In several articles that have appeared here in the past, I have dealt with arguments for the existence of God. One of the common arguments in response to such arguments is that the stronger the evidence, the thinner the claims they manage to prove. For example, proofs of the existence of God as the first cause prove no more than some force that is the first cause of the existence of reality. They say almost nothing about the properties of that force, do not prove that it has the same properties that are commonly attributed to God (such as being good, commanding, or supervising), and certainly do not prove the truth of a particular religion. In fact, such an anemic God has almost no practical or intellectual implications. Many secular people, and even certain atheists, would be willing to admit the existence of such a vague "primary force." But of course, we want much more.
It is possible to talk about three stages in the "identity" of God. The first stage is the Deistic God, which is the minimal in terms of his actions and attributes. As described above, its sole purpose is to serve as the first cause of the existence of the universe and the laws of nature, and perhaps to explain a few more phenomena. The second stage is the Theistic God, to whom more attributes are attributed: intelligence, will, goodness, providence, and so on. He is often perceived as a person, with qualities similar to those of human beings (although approaches such as that of Maimonides reject such anthropomorphism). The third stage is the Religious God, identified with a particular religion, which attributes to him many more qualities, such as commanding certain commandments, historical revelations, and so on.
As mentioned above, most people have no problem defining some basic force as "God" in the Deistic sense of the term. This is a God who demands nothing and bothers no one. The main argument is about the Theistic God, which already has far-reaching intellectual and practical implications. And of course, even if we agree on the existence of a Theistic God, the question still remains whether he commanded any religion, and if so, which one.
What I will try to do in the following is to show that the transition from the existence of the Deistic God to the recognition of the truth of Judaism as a divine religion is a logical, reasonable, and convincing transition. Do not expect to find here crushing and irrefutable proofs, because I do not pretend to claim that I have any. At every stage of the process, it is possible to disagree and argue "who said?" and "maybe not?". I am well aware of this, so there is no need for you to bother. But this should not be surprising; in no field in the world are there absolute and unequivocal proofs. Every proof is based on basic assumptions, and basic assumptions are based on intuition and probability, not on solid rock. What can be shown is that these claims are reasonable and acceptable, and therefore that there is reason to adopt them and act accordingly. Anyone who is not willing to lift a finger without absolute proof will probably remain paralyzed all his life.
Well, let's assume that we have agreed on the existence of a supreme power behind the creation of the universe and the laws of nature, perhaps based on arguments such as those presented in the articles "The Gravity of God" and "God Beyond Doubt." How do we proceed from here? Assuming that such a God exists, we can reasonably attribute to him three basic qualities: power, intelligence, and will. Power - because the existence of power is necessary to create the universe; intelligence - because it is necessary to plan the universe; and will - to choose which of the different possibilities to bring into being.
Those intelligence and will do not have to be identical to human ones. These are qualities that can be attributed by way of analogy to computers, for example. It can be said that the Windows system has intelligence, which allows it to "know" all the data contained in the computer, and will, as a result of which it performs certain actions and not others. These are definitely not human intelligence and will, of course, but those qualities can be called by those names. Minimally, "intelligence" can be defined as an affinity to all relevant factors and data, and "will" as the force that leads to certain possibilities being realized and not others. Therefore, from the very existence of the universe, and from the fact that it exists in a certain form and not another, it seems reasonable to say that the God behind it also has intelligence and will in some sense. It may not be necessary - but it is certainly reasonable.
What do this intelligence and will of God include? It may be no more than the basic creation of the universe, or of the laws of nature that led to the appearance of the universe. It is possible that all God did was press the initial activation button, and everything that happens afterwards does not interest him. But there are several reasons to believe that God is interested in the universe in a broader way. First, the amazing complexity found in parts of creation, and in particular in the animal world and in biological systems, creates a strong impression of planning - that is, of a phenomenon behind which there is intelligence and will. The theory of evolution tries to explain all these phenomena without assuming planning behind them, but even if its explanation is possible (which is debatable), it still does not make it the more reasonable explanation. It is more reasonable to assume that there is planning at some stage of the process - the only reason to reject this is metaphysical stinginess, or the fear of involving supernatural factors in scientific research. But if we have already assumed the existence of a "supernatural" planner at the general level of the universe, there is no reason not to assume that his planning goes down to the smallest details of the system, including the appearance and properties of animals and humans. In other words, it is a reasonable assumption that God's will and intelligence do not only relate to the general existence of the universe, but also to what happens within it at a more detailed level, down to the design of the bodies and properties of human beings.
