Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Abraham is said to have arrived at the existence of Gd in Gen Rabah 39:

אמר רבי יצחק משל לאחד שהיה עובר ממקום למקום וראה בירה אחת דולקת אמר תאמר שהבירה זו בלא מנהיג הציץ עליו בעל הבירה אמר לו אני הוא בעל הבירה כך לפי שהיה אבינו אברהם אומר תאמר שהעולם הזה בלא מנהיג הציץ עליו הקב"ה ואמר לו אני הוא בעל העולם

Rabbi Isaac said: A parable for one who was going from place to place and he saw a tower alight. He said, "could it be that this tower is without a caretaker?" The caretaker appeared to him. He said "I am the master of this tower." So to because Abraham was saying "could it be that this world has no caretaker?", Gd appeared to him and said "I am the Master of the world".

How did Abraham arrive at this conclusion? What was the "light in the tower" that lead him to reason that the must be a caretaker of the world?

I have yet to come across any absolute logical proof of Gd's existence. Even the compelling evidence for His existence is found in the words of the Torah, which wasn't around in Abraham's lifetime. In the end, it boils down to belief... right?

Are there any sources that describe Abraham's process in detail?

share|improve this question
Related (not dupe, just same midrash): judaism.stackexchange.com/q/29693/472, judaism.stackexchange.com/q/10318/472 . –  Monica Cellio Jan 2 at 19:35
Also, spitballing here, but Abraham grew up around people that worshipped many aspects of creation, (need the source of that midrash where he argues with Nimrod about fire vs water etc), perhaps Abraham concluded that separate gods vying for power would not work together so intricately or peacefully in creation, and that there had to be some unifying force that made for such harmony? –  Baby Seal Jan 2 at 20:03
This is basically, the "Watchmaker" argument for Gd. –  avi Jan 3 at 14:16
see the Shaar Yichud of Chovos haLevavos which goes through in detail the logical arguments of monotheism dafyomireview.com/article.php?docid=398 –  ray Jan 5 at 7:42
@ray It is indeed so strewn. One should therefore be careful to not be too sure of one's self in this regard. –  Double AA Jan 9 at 13:48
show 11 more comments

4 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

A Midrashic Reading:

Abraham lived in a culture that accepted the concept of a god as a given, just not the concept of one god. It was within that framework, (where the concept of deities was undisputed), that he logically presented monotheism. This is his argument, seen in Gen Rabah 38:13:

נסביה ומסריה לנמרוד א"ל נסגוד לנורא א"ל אברהם ונסגוד למיא דמטפין נורא א"ל נמרוד נסגוד למיא א"ל אם כן נסגוד לעננא דטעין מיא א"ל נסגוד לעננא א"ל אם כן נסגוד לרוחא דמבדר עננא א"ל נסגוד לרוחא א"ל ונסגוד לבר אינשא דסביל רוחא א"ל מילין את משתעי אני איני משתחוה אלא לאור הרי אני משליכך בתוכו ויבא אלוה שאתה משתחוה לו ויצילך הימנו ‏

... He took him and gave him to Nimrod. He said to him, "Let us bow to fire." Abraham said to him, "Rather we should bow to water that puts out fire." Nimrod said to him, "Let us bow to water." He said to him, "If so lets us bow to clouds that hold water." He said to him, "Let us bow to clouds." He said to him, "If so let us bow to wind that disperses clouds." He said to him, "Let us bow to wind." He said, "Rather we should bow to man that holds wind." He said to him, "You are speaking words. I only bow to fire, see I will throw you into it and let the Gd that you bow to come and save you from it!"

The עץ יוסף‏ says that Nimrod's protest of "You are speaking words" was that Abraham was making a cyclical argument, and according to him, no local aspect of creation could be worshiped.

In fact, Nimrod's decree to kill Abraham in fire completes the cycle. Fire beats man beats wind beats clouds beats water beats fire! So Abraham couldn't accept any of these gods, because each one was inferior to the other in an endless loop, (and this concept could be applied universally in creation, either through one big circle, or many smaller ones with shared aspects, if enough time was spent).

In addition, Abraham was perhaps met with another problem. How could all of these factors exist with one another in the same creation? As soon as the fire god, the water god, the cloud god, the wind god, and man came together, they would simultaneously destroy one another and cease to exist!

The עץ יוסף‏ also says that Nimrod refused to step outside of the physical plane that he could see and hear and smell and touch to consider something more.

