D. Another manifestation of the Multiverse concept
Instead of multiple universes, it might be possible to envision a situation where our universe has many different histories. Each history has a certain probability of occurring, and each universe will be different from others. Some of the possible universes simply will not work because they will not contain the energy and/or matter that is required for a sustainable entity, or certainly not the matter and energy required to develop into humans[1].
The same concept can be used to contemplate if, how or when our universe will end. There are many possibilities with each having a certain probability of occurring with the concept of chaos included. Note that if were not the case, we could, in theory, predict the future.
E. Conundrum resolved
Following the line of reasoning which includes multiple universes and trying to account for the “hole” in the reasoning discussed above regarding what happened before the universe or multiverse was created leads to the following.
Two entities will be used to get from the creation of the overall universe to where we are now. These two entities will be: a God associated with the universe of universes, which will be call the Universal God, and an intermediate entity which is between the Universal God and the universe we inhabit. The intermediate entity is the God of Genesis, YHWH[2]. This will allow our God, who is intermediate and who is less than the transcendent Universal God to be approachable by us and, by the way, to be capable of making a mistake.[3] An imminent God in our world is approachable and is differentiated from the transcendent God, the Universal God, which is wholly outside of nature, sovereign over all time and space, not subject to change and totally unknowable by us. Therefore, we do not, and cannot, see a mistake, know if a mistake is made, or even know if the universal God could even make a mistake. A transcendent God who is unknowable, unapproachable and uninvolved in our world is not a God for us since, as a general rule, we would not worship such an entity[4]. Therefore, the additional entity of YHWH is needed to complete the jump from the Universal God to a God that has attributes which would allow us to worship Him, while separating us from the Universal God.[5] Actually, the concept of more than one entity being God is not so radical to Judaism as it might seem. Judaism has accepted the concept of Shekhina[6], which is the female aspect of God and which appears on earth[7].
It might be observed that the approach used in this essay is somewhat similar to the approach used by Plato in his Timaeus in which he envisions God as being the bridge between the world of Forms on one hand and the object-matter world on the other hand, but with “Forms” being essentially undefined[8]. In the present approach, the god of the universe of universes replaces the Forms but is, and cannot be, defined and it is not necessary for us to know[9]
In order to distinguish the Universal God from our God, the God of Genesis and the Bible, the Kabbalistic term Ein Sof[10] will be used for the universal god and Ein Sof will be defined to be an entity which is the prime cause of all and which after starting the universe of universes had and has no further interaction with our universe and hence with humans. This entity is so transcendent that it is totally beyond human comprehension.[11] It might be envisioned that the imminent God is a human feeling of the presence of God.
YHWH permits communication between humankind, or indeed, any life in our universe, and Ein Sof. This intermediary is less than Ein Sof but more than man. This intermediary is a God we are already familiar with and one whom we already worship and to whom is attributed deeds and signs that allow us to be comfortable worshiping Him as a God, the God of Genesis. This God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the Jewish people which we call YHWH[12]. YHWH is the God who assembled our universe[13] and created life on earth as chronicled in Genesis, and who interacted with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other characters of Genesis and led the Israelites out of Egypt. Since we cannot possibly know Ein Sof and since Ein Sof has no interaction with our universe yet we are here, there must have been some entity which deals with us, YHWH. YHWH is great enough to communicate with Ein Sof, yet less enough to be approachable by us; YHWH is sufficiently unknown to keep Ein Sof totally unknown to us, but is known enough for us to consider Him imminent to us. In short, YHWH is a perfect bridge between us and the unknowable entity which we can credit with beginning the Universe of universes so we can visualize a beginning without being able to empirically identify such a beginning or even reason our way to it, yet we can still have a God that is imminent to us. In an irreverent manner, one might even visualize YHWH as a vice president in charge of our universe and who reports to Ein Sof.[14]
The Ein Sof/YHWH dichotomy seems to solve the quandary of a transcendent God who is totally unknowable and unapproachable who could be credited with starting the universe of universes out of nothing and a God who is approachable by humans. We can know YHWH, but not Ein Sof. Ein Sof will exist irrespective or our knowledge of Him. For this reason, any attempt to define or rationalize Ein Sof will produce or end in an error. If there anything that is right, it will be by accident. However, YHWH is not infinite and as such is knowable, in some manner, by life in this universe, and is close enough to us so our reasoning powers can approach Him[15]. As will be discussed below, there is a mechanism which will make it possible to visualize an entity, YHWH, which we can approach but which can also approach the infinite entity, Ein Sof, without degrading the infiniteness of the infinite entity.