Another reason to believe that God's interest in the world did not end at the moment of creation is the universal and continuous sovereignty of the laws of nature over all parts of the universe. We take for granted the fact that forces such as gravity, or the law of conservation of matter and energy, operate constantly and unchangeably on all parts of the world. But what are those forces at all, and what is the reason that they operate in this way? As Yuval Steinitz shows at length and clearly in his book "A Scientific Logical Missile to God and Back," since the laws of nature are not part of the material world, they necessarily exist in the spirit, that is, in the spirit of God who is immaterial, and his constant will is necessary to enforce them at every moment on all the countless particles of the universe. Without this constant will, inanimate matter - which is dead and devoid of any power of its own - would not obey gravity, the law of conservation of energy, or anything else. Therefore, it should be assumed that God is still interested in the world and watches over it, and did not depart from it after pressing the first button. I will not elaborate on this, and whoever wants to expand will read the book.
We see, therefore, that it is reasonable to assume that God's will and intelligence include all parts of the universe, from the general to the particular, and at all times. The very fact that the universe exists at this moment as it is now is because God wants it to be so at this moment. Without that will, the laws of nature and the universe would not continue to exist at all, or would not have reached the current form they have reached. And since all natural systems are integrated and connected to each other, once we have assumed that God is interested in some of them, there is no reason to make a division and distinction and claim that he is not interested in other systems. If we return to the example of Windows, once we recognize the existence of such a basic operating system, the reasonable possibility is to attribute to it the responsibility for everything that happens throughout the computer, and not to remove certain programs from its scope without a special reason. And so also regarding God: that primary force that is responsible for the existence of the universe and its properties is also responsible for the small details that have emerged in it, and not only for the planning "in general."
If these things are true, then the existence of human beings and their characteristics are as they are because God wanted them to be that way. When God began to set the wheels of the universe in motion somewhere in the past, He adjusted them in such a way that after one process or another, human beings would be created in the world identical to those that actually exist. In order for the existence of human beings to be possible, the potential for their creation must already be hidden in the basic data of creation, and therefore it is reasonable to attribute it to God, and not to see man as just some random and unplanned incident (especially since we do not know of the existence of any creature more sublime or developed than man).
And here the question arises: Did that God designate for human beings any specific purpose, beyond their very existence? Is there any way for them to connect with Him?
It is difficult to answer this question. We cannot begin to guess what is happening in God's mind, and what intentions and plans He may have. It is possible that He has none at all, in the human sense and as we perceive it; it is possible that He has different and strange goals, which we cannot imagine. Perhaps our place in His plan is no more important than that of bacteria or grains of dust; perhaps He created us only for amusement, or for observation and learning purposes. Anything is possible.
But here we must pay attention to one fact. We may not know God, but we do know man - and we know that the urge to search for God, and the longing for an encounter with Him, is inherently ingrained in man. It is no coincidence that belief in God, or in gods, in one form or another, has developed in all nations and all cultures without exception. It is no accident that the vast majority of humanity has believed in God throughout the generations, and continues to believe even today. Beliefs and religions have greatly influenced and shaped all of human culture. Only a blind and insensitive person can claim that the religious impulse is nothing more than an attempt to deal with questions about nature, or with the fear of death. Anyone who has ever had a real spiritual experience knows how ridiculous this claim is. Man's spiritual quest, and his striving for infinity, go far beyond any such minimalist psychological explanation, and cannot be reduced to such an explanation. It must be recognized: man by nature is a seeker of God.
And if we assumed that man is as he is because God wanted him to be so, and we further assumed that the religious impulse is a trait inherent in man - then the reasonable conclusion is that God is the one who instilled this impulse in man. This is not some random and strange creation of evolution (which is difficult to understand what the survival benefit is, and how it justifies the price it exacts from man), but an essential part of man, as God wanted it to be. And if God instilled in man the urge to seek after Him, it is indeed possible that He did so for some incomprehensible reasons - but it is also very possible that He did so because He wants man to actually seek after Him, and make contact with Him in some way.
In other words, if we assume a connection between the existence of man and his characteristics and the will of God, then it is possible to guess from those characteristics what God's will was for man; and it would be reasonable to assume that this will includes the fulfillment of the urge to search for God, which is inherent in man.
Let's assume that we agreed to all this. Is there indeed a way in which we can fulfill our urge for an encounter with God? Is there a way to connect with Him? If there is such a way, and God wants us to go that way, it is reasonable to assume that He also gave us the means to discover it - either through reason and thought, or through divine revelation. What we need to do is to find out if there are people who claim that they have discovered this way, and to examine their claims.
