 years and our mesorah was very much to question and probe. That's when the rishonim wrote at length about philosophical matters. Which rishonim deal with philosophical questions with two words 'emunah peshutoh'? Can you even find 3?
No - by matan torah there was zero "questioning and probing" there was examining and learning, tons of that but if you need a מראה מקום, see rashi shabbos 88b.
Very nice extended moshol to explain the concept
Age of the earth is the one the Rishonim were busy with. Nishteneh Hateva is already in the Rishonim (i think even earlier). Its spiritual is already in the rambam. Scientists are kofrim anyway is also in the Rambam (Bshinui Lashon). Blah Blah Blah I think ive seen on one of slifkins blogs.
Nishtenu Hatevah is found in precisely ONE tosfos, discussing one particular thing. It is not found anywhere else in rishonim. Its a modern response, which in any event makes no sense. The talmud was only written 1,500 years ago. Are you suggesting that 1500 years ago the science of human beings, disease and cures has changed so much, such that the featus of a dead cat, or other wild cures in the talmud, provided healing, but now it does not (that change itself leaving no evidence).
Let's first see if you can comprehend the points made in this topic before jumping to a new one, no?
You are also wrong again in your sources, and was your final straw, so I will no longer be answering you. Here is a short incomplete list of rishonim and early achronim who use the concept of shinui teva to explain why certain talmudic realities do not seem real.
Tosfos Moed Katan 11a "Kivra" (in regards to medicine)
Yam Shel Shlomo Chulin Chapter 8 Siman 12 (Also in regards to medicine)
Chavas Yair siman 234
Teshuvos Tashbatz Chelek 2 Siman 101.
Rema Even Haozer 156 Sif 4.
Biur Hagra (qouting ritva and others ) orach chaim 331 sif 3 s"k 1.
This list was one I had access to off hand, and took me five minutes to compile. You are an ignoramous, even by secular standards of Talmud Torah, and have no place in this discussion. You have repeatedly made verifiably false claims about sources, and this latest one undoubtedly not be your last, but will be the last one I respond to you. I suggest you take some time to self-reflect. Ask yourself, if I know nothing, why am I attacking those with far superior knowledge and intellect.
I just checked the biur hagro and rema even ha'ezerand the chavos yoir are all on the same topic (that's not intellecutally honest). Discussing a fetus's viability. Of course, when you see in front of you a change you have to say nishtanu hatevah, but that change of viability can easily be explained by better healthcare. Try that with biziarre medicinal cures. Chazal were just quoting the medicine of the day. We know that, because we now have evidence of the identical cures from the medicine of the day.
יעויין בהרחבה בספר השתנות הטבעים בהלכה, הרב נריה משה גוטל
If you want to study the topic, that's the sefer to start with
I'm sorry. I really would love to continue. But it was your last straw.
What you mean is you don't have an answer. Come up when you can show how a dead chicken on someone's head can cure a headache or whatever.
I just removed this from my next post because it was getting too long. So here is a possible answer, to keep you busy in the meantime, as to why Hashem created these two realities to have such drastically opposing spirits:
The Illusion of Reality
Our senses give us a very definite picture of reality. We sense that the objects around us have an inherent color, have weight and substance (mass) and that they are intrinsically either hard or soft.
Science has shown in a large number of ways that these very perceptions are just an illusion. Scientifically, the different colors are just how our brains process different wavelengths of photons interacting with our retinas. In fact, color is not actually an inherent property of an object, rather that when light hits an object, it absorbs certain wavelengths and reflects others. These reflected wavelengths are then detected by the cone cells in our eyes and sent to the brain for interpretation. The object isn’t “actually blue”; it merely contains certain properties which absorb the longer wavelengths and reflect the shorter ones. An apple appears red to us because it’s surface contains pigments called anthocyanins, which absorb blue and green light and reflect mostly red light. The reflected red light enters our eyes, and our brain interprets this as the color red. A blue toy, on the other hand, appears blue to us because it’s surface contains pigments that absorb light of longer wavelengths (like red and orange) and reflect mostly blue light. (The sky is blue for a different reason, along the same lines, because the Earth's atmosphere scatters short-wavelength blue light more than other colors, making it more visible to us.)