Another way to look at this Ein Sof/YHWH dichotomy would be to ask why Ein Sof, the creator of the universe of universes would feel that we, inhabitants of a small planet in an obscure solar system[16] in a minor galaxy of one universe of a multitude of universes would be so important as to warrant special attention from him to create us, guide us and control us as we developed. That is rather solipsistic. It makes more sense that such an entity would leave the individual universes to other entities, in our case YHWH.
It might be observed that the Bible itself seems to recognize this “chain of command” model where one entity is above all and has another entity closer to humans who acts as an intermediary. The concept of messengers is well documented in the Bible: in Genesis 22 the Akedah, a messenger of God stops Abraham from killing Isaac; in Exodus 3, it is an angel of God that communicates with Moses; in Exodus 14 as well as 23:21, it is an angel of God leading the Israelite army; see also, 2 Kings 19:35 and Josh 5:1-15; as well as other instances where YHWH has a representative. This implies a chain of command[17].
Having proposed the existence of two entities, the question arises as to their connection to each other and to our universe.
Where is that connection/separation between Ein Sof and YHWH which is undefinable and unbridgeable in itself[18]? There is an event which all agree upon, and which is a perfect candidate for such a connection/separation. It is commonly accepted that the universe we humans inhabit was created at the event known as the “Big Bang”. The Big Bang[19] is considered to be a singularity[20], and as such can be viewed as an event which separates our universe, and YHWH, from the multitude of other universes and from Ein Sof in the universe of universes. A singularity is a place or situation which cannot be explained by our knowledge. This is the perfect concept to explain a connection between our universe and Ein Sof. There is a connection, but it is beyond us and is not definable. YHWH is greater than humans and thus is capable of bridging the Big Bang singularity; yet is less than Ein Sof so there can be a gap between Him and Ein Sof. Or perhaps Ein Sof created YHWH on our side of the Big Bang singularity and thus separated YHWH from Ein Sof while giving those in our universe a god who is approachable and immediate[21].
YHWH while definable because He is not infinite, is still ephemeral and thus no human will be able to grasp the entirety of YHWH. Ein Sof is not even amenable to this. As such, YHWH will be defined in any number of ways according to each individual’s personal views which brings us back to the premise proposed in the introduction to this essay: each of should make this inquiry as to what God means to us. Thus, it is not surprising that there are a multiplicity of views of YHWH[22]. A problem between humans arises because YHWH is confused with Ein Sof and we tend to view our personal vision of God as being the only vision possible. We confuse the immanent God, YHWH, with the transcendent God, Ein Sof . We seem to be looking for a God whom we can approach, while retaining the desire for a God who is supreme over all and who is omnipotent, omniscient, omniperfect and omnipresent. There can be only one Ein Sof and He is simply not comprehendible or definable by humans; whereas, YHWH is comprehendible to humans and is viewed according to each person’s personal views. Thus, since we seek an immanent God, we try to “prove” God’s existence but run into the logical errors discussed above because we are combining the transcendent God with the immanent God[23]. Or if someone tries to prove the unprovable Ein Sof and has errors in logic, which must occur when trying to prove the unprovable, then they are denigrated; whereas, if YHWH were separated from Ein Sof and people would define exactly what they were discussing, the problem would disappear[24].
The approach discussed above in
which Ein Sof is infinite and YHWH is
the “intermediary” between Ein Sof
and our universe approaches a partial response to the question raised above
regarding how an infinite divine being can create a finite physical world and
still remain infinite. It does not completely answer the problem because the
infinite entity, Ein Sof, while
remaining separate from the finite universe, is only one step removed and still
has contact with the finite universe through YHWH. Perhaps there are further
“intermediaries” between Ein Sof and YHWH, in the manner of layers of
“middle managers”. While not completely solving the contact problem, the more
layers there are, the farther away the infinite entity, Ein Sof, is from the finite. Perhaps, in the vein of this
discussion, there are an infinite number of layers, which would solve the
problem and still be within the realm of the concept since we are discussing
infinites anyway. In this case, YHWH is merely the final step of an infite
number of steps between our world and Ein
Sof.
[1] See the Anthropic Principle discussed in the essay “God” which states that the universe has to be more or less as we see it, because if it were different there wouldn’t be anyone here to observe it. Also see the discussion of the M-Theory in the same essay.
