Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Simple enough question, and very much related to the topic.

According to the sources, on what basis should people believe that there's a God?

share|improve this question
2  
Please take a look at the no-no section of the FAQ. This question is asking for people's personal opinions. It may be possible to re-write it as something objective. – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 17:50
1  
I've closed it because I read it as seeking various opinions ("do you think"); such questions are generally frowned upon on the site. You (or for that matter I) can reword it so it can be reopened. – msh210 Jan 31 '12 at 17:51
shoosh, msh210, and @GershonGold, I've re-worded to what I think is a useful formulation of this question. What do you think? Feel free to edit further if you see fit. I'm leaning toward re-opening as it is now, but will first give you a chance to react. – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 17:57
1  
@shoosh, Let me offer a slightly belated welcome to Judaism.SE! I look forward to seeing you around. – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 18:02
2  
shoosh, if what you're actually seeking is sourced bases for belief in a specific quality of God (e.g. that he created the world or that he's omniscient) rather than his mere existence, then you might clarify that in the question before it gets more answers irrelevant to your main concern. (To be honest, I don't know how one can argue for God's existence unless you define "God" as, e.g., the creator or omniscient; and in that case what he's really arguing for is the existence of a creator or an omniscient being. So I guess I'm asking you to clarify, in your question, what you mean by "God".) – msh210 Jan 31 '12 at 18:11
show 5 more comments

6 Answers

Assuming we all exist, think, know and interact with our actual surroundings etc.

The Ontological Proof

The first class of Divine Proof is the Ontological proof. It goes basically like this:

God as a concept is perfect.

Perfect things must have the quality of existing, else they wouldn't be perfect.

Hence, God exists.

Problems

This doesn't really convince anyone of anything.

Possible Solutions

Many philosophers have spent a lot of time tweaking this proof, but in the end I don't think anyone else really cares about it.

The Cosmological Proof

The second class of Divine Proof is the Cosmological proof. First pioneered by Aristotle and taken up by the Rambam, it goes something like this:

Everything that moves was moved by something else.

There cannot be an infinite regress of events.

Hence, there exists a Prime Mover and we call Him God.

Problems

First off, you could just say that there can be an infinite regress of events.

Secondly, in the current proof what can God tell you to do? Move? Not so powerful...

Possible Solutions

Two avoid the second problem, some have changed "move" to other powers and given those to God.

Alternatively, some focus on the fundamental nature of the proof which is that there exists a being external to the general rules of science. They will argue something like this:

Morality* is eternally true independent of circumstances.

Hence, there exists some entity outside of the natural world and we call it God.

(*Replace Morality with Rationality or some other fundamentally True concept as you please.)

This doesn't really get exactly the God we want, but it is better if you assume Morality/Rationality/etc. is eternally True independent of circumstances.

The Teleological Proof

This is the most commonly given of the three Divine Proofs by organizations such as Aish HaTorah and other (especially Charedi) organizations. It goes something like this:

[Some aspect of the world] is very complex.

Hence, it must be designed as such by a Higher Being whom we call God.

Problems

It might not be. Everyone agrees this is not a strict proof. [BTW this is why people are so opposed to Darwin, not the textual issues from Genesis 1]

Possible Solutions

Err.. Find something REALLY REALLY complex.

Summary

There is no strict philosophical proof for God; however, there is no strict proof against the existence of God either. You need to evaluate the evidence and BELIEVE.

Sources: Philosophy classes and personal research on the subject.

share|improve this answer
3  
Nice exposition. You could improve this by citing sources that make or discuss these arguments (e.g. a particular place in the Rambam or a particular page on the Aish website) – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 18:32
2  
+1. I like this a lot, even if the problems with the cosmological proof aren't themselves very convincing. – HodofHod Jan 31 '12 at 18:37
2  
@DoubleAA, FTR, I haven't downvoted, but I'm withholding my upvote pending some more sourcing. – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 18:51
2  
@DoubleAA, Only Jewish philosopher I know of that accepted the ontological argument is Moses Mendelssohn. Not sure if you want to use him as a source, though. – jake Jan 31 '12 at 21:42
2  
Another commentless downvote? Anyone want to claim it? – Double AA Feb 1 '12 at 4:20
show 17 more comments

To my knowledge, the only "argument" for the existence of God given in the Torah itself is that He directly revealed Himself to us at Sinai:

Deut. 4:35 "Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD, He is God; there is none else beside Him."

Deut. 5:4, "The LORD spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire."

In other words, direct experience does not require philosophical proof.

Rabbi Jacob Emden expanded this argument into our own time, saying that, "When I consider these wonders [of the survival of the Jews in exile], they appear greater to me than all the miracles and wonders that God did for our ancestors in Egypt, and in the wilderness, and in the land of Israel."

All philosophical arguments for the existence of God made in traditional sources are only intended to reinforce this basic experiential knowledge that is the heritage of the Jewish people. While these arguments can serve to shore up our beliefs against challenges, many sources see these arguments as helping us acheive a more personal, immediate connection to God.