Abraham, on the other hand, stepped outside of this endless cycle. He concluded that only One Gd, who controlled all of these conflicting aspects and was subject to none of them, could have woven them together harmoniously in to the creation that he saw.

A Logical process from Duties of the Heart:

A possible breakdown of Abraham's argument is presented in The Gate of Unity in Duties of the Heart, (translated and explained in exhaustive detail here, thank you ray!). It is much more exhaustive and detailed than the above source, and it seems to encompass the Midrashic argument of Abraham in its scope. I will attempt a cogent paraphrase, but the reader should bear in mind that it is just that and maybe not address everything that the original work does.

It is important also to bear in mind that logic, being a human construct, is always subject to the limits of humanity. This is why A person's faith is so important. A perfect argument certainly exists for Gd, but we may not have yet grasped it or codified it.

Regardless of arguments and logic, one must know Gd as a fact. Otherwise logic, being human-made, can lead a person astray6.

The Translator himself says, in his remarks: "This approach is not an attempt to answer what must be but rather to escape into endless and inconclusive speculation as to what might otherwise be."

The proof begins with three premises that once logically proven assert that the universe has a Creator that created it from nothing:

  • A thing cannot make itself: If something exists, when before it did not, either it must have created itself, or been created. If it created itself, it must have done so before it existed, in which case it was absolutely nothing1, or after it existed, in which case it did nothing. Both of these concepts are impossible. Thus it must have been created.

  • Beginnings are limited in number: Whatever has an end must have a beginning, because something which has no beginning (i.e. existed eternally) has no end (i.e. is indestructible). Given the finite nature of all of the world's causes, there must have been an absolute starting point2 3 4.

  • Anything composite, (made up of components or parts), Must have been created: It cannot consequently be eternal. Anything composite is composed of more than one thing, and these things which it is composed of must precede it by nature. Likewise, whatever assembled the compound must also precede it by nature and by time5 6.

The work proceeds to formally establish the existence of a Creator by way of the above premises. The union of conflicting elements into a coherent harmonious creation is mentioned, which seems to touch on Abraham's argument as understood above:

We do not have the capability to join the four elements, in the natural way we find them compounded in nature because they are different or even repel each other, and if we attempt to artificially combine them, the result rapidly changes and disintegrates, while the synthesis brought about through nature is complete and endures until the (appointed) time of its end...

Since all existing things that we find are from the elements, and composed of them, and we know that they were not combined on their own, and by their inherent nature do not join together because of their repelling characteristics, it is clear to us that something else must have joined them and bound them, and fused them together against their nature, by force - this is their Creator, who joined them and established their union.

1. With regard to virtual transient particles, which appear and disappear for extremely short periods of time in vacuum space and are claimed by Atheists to allow for something from nothing: 'The virtual particles "borrow" for a very short amount of time the ground energy that is already available from time/energy uncertainty principles and converts that to virtual particle with E=mc2. This does not violate the conservation laws because the kinetic energy plus mass of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. Furthermore, a space-time vacuum governed by quantum mechanics is still something. It is not nothing. We would need absolute nothingness here, as stipulated by the Author'.

2. Also, anything which has parts must have a whole, since a whole is merely the sum of parts. Something infinite can't be comprised of parts, because a part is an amount separated from another amount. Something which is infinite and has a part taken from it, will be less than what it was before. If it is still infinite, then one infinite will be greater than another infinite, which is impossible. Alternatively, if it is now finite, and we put back the part that was taken, then the whole will be finite, but it was originally infinite. The same thing being finite and infinite is a contradiction and impossible. If we take out a part of all things that have ever existed, the total number of individual things of this part is finite, therefore the whole together is also finite. if you have something non-eternal in the present, you cannot explain its existence by saying that it was the effect of something else non-eternal (its "cause"), etc. endlessly, in an infinite regress, because this is an attempt to get something from nothing, that depends ultimately upon the nonexistent.

3. Something that is infinite in actuality doesn't have quantity because infinity is not a number, it is a description. In mathematics it is possible for an infinity to be comprised of a set of units. This is possible in the realm of mathematics, but is nevertheless impossible in reality. This is because mathematics is pure human logic, which is merely a tool which we use to investigate topics, but anything it has to say on the subject is from premises which we supply. Even in mathematics, you can sometimes run into trouble if you treat infinity as a number.

4. A rock can exist forever in the past and still not be infinite, theoretically, but at some point it must have not existed as a rock since a rock cannot make itself, therefore something else caused its existence, such as energy, which also cannot make itself, etc. until you reach something of infinite nature, without beginning.