Another illusory aspect of reality is mass. We perceive objects as having weight and substance, but according to modern physics, matter is not quite as solid as it appears. In fact, most of the space in an object is actually empty, with the particles existing as tiny vibrations in a field of energy. The particles that make up matter are constantly in motion, and they are not as tightly bound together as we once thought. Interestingly, as per Einstein equation of E=mc2, if one were to take a bunch of massless particles which are pure energy (e.g. a light particle, a photon) and place them in a box and have them bounce around back and forth, this energy (if there were enough photons), would be perceived as actual mass. In fact, 99% of our own mass comes from the fact that within the atoms that we are made of, specifically within the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of the atom, there are these massless particles (called gluons) which are constantly exchanged between the constituents of the protons and neutrons (known as quarks), and this constant speed of light movement is what results in more that most of our mass. (For those familiar with the Higgs field understand that the other 1% is basically the same thing, though its details are a tad more complicated.)
There are so many more examples of this, and we’ll just use one more, that even our sense of space and time is illusory. Einstein's theory of relativity showed that time and space are not fixed and absolute, but rather depend on the observer's relative motion. Time can appear to pass more slowly for someone in motion than for someone at rest, and distances can appear to be shorter or longer depending on the observer's perspective. As an object speeds up closer and closer to the speed of light (close to 300 million meters per second), its time slows down. According to this theory, if an object were to travel faster than the speed of light, it would travel backwards in time! Famously, in a black hole, where the mass creates such a strong gravitational pull that the escape velocity (the minimum speed required for an object to escape the gravitational pull of another object, used when sending rockets beyond) is greater than the speed of light, the light being pulled back in has to be travelling faster than the speed of light, and you know what that means for time! If so, time itself is not only not fixed, but it can move backwards. Our entire understanding of cause and effect - the bedrock of what science is - which is wholly dependent on time’s forward motion, is but an illusion!
(This is already enough to highlight my point, but anyone who is familiar with the quantum world knows all the more just how true it is that reality as we know it is just an illusion of the quantum world where energy is seen for what it is.)
This is the first point we wish to make, that science has shown us that the universe as we know it really is but an illusion. These examples we provided are isolated, but the point holds true for all of modern science. According to Einstein’s E=mc2, everything we see is just different forms of energy. We hardly know what energy is; all science can say is that it is the ability of a system to do work. (Incidentally, the Vilna Gaon points out that חכמה is “כח מה”; it is a כח - a force, an energy; but מה, what is it really?) Despite that we don’t understand the illusive nature of energy, reality is nothing but different forms of this.
The entire scientific system is a perfect reflection of its true illusory nature...
"This is the first point we wish to make, that science has shown us that the universe as we know it really is but an illusion."
You are going from the sublime to the ridiculous. A picture is an illusion. The universe is not. The man in the street is mistaken when he believes a table is mainly solid, true, it is mainly spaces between the components of an atom. But because he is mistaken, that does not make the table an illusion. Go bash your head on the table, tell yourself the its an illusion, the pain is an illusion, all is illusion. Nothing really exists or matters, right? Why does it matter if I destroy somebody else's table, why am I odom hamazik? You have just told me its an illusion anyway.
What are you on about and what are your trying to say?
"The entire scientific system is a perfect reflection of its true illusory nature..." What precisely is a reflection of what, what are you trying to say?
You really don't get the distinction between Mazik, for example, and what I'm saying? You really don't know what I mean by illusion? That really everything is just different manifestations of energy? I'm not solipsistic, you know that, but there is something to this point.
Whatever, if it doesn't talk to you, it doesn't talk to you. It was a side point anyways. To me, personally, I find it pretty cool.
No I don't, and talmud torah and our religion is not about being pretty cool. Or being yeshivish for that matter.
Huh? Did I say that our religion is about being cool? Or being yeshivish? I just said that I find this one specific idea pretty cool. If you don't, np, it's not for you.
About the Mazik etc. problem - yes we live in a very real world with very real repercussions and consequences. But that is because of our human perception which God instilled into our world. If Hashem would set up a different world where we really lived in a matrix-esque simulation, the halachos and realities we'd experience would still be just as real because they are in the context of the world Hashem set up for us to follow. The fact that it really was just a simulation wouldn't affect that in the slightest.
I, apparently very personally, find it super-duper interesting that the real world which we do live in and experience ends up being a scientific illusion, a simulation of sorts, being that the entire idea of scientific reality itself is just an illusion of non-existent permanence! But that's just me.
It's not an illusion on non existent permenence. The atoms exist. The electrons exit. The photons exists. The 'certain properties' that make an apple look green exist - hence 'properties'. They all exist. Permanently. Conservation of matter and all that.
