Why should there be a necessarily existing principle or entity at all? Is it possible that everything is contingent, including the supposed "necessary" God?
If God is considered a brute fact to explain reality, why should we stop there? Why not consider the universe or multiverse as the brute fact instead?
How does positing God as the source of natural laws explain why those laws have their specific forms, and not others? Does this introduce a new layer of complexity without solving the issue?
If God is invoked to explain why the universe is fine-tuned for life, does this lead to the question of why God would create a fine-tuned universe in the first place? Is this explanation any less speculative than physical mechanisms like the multiverse?
Why should the universe require a necessary foundation, and if God is deemed necessary, what makes God’s necessity different from any other hypothetical entity’s necessity?
If God is presented as the final cause to stop an infinite regress, why is God exempt from needing a cause? Could the same exemption be applied directly to the universe?
If God is defined as an impersonal force or principle, how does this concept truly differ from abstract natural laws? Does this still leave the question of why those principles exist?
If God is self-explanatory, what does that mean? Is it logically possible for something to be the cause or reason of its own existence, and if so, why must this apply to God?
If God exists outside of time and space, how does this entity causally interact with a temporal, spatial universe? Does invoking transcendence add more mystery than clarity?
How can there be purpose or direction in the universe if God is not a conscious, intentional being? Does this concept of God imply a form of determinism without agency?
Is positing God as the simplest explanation valid, or does this claim ignore the complexity involved in defining and understanding what God is?
If God makes the universe comprehensible, why would a universe created by or grounded in God be any more understandable than one that is self-explanatory or emergent?
If God is said to be the reason why causality exists, does this explanation provide real insight, or does it just reframe the issue without resolving it?
If multiple universes exist, how does God explain the necessity of the entire multiverse system, and does this imply God has a specific reason for creating such a structure?
How does God account for the complexity observed in the universe, and does invoking a complex entity like God really simplify the explanation for complexity?
Can the concept of God genuinely explain existence, or does it just defer the question of "why" to a different, equally complex entity?
If God is said to exist necessarily or as a self-existent being, is this just a circular assertion that sidesteps the need for a deeper explanation?
Does attributing the existence of abstract objects, like numbers and logical truths, to God actually explain their nature, or does it just attribute them to a different kind of mystery?
Does invoking God as a universal principle go beyond what is empirically or logically justified, turning metaphysics into speculation?
If God is considered to direct the universe towards certain ends, how can this direction be meaningful without some form of consciousness or intention?
If God is presented as the ultimate source of causation, does this truly explain what causation is, or does it just place the problem one step further back?
If God is the final answer to "why" questions, is this truly an end to philosophical inquiry, or is it a way to avoid deeper engagement with the complexities of existence?
If God is the grounding for logical laws, does this imply that logic itself is contingent on God? If so, could these laws have been different, or are they necessary and independent?
If God is responsible for a multiverse with infinite variations, does this explain why all possibilities are realized, or does it raise questions about the selection process?
Can the idea of metaphysical necessity, when applied to God, be clearly defined, or is it an abstract placeholder for our lack of understanding?
How can God be truly independent, self-sufficient, and the ultimate explanation if these attributes are not clearly understood or defined?
If God is declared a brute fact to end the chain of explanations, what makes this approach more valid than positing the universe as a brute fact?
Is the idea of God as a metaphysical principle a meaningful explanation, or is it a result of human cognitive tendencies to seek agency and purpose even where there may be none?
Why assume that there must be an ultimate explanation at all, and if God is posited as this, does it address the deeper metaphysical question or simply defer it?
Does introducing God as a principle to explain reality add more to the conceptual structure of the universe than it simplifies, violating the principle of parsimony?
The universe doesn't need to be here. There is no reason why you, or me, or them, or anything, has to be here. The Supreme Reality (i.e., G-d) does not need anything to exist – as Maimonides explains at the beginning of his work Fundamentals of the Torah. But when G‑d brought everything into existence, He did so with the desire to be found within His creation and invested His entire Being in that desire. This desire is an essential element of reality. Call it purpose. It unfolds throughout the story and finally blossoms openly. Explaining this purpose requires context, which is to say we need a longer answer.
Who raised this problem, anyway?
Contrary to popular misconception, this is not a question asked by all thinking people throughout time. Because, although you may not realize it, your question goes through a whole set of presuppositions. The very fact that this doubt bothers you means that you have – perhaps unconsciously – internalized the Torah's view of reality. That is, that the world was brought to life by a Creator.