5. elementary subatomic particles can be converted to radiation whose energy can be combined and divided, and are thus composite. (Also, in kabala anything physical is viewed as a composite of physical and spiritual forces).

6. The limitations of human logic and still present attacks of these premises are addressed in the article.

(This portion of my answer is somewhat peripheral to the topic at hand as it does not deal with the existence of Gd directly, but rather with Unity of His existence).

The work then brings seven arguments for Gd's unity7:

  • Causes are always fewer than their effects, namely, the higher up one ascends into the chain of causes, the fewer the number of causes, and the more and more one ascends this chain, the fewer and fewer will be their number until eventually one reaches one Cause, which is the Cause of causes.
  • We find the world's roots and foundations to be similar in their derivatives and equal in their parts, and the signs of wisdom manifested in the smallest of the creatures as well as the biggest testify that they are the work of one Wisdom. It is also interdependent for its maintenance and welfare, like links in a coat of armor. If this world had more than one Creator, the form of wisdom would be incongruous in the different parts of the world, and change in its general nature and parts.
  • It is impossible for the existence of the world without at least one Creator. And if it were possible to conceive that the world could exist with less than one Creator, we would consider this. But since we cannot conceive that something less than one can bring anything into existence, we conclude that the Creator must be one. In the case of things which were established through logical proofs, and the proof of their existence is impossible to deny, we do not need to assume more than what is necessary to account for the phenomena which the proof demonstrates.
  • Multiple creators must either be of one essence, in which case they are one being and are one, or of different essences, in which case there is some distinction between them due to their difference and non-similarity. If so, whatever is distinct is limited/bound. And whatever is limited/bound is finite. And whatever is finite is composite, and anything composite was brought into existence, and anything brought into existence must have a Creator.
  • The idea of plurality is that of a sum of unities. Plurality therefore cannot precede unity of which it has been formed. If we discover something plural whether intellectually or through our senses, we will know with certainty that unity preceded it just like when counting things, the number one precedes the rest of the numbers. And whoever thinks the Creator is more than one, should nevertheless concede that there was a preceding unity, just as the number one precedes all of the other numbers, and just like the notion of unity precedes that of plurality. Therefore, the Creator is absolutely One, and Eternal.
  • The Creator made essence and incident. Plurality is an incidental property ascribed to the essence, and comes under the category of quantity. Since He is the Creator of essence and incident, none of these attributes can be ascribed to Him. When it is clear through scripture and reason that the Creator is above and beyond all comparison with, and similarity to, any of His creations, plurality cannot be fittingly ascribed to the Creator. If He cannot be described as plural, He must certainly be One because there is nothing in between the two possibilities.
  • If the Creator were more than one, then either each one of these supposed creators is capable of creating the world by itself, in which case the other Creator is superfluous, since the first is capable without him and does not need of the other, (and since he is not needed, and there is no evidence for more than one Creator, why should we be in doubt or be concerned for his existence?), or each is not capable without the help of the other, in which case each one of them is not all-capable and omnipotent since each lacks the necessary power and ability and was weak. And whatever is weak has a limit to his strength and power, and anything which is limited is bound, and anything which is bound is composite, and anything composite is brought into existence, and anything brought into existence has a Creator.

Lastly the works distinguishes between incidental unity and true unity and ascribes the Latter to the Creator7:

  • Incidental unity occurs in two ways. In one of them the character of plurality is apparent in it, such as one genus which includes many species or like one species which includes many individuals, and like one man which is comprised of many parts or one army which includes many men. The second way is the unity attributed to a single individual thing which does not appear to be plural, and is not a collection of several things, but it is essentially plural from the perspective of its being composed of matter and form, essence and incident, it is susceptible to "creation" and "destruction", division and combination, separation and association, change and variation.
  • True unity also has two kinds. Conceptual true unity is numerical, the symbol and representation for a beginning with no previous beginning. this is an idea, not a reality. Actual true unity exists. It is neither plural nor susceptible to change or variation, is not described by any corporeal traits, nor subject to creation, nor subject to destruction or limitation, nor motion, is not comparable to anything nor can anything be comparable to it, cannot be associated with anything. True unity and the root of everything plural and thus it foils all perspectives and perceptions, since as we demonstrated unity is the cause of plurality.
  • In essence, unity precedes plurality, just like the number one precedes the rest of the numbers, thus the First cause of everything that is plural, which was at the head of all beginnings is itself not plural. Since causes must reach a limit at their beginning, and it is not possible for a thing to make itself, it is not possible for the cause of unity and plurality to itself be of unity and plurality like them. And since the First Cause of the creations cannot itself be plural nor a combination of plurality and unity, it must necessarily be that the Cause is a true (absolute) unity7.