You have got it all wrong.
We can have this discussion if you want. (The properties of the apple was not the example I gave, my main point was that the colors themselves are illusory.) Things really exist, but what about them is 'really existing'? Just different forms of energy (whatever that is) which we perceive as the word in front of us. What about the atoms 'really' exist? Atoms are actually protons and neutrons and electrons. What about them 'really' exists? The electrons are just energy probability waves which move and 'spin' and obtain 'mass' through interacting with the Higgs field which gives it the illusion of mass as we know it. What about that is "real" in the conventional sense? Or as physicists call it, in the "classic" sense? What about the proton is "real"? The quarks aren't charmed or up or down. They too are just forms of energy being acted upon in different ways. What is 'real', in the classic sense, about this? I used more layman examples earlier but really, ask any physicist.
This is making me very, very hungry.
I sincerely try to understand the reasoning of those that cling to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Torah. What you have written here is proof of the adage that nonsense is still nonsense regardless of who said it or how it's packaged.
My last post showed why I think the rishonim held of a pretty fundamentalist view of the six days. All I showed was how modern science, in my opinion, doesn't change that...
"fundamentalist interpretation" = plain sense of the text. It's the default. You don't need to agree with it to acknowledge that.
mb asked why I cling to it, I answered because the rishonim did. What wasn't clear? I don't need to agree with what to acknowledge what?
That comment was directed at mb, not you.
got it - in that case, well said!
https://youtu.be/y1MBHT7X2f4
Actual science, as I have been calling for consistently from the start. And simultaneously appreciating Ma'aseh B'reshis.
Allegedly, Crete, 500 miles away, in silhouette in front of the setting sun. From an elevation of 200 feet.
The clouds observably move. The features I am referring to don't. They are therefore "not clouds."
BE"H I hope to reproduce the feat again in July. Not sure if I can time the exact alignment (the offshore platform certainly helps!), but hopefully close. If I can, and the peaks and valleys match what was recorded yesterday, what say you?
Even if not, if such a spectacle is again present, on a cloudless day, I expect, well, not much. Many of you are pretty stubborn. But it will still prove the same point, a second time. This world is not what we are commonly taught.
This feat can be reproduced by anyone for a paltry few hundred dollars. No white lab coat needed.
Here are relevant pages on how to translate focal length and sensor size into an actual scale.
https://www.scantips.com/lights/fieldofview.html
https://www.scantips.com/lights/subjectdistance.html
https://www.scantips.com/lights/cropfactor.html
When you do the calculations for Crete (500 miles distance, roughly 6000 feet max elevation), lens, and camera, the scale of what you see in the video actually matches up pretty well with my claims.
https://www.suncalc.org/#/31.665,34.5453,6/2023.05.14/19:29/1/0
The sun set last night behind Crete from my vantage point.
And if you dont realize which sector of Orthodox Judaism is losing a good portion of their youth, go out to Rutgers, Binghamton, Englewood or Efrat.
Why would something so deep need to be taken so literally? There are sources for there being worlds before ours. What's wrong with just saying that we're only concerned about Adam and onwards? We obviously don't know what happened in Gan Eden as the rishonim argue about trying to figure it out. Science should not be a threat to Torah. They are describing a physical reality, not explaining its significance.
If you're happy with that, np. About those sources of worlds before ours, נמנו וגמרו that they aren't talking about physical worlds. The rishonim argue about gan eden etc, but there is a basic consensus about these things. But you are right - science is no threat at all! I am just offering what I believe to be an important point regardless, which so happens to take care of the problem that some people have from science.
Who says they are not talking about physical worlds? The mesorah?
The Arizal and all who understand why he knew what he was talking about
The Arizal is not 'nimmu v'gomruh'
No individual is and the Arizal wasn't the final say in everything, but in things like this most people followed him because he knew what he's talking about more than others. And hey didn't follow him blindly either; they understood that he had what to offer, and so he was accepted by the top "academic" Torah circles because he was right and it showed. The Ramak accepted him too. And precisely because of his adherence to the mesorah, not because of what seemed new.
This mesorah thing is complicated, especially to an outsider (no implication to anything), but there is a rhyme and reason to it.
This is a silly comment. The Rishonim are not 'trying to figure out what happened on Gan Eden'. You are merely projecting. Just because you don't know, it does not follow that no one else does either. The Rishonim KNOW exactly what they are teaching, and they are revealing different facets of eternal truths.