Because if the world wasn't created, if it's "just here," then why ask about purpose? As one of the greats of modern Buddhism said: "I see no purpose in this whole cosmos." Why should he? Things that are "just here" don't need a purpose.
But the Torah tells us that the universe was created. Time has a beginning. If so, the notion of purpose has meaning: Why did things begin? Why exist something and not just leave nothing alone?
Secondly, you are assuming that there is a consciousness behind creation. Consciousness means "a decisive process." Things do not simply happen through a linear chain of causality – A, therefore B; B, therefore C; to infinity. Nor do they occur "by chance" (whatever that means). There is a project behind the cosmos and that project is not inevitable. Again, this is the Torah's stance: "In the beginning G‑d created" – not, "In the beginning, things just happened."
As an aside, our observations nowadays also support this. The structure of the universe is open to us like never before, and, you see, all the evidence points to a purposeful universe. In the words of Paul Davies, one of the best expositors of what is being called, The Anthropic Model of the Universe: "…there is an incredible delicacy in the balance between gravity and electromagnetism within a star. Calculations show that changes in the strength of either just by one part in 104 it would be a catastrophe for stars like the sun... The sheer improbability that such so-called coincidences could be the result of a series of exceptionally fortunate accidents has encouraged many scientists to agree with Hoyle that 'the universe is a work planned'... If the universe had been created with slightly different laws, not only would we (or anyone) not be here to see it, but it is doubtful that there would be any complex structure at all."
Another delight coming from pure modern physics: physicist Brandon Carter records that the speed of light, multiplied by Planck's constant, and divided by the square of the electron's charge, is approximately equal to 137. Carter states that if this coefficient were just a little larger than that, then all stars would be blue giants and there would be no planets, much less living beings. If it were a little smaller, all the stars would be red dwarfs and therefore the planets orbiting around them would be too cold to support any kind of organism. The speed of light was apparently fixed at the beginning for the good of the entire show.
There are a lot of these delicacies. The unique way in which water expands when freezing; the fantastic coincidences that allow our planet to have its magical, protective system, distributing the heat and humidity that give life, called the atmosphere; the accuracy of the earth's orbit and distance from the sun; the ratio of water to dry land on the surface – are too many coincidences to let the modern god of chance have a chance of credibility. A conscientious Creator with a design in mind seems a much more elegant hypothesis. The question: "What is the purpose of this project?" can be structured in other words: "We can already see the project in space – can we peek at the project in time?"
But now, let's get back to the subject of context:
How big is the problem?
The Torah creates the problem of purpose, and the Torah makes the problem almost impossible to solve. Why? Because the Torah claims that G-d, the Creator of all this, is perfect. Perfect means "having nothing missing." Eternal Polynesian Summer. No defects. No need. Everything is there. Not only is everything we can imagine in the supreme state of perfection – supreme wisdom, supreme knowledge, supreme creativity, supreme beauty – but also that which we cannot imagine, because it is not part of our world.
Purpose, on the other hand, implies a deficiency yearning for compensation, i.e., "I don't have it – how can I get it?" I need food – I eat. I need shelter – I build a house. I need love – I start a relationship. So human relationships, eating and building, these all have a purpose.
G-d is not hungry. He doesn't need to worry about getting wet in the rain. He can do just fine without starting a relationship. He is perfect. This is what makes him G-d. Therefore, if G‑d needs nothing, why does He need a world?
Interestingly, the Zohar presents a reason for creation along these lines. In an oft-quoted passage, the Zohar (Parashat Bô, 42b) mentions that the world was created: "…so that there would be creatures who would know Him in all the measure by which He directs His world, with kindness and with judgment, according to the acts of humanity . For if His light did not spread to each of His creations, how would He be known?
Rabbi Chaim Vital, an important spokesman for the Ari, explains the depth of this passage. Without the act of creation, all of G-d's infinite perfections would be in a state of potential (Etz Chaim, Shaar HaHakdamot, Hakdama 3). Creation is like an artist's expression, making potential become reality.
Of course, this reason is absolutely true, as it is part of our Holy Torah, which is all truth. But Chassidic masters insist that this cannot be the ultimate purpose. Because it still places human limitations on an unlimited G-d.
As Rabbi Sholom Dovber of Lubavitch ("The Rashab") emphasizes: "If G-d is truly perfect in every way, then He does not miss even the perfection that comes with potentials being realized." He is the artist and the art in a perfect whole. In Rashab's classic statement: For a created being, what is potential is not true. But Above, this does not happen. Potential is not a lack of achievement. The potential and the true exist as one. (Sefer Hamaamarim 5666; see the Rebbe's Likutei Sichot, vol. VI, p. 18-25).