7. See the article for more detailed explanations, as well as questions and answers.

share|improve this answer
Do you have any reason to assume that the argument presented in Duties is the one Avraham used? If not, then I don't see why you presented it in an answer to this question. This question does not seek arguments for/against the existence of God in general. –  Double AA Jan 14 at 15:41
@DoubleAA, the last paragraph before the first break: "The work proceeds to formally establish the existence of a Creator by way of the above premises. The union of conflicting elements into a coherent harmonious creation is mentioned, (We touched on this above)." That is the reason I connected it to Abraham's process. –  Baby Seal Jan 14 at 16:24
@DoubleAA, I have edited in an excerpt that makes the connection between Abraham and Duties more clear. –  Baby Seal Jan 14 at 17:03
@DoubleAA because the shaar yichud is the correct answer, and there can only be one correct answer. hence this is the approach Avraham used. there in chapter 10: Manoach Halevavos: For spiritual matters, the torah gave few hints because this is only for the wise, and the truly wise have a single, common viewpoint, and all of them grasp exactly the same matter with only these few hints, according to what is fitting and possible for them, because the false and erroneous ways are numerous but there is only one way of truth –  ray Jan 15 at 20:40
@ray Premise two is wrong as there can be multiple independent ways of proving something. Hence your comment is 100% wrong. QED. –  Double AA Jan 15 at 20:43
show 5 more comments

This answer is taken mostly from this shiur by R. Ezra Bick from VBM

I just want to point out that this Midrash is not saying what Mideval logicians used to argue about Gd's existence. While the argument here is similar to the watchmaker argument it is also very different.

But first, we need to quote the entire Midrash, not just a small part of it:

ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך מארצך וגו' ר' יצחק פתח (תהלים מה) שמעי בת וראי והטי אזנך ושכחי עמך ובית אביך אמר רבי יצחק משל לאחד שהיה עובר ממקום למקום וראה בירה אחת דולקת אמר תאמר שהבירה זו בלא מנהיג הציץ עליו בעל הבירה אמר לו אני הוא בעל הבירה כך לפי שהיה אבינו אברהם אומר תאמר שהעולם הזה בלא מנהיג הציץ עליו הקב"ה ואמר לו אני הוא בעל העולם (שם) ויתאו המלך יפיך כי הוא אדוניך ויתאו המלך יפיך ליפותיך בעולם והשתחוי לו הוי ויאמר ה' אל אברם:‏

The Full Translation is as follows: (taken from here)

(Midrash Rabba 39,1) God spoke to Avraham: Go you from your land ….

R. Yitzchak began:

“Listen, O daughter, and look, and incline your ear; and forget you nation and your father's house” (Tehillim 45:11)

R. Yitzchak said:

This may be compared to one who was traveling from place to place, and he saw a burning mansion. He said: Is it possible that this mansion is without someone responsible? The owner of the mansion looked out at him and said: I am the owner of the mansion.

So, too, our father Avraham said: Is it possible that the world is without someone responsible? God looked out at him and said: I am the master of the world.

So the king shall desire your beauty, for he is your lord… (Ibid 12)

So the king shall desire your beauty – to beautify you in the world.

…and bow to him – that is, “and God spoke to Avraham”.

Firstly a note about the translation. The word "דולקת" can mean either "burning" or "illuminated", so depending on how you translate this word the midrash can mean two opposite things. The proper translation is "burning", but that doesn't make sense to people who view this as the watchmaker argument, and so they try to translate it as "illuminated" instead. I believe this is an incorrect translation, because of the references to Tehilim, but perhaps the writers of the Midrash did intend for both readings.

Avraham traveled "the world", moving from place to place. In every place he went he found the world "burning". He saw disorder, injustice, a dissaray of purposes and goals manifested in idolatry.

The response of avraham to a burning world was a cry out, searching for the owner. Surely there is an owner of the "building"(world) who will put out the fire, who cares that the world is on fire, and is the master of the world. The Midrash tells us that indeed, Gd called out to Avraham and said "I am the master of the master of the world." And So Gd calls out to Avraham, and tells him to leave his past, his place , his family, and to strike out to Cannan (an immoral place) and to build a new society which is Just, and build on good moral principles, and to stop the World from burning.