One can't take a Machloket to be פשוט פשט? How is it silly? Am I supposed take the Rishonim as omnipotent? They had tremendous knowledge, some learned kabala some used philosophical concepts. If they have different conclusions it means it's uncertain. Plain and simple. You can't just convince me saying oh, they know what they're talking about. It's not what the Gra said about the Rambam!
Sorry, Avraham, but I have despaired from teaching people how to learn via comments on social media. You have a lot to learn. Try harder and stay away from those people who have corrupted your thinking.
The ideas of the Rishonim are also תורה שבעל פה. Each one is revealing a different perspective and a different facet of the Torah. They are absolutely certain of what they are saying, which explains the sharp language sometimes expressed in their disputes. This has nothing to do with the Vilna Gaon and whatever was written regarding Rambam.
He wrote that the Rambam was corrupted by philosophy.
I think if I don't come to your conclusions you response will be that I just didn't try enough.
That's convenient.
Not at all. You have revealed enough of your ignorance. Yes, I understand that you are a novice and beginner, and perhaps even a nice person Bein Adam L'Chaveiro.
That comment is limited to one ruling of the Rambam, and is not in any way meant as you portray it - to minimize or discredit the Rambam's stature and authority. There is ample evidence of the Gaon's high regard for the Rambam, including the philosophically oriented Moreh Nevochim.
There are rules to when verses can be taken not literally. The issue of the age of the universe does not fall into the exceptions. For sources and explanations about this you might like one of the Jewish Thoughflow Episodes that deal with this.https://jewishpodcasts.fm/jewishthoughtflow/3423
Can't wait to listen to your stuff! So far I'm enjoying your comments...
2 min ago
Interesting. There were shitot among the achronim that took the 6 days to be non-literal. How can there be time before the sun, moon and stars? I believe rav Hirsch explicitly stated this and Rav Kook held that evolution fits with kabala. The Rambam in his More Nevuchim was quite free with reinterpretation as he stated that Malachim don't actually come down to the earth and that the story of the three angels was a prophetic dream.
LIKE
REPLY
Rav Kook's shitta is more complex than what you presented. See for example what R. Shahar Rachmani wrote in his edition of לנבוכי הדור
I cannot answer to Rav Hirsch and Rav Kook. I can only show you what is quite clear in the Gemaros and Rishonim and mainstream Achronim. I was never able to track down the specific qoutations of Rav Hirsch or Rav Kook as it could be they are misunderstood. In either case, neither represent the normative Hashkafic view, nor can really be defended in the traditional sources. (As a side, there is what to say about the apologetics of late German achronim as they were dealing with the brunt of the Haskala movement and should hardly be held up as pure representatives of the Mesorah particularly when they are go against the seeming explication of Gemara and Rishonim.)
In terms of the question of time. The sun, moon and stars dont create time. They are move in time. So we can measure time by their movement (or our movement visa vi them). For example, it takes the best marathon runner 2 hours to run a marathon, this does not mean you cannot have two hours without people running a marathon. If the sun stopped moving, time would continue to tick. For example, if the sun stopped moving and it had no effect on the rest of the natural universe, your clock would still accurately measure a 24 hour period.
In fact, the Gemara in Chagiga 12a states that the amount for night and day was created on day one. Rashi over there states this means the 12 hours allotted for each time period. This does not require any measurement of that time
In terms of your question from the Rambam. First of alll, from a methodological standpoint, giving examples of where things are not taken literally does not mean there is carte blanche permission to take anything not literally. There are rules, some verses fall in those rules other do not. The age of the universe verses with their accompanying universal agreement in the mesorah (such as shemitta counts, molid counts and many other proofs ) that the world is 5783 years old, do not (there is a shita in the rishonim, based on chazal that the six days took no time at all, and therefore hold of an even younger universe. But again it is more a daas yachid and is firmly based on chazal)
Secondly, the Rambam does not take those verses not literally. He merely read the verses as Avraham's nevua vision extended longer than most people read. It actually read quite nicely into the literal interpretation of the Chumash. Also, the Rambam's torah idea of melachim is incompatible with their physical manifestation on earth and therefore in his view is as if the mesorah itself commands the read of the verses (which would be on of the exceptions)
The shmittah cycle starts after briyas ha'olam, chochom.
By the way, why is bircas hachomoh in nissan and Rosh Hashonoh in Tishri? The mesorah can't even agree on that.