The thing is, G-d doesn't even need to be an artist – whatever artistic expression might give Him. He is already there without needing to do anything.
More reasonable argumentation
Rabbi Chaim Vital gives another reason: "When He willed, Blessed be His Name, to create the world to do good to His creatures, so that they might recognize His greatness and merit of being a vehicle for that which is above, connect with Him, Blessed be he." (Eitz Chaim, Shaar HaKlalim).
G-d is good, therefore he creates. This is taking things a little further: being good is more than self-expression, more than being an artist. Both the artist and the philanthropist donate. But while the artist is driven by the urge to showcase his talent, the philanthropist is driven by the needs of others. For the artist, the audience has no intrinsic value, other than as a showcase for his art. The philanthropist, however, is concerned about more than simply giving – he is concerned that someone is receiving. If you are donating food, you are concerned that people no longer go hungry. If you are financing education, you are concerned that students are no longer ignorant. The personal world of the recipient is of paramount importance to him.
This reason avoids the pitfall of the previous reason: It is no use if G-d says, "If there were created beings, I would be good to them." It really needs to happen, they have to really be there and receive the kindness. That's what being good is. Therefore, a world came into existence by implication of G-d's absolute goodness. Again, in the language of Kabbalah (because it is a very elegant language to discuss these matters), Infinite Light is not enough – there must be vessels to absorb that light and react to it, i.e., a world.
All of humanity's struggle and tribulation can be explained this way: Why do we have free will? Why must we walk blindly in the dark? Why all this conflict? All because G-d is good and desires the supreme good for us. "Free bread" – say the Sages – is the "bread of shame." If you truly want to give to others, give them the opportunity to earn the gift. This is dignified bread. This is why G‑d allows us to struggle, so that we can have a sense of ownership of the fruits of our toil.
Bigger problems
Yes, but…
The truth is that we still haven't shown half the problem. You see, ours is not the only world. The Torah talks about angels and souls. Angels appear from the other world to speak with Avraham, Lot, Hagar, Joseph, and even to fight with Jacob. So it's not about "G-d is here and here is our world." There are internships in the meantime.
Even the best of worlds is a disappointment to a perfect G-d. Creativity, when you are perfect, doesn't mean doing more – it means doing less. As Kabbalists would say, G-d creates more with shadows than with light.
It is a frictional process: It begins with infinite light. Then, He creates a state of consciousness that is somehow empty of His presence. Then He draws in that void a suggestion of infinite light, to give that consciousness form and life. This is a world. He repeats the process, creating a vacuum again, then filling it with an infinitesimal hint of light from the previous world. Another world. The process is called tzimtzum and continues through infinite stages, until the lowest possible stage arrives, i.e., you won't like this... our world!
Why is our world as inferior as possible? Because the whole concept of our world is simply to be a world. Appear entirely self-contained. As if he were "simply here" (as that Buddhist said).
Look outside. Maybe you see a tree. What does the tree say? Unless you're one of those psychics who spend the afternoon talking to trees, it says only one thing: "Here I am. Here I was. I'm simply here." Sure, human beings who use their minds will read beauty and meaning in that tree. But that has to do with the inherent spiritual nature of the human being. The tree, by itself, like everything else in the earthly world, has only one thing to say: "I am here." In fact, this is what even we human beings call "reality." If we think about it, human life is an even better example of what I'm talking about. More than the tree. Or even a rock. Because human beings are the ultimate in "just being."
Look out the window and see all those busy human beings. See how everyone goes about their business with the same air of self-centeredness. It's not something to be embarrassed about – it's just the way it is. We can feel each other's emotions, we can feel each other's intellect, but when it comes to the ego, for each of us, there is only one ego in the entire cosmos, and that is ours. Six billion "you", "them" and "them". And only one "I."
The Renaissance philosopher Rabbi Judah Loewe (the Maharal of Prague) emphasizes this (in his commentary on Ethics of the Fathers 3:2): Every human being – the first man, the child, the guy lying in the gutter, the most powerful dictator of History – they all share this insight: "The universe revolves around me." Yes, we can see a little beyond this or at least hide it under the veneer of social etiquette. But just as surely as there are bones in our body, that ego will always be at the heart of what we do. It is the defining factor of our world.
If our window opened to a higher world, things wouldn't look like this. In a higher world, what you see as a tree would be an angel. "Angel" – malach in Hebrew – means messenger. A messenger saying, "I am a creation. I am telling you something about how I was created and what gives me life." There, the creations are more like light reflecting its source, or information communicating from a higher transmitter.