Here we are already entering into an interfaith inquiry. As is known, the various religions claim, each of them, that they have the way to connect with God and connect to Him. It is possible that they are all right to one degree or another, and it is possible that they are all wrong. But if, as mentioned, we assume that God wanted us to seek Him and draw closer to Him, it is reasonable to assume that at least one of the ways to do so has indeed been revealed to human beings, and if so, it is reasonable to assume that there is at least one religion that fulfills this purpose.
Which is that religion? Every religion claims that it is the right one, and I will not enter here into the debate and clarification of the various claims of all of them. But simply put, it is possible to point out some prominent advantages of Judaism in relation to other religions. First, in relation to the Eastern religions, most of them are not based on divine revelation, but on philosophical insights and spiritual enlightenment. It is possible to assume that divine revelation - if there is such a thing - will constitute a more reliable source of information about God than human speculation. Since Judaism claims such a revelation, it is appropriate to pay more attention to it than to religions that admit that they are based on human reason alone. And in relation to Christianity and Islam, these two religions admit that Judaism is a divine religion, and base themselves on the tradition of its revelation, only that they both claim that its time has passed in favor of one of them. And since Christianity and Islam negate and neutralize each other, and on the face of it there is no reason to prefer one of them over the other - Judaism remains as the basis that everyone agrees on, which gives it an advantage.
It is also possible to point to the exceptional history of the people of Israel, which has no equal in the history of mankind - an entire people that went into exile, survived in it for thousands of years and preserved its existence and religion in the face of all kinds of threats and dangers, and finally returned to its land, revived its language, and re-established a prosperous state to glory. This phenomenon is unique and amazing in itself - and even more so, when it turns out that the Torah accurately predicted this process, in every detail. Looking back, everything seems natural and self-evident to us, but if we had lived at the time of the writing of the Torah, what probability would we have given to the fact that this is exactly what would happen? Why assume that there will be an exile at all - it's not as if every nation goes into exile sometime? And if they do go out, then usually they either settle in another country, or assimilate, or are destroyed; nations greater and stronger than us did not survive the exile, and their religions and idols have long been forgotten, while we not only survived, but also returned to our land and won it again - exactly as written in the Torah! One must be quite blind and stubborn to treat this as something "self-evident". So proof it may not be, but an argument in favor of Judaism - definitely yes.
It is possible to bring other arguments for preferring Judaism over other religions, and I will not elaborate on this, as the things are found in abundance in various books and articles. It is possible that the various religions also have claims of their own, but if so, their representatives are welcome to present them - it is not the function of this article to conduct an interfaith debate, but only to show the logic in choosing the Jewish religion as a way of life.
What we have, then, is a kind of pincer movement: when we start from above, we infer the existence of a God with power, intelligence, and will, and assume accordingly that He created man as he is, and instilled in him the religious impulse. However, we do not yet know how to realize it. And when we start from below, we find various religions claiming the existence of a message from God, and guiding how to realize the religious impulse; and among these religions, the Jewish tradition of divine revelation has significant advantages over the other religions, and there are good reasons to believe that it is indeed based on genuine revelation.
So if we have on the one hand God, who seems very reasonable in Himself, and on the other hand Judaism, which seems reasonable and convincing in itself - what is more reasonable than to close the pincers and connect them, by assuming that the way to realize the religious impulse is through Judaism, and that the God that Judaism speaks of is indeed God, the first cause and creator of the world? Thus philosophy meets religious tradition, and the connection between them seems plausible, more than the assumption that the two movements do not meet each other - that the religious impulse was instilled in us in vain, and that Judaism is based on error. Again, one can of course argue this, and it is impossible to prove otherwise; but in my opinion the course I have described is reasonable and plausible, and that is all I wanted to achieve.
The conclusion, then, is that if we assume the existence of God as a supreme power, we can, through a few simple assumptions, reach the conclusion that that supreme power is identical to the God of Judaism. Whoever believes in such a power has a good reason not to remain with the abstract deistic God, but to move to the more tangible theistic God, and from there to the God of Israel. All that is needed is to assume a connection between God and the characteristics of man, to trust in the religious impulse, and to trust in the testimonies and tradition about revelation.
There is of course room for various questions and difficulties about this identification between the "general" God and the God of Israel, and you are welcome to send them to me; but on the face of it this seems like a reasonable and logical identification, and whoever wants to refute it - the burden of proof is on him.