You are revaling your ignorance Testi, if you imagine that to be a good challenge.
Test Bot Alert. Test Bot Alert. Do you think people don't notice you jumping topics?
Mainstream Achronim? Who are those?
Oh I know! Yeshivish ones!
Ah. Forgive me for making the mistake of taking you seriously.
This Gosse's classic Omphalus hypothesis, which isnt too bad.
I still fail to see how this deals 1) with the evidence of human civilization pre creation. (Gosse himself had no problem positing God making such evidence as well, but IIRC you did). 2) The mabul, which is a far more serious problem.
I believe this series was meant to deal with all the contradictions between Torah and science, not just creation.
(My theory is detailed on my blog.)
It is Gosse, as I said it would be in the last post. My main addition is that Gosse's hypothesis is necessary because the very nature of physicality is that it requires a physical system which means having a built in history. This crucial point bring's Gosse's idea to a whole new level in my opinion. Actually, it changes it to be a very reasonable possibility instead of mere apologetics.
I did deal slightly with pre-creation civilization problem at the end and the answer I gave for fossils covers that as well. But in the next post I will add one more important point which I hope helps.
I do hope to address the many other contradictions in the next post, but the mabul and its ramifications I will not be addressing specifically, I will leave that up to discussion.
דוד wrote that intends to write more posts
correct.
very nice idea, but a bit lengthy. mind if i try and summarize? (correct me if i'm misunderstanding)
being that Hashem did "poof" the world into existence less than 6k years ago (see last post, the challenge of slifkin), very much like what a wizard would do, this seems to contradict science's account. but in truth there is no stira because Hashem created things with a gashmi (what we call physical) side, and so by their very nature automatically come with a history because that history is what makes them what they are. but, not to get confused, this is not what they actually are - really they are Hashem's sheimois - but this gashmi is what they actually are physically i.e. scientifically, which is the place for science to exist. science discovered the scientific nature as science would, but that isn't even the real nature of the world, just the one where things exist as a scientific continuum, where they exist because they did a second ago, which happens to be a farce. (not to say it doesn't exist, because we have cars and airplanes and cellphones) but this existence isn't as real as the real one which is not scientific.
did i get this right?
if someone else could summarize better (perhaps in more sophisticated english) i'd appreciate
Depends on if צמצום is כשפוטו or not. A tree is שמות?
Evertyhing in the בריאה was created with שמות ה' וצירופיהם.
Can I clarify? All your lengthy essay is saying, to resolve the issue, is that the world was created to look millions of years old?
No, the point is that although the world is relatively young, by the very virtue of it being physical, it has to look old.
Why does it have to look old? Make it look new, and scientists would have come up with different science or none at all.
Here are 2 simple examples:
1. The closest star is a few light years away, and many stars are many light years away. When Hashem created the first stars, their light was already visible on the earth. A scientist would have said on the very first night that the stars were visible, that the world has to be many years old for us to be able to see the stars. The scientists would have been wrong.
2. There are many species that live in tall trees. When Hashem created the first trees, did the birds have to content themselves with nests on the ground until the trees grew tall enough? No, they did not have to wait for such, the trees were created tall enough for the first birds to have their needed nesting sites. Did those first trees have rings? Whatever answer we choose to give, it will not fit with what we know about the age of trees and annual tree rings. If the first trees had rings, we know it takes years for trees to grow all of those rings, not seconds. If the first trees did not have rings, we know that trees that height should have lots of rings.
You can ask, why did Hashem have to make the world this way? Could He not have made it that there is no such things as tree rings, and all trees, no matter their age and no matter their height would look the same inside? Yes, He could have. We don't know why the Divine Plan calls for there to be tree rings. This is not an apologetic answer, there are VERY many things that scientists can describe, but don't know why. Why did Hashem design the world so that E=MC^2? Why exactly this number? We don't know. Why did Hashem create a world where light can be divided into exactly 7 different colors? Why not 8 or 6 or 600? Again, we don't know this. Why did Hashem create the world so that a falling object will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2? Why not 9.9 or 9.7? Once again, we don't know. Why did Hashem build into the world so many examples of the 'Golden Ratio'? Why did He not use a different formula? Once again, we have no idea!! The fact that we don't know why Hashem created such a thing as tree rings, is not such a strong question. The fact that we don't know the 'why' of almost all aspects of creation, is a simple fact.