[2] With this formulation, YHWH, as viewed by some, might not fit the strict definition of a “God” as one who is omnipotent, omniperfect, omniscient, omnipresent, and aseit (not limited by anything external to itself), as the God of all universes, the so-called, Universal God, is greater than YHWH.
[3] See, for example, in Genesis 6:8 where God regretted that He had made man on earth and decided, in Genesis 6:7 to “blot out from the earth the men whom I created” and then flooded the earth in the Noah story. God regretting His creation of man clearly is God admitting a mistake. The mistake can be attributed to a god who is involved in our world as opposed to the God of the Universe of Universes and who is uninvolved in our world.
[4] Because the God of the universe of universes is not knowable, approachable and is not involved in our world, we would not worship Him. Therefore, this god does not meet the basic criterion used in this essay. Accordingly, we are left with only one God – here identified as YHWH – who is worshipable. As such, the approach used in this essay does not violate the basic tenant of the Jewish faith: “God is One.”
[5] This dichotomy of Gods is not the same as the multiple gods of the ancients, such as the Greeks and Romans, because their ruler of other gods, such as Zeus and Jupiter, were anthropormorphized (that is, they warlike humans, they loved, they got angry, they felt pain, and so forth; anthropomorphism was used to explain natural phenomena such as thunder being devine wrath), and still involved with human affairs, and with other gods. The Universal God, in contrast, is completely separated and once He started the universe of universes has separated Himself from the creation turning details over to the sub-Gods, such as YHWH, to control the individual universes within the universe of universes.
[6] It should be noted that not everyone accepts the idea of Shekhinah, because it smacks of polytheism and assumes that God needs a helper.
[7] While Yahweh was (is) God, Yahweh is male. However, in Judaism, a goddess played an important part as well. This goddess is known as Shekhina, also spelled Shekhinah, Shechina, or Schechina, (Hebrew: “Dwelling,” or “Presence”), the term. Shekhina, is a Talmudic term and describes the manifestation of God’s presence on earth. At the beginning of the Talmudic era
, the word Shekhina meant the aspect of God that dwelt among people and could be apprehended by the senses.
[8] Saadiah Gaon also envisioned a similar situation by saying that the other God (in Saadiah Gaon’s case, Shekhinah) was not a separate being , b ut a light that God creates and causes to appear to people, which would match the imminent God envisioned here vis a vis the transcendent God theorized here. Philo of Alexandria also used a similar technique: Philo envisioned logos as an intermediary divine being that bridges the gap between God and the material world. For this reason, Philo’s works have been important to Christians. See, for example, John 1:1 “The word logos became flesh and made His dwelling among us.”.
[9] Some theologians, such as Aquinas, reject the view that more than one God can exist because if there were multiple gods, one would possess what another lacked so that neither would be absolutely perfect. However, this argument would not seem to apply to the approach used in this essay since it is assumed that the god of the universe of universes is simply beyond our comprehension so He could be perfect and possess all the qualities included in those we attribute to YHWH. We just cannot know it, and the approach in this essay does not require YHWH to be perfect to fulfill the criterion of being worthy of our worship. Therefore, it does not appear that the approach used here violate the just-mentioned objection of Aquinas.
[10] The Kabbalists defined the term Ein Sof as “One Without End.” While the Kabbalists believe that Ein Sof is “One” and transcendent, they also believe that God is everywhere and all things are manifestations of God and thus God is imminent in everyday things while remaining transcendent. The Kabbalists solved the problem of a God that is unchanging (and hence unmoved by prayer or human activity) for a religion that relies on prayer, reward for righteousness, punishment for evil-doers by envisioning a god having two aspects: a revealed God as expressed in some sefirot and one that makes religion relevant; and a concealed god who represents the perfect, unchanging side of God. Ein Sof, like the Maimonidean God, is completely beyond the power of the human mind to understand or express: “Ein Sof cannot be known and does not produce end or beginning…there is no end, no wills, no lights, no luminaries in Ein Sof.All the luminaries and lights depend on it for their existence, but they are not in a position to perceive.” According to Kabbalah, God is contained in the sefirot and transitions rom the unknowable Ein Sof to a knowable God which we recognize and worship in this world through ten stages, or attributes, or aspects of God’s self-disclosure. This unknowable/knowable approach is similar to the one adopted in this essay.
