The truth is that one cannot prove G-d’s existence by argument because G-d is beyond logic and understanding. A single bacterium that lives on our skin has a better chance of understanding its human host than we have of understanding our Creator. However, the atheist should not find any problem with the unknowable aspect of G-d because, as Dawkins admitted many times over, the world we live in is an awesome place and that the fabric that keeps it all together, working in sync like a well oiled machine, is beyond human understanding. In that context we shall see that there really is a profound similarity in thinking between the G-d-believer and the atheist. One worships the artist while the other is enthralled with the artwork and neither understands how it got there.

Thus we can agree that all existent knowledge is divisible into the unknowable and knowable and that we can further divide the latter into what we know and what we don’t know. Or, one could tweak the words a little and describe it as “what we know now and what we have yet to find out.” On the other hand, one of the major places where believers differ from atheists is that we understand knowledge to be whatever G-d has chosen to reveal whereas they believe that people attain knowledge from the knowable solely through human effort. But, in order for something to be discovered or invented it has to exist in potentia in its discoverable form or as raw material, unless scientists claim to have the power to create something from nothing.

Furthermore, the principle disagreement between G-d-believers and atheists is whether this meticulously organized universe from the macro structure of stars and planets to the micro systems of atoms and molecules happened by coincidence with all elements accidentally coming into being and falling into place or by the creation of something from nothing. The point is that whichever theory one subscribes to, it’s just too much for our limited human minds to conceptualize with any level of understanding simply because we were not there when it happened.

Moreover, as Dawkins stated, it’s impossible for human beings to understand the process of their origin because they were not self aware at the time. Certainly no one could deny that we are all the product of an inexplicable process that defies the imagination and evokes wonderment. This progression is the spontaneous development of a putrid drop of semen into a fully functional unique human being. There has never been anyone exactly like you and there never will be again; all from a slimy speck with an encrypted blue print called “DNA”. Think of it! A blue print followed by a machine with billions of minute details, each with a specific function; a clear cut process of design and construction. Are we accidents of nature or Divine creations?

“The Superiority of Evolution” Argument

The argument that evolution, being scientific fact, is superior to religious belief is a diversionary tactic. It has become one of the pivotal points in the Theism versus atheism debate by which atheists decry the creationist stand as myth. Hence, if one is to carry on an intelligent dialogue without drawing mockery from scoffers one needs to have two components in one’s discourse: (1) to put forward a convincing philosophical argument based on logic; (2) to have at least a basic understanding as to how the proponents of the opposing view arrive at their conclusions.

Moreover, to avoid being dogmatic, the creationist debaters must recognize that two people can observe the same physical evidence and draw two different conclusions because each has a belief system bias prior to making the observations. The person who approaches the Torah, first learns that there is one indivisible G-d who created the world from nothing and maintains it with the same ongoing creative process. His/her source is the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish child accepts these premises as truth as a result of growing up in a religious culture.

However, as Jewish children develop into adulthood, they question. It’s a part of being human to seek to validate one’s beliefs by observing nature. Therefore, the Torah learner looks at biological structure and sees that every living organism has internal subdivisions each with a different function and all coordinated for a single purpose; to sustain life. Even bacteria that reside on the skin and in the bowels, serve a purpose for sustaining good health and life. Function and purpose denote design and design requires a designer. Therefore, to the Torah observant Jew, the conclusion that G-d exists is inescapable.

Additionally, when evolutionary biologists present their observations of genetic adaptation in the primitive life forms with the formation of new subspecies in subsequent generations, this does not contradict the Torah, because its description of how G-d created animal life does not preclude the possibility of directed evolution with the genetic adaptation mechanisms. Thus, one cannot preclude the possibility of evolution of non-human life forms because “G-d said, Let the Earth bring forth living creatures, each according to its kind . . .” [Genesis 1:24]. “Bring forth”, according to Rashi and Hahavas Yonasan, implies that the potential for every creature was created on the first day.

Therefore, one can reasonably infer from the scriptures that myriads of species in the sea, birds of the air and creatures of the Earth “evolved” as part of the creative process. Furthermore, since the first six and one half days preceded the beginning of human consciousness, the real time could have been billions of years or the Creator accomplished billions of year’s worth of evolution in six days. From G-d’s perspective it makes no difference because He is beyond time. However, the scripture clearly separates the creation of the first man from the process of bringing forth living creatures.

Hence, those who believe in Torah as truth would be hard pressed to accept that man has a common ancestry with all other forms of life. Moreover, evolutionary biologists and paleontologists who claim to have sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a common ancestor between humans and primates are forgetting about the conflicting theories of hominid classification and the new discoveries that keeping changing various speculations about the geography of human origin and the migration patterns of the earlier anthropoids¹ and later hominids².

On the other hand, in the absence of belief in the Creator, the atheist turns to self-causing undirected evolution to explain the current existence of all forms of life. Thus, although the origin of life and evolution are different questions, the human evolutionists, must refer to a single entity from which all life evolved asserting that somewhere in the “tree of life” there was an apish-humanoid whose decedents branched off into humans and primates. The Torah does not support this notion.

Yet, although there are assertions out there of fossilized hominid remains that supposedly meet some scientific criteria of being ancestor to both humans and apes; we need not accept such contentions as indisputable fact. According to Wikipedia, “A current theory [theory accepted as fact] is a hypothesis that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative premise, and has survived repeated attempts at falsification.” Therefore, as we shall discover in more detail in Chapter 4 (“The Debate Rages on”), the theory of evolution specifically as it relates to the origin of humankind, has not as of this writing met the criteria for general acceptance as scientific fact because of conflicting theories on the classification of fossilized remains, the inaccuracies of dating methods, inconclusive results from genetic analyses and lacking falsifiability³.