The Alternative meaning is that he saw a well built world, after traveling from place to place, and saw that "someone was home", (the lights were on) and assumed there must be an owner. The argument from design, or the watchmaker analogy. (My rest is my own reading, not from R. Bick) However, this interpretation does not explain the quotes from Tehilim, which ask the Daughter of king to leave her home for the right king to be annointed. If the world was built well and not burning, there would be no need to leave. She could stay where she is, but if her home is on fire, and the false kings reign, then it would be best for her to leave and find the true king.

The last reference to Tehilim tells us that Gd told Avraham to go out to the world and beautify it. Gd is the master of the world, but it is our responsibility to fix it, based on Gd's instruction.

I highly recommend reading R. Bick's article, as it goes on many other tangents and makes many good explanations about Midrash and how to read midrash, including the midrash about Abraham and Nimrod regarding the power of the elements. (but is not in the scope of this question)

So to sum up. The process that Avraham took was the opposite of the "question of evil". Avraham saw what was wrong with the world, and recognized that such a world must have an owner. For a well built tower that is burning, means there is an owner to that building.

The obvious question to all this however, is that perhaps the world/tower is burning precisely because it has no owner? But this does not hold up to scrutiny. If a tower has no owner, then it might be left to rot or decay. But why would someone burn it? Why go through the effort to destroy the tower by fire, unless it is owned by someone?

share|improve this answer
+1 thank you! One question though, as to your last paragraph, why would someone have to burn it? Why could it not have set itself on fire? I think the question is sound. Doesn't ruin the answer though. If anything it sets the stage for Nimrod's throwing Abraham in the fire. Nimrod is saying that this fire is chaotic and there is not rhyme or reason to it. Abraham was convinced that this was not the case. Gd stepped in on the side of Abraham. This understanding does mean that this process climaxed in a leap of faith though. –  Baby Seal Jan 14 at 16:39
@BabySeal I have no idea if lightning ever caused a middle eastern building to catch on fire during that era. But I would think it wan't in the realm of actual possibilities. However even if it was, in general these things speak in generalities, with the normal experiences that people have in life. Knowledge of rare events normally should not impact how you understand a midrash. –  avi Jan 14 at 16:42
@BabySeal one important note from R. Bick, is that the midrash about Nimrod, is not in the same collection of Midrashim as the Midrash Rabbah, and the incident is never referenced either. –  avi Jan 14 at 16:46
The parable is just that. It doesn't need to mirror a natural occurrence per se. You argue that because it was set on fire Abraham concluded that there must be an active force destroying it. But why could it not have been set ablaze by a mob, or by the negligent inhabitants of the tower, (or if we remove people from the parable by a stray forest fire), and it continues to burn due to a lack of a caretaker? –  Baby Seal Jan 14 at 17:15
And the Nimrod Midrash is in the Rabbah. I have seen it inside and quoted it in my answer. So it is from the same collection, as far as I can tell. –  Baby Seal Jan 14 at 17:20
show 2 more comments