Well said (except the color example, but I get what you mean;)
I do still think a bit of insight can help because it really is confusing to understand why Hashem would "trick" us. But like you said, which is the first point of my next post, that we are asking to know the mind of God and we're never going to understand but a fraction. I still plan on explaining what I believe to be a solid basis of a pshat from Chazal.
Hashem did not trick us. Using the Torah that He gave us, we can know exactly how old the world is!! People who wish to deny the Torah allow themselves to be tricked.
Hashem wrote נעשה אדם, even though heretics might take that to mean there were 2 deities. Hashem did not trick them. He clearly wrote ויעש האדם to show that He is the only one. A person who anyway does not want to acknowledge that, will allow himself to be 'tricked' by the words נעשה אדם.
When you say the words 'created the world to look old' that sounds like something devious. If you say, Hashem created the world in a mature state because that is what the world needed, you are saying the same thing, but it sounds much more neutral. If we think about it, this is really what had to happen. Scientists say that it takes millions of years for coal and diamonds to form. They are right...if you would make them in a laboratory. Hashem wanted us to have coal and diamonds, so He made them available to us when we needed them. He created the world with these resources to be available to us. This was not done to trick us, but to give us the resources we need. One can ask why did Hashem create the world so that coal takes millions of years to form, why did He not do it so that cola takes only 1,000 years? That is no more question on those who say the earth is young, than to to those who say the earth is old. Slifkin has no better answer to that question than we do!
"If you say, Hashem created the world in a mature state because that is what the world needed, you are saying the same thing, but it sounds much more neutral."
Indeed. As I have oft-said here, this blog is all about playing with words.
to repeat, "by the very virtue of it being physical, it has to look old". You are asking for a non-physical world.
I discussed this in the post.
Nope. Animals feel permancence without caring how old the earth is. Humans can feel just as much permanance even if the world would look 5783 (ignoring the problamatic missing 300 years or so). You haven't actually explained why Hashem needed to create a world that appears per the science to be millions of years old and thus contradicts the torah.
If the world would so clearly have popped into existence, at any point, an intellectual human would realize that he is nothing more than the product of God's will. As I explained, Aristotle assumed the universe was eternal due to the scientific reality. The fact that science agrees that it was originally nothing is very, very recent. And they struggle with it (Lawrence Krauss makes sure that we understand that it truly is eternal in the scientific sense).
Millions or billions of years is surely enough to grant the feeling of eternality.
You are putting the cart (scientists) before the horse (torah).
I am not asking for a non-physical world. I am asking for a world that looks 5783 years old or thereabouts.
All that would change is that scientists would have come up with different theories or none at all.
My point in the post was that a physical world requires a history, so the world could never be 5783 years old scientifically...
Why does it require a history that us millions of years old?
Or are you somehow saying Hashem is bound by what scientists discover from about 1800 ce?
No I am saying that scientists discovered in 1800 ce what Hashem put into the briah from the very start
Yes but why? Why millions of years old?
If you don't know the answer to that question you are basically saying that Hashem chose to mislead humanity and the world was created to look old. Which is of course a well trodden answer with a well trodden question on it.
Yes, but why millions of years old?
Also because the detail in the world we know is that complicated and specific that it takes billions of years to have what we see today. If light travelled faster and the strong force were weaker and gravity's mathematics were slightly different, our human experience would be very different, and Hashem wanted it this way
Again, the cart before the horse. Hashem could have created our human experience the way it is now, the age of the earth at 6000 years, and all the other factors and science varied to fit!
Wow! Mamesh Al Derech Slifkin, testi. Take a long, well-reasoned and expansive explanation, which is trying to give over deep ideas, and then just reduce that to a one-liner that you can ridicule. You learn well (but this is pure רשעות, just like him...ימח שמו)
Don't say ימח שמו about a fellow Jew, especially one who is after all Torah-observant and is just misguided regarding ikrei emunah.
I would agree about a misguided person. My problem with Slifkin is that he is a חוטא ומחטיא and has devoted the best years of his life to undermining the Talmidei Chachamim and Gedolim in a lifelong quest to avenge his martydom.
At the end of the day they destroyed him Many of them didn't speak with him or even read the book before issuing a ban. The chareidi gedolim brought this on themselves. They regret all the publicity their ban caused as ppl began to smell a rat with all the thought control. Nowadays they wouldn't be listened to if they issued such a ban.