The most common such arguments found in Jewish works are:

  1. The Argument from Design - Many aspects of the natural world appear to have been been designed with intelligence and intent.

  2. The Cosmological or "First Cause" Argument - What set the world moving? Where did it come from?

  3. The famous "Kuzari" argument (which is also found in the writings of R' Saadia Gaon and Maimonides), that the Sinai revelation was a historical event witnessed by the entire nation. (This argument is basically just an extension of the Biblical "argument" that is intended to enable us to rely with confidence on our historical tradition.)

In my personal opinion, the various philosophical arguments for the existence of God are mainly useful for countering Hume's arguments against miracles. Briefly stated, he argues that no testimony of a miracle should be believed unless the falsehood of the testimony would be more improbable than the miracle itself. It follows, therefore, that one's ability to accept the testimony of the Jewish people's historical experience of miracles has an inverse relationship with the degree to which you think miracles are improbable.

All of the classical arguments for the existence of God are, fundamentally, arguments that we can perceive an element of the supernatural in the natural world itself. Thus, each such argument makes the possibility of miracles more plausible. At some point, it becomes more likely that Sinai Revelation really occurred than that it was made up (which, per the Kuzari argument, is very unlikely). Once you reach that point, then you have the Sinai Revelation to rely on for everything else.

share|improve this answer
I think everyone was agreeing that you need Sinai and a Mesorah to teach you about God. We are just discussing why one would believe He exists. – Double AA Feb 1 '12 at 5:01
2  
So, a Jew who was present at Sinai and "met God personally", so to speak, would still need to "prove" God exists or his knowledge of God is lacking? That might fly with the Greeks, but I don't believe you will find support for it in Jewish sources. While medieval authorities, starting with R' Saadia Gaon, argued that philosophical proofs are a fulfillment of the mitzva of "yedias Hashem", they are only necessary because we lack direct knowledge. – LazerA Feb 1 '12 at 7:12
1  
While this is a strong Jewish "proof" it is clearly not the only one, since the Jewish people knew about Gd before Har Sinai. – avi Feb 1 '12 at 7:50
1  
Rambam (Hil. Yesodei HaTorah 8:1) writes that prior to Sinai, the Jews only had an unreliable certainty ("נאמנות שיש אחריה הרהור ומחשבה"). This was ever after the miracles of the ten plagues and the splitting of the Yam Suf. – LazerA Feb 1 '12 at 13:28
1  
The Bible clearly portrays the incident of the Golden Calf as not being a denial of the existence of God or the Sinai Revelation. Throughout the Bible, the worship of idols was almost never about denying God's existence. The idolaters almost always wanted to have it both ways, as Elijah put it by Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:21), "'How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.' – LazerA Feb 1 '12 at 13:33
show 9 more comments

How does a Chasid know that G-d exists? He has Emunah.

How does a Litvak (a.k.a. Yeshivish Jew) know that G-d exists?

The Rambam says so, and the Raavad doesn't argue. :o)

share|improve this answer
1  
Should this be a comment? – avi Feb 1 '12 at 11:36
4  
It may have been formulated as a joke, but it is a serious answer. We know that G-d exists because our sages have transmitted this fact. We can also experience G-d's Providence in our lives on a continuous basis, but that's a beneficial side-effect of knowing, not how we know. – user1095 Feb 1 '12 at 11:46
Ok, I wasn't sure. :) – avi Feb 1 '12 at 11:47
2  
I agree that it could exist nicely as a comment as well - except that I actually do list a source, which IMHO upgrades it to answer status. – user1095 Feb 1 '12 at 11:49
1  
@Will Maybe you should edit in some of the explanation you gave down here. – Double AA Feb 1 '12 at 14:10
show 1 more comment

I'm a terrible one for sources, however as far as I am aware there are four ways in which Judaism knows that Gd exists.

  • The first method is brought in the midrashim regarding Abraham. There are two stories that I know of regarding how Avraham knew that god existed.

    1. Story 1: (Thank you @Monica Cellio) Abraham was walking along the way and saw a building that either (had a light in it's window, or was on fire), Avraham looked at the building and said, "Can that house have no master?, surely there is a master of the world."
      I have seen the midrash explained in two ways based on how you translate the line. Either, a building with a light on must have someone who lives in, and so with our world, life exists, so someone must have created it. Or, a house would only be on fire if someone owns it and an enemy wished to destroy it. Since there is evil in this world, and there is constant entropy, the fact that things get "built" means there is a creator. In modern language you might describe this as entropy vs evolution. However as with all midrashim, it could be undertood differently by each person.

    2. Story 2: Abraham was sitting in the sun, when suddenly a cloud blocked the Sun. The Cloud must be stronger than the sun, then a wind came, and the wind moved the cloud, so wind is stronger than clouds, then the wind came to a mountain and was blocked, so a mountain is stronger than wind, then a river was seen carving through the mountain, so water must be stronger than mountains, then the sun dried up the water, so the sun must be stronger than water... This cycle lead Abraham to believe that there must be a force outside of the cycles of nature which is strongest of them all, and runs it all, and that force is Gd. In modern language you might say, "That which breathes life into the equations." However as with all midrashim, it could be undertood differently by each person.

