The significance of God
What is God’s significance relative to the nations in general?
What is God’s significance relative to the individual?
Is there any difference in significance between one nation and another?
The God of this world
Has God’s significance vis-à-vis this world always existed, or did it begin at a certain point in time? Is God’s significance also relevant to the afterlife? And will we, as created beings, also be there? For how long? Does it depend on something else? How will we exist in the afterlife: as a body or a soul? Is there any proof of an afterlife? Of eternal reward? And is there any proof of the existence of a soul?
Who is God? Does he have a body, or the form of a body? Does he need us as created beings? Do we need him? Can we manage without him? What does he do for us? How does he benefit us? Does he protect us from the evil that exists in the world? What can we, as a specific nation or particular individual, do for God? Does he ever reveal himself in the world? To whom, and how? Does he ask anything of anyone, and in return for something? Until when will God exist? Until when will we exist? Is our existence dependent on his?
Convincing an atheist in 5 minutes!
In just 5 minutes you can convince someone, even without proofs as presented above, and without an in-depth study. Anyone with a grain of sense. And convince a non-Jew to unequivocally observe the 7 Noahide Laws rather than be a secularist. In 5 minutes.
Listen to what’s written, and tell me if I’m not right. After we present the proof offered by the Torah of Israel and from science, proof which says there is reward and penalty, and there is an afterlife, if we didn’t know all this and didn’t want to believe it, it’s still possible to convince a person that it’s better to observe the 7 Noahide Laws than be a secularist.
Let’s check that now in 5 minutes.
The atheist says: “There’s no afterlife. When a person dies, they disintegrate, they don’t feel anything, they don’t know anything. They become dirt.”
The believer says: “A righteous person goes to Paradise, an evil one to Hell.”
And both of them say they are completely right.
This one says: “I’m 100% correct.”
That one says: “I’m 100% correct.”
So we need to decide: should we tend to believe the atheist or the believer? How can we reach a conclusion?
The conclusion is simple. There’s only one truth. Either there is an afterlife, and reward and punishment, or there’s nothing and a person dies and feels nothing more.
Right now, both have an equal chance. The atheist, and the believer. Their chances are equal: if the atheist is right, they’ll die and where will they go? Into a state of disintegration and nothing more. No feelings, no knowledge, nothing. They become dirt. If the atheist is right, when the believer dies, from the atheist’s perspective where does the believer go? Exactly the same: disintegration, nothingness, feeling nothing, knowing nothing, becoming dirt.
So if the atheist is right, there’s a 50% chance they’ll both just disintegrate into nothing.
If the person fulfilling the commandments is right, there’s a 50% chance that the person will go to heaven. After all, that person worked throughout her or his life fulfilling commandments in order to go to heaven.
We need to know another thing: if the observant believer is right and the atheist dies, where will the atheist go? To Hell, for not having kept any of the commandments. The atheist may well have seemingly “profited” from this world, but since the atheist made no investment in this world for the next, the atheist goes to hell.
So let’s look at the final balance: if the atheist is right, she or he will simply disintegrate. If the atheist is wrong, she or he will go to hell. Either way, there’s nothing good about that state.
So the only one with a 50% chance of reaching paradise is the one who observes the commandments.
So if you’re given a 50% chance of reaching heaven, that’s a chance, not a promise. Compared to zero % chances, what’s preferable? 50% of course.
Imagine if it was announced tomorrow that anyone buying a lottery ticket has a 1 in 2 chance, that’s 50%, of winning. Would there be any tickets leftover? None at all!
So if those are the chances, and here we’re not talking about a lottery for a million shekels, but for your life, for eternal life, how can you pass up a chance to buy into it?
Let’s ask another question. If God forbid you’re in hospital and the department’s Professor comes along and says: “Sorry, but you’ve only got 2 weeks left to live, and no better chances than that.” Is there anything you can do about it? Just two weeks!
So you plead: “Maybe you can check again? Maybe something can be done?”
And the Professor answers: “No, nothing can be done.”
So you start to cry. I’m just passing through the ward, and I see you and ask: “But why?”
This is what you tell me: “I just got told that the Angel of Death is going to be visiting this ward and who’s he picked from everyone here? Me!”
“Who told you that?”
“What are the chances?” I ask.
“100%. In two weeks.”
So I say: “I’m no Professor, but you’ve got a 10% chance of living, if you adopt the 7 Noahide Laws right now! Do you agree?”
Now we see how, for a 10% chance of living another few years, you’re willing to repent; so for a 50% chance, you’d surely want to try for heaven and eternal life and you’d repent
Let’s ask a further question. Let’s say that God forbid you’d been notified that in your neighborhood there’s a 10% chance that the water has been poisoned. Would you drink it?
“Of course not!”