Rambam Avodas Kochavim 1 3 says it all

כיון שנגמל איתן זה התחיל לשוטט בדעתו והוא קטן והתחיל לחשוב ביום ובלילה והיה תמיה היאך אפשר שיהיה הגלגל הזה נוהג תמיד ולא יהיה לו מנהיג ומי יסבב אותו, כי אי אפשר שיסבב את עצמו, ולא היה לו מלמד ולא מודיע דבר אלא מושקע באור כשדים בין עובדי כוכבים הטפשים ואביו ואמו וכל העם עובדי כוכבים והוא עובד עמהם ולבו משוטט ומבין עד שהשיג דרך האמת והבין קו הצדק מתבונתו הנכונה, וידע שיש שם אלוה אחד והוא מנהיג הגלגל והוא ברא הכל ואין בכל הנמצא אלוה חוץ ממנו, וידע שכל העולם טועים ודבר שגרם להם לטעות זה שעובדים את הכוכבים ואת הצורות עד שאבד האמת מדעתם, ובן ארבעים שנה הכיר אברהם את בוראו, כיון שהכיר וידע התחיל להשיב תשובות על בני אור כשדים ולערוך דין עמהם ולומר שאין זו דרך האמת שאתם הולכים בה ושיבר הצלמים והתחיל להודיע לעם שאין ראוי לעבוד אלא לאלוה העולם ולו ראוי להשתחוות ולהקריב ולנסך כדי שיכירוהו כל הברואים הבאים, וראוי לאבד ולשבר כל הצורות כדי שלא יטעו בהן כל העם כמו אלו שהם מדמים שאין שם אלוה אלא אלו. כיון שגבר עליהם בראיותיו בקש המלך להורגו ונעשה לו נס ויצא לחרן, והתחיל לעמוד ולקרוא בקול גדול לכל העולם ולהודיעם שיש שם אלוה אחד לכל העולם ולו ראוי לעבוד, והיה מהלך וקורא ומקבץ העם מעיר לעיר ומממלכה לממלכה עד שהגיע לארץ כנען והוא קורא שנאמר ויקרא שם בשם ה' אל עולם, וכיון שהיו העם מתקבצין אליו ושואלין לו על דבריו היה מודיע לכל אחד ואחד כפי דעתו עד שיחזירהו לדרך האמת עד שנתקבצו אליו אלפים ורבבות והם אנשי בית אברהם ושתל בלבם העיקר הגדול הזה וחבר בו ספרים והודיעו ליצחק בנו, וישב יצחק מלמד ומזהיר, ויצחק הודיע ליעקב ומינהו ללמד וישב מלמד ומחזיק כל הנלוים אליו, ויעקב אבינו למד בניו כולם והבדיל לוי ומינהו ראש והושיבו בישבה ללמד דרך השם ולשמור מצות אברהם, וצוה את בניו שלא יפסיקו מבני לוי ממונה אחר ממונה כדי שלא תשכח הלמוד, והיה הדבר הולך ומתגבר בבני יעקב ובנלוים עליהם ונעשית בעולם אומה שהיא יודעת את ה', עד שארכו הימים לישראל במצרים וחזרו ללמוד מעשיהן ולעבוד כוכבים כמותן חוץ משבט לוי שעמד במצות אבות, ומעולם לא עבד שבט לוי עבודת כוכבים, וכמעט קט היה העיקר ששתל אברהם נעקר וחוזרין בני יעקב לטעות העולם ותעיותן, ומאהבת ה' אותנו ומשמרו את השבועה לאברהם אבינו עשה משה רבינו רבן של כל הנביאים ושלחו, כיון שנתנבא משה רבינו ובחר ה' ישראל לנחלה הכתירן במצות והודיעם דרך עבודתו ומה יהיה משפט עבודת כוכבים וכל הטועים אחריה.

Or as is translated on Chabad.org

After this mighty man was weaned, he began to explore and think. Though he was a child, he began to think [incessantly] throughout the day and night, wondering: How is it possible for the sphere to continue to revolve without having anyone controlling it? Who is causing it to revolve? Surely, it does not cause itself to revolve.

share|improve this answer
Welcome welcome! I appreciate this source, thank you. The text itself doesn't go in to much more detail than the Midrash does, though. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit in your own words on what Maimonides' understanding of Abraham's process was? Also, only the first five lines or so is really pertinent to the question. Consider editing out the rest, and providing a translation for those newer to Judaism. –  Baby Seal Jan 14 at 23:14
add comment

Abraham realized that everything has a cause, and complex systems don't arise out of nothingness; Someone has to create them.

share|improve this answer
Why must everything have a cause? –  Double AA Jan 3 at 3:16
Everyone agrees that the universe had to start some where. That starting point, or base fact, can be any number of things though, be they Gd or other wise. –  Baby Seal Jan 3 at 5:40
only problem with this logic, is why does it not apply to the Creator? –  ray Jan 3 at 12:14
@DoubleAA Not sure about "everything", but because evidently there is "change", it seems logical that there is a cause for every change. If everything seemed constant I'd be more likely to question the existence of any cause since it would appear futile and illogical. If logic helps us understand reality more often than not, and hardly ever leads us astray, then it would seem a reliable methodology by which to draw conclusions in the absence of absolute certainty and perfect knowledge. –  Sam Jan 3 at 12:45
@DoubleAA the problem here is the idea that the world was created out of "nothing" or "nothingness". These are two words which cannot possibly have a tangible meaning in the material or non-material world. They are descriptive permutations of letters that only imply a lack of knowledge about what is actually being referred to or an absence of anything we do know about and have more specific words for. –  Sam Jan 3 at 12:52
show 3 more comments

Your Answer


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.