** Edit: It seems that the original midrash talks about man being better than spirit because of a wordplay, so I'm not sure where I heard this version from, but the basic concept is the same.

  • The second method in which we know Gd exists, is in the fulfillment of prophecies and being able to see the hand of Gd in history. This is first mentioned in the Torah when Gd describes himself as the Lord Your Gd who took you out of Egypt. This was a common way for the Rabbis of the Talmudic and Gaonic period to relate to Gd, most notably the book the Kuzari written by Yehuda HaLevi. Various prophecies have come true over the centuries, the latest of them being the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel.

  • The third method in which we know Gd exists is Rambam's principle of knowledge and the methods of books such as Derech Hashem which aim to prove Gd logically as either the first cause of all things, or show Gd as a necessity in some other logical manner. This method became popular in the middle ages, and has only grown since then. This method has become the most popular over the centuries, to the point that now most Jewish understandings and proofs of Gd are no different from any other theistic philosophy.

  • The fourth method of knowing that Gd exists is through personal experience and prayer, where a person feels a close relationship with his creator. This is most common in circles influenced by the Hassiduth movement from the 18th century.

share|improve this answer
2  
As with DoubleAA's answer, citations of specific sources would make this answer more valuable. – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 19:10
3  
If someone wants to find the location of those midrashim, or a link to derech hashem, or a quote from rav Nachman regarding a personal relationship with Hashem, I will be in your eternal gratittude. – avi Jan 31 '12 at 19:14
3  
1a = Teleological. 1b = Cosmological. 2 = Teleological. 3 = Cosmological. 4 = My Summary :) – Double AA Jan 31 '12 at 19:26
4  
The midrash about the burning house is from B'reishit Rabbah 39 -- bira doleket is a useful search term. – Monica Cellio Jan 31 '12 at 19:34
1  
@avi, not that I can see, although some could possibly be a little more precise than pointing to an entire work. But this answer is certainly valuable as it is now; thanks! – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 19:56
show 7 more comments

Some other proofs of G-d's existence (although a bit related to Avi's answer)

HASHGACHAH PRATIS (Divine providence) - Everyday stories from life; both from the lives of others (who one knows and trusts) and from one's own life. If a person pays close attention to what happens around him, he cannot help but note the Hand of G-d in so many events in our lives. There is no need to elaborate here.

PRAYER - If a person prays to G-d, he will see G-d answer him. That does not mean that every prayer is answered, but it does mean that if we turn to G-d regularly, we see totally unexpected turns of events that can only be attributed to prayer. This can be seen (sometimes even more vividly) with regard to the prayers of others as well. The prayer of a Tzibur (congregation) carries more weight that that of a Yachid (individual), and its effects are equally more evident.

PROPHECY - Even today, the power of prophecy can be seen when pondering the Torah's promises (can a nation exiled from its homeland and splintered into a dozen minor ethnic groups for 2,000 years, have the ability and resolve to return en masse to their homeland and become a universally recognized world power?). Perhaps closer to home, those who have had the merit and opportunity of meeting with the Tzadikim (righteous sages) of the generation know that even today, we can find shadows of "prophecy".

This category includes the infinite beauty of the Torah, which is evident to all who study it in depth.

source: translator's note at end of http://www.dafyomireview.com/article.php?docid=398

share|improve this answer
These are all teleological proofs. – Double AA May 14 at 16:43
the questioner did not ask only for philosophical proofs – R.S. May 15 at 19:48
Why is a teleological proof not a philosophical proof? – Double AA May 17 at 2:25

There was a painter that did not believe in God. One day a fellow came to visit his house. After a while the painter had to leave, and he let the fellow remain in his house. When he returned the whole front room was repainted by the fellow. He said to him "Who painted the room?", the fellow responded "Unbelievable, while I was sitting on the couch all of a sudden a gust of wind blew in through the open window and it pried open the paint cans, and then the paint just splattered, and amazingly it repainted the entire room." The painter said "Your crazy, I am a painter and I know that it is impossible for such a thing to happen." The fellow said "Look, you feel such a thing is impossible, yet you believe that the world which is way way more complex was created on its own!".

share|improve this answer
This argues for the existence of a creator. See my comment, from just now, on the question. – msh210 Jan 31 '12 at 18:12
1  
Oh, and this answer is unsourced, despite the revised question's request for citing a source for the basis for belief. – msh210 Jan 31 '12 at 18:15
1  
The source is my common sense. – Gershon Gold Jan 31 '12 at 18:16
2  
@GershonGold Common-sense answers to this question are likely to lead to open-ended argument. – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 18:23
2  
@GershonGold, This site deals in objective facts, with the underlying assumption that traditional Judaism is binding, not in arguments and debates aimed at convincing people of this assumption. Any given source may be thought of as more or less authoritative by any given reader, and generally, "my common sense" is an acceptable, if rather unauthoritative, source. However, for this question in particular, I explicitly excluded it by asking for "According to the sources" because this question, more than most, tends toward open-ended debate. – Isaac Moses Jan 31 '12 at 18:44
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.