I received your letter, with the enclosed question from the young men and women. Please apologize to them on my behalf for the delayed response. I was especially preoccupied throughout the days and weeks before and after Pesach.

As the question itself cannot be fully dealt with in a letter, I must limit my response to several fundamental points. However, I hope that you will be able to add your own explanation to these points in my letter, based on the teachings of our Torah and especially the teachings of Chassidut.

Needless to say, if any aspects of my letter are not sufficiently clear, I am always ready to respond to further inquiries—and even challenges or refutations—that I will endeavor to answer to the best of my knowledge.
In response to the question:

“Is there a convincing proof for the existence of the Creator that could satisfy us as skeptics beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt?”

¹ At first glance the question seems simple enough, especially since the concepts are straightforward and the terms familiar. But this apparent simplicity is deceptive, and to address the question properly requires clarity of language and careful definition of terms. In particular, what do we mean by “existence” and “proof” of existence? We must start here because these words mean very different things to different people. For example, that which constitutes complete proof for a young child may be totally inadequate for a meticulous scientist, and vice versa.

For instance, some say that for children, existence and proof of existence apply only to tangible objects—“seeing is believing.”

Included in this kind of proof is the general idea of a report. This too is a proof based on perception, except that it is someone else’s perception. Consider, for example, a person born blind who has never seen the shade of pink called magenta. Does he have convincing proof of that color’s existence? Surely he will rely on the perceptions of others who tell him that such a thing as light exists, that it comes in various colors, and that these colors come in different shades, one of which is magenta. Although magenta transcends anything in his experience, he has absolutely no trouble believing in it because he trusts other people’s reported perceptions.

At a more abstract level, another perfectly acceptable kind of proof is reasoning from effect to cause. Everyone acknowledges with complete certainty that everything that happens has a reason and cause for happening. Thus, when one sees actions, these themselves are proof of an activating force, although this is not direct proof and superficially, there appears to be room for doubt. A classic example is the existence of electricity. Man is a sentient being; his sense of sight verifies the existence of colors, his sense of hearing verifies the existence of sound, and so on. These are considered complete, direct proofs; yet, while we can sense current, man has no faculty to perceive electric potential, or voltage. We only see its effects, such as a filament glowing or a voltmeter’s needle moving. Still, we are certain of our conclusion that some imperceptible force exists, which we term electricity, which is the underlying cause of what we do see. This is considered conclusive proof in the same way one proves the existence of magnetism and other forces. Electricity is a prime example because its existence is universally accepted beyond any shadow of doubt.

The scientist’s faith in cause and effect is so intense that he will accept as undisputed fact the existence of an activating force, even if it plainly contradicts rationality. A case in point is the force of gravity. We are so familiar with the idea of gravity from every science book throughout our school years that no one would dream of questioning it, although rationally it is far more difficult to accept than electricity. Electricity is only imperceptible when it is still, but when it flows it can be felt and measured. Not so with gravity: no one has ever seen, felt, or measured a wave or particle of gravity. Our only proof that the force of gravity exists is that physical bodies move. But how can a force act from afar with no intermediary whatsoever between the masses? With a remote-controlled garage door or toy, a flow of measurable infrared or radio waves exists, but with gravity, nothing exists but the simple faith that every action has a cause.

At first scientists attempted to explain the force of gravity by positing the existence of a fine mediating substance called ether. But that idea was abandoned because the proposed medium would necessarily have possessed so many contradictory properties that it became even more implausible than the alternative absurdity of remote action without any connection.

Anyone in the exact sciences wondering whether the existence of the Creator can be reliably proven should consider another “standard” concept, derived from the realm of physics. This notion is so intellectually challenging that after many decades of study, even the experts admit that it is beyond their comprehension. Nonetheless, all exact scientists accept it as a reality, and the public regards it as a proven fact.