[11]Although this approach may get close to polytheism, it has been accepted in the past. For example, this methodology was also used by Philo of Alexandria in his suggestion that God has several aspects, one of which we may know nothing about except He is; and one which acts in the world and is knowable to man. As reported by Thomas Cahill in “Mysteries of the Middle Ages” published in 2006 by nan a talese doubleday, according to Philo, there is a distinction between God’s essence – ousia which is entirely incomprehensible to us and his activities in the world, which he called His “powers” – dynamesis or energeiai. God told Moses: “I am who I am,” in other words, you (man) will never be able to comprehend me. Then God communicated with Moses through His powers. God’s statement to Job regarding where was Job when He created the Heavens and the Earth, was along these lines. Man will not, and is not capable of understanding this essence of God. Still another example of this dualism can be found in the biblical Daniel who is told about Michael who is the “great angel who has charge of your people” (see Dan. 10:13 and 21) or Gabriel (in Dan. 8:16 and 9:21). While Torah is pretty silent with regard to a guardian angel and in fact, Deuteronomy, in Duet. 32:8-9 is rather clear that there is no angel between God and Israel, a guardian angel has also appeared as Sariel, Phanuel, Melchizedek and the like. Therefore, it appears that the Jewish people, in spite of being monotheistic, are comfortable with the concept of angels, including a guardian angel. This concept could be used to explain why, even if the people are being faithful to their God, they are being conquered by other peoples, such as the Bablyonians, the Romans, etc. Their “guardian angel” is being “beaten” by the guardian angels of the other countries. This appears to be a total throwback to the polytheistic concept that the Jews rejected. However, it could have been used to explain why, in spite of being faithful to their God the Jews were being conquered by people who worshiped other gods. Yet another view includes one God who is merely using the other nations to punish Israel. According to some scholars, such as Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. Moshe Greenberg (New York: Shocken Books, 1972), a pagan religion espouses the idea that there exists a realm of being prior to the gods and is superior to them and controls them. Kaufmann refers this realm as the metadivine realm and that realm is supreme and transcends all other deities who emerge from this realm. This metadivine realm does not seem too far fetched from the universe of universes posited in this essay with Ein Sof reigning supreme in this realm. All gods are limited in power, knowledge and wisdom to be less than the power, knowledge and wisdom of the metadivine realm, and the gods do not have power, knowledge or wisdom of that realm, it is mysterious to them. The gods thus act as kind of bridge between humans and the metadivine realm. Kaufmann however envisions the Hebrew Monotheistic God as not being subject to the metadivine realm.
[12] It might also be noted that this dichotomy of god is not terribly far removed from the Kabbalistic system in which Ein Sof withdrew from Himself into Himself so and thus left an empty space into which the sefirot could be emanated. Then, through the sefirot, all the lower worlds flow until eventually our world of space and time emerges. We thus do not encounter Ein Sof, we cannot, but we do encounter lower beings. The problem with this view is that Ein Sof is viewed as being infinite, but having contact with something lower, albeit far above us, Ein Sof becomes finite. Thus, even this kabbalistic view suffers from the above-discussed shortcoming of trying to find a unity between an infinite, transcendental entity and a finite imminent entity. However, the kabbalistic approach might serve as a starting point for the infinite god of the universe of universes and the god of our universe discussed in this essay.
[13] As stated in Genesis, there was already something here when YHWH began assembling the world: “When God began to create heaven an dearth – the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water…” (Genesis 1:1-2). As discussed in the essay “Who Were the Nephelim?”, the first word of the Hebrew Bible, Bereshit” can be translated as “when at first” which implies that there was something there when God began creating and there may have been several other beginnings and the one related in Genesis is only one of the several beginnings.
[14]A sidelight to this discussion of Ein Sof and YHWY is the view, such as expressed in Back to The Sources edited by Barry W. Holtz, published by Simon & Schuster Paperbacks in 1984, that the Hebrew Bible was written by several different authors because the so-called E author uses the term Elohim as the generic name for God and the so-called J author uses the term Jehovah for the name of God. Is it possible that the name of God chosen by the author best signifies the particular thought he is seeking to express? That is, when the author was referring to the God that has been identified as Ein Sof, that writer uses the term Jehovah to signify the changeless and eternal One; whereas, when the author is referring to YHWH, that author is referring to the approachable God of our world.
[15] Once the dichotomy is made, and Ein Sof is recognized and YHYH is separated from Ein Sof, the Cosomological, Teleological, and Darwinist arguments and reasoning discussed above will work if they are applied to YHYH and not to Ein Sof. The problem had been that people have confused the God of the universe of universes, Ein Sof, who is beyond our comprehension with the approachable God, YHWH, who is within our comprehension.
