Earth Exists to Know God

Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim

Reader: David Hume harshly criticized the cosmological argument which states “God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency.” Hume argued that since human knowledge is limited to the universe, a person cannot acquire knowledge beyond it. David Hume criticized the cosmological argument that the universe was not created in order for us to say that it was created by a God. Hume argues that the design argument is built upon a faulty analogy as, unlike with man-made objects, we have not witnessed the design of a universe, so we do not know whether the universe was the result of design. Moreover, the size of the universe makes the analogy problematic: although our experience of the universe is of order, there may be chaos in other parts of the universe.

How do you reply to David Hume?

P.S. Hume was not an atheist but an agnostic.

Turk Hill

Rabbi: “Hume said human knowledge is limited to the universe, a person cannot acquire knowledge beyond it”  

He meant to say that our minds cannot perceive what took place prior to creation, which is beyond perception. However, sensory perception is not the only path to human knowledge. Einstein used reasoning, and extrapolated events which actually took place. Although he never witnessed such events transpiring, his understanding of natural law dictated mandatory events. 

Einstein and Abraham arrived at knowledge of God through studying the universe, Hume can’t reject this truth. But I imagine he would reject this as faith, and not “knowledge.” But Einstein and Abraham would respond that the level of wisdom required to run the universe demands the existence of God. This rejects Hume’s statement, for here, man can acquire knowledge beyond the physical universe.

Maimonides never saw a magnetic field, but he knew that since two objects cannot affect each other without contact, a magnet’s pull on iron at a distance demands some existence that relates the magnet to the iron, namely a field (Rabbi Israel Chait). Using reasoning, one can determine the existence of this field, of other things and laws. Therefore, in addition to sense perception, we can use intelligence to extrapolate, to deduce and to generalize. And of course prophecy teaches matters outside these two areas.

“The universe was not created in order for us to say that it was created by a God” 

I agree that it is impossible to impute motive to God, as motive is a human operation. Here we must resort to God’s communication (Torah) which says the opposite: earthly existence has the purpose of man recognizing God, and submitting to His will. And since Hume is a staunch supporter of accepting perception, he should also accept history when perceived by masses. Hume must support the perception of 2.5 million Jews who received divine Torah communication at Mount Sinai…God communicating His will to mankind. Therefore, Hume contradicts himself: perception teaches that the universe was created for man to recognize God.

“We have not witnessed the design of a universe, so we do not know whether the universe was the result of design”   

If Hume means we must witness the act of creation, I don't understand his argument. For a person can examine an automobile after it was created, and deduce many intended objectives of this device. Although he did not watch the automaker assemble the vehicle, Hume would never say an automobile came into existence without a designer. How then can something so much more elaborate like the universe be the result of chance and no designer?

“Although our experience of the universe is of order, there may be chaos in other parts of the universe”

An intelligent person perceives consistency in the universe. (There’s that word “perception” again.) He would not say that tomorrow the sun will be square, the moon will disappear, or that water will no longer be necessary for life. Therefore, it is unscientific for Hume to suggest chaos, when all consistent indications are that the universe has order everywhere. It is inconsistent to suggest chaos, certainly, when never perceived Mr. Hume.