The idea referred to is that matter is nothing but a particular form of energy, and that one can transform matter into energy and vice versa. Superficially it may be hard to see what is so difficult about this notion of relativity. However, if one takes a moment to consider the degree of similarity between the light now emanating from his bulb, and the shoe on his foot, and then tries to imagine converting one into the other and back again, the problem becomes crystal clear. Everything in our experience leads us to think that matter and energy are as fundamentally different as two things can be. Therefore, to say that they are equivalent does not even sound, say, reasonable-but-difficult; it simply sounds ridiculous.

As with gravity, the only compelling proof for relativity is that we observe apparently inexplicable events, and by accepting the theory, they are explained. This is considered scientific proof and, on this basis alone, relativity is accepted virtually universally as conclusively demonstrated beyond the faintest doubt, although from a strictly rational standpoint the equivalence of matter and energy is not at all compelling.

People act in accordance with their beliefs, and skeptics are no different. Hence, we can reasonably expect that a skeptic will feel free to use as a basis for his conduct any ideas shown to meet his criteria of legitimacy. On this basis, there is not only one, but several proofs for the existence of G d and, as mentioned, no problem exists if one is forced to say that this existence is not grasped by the senses or the mind, or even if it contradicts rationality. As long as this posited being accounts for observed reality, and does so better than any other proposition, we have what is usually considered conclusive, scientific proof.

In this sense, proving the existence of the Creator is identical to proving anything else, whether in the realm of science or in the context of our daily lives.

Anyone who examines his daily conduct will admit that he doesn’t perform a penetrating, thorough analysis assessing the reliability of the information on which he bases his daily activities. If the weather forecast calls for rain, he wears his boots although he has never met the weatherman or studied meteorology, and he even knows that the weatherman is often wrong. For another example, if Vitamin E is reported to cure baldness, he will take it without knowing for sure how it works or if it works. He’ll take it without even knowing what it is. Rather, he accepts the words of others who did investigate the matter.

Only where one suspects that the “information” was falsified, or that the observer’s perception was affected by internal or external factors, or that he wasn’t sure himself and followed someone else’s view, etc., would one seek additional evidence. With every increase in the number of observers, and with every type of variation in position, situation, and context relative to the observers, the possibility of deception becomes more remote and the evidence is strengthened in the form of a scientific and convincing proof. On this basis, the individual and society engage in all kinds of projects and activities, with complete trust that their conclusions are true and established.

So too in our case: The giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai was verified, generation after generation, as witnessed by 600,000 adult males. If one includes women, children, Levites, men over sixty, Egyptian emigrants, etc., millions of individuals were present who saw the events with their own eyes and experienced Divine communication personally and simultaneously.

This testimony is not restricted to a single prophet, dreamer, or elite group. This testimony was transmitted from parent to child, generation after generation, and it is generally acknowledged that the transmission has continued uninterrupted from then until now. Moreover, no generation has ever  contained fewer than 600,000 reporters—people whose characters were dissimilar and who were by no means afraid to disagree on basic issues, as is well documented from Sinai on. Yet, despite all their differences and arguments, and despite their dispersion throughout the world for millennia, all reports of the above historical event coincide in every detail. Is there any more reliable and precise testimony than this?

A second manner of proof exists, also based on the above premise—that everything that happens has a cause, that seeing any event or situation is proof positive that some guiding force exists, even if the event was apparently senseless or destructive. This proof is as follows:

Consider any object. Virtually anything conceivable is composed of various parts arranged and coordinated with remarkable precision. None of the parts has any inherent control over the others, so we know that the unified and harmonious functioning of the entire system is itself a significant phenomenon that must be due to some cause. We conclude from this with complete confidence that an external power exists that binds and unifies all the parts. Moreover, the very fact that this force binds and unifies the parts proves that it is stronger than they are, since it controls them.

For example, were we to enter an automated factory and see no one, we would not doubt the existence and involvement of a great mechanic whose knowledge encompassed all the machinery and component parts, and who controlled them—one who was in charge of their functioning among themselves and who maintained the connection between the parts and the control center. On the contrary—the more concealed the hand of man in such a factory, and the more the operations are automated, the more impressed and convinced we are of the mechanic’s remarkable skill.