[16] See, Harlow Shapley who argued that our sun, and hence our solar system, was located in a remote corner of the Milky Way, our galaxy. See also the Copernican Principle that tells us to assume that we do not occupy any special place in the universe or in time.
[17] While not mentioned in the Bible, but only in a frew brief passages in the Talmud, Mattarron is an archangel or the Chancellor of heaven and in Rabbinic literature is the highest of the angels and seves as the celestial scribe. Again, it seems that there is a chain of command.
[18] As discussed in the essay “Shabbat,” there might be a connection between YHWH and Ein Sof. That connection is time. Time was in existence when YHWH began creating our world in Genesis 1:1 and time can be infinite. Thus, time could connect YHWH to Ein Sof. As also discussed in that essay, and the essay “God Could Be Everywhere,” time is discontinuous and YHWH could have inserted Himself into the interstices of time and thus can be considered as being connected to Ein Sof via time. Since time does not depend on space, it would not be affected by the singularity of the Big Bang and could bridge it while keeping our universe totally separate from any other universe that might exist on the other side of the singularity. Accordingly, as used in this essay, the Big Bang is unbridgeable as far as space and humans are concerned and the thesis of a total separation between YHWH and Ein Sof remains viable so far as we are concerned. It is also interesting to note that in Genesis, the first thing God created was light. The speed of light affects time in that one traveling near the speed of light has a time dilation and experiences time differently from one not traveling at that speed. Thus, it would seem that light and time are related. It is interesting that this seems to be recognized by Genesis 1: 3.
[19] Einstein’s general theory of relativity says that the universe began with the big bang singularity, a moment when all the matter we see was concentrated at a single point of infinite density. See Misconceptions About The Big Bang by Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis, published in Scientific American, March 2005; and “Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe’s Birth” by Martin Bojoweld, published in Scientific American, October 2008 in which the Bojoweld theorizes that time extends before the Big Bang and that something existed before the Big Bang.
[20] For a discussion of “singularity,” see John Barrow, The Origin of the Universe, published by Basic Books in 1995. However, see also the theory known as “cosmic inflation” which proposes that the universe begins, not with an explosion, but with a brief, exponentially rapid, inflationary spasm. The theory of cosmic inflation finds support in the results of the South Pole experiment known as BICEP2.
[21] This view of the separation of Ein Sof from our world is similar to the Hasidic view expressed by Schneur Zalman that Ein Sof screened His light so that the creatures on earth can have an existence independent of Him.
[22] Along with the multiplicity of views comes a multiplicity of names including: Elohim, El Shaddai , El Elyon, Avinu Malkenu, El Olam, El Bethel. Note that the term “El” is common to many of the names. El was the head of the council of Canaanite gods. After Exodus, the name contained the letters “Yah”. The similarities between the Canaanite gods and the Israel god seems to support the theory that Moses became a Yahwist and imported that religion back to his fellow slaves which, in turn, precipitated a rebellion, which was the basis for the story of Exodus. See the essay “Thoughts on the Exodus Story”. Some have interpreted Yahweh as an abbreviation of the full name Yahweh asher yihweh, which means “He cause to be what is” (see Exodus 3:14), in personal names this has been further shortened to Yeho (e.g., Yehonathan, or Jonathan) or Yo (e.g., Yonathan or Jonathan); or Yahu (e.g., Yirm’yahu or Jeremiah); or Yah (e.g., Ahiyah).
[23] It may appear that the Ein Sof/YHWH dichotomy merely leads back to where it began with an unknown first cause. However, it advances the analysis by being more definitive regarding YHWH. The unknown and unknowable nature of Ein Sof is also more reasonable due to the separation of us and Ein Sof provided by the Big Bang singularity. This separation also makes it easier to accept the unknowable aspect of Ein Sof while still having something to attribute as first cause. This separation allows us to reason to YHWH without becoming tangled in the errors mentioned above that are caused by an effort to reason to an unknowable end.
[24] Spinoza solved this problem by viewing God and nature as being one and the same thus making God wholly immanent. According to Spinoza, since God is nature, God is everything that is – from the stars in heaven to the thoughts of man. Man is merely a “mode” or “part” of nature and thus is governed by the laws of nature (whereby man thus has no free will because man is not an independent entity, but a part of nature and nature can act in or exist in no other way than it does). Thus, Spinoza solved the problem by rejecting the concept of a transcendent God.