There is no 'they'. He was spoken to good and plenty. Yes, the world of communication has changed, and a semi-ignorant rich boy can pretend that he is smart enough to argue with the Maharal and the Vilna Ga'on (yes, I know, he doesnt argue, he graciously acknowledges that they have their own perspective). The ban didn't cause publicity - Slifkin HaRasha sought out the publicity by pretending that he was an innocent victim. Perhaps the issue could have been handled better, understanding that they were dealing with a man who learned how to control media spin, but time has proven that they smelled a rat and ferreted it out of the cracks in the Bais Medrash walls. The only thought control is coming from those who portray a sly conniver as a sincere Torah scholar searching for truth.
Why should he be bound to achronim? The achronim didn't agree with the rishonim on all non-halachik matters? Im Not sure why you don't think that there was a time that he was actually asking honest questions. Also unclear why you would acuse me of thought Control. I don't go around banning books and forbidding ideas.
On the contrary, the mesorah teaches us the way to learn is to summarise and distill key points, analyse and debate.
Those type of summaries contain within them great depth, like the Rambam's introduction of the Mitzvos in each section of Mishne Torah, or the Roshei Perakim in Rav Gustman's seforim. But, you are simply reducing and minimizing, cutting down the Torah to Slifkin's size 0.
I sincerely try to understand the reasoning of those that cling to the fundamentalist interpretation of the Torah. What you have written here is proof of the adage that nonsense is still nonsense regardless of who said it or how it's packaged.
Why don't you research how the following values were derived historically?
1. The diameter of Venus.
2. The diameter of the sun.
3. The distance of the earth to the sun.
If you do, like I did, you might be left wondering about the very real assumptions baked into everything we are taught about the sky.
You are not helping your thesis!
Such a clever retort from an ignoramus. Why not just say you don't know and you won't do it?
How sincere are you? Clearly not very. Try harder.
Ignoramus? You could try not insulting those with whom you disagree.
What disagreement? You are "sincere". Be honest, and you won't get called names.
Well done, though a bit overlong. I've used something similar in discussing, for example, Makkas Dam, in answer to someone who claimed that it was impossible. Given that water and blood are both made of the same subatomic particles, then if you had an infinite number of scientists with an infinite amount of time and resources on their hands, then they could indeed take every molecule of the water in the Nile and reconfigure it into a molecule of blood, and in fact to claim that this is impossible is to deny basic physics. All we need, then, is to replace the infinite number of scientists with the One Infinite Hashem, and there we are.
Yah, I was worried it was too drawn out, hope the point was clear though. (I'm not sure your Makkas Dam example is the same though, because what you are describing requires alchemy-type science, which isn't feasible by any physicist's standards.)
"If a scientist found this cake a few minutes after it popped into existence, he would be able, through the classic rigorous process of experimentation and trial and error, to figure out the scientific reality of the cake. Most notably, he would be able to use the scientific method to duplicate this very same cake!"
Right. And we rightly dismiss the idea that cakes pop into existence via wizardry. I'm not sure how this whole analogy helps you.
"The answer depends on choice of perspective and on circumstances, which I not might even know. If that thing was designed to be a library and is characteristically used this way while I am gone, then it perhaps it really is a library. It is not a house, contrary of what I thought. Or perhaps it’s a garage. Or maybe it is an oddly constructed and misplaced paperweight belonging to a giant. There simply is no independent truth of the matter…”
Not sure what this is even supposed to mean. My house is my house by virtue of it being where I live. Exactly what is subjective about that? If someone lived in a an oddly shaped paperweight, that place would be both 1) his home and 2) an oddly shaped paperweight.
There are parts of the Talmud where animals are created ("pop into existence") and eaten, where vinegar burns, and all sorts of things. It is not wizardry. Though that exists too.
Not sure we're disagreeing. All I'm saying is that we don't generally accept the idea that things which to all appearances are old actually popped into existence 5 minutes ago. Or were specially created. If someone were on trial for a murder that happened month ago and he put on a defense that he couldn't have done it because he only popped into existence yesterday, that wouldn't get him very far.
But if there is good reason to believe that to be the case - i.e. the Torah and rishonim say so very clearly, what's the issue? We're not trying to win a case in a secular court of law.
"But if there is good reason to believe that to be the case - i.e. the Torah and rishonim say so very clearly, what's the issue?"
That's my point. Bringing in wizards doesn't contribute anything.