If this is so with a factory containing hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of parts, certainly this holds true of natural objects, such as a piece of wood or stone, a plant or an animal, and—needless to say—the structure of the human body, as Job states, “From my flesh I will apprehend G d.”² This is all the more relevant from the scientific perspective that every object contains billions of atoms, each containing numerous even more minute parts. One would think that chaos would reign and yield incomparable disorder. Instead, we witness extraordinary orderliness and a marvelous complement between the smaller parts and the larger, up to the very largest, as well as the integration of microcosmic and macrocosmic patterns and processes, and so on. It is therefore clear beyond any shadow of doubt that a “Mechanic” responsible for all this organization exists.

Some say that all this is governed according to the “laws of nature,” but I think it is important to emphasize that such expressions provide no explanation, but merely give a convenient summary or description of the existing situation. That is, it is true that natural phenomena are conducted according to definite patterns. But to say that a “Law of Nature” is an independent being, and that this being rules throughout the cosmos, and that thousands of similar beings exist, corresponding to the number of natural laws, is so absurd that not one scientist in the field would say so. Rather, such laws are merely convenient, summary expressions describing a complex situation, obviating the need to repeat at every turn a lengthy description of the “simple” facts. But however elegant and sophisticated a law of nature may be, it is abundantly clear that such an expression provides no explanation whatsoever.

Now to the heart of the matter. To put it plainly, everyone has criteria for what can be reliably considered true. If an idea meets those standards, it is fit to be believed and enacted. If it does not, it is unsuitable for belief or as a basis for action. But it is intellectually dishonest to adopt certain truth criteria when convenient, and drop them when not. Therefore, it is assumed that anyone seeking proof is doing so not merely for the sake of intellectual exercise and gratification, but with the intention of living by his conclusions.

Furthermore, the aforementioned proof is far stronger than the “proofs” and “evidence” by which people conduct their daily lives. What simpler illustration than the fact that when retiring at night we arrange everything for the morning, although no logical proof exists that tomorrow morning the sun will rise yet again and that all natural systems will continue to function as they did yesterday and the day before. It is only that since the world has worked this way for so many days and years, we trust that these “laws” will continue tomorrow and the next day.

On this basis alone we strive and trouble ourselves to prepare our affairs for the following morning, although we have no logically compelling reason to do so. On the contrary, if chance or random probabilities were running the show, it would be more reasonable to assume that tomorrow will be utterly un¬predictable. The conviction that nature will continue to function as it did today is only logically compelling when based on the knowledge that a Master of the world actually exists.

Although my points could be elaborated further, this should suffice and provide enough material for consideration and conclusion. For it is incorrect to maintain that the Creator’s existence requires proof, while His Creation itself exists beyond doubt, because in fact the opposite is true! Recent results of scientific research regarding the existence of the universe and ways to “describe” it, contradict one another in numerous areas and indeed leave room for major doubts. But the most serious, significant, and fundamental scientific doubt is as follows:

Who can establish whether the perceived impression of the eyes, the ears, or the brain generally, has any reality outside human sensation and thought? This argument poses an insurmountable challenge to the truth of the world’s existence but in no way applies to the Creator, nor to the functional reality of event causation and universal order. For this, practically speaking, it does not matter whether an independent reality exists, or merely the impression of such a reality. The primary consideration of the average person, according to which he lives his entire life, is that for everything in his world a cause exists which acts, from within or without.

Furthermore, often human nature is such that a simple proof is difficult to accept because of its very simplicity. Such irrational rejection is unfortunate, as it precludes any effect on personal behavior, while one of the foundations of our belief in the universe’s Creator and Director, as well as the Revelation at Sinai and the receiving of the Torah and its mitzvot, is that the quality of a person’s deeds is what matters most.

I will be pleased to hear responses to all the above, and as mentioned in the enclosed letter, I hope they will feel completely free to present their opinions, even if they disagree with what is written above.

² Iyov 19:26

---

Bookmark this!