Question: Why wouldn’t you drink it if there’s a mere 10% chance that the water’s poisoned? After all, there’s a 90% chance that it hasn’t been and it’s ok to drink.
“I’m not taking any chances!”
Now pay attention! The atheist’s path is a 100% risk. But the believer’s path carries a 50% chance. And you said you don’t want to take the risk. So from today on, which is it?
Here’s another question: in the comparison I just did, for the 50% who have a chance of heaven, it would seem to demand a high price. They need to uphold the 7 Noahide Laws! And they can’t live their lives the way they want to. They could be missing out on amazing lives for no good reason! Maybe they’re missing out on 70 years of amazing living and then afterwards, there’s nothing?
It would seem that the asker is right. But wait a second. We all live some 70 years. You live the way you like to live, I live the way I like to live. Does it look to you like anything’s missing from my life?
“No. But what if I don’t like the way you live your life?”
“Okay, you’re right. So listen. If you live 70 years the way you want to, what is it that you want? Do you want a yacht? Such a wonderful luxury! Please, go ahead. Do you want a ton of money? Please, go ahead. Do you want a cigarette to drag on? Please, go ahead. But it’s all nonsense… though please, go ahead. And we’re not done yet, because your 70 years are up one day, but if there’s an afterlife, then you’ll exist eternally in hell, do you have any idea what kind of punishment that is? And that’s because you have a 50% chance, compared to a zero chance by contrast.
Everything that science has discovered already appears in the Jewish Talmud
In an international magazine, Sparks, a scientist claims that in fact he sees the current situation of scientists zeroing in on the world and [producing] an answer on the world’s creation, the initial point, the start, and so on.
He says that in fact he sees scientists as climbing on burning mountains in order to reach the peak and look beyond them.
He adds that the day will come when we reach the top, a delegation will make it, and will look beyond and see a few ultra-Orthodox Jews sitting there.
And they’ll say, “You made it at last?”
Because, overall, science with all its research eventually gets to the bottom line: that what the Torah says is proven.
And anything that science innovates these days, the Talmud has already discussed. For example, the moon. The time it takes to orbit from point X and back.
Rambam (Maimonides) states: “The orbit of the moon is 29 days and a half day and 753 parts of the hour.” An hour is divided into 1080 parts, and not the way we divide it, into 60 minutes. 1080 parts is the maximum amount that an hour can be divided into for precision.
So Rambam states: 753 parts out of 1080 that comprise the hour, plus a half day, plus 29 days. That’s a full orbit of the moon, fixed, month by month. Go prove that. So that’s 29.53059 days for an orbit.
But 2 years ago, the chairperson of NASA informed the world that “Further to satellite data, we have reached the precise full orbit time of the moon. It is 29.530588 days.
So how could Rambam calculate this 850 years earlier, using the Gemarra’s explanation recorded 2,500 years ago, based on the Torah recorded 3,300 years ago, producing the precise time the moon’s orbit takes? After all, it’s impossible to check through a telescope, or by direct human vision, or any other way. Only now they’ve managed to calculate it because of satellites. And so on. There’s an entire encyclopedia on topics like these, and countless proofs.
Is there proof of the afterlife?
Countless people talk about the afterlife, but has anyone come back here following death, and told us “I was there, I saw it, and there is a hell, and so on”?
Yes! People who’ve experienced clinical death.
In other words, there are souls, reincarnated souls, which means that the soul comes to this world. Let’s say for example that I now arrive in Holland and I’ve never been there before, and I say: “In street such and such I remember there’s a red house at the end of the road. It has four rooms. The inner room is a children’s bedroom where I used to play when I was a little child and I hid a treasure there under the third floorboard from the right.” And it’s found.
And because that does happen, it’s proof. I’m remembering it not from this world, because I’ve never yet been there, but from the soul’s reincarnation.
In other words, a person comes along, 50 or 300 or 1,000 years later, returning to this world in another body, informing the person in the current body that the soul has already been here. So that’s a sign there’s an afterlife from which it is possible to return into a new body!
And who says I’ll go into that other world, heaven, if I uphold the commandments, or that I’ll go to hell if I don’t uphold them?
So, when there are reincarnations, or séances and so on, people are asked “What happened to you? Or what’s happening to you in the present in the world of truth?” And they describe the suffering and sorrow they experience in hell.
In séances it’s possible to communicate with the person: for example, they called up the Yemenite singer Zohar Argov who said he’s “suffering terrible tribulations” and asked that his songs “not be played at all!” So he is describing something of his tribulations.
The people running the séance were actually secular. They have no idea what the phrase “Kaf ha’Kella” means or where it is sourced, but it’s from the book of Samuel (1 Samuel 25:29): “…and the souls of your enemies shall be slung out as though from the hollow of a sling.” To understand this phrase, “Hollow of a sling,” better, we need to open the Holy Zohar, and sources from the holy Torah, recorded 3,300 years ago! The secular folks at the séance have not learned these sources and yet they can convey the speaker’s words, “He said x and y…” We can understand what they are referring to, even though they themselves have no idea what the words they’re repeating reference.