If the moshol doesn't talk to you, going straight to the nimshal is fine with me. The purpose of the moshol is to have an objective look. If it doesn't work for you, np, as long as the point is clear
What is actually old? Do you know how "they" actually derive the age of the universe? Do you know that red shift as a correlation to velocity, distance, and age is actually a debated topic? That's about the argument they present, when you distill it.
No idea what that has to do with anything. If your point is that aging methods are inaccurate, that's got nothing to do with something being created old.
You keep referring to things created with the illusion of age. What are you referring to. How do we know something was created old? The reason we say something is old is both because of appearance and radiological dating methods. Are you are aware of the assumptions baked into aging estimates? Whether above or at our feet.
We know things are old by making assumptions. Just like we make assumptions that major league baseball player didn't start playing baseball a week ago, that trees with rings have grown for a while, and that universes with galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away aren't 5 minutes old. You can question/reject those assumptions, but they aren't inherently invalid simply because they're assumptions.
"And we rightly dismiss the idea that cakes pop into existence via wizardry." Well, Hashem "popped" the world into existence. Using Sheimos. If the moshol doesn't talk to you, going straight to the nimshal is fine with me.
"If someone lived in a an oddly shaped paperweight, that place would be both 1) his home and 2) an oddly shaped paperweight." If someone lived there, yes. But what if not? (Technically, since the designer designed the paperweight as what we usually use as a house, his intent was probably to make a house shaped paperweight, and in that case you are also correct. But if he was just making a paperweight and it so happens to look like a house, what about it is a house?)
"If someone lived there, yes. But what if not? (Technically, since the designer designed the paperweight as what we usually use as a house, his intent was probably to make a house shaped paperweight, and in that case you are also correct. But if he was just making a paperweight and it so happens to look like a house, what about it is a house?)"
Sorry, but this is a muddle. Who cares what it was designed as? If someone lives there, it's a home. https://www.insider.com/barns-converted-into-homes-2020-10#a-17th-century-barn-in-blue-bell-pennsylvania-was-transformed-into-a-multi-million-dollar-home-even-the-grain-silo-was-converted-to-a-luxury-wing-1
No one questions whether Oscar's garbage can was intended to be used for him to live there or not. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1322569
Love your מראה מקומות but I fail to understand what you're driving at. Yes, even if the designer's intent wasn't for the current usage, it's current usage will still very much be the functional definition. But if it were not being used as a house rather as a library (or paperweight etc.), no one would call it a house, rather a library. You keep bringing up that if someone lived there it would be a home - yes, it would! But if not, it wouldn't be. No?
Never mind. Not really important. I was just responding to the extended Chomsky quote. It struck me as a whole lot of high-falutin mumbo jumbo. A home is what someone lives in. That's the sole definition. What shape or size it is irrelevant. What its builder intended it to be is irrelevant. Ve'su lo midi.
Okay, fine, the cake was 3D printed by an advanced food 3D printer that assembled the right atoms and molecules together, and if I never told you it was 3D printed you might assume it underwent the whole baking process and that perhaps some chickens were robbed of their eggs and cows of their milk. But it wasn't, and by chemical analysis you'd never know that. But it also makes no difference practically.
Nice, I personally prefer to be a little less intellectual about it. The world is however old we believe it is. What about x y z? Hashem could have aged the world.
I agree that the Torah reality is not compatible with the scientific reality, but since I'm Orthodox Jewish, I believe in the Torah one.
If you're happy with the Torah without these explanations, more than fine by me!
Why would a good jew be less intellectual? Is that our way? "השכל וידוע אותי כי לי כל הארץ"
Our way is to follow Hashem and not question. If we follow, we find the answers along the way.
So your whole response here is just בדיעבד for those struggling but you'd prefer אמונה פשוטה?
correct, that's been our mesorah
but let me stress again: "If we follow, we find the answers along the way."
Who says that's our mesorah? Lakewood? Go back 1000 years and our mesorah was very much to question and probe. That's when the rishonim wrote at length about philosophical matters. Which rishonim deal with philosophical questions with two words 'emunah peshutoh'? Can you even find 3?
No - by matan torah there was zero "questioning and probing" there was examining and learning, tons of that but if you need a מראה מקום, see rashi shabbos 88b.
Almost all of the Rishonim in Tzarfat and Ashkenaz
That is the way of many but not מוסכם among all. Questioning in order to get a deeper understanding is critical acc to many Rishonim.
Interesting points. Definitely “food for thought”….
Thanks!