Belief in God is rational. Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED.
2.12.20
Rav Nahman warns against philosophy. Most Americans are not thrilled with all the crazy ideas emerging from philosophy departments that have infected all society.
If you go by the actual molad [conjunction of Sun and Moon] the Tues night should be the start of Hanuka.
But the calendar everyone else goes by is usually different because they are basing it on the average new moon. However it seems to me that the date of should be by the actual time of the molad, and that ought to count as the first day of the month.
The basic reason I say this is because of the Gemara in Sanhedrin page 10 where the time for the new moon does not depend on the court of law establishing it, but rather on the right time. As R. Elazar puts it: "If the court sanctifies it in the right time, then fine; if not, then the higher court in heaven establishes it."
So what matters is the right time. Is that when it can be seen, or when the actual molad is in fact? That seem to be a debate between the Gemara in Sanhedrin and the Gemara in Rosh Hashana [I seem to recall that is on page 19.]
So why choose one Gemara over the other? Well as David Bronson told me once that what makes my idea interesting is the fact that there is no court of law to in fact establish the date. And I would have to add the fact that the calendar that everyone is going by is not mentioned in the Gemara. [If Hillel II in fact established the calendar you would imagine that somewhere in the Gemara someone should have mentioned it. So we have to say it got to be the custom to use it during the time of the geonim. [There was readily available a calendar in use at the time that got the solar year and lunar year to correspond more or less that had been in use for about a thousand years from the time of Meton in Athens.]
1.12.20
A certain problem exists on the religious world that refers back to the verse in the Torah: "Do not add or subtract from these commandments which I command you this day."
Once my learning partner David Bronson pointed out that some people just delight in adding restriction for others. So you find in the LeM of Rav Nahman that he warns against "חומרות יתירות" extra restrictions. Once there is a "posek" to depend on, one can depend on him. "posek" means a medieval authority in Halacah like the Rif or Rosh or other rishonim when they write about halacha.
And Rav Nahman adds to that that it is possible to serve God with everything.
I tend to depend on this. However I realize there is higher service of God which is to sit and learn Torah. However I found myself not really up to doing so. So I tend to depend on this idea of Rav Nahman that it is possible to serve God through everything.
In the LeM vol II ch 4 there is explained there is higher service of straight Torah. However there is also a service of God that is the 39 types of work that bring light into the work of creation.
Another problem is idolatry, which is related to the first. I think the reason for adding restrictions is to take attention away from the real problem of idol worship. [Not of statues. But in Torah though all worship is towards God, not people.]
The argument to say the South [i.e. the Southern States] was right is דין חלוקה the law of dividing.
The argument to say the South [i.e. the Southern States] was right is דין חלוקה the law of dividing.
That is, if you have a courtyard that is owned by two people and it is big enough to divide [about 4 yards by 8 yards], then either one can say to the other, "Buy my portion, or I will buy yours". They are not forced to stay together.
However, you can also say that a political union is not the same thing as a business arrangement.
After all, let's say one is living under a king, and he decides he no longer is subject to that king. That is treason.
So we see that politics and business are separate subjects although related. See for example Danny Frederick's critique on Dr. Michael Huemer. [Dr. Huemer holds no government is legitimate.
Frederick shows the flaws in his arguments. There was a debate in NY with Dr Huemer and a law professor of NYU that basically brought out these same point.
When in Quantum Mechanics you hear about the collapse of the wave function when it is measured that can mean a physicist in a lab but it also can mean simply an interaction with a macroscopic body. It is not saying that everything depends on who is looking at it. It is not an argument for subjective morality as some people think.
I was listening to the hearings of the State Legislature of Arizona yesterday. The part I caught was of a computer expert showing the ways the computers were rigged. So I would imagine that since the Constitution gives the right to the state legislature to appoint the electors, they ought to do that.
[Besides being at the sea most of the day so that is why I was not blogging.]