What is the “Foundation of Foundations” according to Rambam (Maimonides)?
Maimonides opens his “Book of Knowledge” with this statement:
The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence.
The first foundation on which all others are founded, along with all wisdom, is the knowledge that there is one Creator who brought all creations into reality.
Professor Lipson’s paradox
Further to the above, because otherwise nothing can begin, no theory such as Darwin’s which claims humanity began with monkeys, or the Big Bang from Stephen Hawking… if we keep going back with them, at some point we get stuck.
In 1860 Darwin was asked: When was the point of transition? How did the transition from inanimate to animate take place?
There was no answer. There’s no answer to that. Why? Because the theory starts without any foundation.
But when Professor Lipson, a senior scientist at the Weizmann Institute, was asked about this, he also said “There’s no answer to Darwin. How did it all start?”
He was asked other questions, and he supports Darwin’s theory, but among the questions, he gave an example: “If there’d been drawings to show that people or creatures from outer space had come and seen that there are skyscrapers, efficiency, sewers, traffic lights, paved roads, they would likely say, ‘Of course people must live here, otherwise there’s no way all that could exist! An entire country? That no one set up’?”
So someone asks Professor Lipson: “If so, you admit that there’s a planner behind creation?”
So the Professor answers: “I didn’t say that, because there’s no proof of the existence of a Creator.”
Isn’t that amazing. Because he’s just said there has to be, that if others came to such a place, for example, to the Cultural Center, and saw seating, entrances and exits, a stage, could it be possible to even entertain the thought that no one had planned all that? No one had arranged it all? Believers in Torah and evolution believe that…
“Yes, it can come about by itself.”
Can it possibly come together on its own? Where’s the starting point? Where’s the foundation? If there’s no starting point, there can’t be any progress.
The creation of universe according to Hawking
Stephen Hawking improves on things a bit by saying “that at last he’s reached the conclusion about how the world began: from a pea sized grain.”
Simply, from a white bean. In other words, there was an explosion, and the explosion began from something as small as a pea, and then it all developed up to the point where you’re sitting here in the world. And of course for this they get a Nobel Prize, and that’s what is taught in universities, and whoever doesn’t think the same way is unsophisticated, you must say that you’re from the monkey, or residue from an explosion, otherwise you’re primitive, not enlightened at all.
I say: I am NOT a monkey, my father is not a monkey, my family is not a group of baboons. But some people force us to think we have come from monkeys, and if we think otherwise? I’m not cultured.
Or we can go for the other option: that I’m just the residue of an explosion… I’ve never understood how, from an explosion, something can be formed? After all, if we keep exploding things, can we ever produce a chair? Can disposable cups be the outcome of an explosion? No! So how can they say “An entire world – comes from an explosion!” And then it turns out that if you don’t agree, you don’t think so, YOU’RE not the cultured one.
Proof of the Creator from the letters of the name “Amnon”
A reporter said that she believes Darwin’s theory is correct, because science presents that claim.
So let’s ask: if we take a container of ink and spill it on a pure white tablecloth, how many times will we need to flick it up in the air until the spilled ink forms the precise letter, “aleph,” on the cloth in perfect symmetrical block text without any ink spreading elsewhere, as though in a printing press?
She says: “Millions of times!”
“Do you think that after millions of time, a single letter aleph might be formed, as clean as in print?”
“So how many times would we need to throw the bottle of ink until the letter “mem” is formed with perfect symmetry, without obliterating the letter aleph?
“Wow, probably trillions!”
“Excuse me! How many times do we need for the letter mem to appear next to the aleph without obliterating the aleph? It has to be first time around, because if I flick the ink pot again, after flicking it millions of times to achieve the aleph, it has to be a mem first time around, otherwise we will ruin the aleph. And until we got to that aleph… what, we’ll start all over? Is that what will happen?”
“No,” she says, “it’s impossible to flick a mem first time around without ruining the aleph.”
So I ask: “How many times will I need to flick the ink pot in order to produce a letter “nun” next to the mem without obliterating the mem or the aleph? Let’s say we managed to produce a mem on our first shot, can we produce a nun on the first shot too without ruining the other two letters?”
She says: “That wouldn’t be possible. Impossible!”
“So, listen up now,” I say. “If aleph followed by mem and nun is pretty much impossible, what’s the likelihood of getting a “vav” and a “final nun” next to them? If it’s impossible to produce 5 simple letters that make up the name ‘Amnon’ despite endless tries, what’s the probability that a person called Amnon contains billions of cells comes from an explosion?”