But in our world, no part of this message is successful. With all the encoding, compression, filtering and distortion along the way, it ends up in something garbled and garbled. Which results in egos. Including egos that completely deny having a Creator. Some even believe that they themselves are G-d, having created everything in themselves. (You've probably already encountered some of these – most commonly seen on city streets between 5 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon).
Therefore, as Rashab comments, Rabbi Chaim Vital's reason is a good reason for a world much higher than ours. As in the first emanation of a world. But then, why continue the chain of concealment and distortion to get to ours? To be good and pleasant, did He really have to create a place that became such a dark and horrible mess? Does he need to create a reality that he claims is all there is? Does he need to create egos? Create some basic emanations, be good to them and stop there!
The real problem
All of this, without mentioning the most fundamental of arguments: Who decided that being good to others is a good thing? Who created "goodness" and its definitions? He! Along with all the rules of logic and rationality. So we're back to where we started: is there a reasonable reason for logic and rationality and goodness and containers of Infinite Light or anything else to exist?
Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed, answers a firm no. For all the reasons stated above and even more. There is no reason. Full stop. He doesn't need our world. He doesn't need us. But there is purpose. Absolute purpose.
Now, let's get to the really short answer:
As we said, G-d has no need or "reason" to create a world. He just did it. But when He did it, it was with a purpose. He decided to wish he had two opposites at once:
An earthly, real world…
…discovering your Creator in all your aspects.
In the language of ancient Midrash:
"He desired a world for Himself in the lowest of worlds"
Now the explanation:
"The lowest of worlds." As we explained above, it is our world. In terms of "signal clarity" – clear information about your source – you can't go lower than that and still have something exist. That’s what makes it feel so real – the lack of apparent connection to its source. And that is what makes it so important, to the point that within it lies the purpose of all things. If this seems counterintuitive, that's because it is. Get used to it. From here on, all our conclusions will be based on this counterintuitive principle. It's okay that it's counterintuitive because, as you remember, it's not reasonable. G-d does not need a home. He's perfectly fine doing nothing. He just wanted to wish it. And He can decide to want whatever He decides to want. This does not mean – and it is important to point out – that He does not really want this. On the contrary, have you ever had to deal with an irrational desire? Reason has its limits, but when things are decided "just because," you are no longer dealing with something you can change. You are dealing with the complete person.
Creation contains only the tiniest trace of a ray of a reflection of the Creator's light. We are all unnecessary nothings. But in His desire for His creation and this fulfillment, there He is in His fullness.
Elegance
Counterintuitive. But immaculately elegant. First of all, no other answer so well expresses what Kabbalists call "the simplicity of the infinite." The Infinite, blessed be He, is beyond reason, beyond the search for perfection. All these are nothing more than fictions of his own design. Purposefully placing purpose in the lowest of worlds is a poignant expression of this point. In fact, it is the supreme expression of the Essential infinity.
Second, it makes a lot of sense of the patterns we see throughout the cosmos. And throughout the entire scheme of the cosmos – the Torah. Everywhere is the marriage of opposites, this process of the highest meeting the lowest, the center meeting the peripheral, the One being expressed in the many. No one has addressed this topic more than the Lubavitcher Rebbe, whose approach to every problem in the Torah and in the world is to frame it in the context of its dynamics: The Essence of All Things desires a home within the most concrete reality. The fusion of opposites, too, is a magnificent expression of that Essence that is beyond all binary configurations of yes and no, of being and not being.
Thirdly, although it is beyond reason – for it is reason that reason comes into existence in the first place – it is still something we can intimately relate to. After all, we, too, desire an address. Our entire life and our irrational lust for life is all about this desire to find ourselves within a concrete reality.
What are the counterintuitive implications of this counterintuitive desire to have a home in this dump?
On the one hand, the metaphysical universe has just been turned upside down. The angels and the highest worlds revolve around the earth. They are subject to us here. As the Midrash (Song of Songs) tells us, when the heavenly host above wants to know when it is time to sing the songs of the New Light festival, they must come down here to find out what we have decided.
