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.
4.12.21
That is to say a woman who is married is the person with whom adultery is possible. Both for her and the adulterer. But it is not possible to have adultery with an unmarried woman. See Chronicles I in the second perek, verse 46
Adultery means not to have sex with a married woman , but does not mean a man can not have many wives [or even girl friends.] For example in Chronicles I in the second perek, verse 46 we find Caleb ben Yefuna had a few wives and a few girl friends. And most rishonim go with this. [See the Ramban/Nahmanides and the Raavad.] The Rambam however forbids a girl friend but only as an isur asey איסור עשה [a negative command derived from a positive.] But all other Rishonim go with the Ramban that it is allowed.
[
3.12.21
by saying the words one can come to understanding.
Wisdom of the Greeks
Wisdom of the Greeks is disparaged in the Gemara. One fellow asked R. Ishmael when to learn it [after he had already gone through the whole Torah.] Answer: when it is neither day nor night as it says "You shall think in the Law day and night."
So for Ibn Pakuda and the Rambam to hold that learning Physics and Metaphysics is important and even a part of Torah, it takes a jump of faith in the Rishonim [mediaeval authors].
Otherwise looking at the face value definition of "wisdom of the Greeks" would seem to refer to these very same subjects.
But I must add here that it has never been a problem for me to go with the rishonim [mediaeval authors] even when they seem to differ from the simple explanation of the Gemara.
[I was thinking to show why the Rishonim diverge from the simple explanation of the Gemara. But first I would like to say that it is best to have simple faith. After having faith, it is good to have support for faith. Reasons are also good for understanding in what direction you want your faith to follow. After all one has control over what he believes to some degree. After all you can not believe that you can skip and jump to the moon. But there are many other cases where you can rationally choose your beliefs.[when evidence is not conclusive and you can choose where the weight of the evidence goes.]
Ibn Pakuda and other rishonim hold Physics and Metaphysics are part of Torah. Why? Because they explain the "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation" as referring to these two subjects.
(The "Work of the Divine Chariot and the Work of Creation" are called "great things" and "the discussions of Abyee and Rava" are called small things. [R. Yochanan ben Zakai was praised for knowing these things ])
1.12.21
Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.
In terms of Relativity, I have to think this over but right now it seems to me that it is sad that the New Friesian School of Leonard Nelson seems to have diverged from Fries. [On the other hand Nelson wanted to be safe from accusations of ‘psychologism’ [note 1] that were thrown at Fries. So he kept the Friesian structure but held the categories are a priori as being not sense based and not reason based (immediate non intuitive) in a strictly axiomatic way.[And that fact of not being based on the senses is what makes it a priori thus in keeping with Kant] So you can see the motivation of Nelson. But it seems to have led to wrong conclusions. Dr. Kelley Ross shows that all one needs to reconcile Friesian philosophy with Relativity is Kant's Empirical Realism.
After all, Fries held that the categories of Kant do not have to be a priori. [Contra Kant]. Rather they can be justified in away that is not by reason nor by the senses. but by "immediate non intuitive knowledge.". And this point seems to have been missed by Nelson who held that Relativity and especially GR (General Relativity) were just not right. And in a very ironic way it was Reichenbach who held strongly of Relativity and defended it by means of dividing Kant's apriori into two. One is the normal necessary apriori not based on observation. The other is subject to modification by empirical evidence.--Isn't that exactly Fries's approach exactly?!
.
[note 1] the mistake of identifying non-psychological with psychological entities. For instance, philosophers who think that logical laws are not psychological laws would view it as psychologism to identify the two]