Mishnah says: "Know that which is above you" (da mah l'maalah mimach) and the Maggid of Mezeritch translates: "Know that everything that is above comes from you." As much as they look down on us, all those spiritual beings depend on us for their own sustenance and daily itinerary. On the other hand, forget about climbing. Entering paradise may be more rapturously refreshing than a Pepsi, but it's just a means to an end. Humanity's job is not to be spiritual cosmonauts, but cosmic miners, scanning the heavens for inspiration to continue their work here below. And what is that work below? To plow the fields of earthly life so that it may absorb the rain from above, to plant and gather the seeds of the heavenly deeds done here on earth, to build and sustain a sanctuary to the Highest of all Highs here below in the lowest of all lower. In other words, study Torah, perform mitzvot and endure all the challenges so far.
This is why, according to Nachmanides in his work Shaar Hagmul, the supreme state of the great human journey is not as souls in heaven, but as souls in bodies. At the end of days, he writes, all souls will return to their respective bodies and remain there for eternal happiness.
Concrete revelation
And another thing: building a home in a lower world does not mean that this world now becomes ethereal and angelic. There are already enough angelic and ethereal worlds. No, it must remain as concrete, mundane and absolute as it was created. The only adjustment is that this same worldliness will be perceived as Divine.
This is why the home cannot come from above – built by angels or even people who have nothing to do with the real world. No pre-made goods. If you want a house in Costa Rica, that means a house in Costa Rica built by Costa Ricans with materials from Costa Rica. Same here – and we are the natives. We, the self-centered, materialistic, earthly aboriginals.
Take for example that egocentrism with which we embarrassed everyone at the beginning of this article, that deep feeling we all have that "I am more me." This, in itself, is the greatest revelation of all, something that angels could never touch. After all, where does this idea come from? How did G‑d create such an apparition?
The answer is that the Creator can create something like this, because He Himself is exactly like that: The Supreme Ego. He is the Center of All Things. He is All That Is – for real. And so, when He breathes from Himself into a creature made of earthly clay, that creature feels exactly the same way: Ego. The supreme center of all things.
This is also the origin of that sense of being "simply here." How can a creation appear to be "just here," as if it had always been there? Just because it is the supreme creation of a Creator who is truly Simply Here. In the language of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi ("The Alter Rebbe") in one of his last writings:
"The Source of all emanations, His existence is of His own being and not the effect of any cause that preceded Him. And therefore, He alone has the ability to create something out of absolute nothing, without any precedent or cause for its existence…” (Tanya, Igueret HaKodesh 20).
Rabbi Schneur Zalman goes on to describe how the supreme expression of this is in the physical earth upon which we walk. And that's why it looks the way it does: Because it is a reflection of ultimate reality.
It turns out that this lower, egocentric world has something that no higher world can offer: The Essence. Furthermore: Not only is G-d's desire for a home directed towards this world of ours - it is the only property appropriate for such zoning. Because Essence simply cannot be expressed anywhere other than within an earthly, concrete, egocentric world. As it is written in the ancient Book of Formation: "The beginning of all things is embedded in their end."
A "dwelling in the underworld," then, does not mean the annihilation of the ego and a darker reality. It simply means that these things will be evaluated for what they really are: The supreme forms of Divine expression.
Practical Application
With all this counterintuition, a practical application is required:
Let's say someone is about to have a meal. Common wisdom would place all possible postures for this exercise between two poles:
The senseless, self-centered stance: "I'm hungry. If I'm hungry, I eat. This food is what I like. I eat what I like. Why? Because when I'm hungry I eat the food I like."
The enlightened, selfless stance. "I'm hungry, but that's not important. I don't even realize that I'm hungry, because I'm so wrapped up in higher metaphysical matters – what is food, anyway? What is hunger? What is a body? What is it me? However, as G-d has commanded me to sustain this body and this is done through food, I will accept a small portion of food to fulfill my obligation."
Which of these fulfills the Creator's purpose in creation?
The answer, of course, is "neither of them." The first stance has a hint of the real world, but no sense that anything other than the human ego lives there. The second has a Higher Consciousness living there, but no real world. Because the subject has suppressed that part of himself that makes him a citizen of this egocentric and inferior kingdom. To achieve the mandate of a "Divine Abode in this lower world," there must be a nexus of these two poles.
So try on a third size option, as I learned from the great master of Chabad thoughtmasters, Rabbi Yoel Kahn:
"I'm hungry. When I'm hungry, I eat. Why? Because that's what earthly beings like me do. And here's the food I like to eat. But wait. I have a purpose. My desire for food has a purpose. Therefore, I will recite a blessing over the food and eat it with the appropriate state of mind that I am eating to fulfill my purpose in life and do many good things.
In this posture, there is a real person, living in a real world, but doing something Divine. And so G‑d says, “Yes! This is what I was looking for!”
Counterintuitive. But doable.