The “Religion is Rooted in Evil” Argument

In order to know if religion is rooted in evil we need to ask, “What are the roots of religion?” If, according to evolutionary scientists, erect walking ape-like hominids evolved from anthropoids followed by the homo sapiens of today, when did they start believing in G-d or other deities? On the other hand, we G-d-believers have no problem answering this question. The first man and woman knew their creator in a revealed way. The digression began in succeeding generations of people who knew of G-d’s existence but decided to go through intermediaries like the sun and the moon in order to have a visual object as a representation. This method of prayer led the way to worshipping statues, stones, trees and animals. However, Abraham reinstituted recognition of the one true G-d and was the first evangelist, who became the forerunner of the Jewish people and many other nations. For those who think that he was a mythological figure, you can visit his grave at a place in Israel called the Cave of Macpheila. The other people who are buried there, according to the opinions of learned Torah scholars are Sarah, Isaac, Rivka, Jacob, Leah, Adam and Eve.

Furthermore, to think that monotheism evolved from polytheism as humans became more sophisticated in their thinking is a mistake. The one universal truth throughout history is that humans did not know how to behave in a civilized compassionate manner until G-d handed down His laws when He told them to Noah upon his emerging from the ark. Those seven Universal Laws are the hallmark of the rules of conduct in all civilized societies to this day.

With regard to the “evil roots” of religion, it’s unclear as to where this comes from. Perhaps it depends on the religion to which one is referring. There was one group of Canaanites that lived in Israel about 3400 years ago who sacrificed their children to a god named Baal. There was another group around the same time that honored their deity by defecating in front of it. On the other hand, the Jews had and still have to this day a complex set of laws for which the prime directives are love your neighbor as yourself and never do to anyone else what you hate being done to you. Thus we can see that the root of the current belief in one G-d is the Torah and that any evil that exists is the result of people adding to or deviating from the will and wisdom of our Creator. The Torah requires people to establish courts of justice; “love your fellow as yourself” and refrain from idol worship, adultery, theft, murder and cruelty to animals. Where is the evil in those two directives and five prohibitions?

The “We Don’t Need G-d to be Good” Argument

The claim of atheists that there is a natural human instinct for morality and ethics, i.e. kindness, charity, self sacrifice, etc. is preposterous. Just look at the behavior of children toward one another in a school yard and you will see relentless cruelty and selfishness beyond belief. The truth is that we have to teach our children how to behave toward others, with kindness and consideration because their natural inclination is to behave like animals with access to intellectual reasoning. Therefore, we have to teach them how to control their innate impulses. We do this teaching with speech and action often not realizing that children learn more through observation than listening. In any event, we can only teach what we have learned and somewhere in our history there had to be a first teacher; someone who thought up all the rules of moral and ethical behavior that Dawkins cherishes. So which famous apish man precursor or subsequent Neanderthal cave dweller dreamed up all the mandates on how to behave appropriately?

On the other hand, when you look in the Five Books of Moses you will find a list of such rules written in a concise and easy to understand manner; the seven laws given to the world at large through Noah and the six hundred thirteen laws given to the Jewish people through Moses. Ah, but the big argument is over who wrote it. However, for this discussion that is not the issue because we can fight over the identity of the author until the end of time. The bottom line is that the Torah is the main source of morality and ethics in the world today. Moreover, if Dawkins and his followers want to go through the list of dos and don’ts and discard the ones about worshipping the Creator of all things, that’s their business. But, they cannot realistically deny where the concept of being “good” came from. Otherwise they are operating under an anti-G-d illusion. Thus, the history of “being good” or good beings is tied directly to the Torah.

The “Who Needs G-d When we can Stand in Awe of World” argument

Finally, the word “awe” is an essential component of worship since it denotes an overwhelming feeling of amazement and dread rolled into one emotional wave that leaves a person momentarily speechless and static. Such feelings don’t arise spontaneously unless something stupefying suddenly occurs like the eruption of a volcano or the collapse of the Twin Towers. Otherwise we have to arouse it within ourselves by thinking of something that is beyond our understanding. Thus a current popular belief is that we don’t need to be in awe of G-d when we can revere this magnificent world, whose origin is beyond comprehension. However, this was the basis of idolatry, which has always culminated in collective barbarism and cruelty because there were no proscribed behavioral standards.

On the other hand, the Torah is very much a part of the physical world because it is a conglomeration of Hebrew letters written on parchment made from kosher animal skins. However, while some only see ink, parchment and wooden scrolls, Jews who study this document see the will and wisdom of G-d written in the language of creation. The conclusions drawn by those who can read and understand scripture in the original Hebrew are very different from the interpretations spewed forth by individuals reading from a translated King James Version of the “Old Testament”. Torah scholars see infinite kindness, mercy, understanding and benevolence and stand in awe of G-d, while the Dawkinian atheists see the opposite; a finite realm of cruelty, harshness, pettiness and malevolence and stand in awe of the wonders of this world.

However, these opposing views are exactly as they should be because everything in this universe, including the Torah is a dichotomy of light versus darkness, positive versus negative or good versus evil. Each person sees the side that he or she wants to see and chooses what to believe. That is the nature of free will. Accordingly, this whole argument of “Oh G-d” versus “No G-d” is one of choice between standing in awe of Him and being awestruck by His creation.

The atheists tell us that respect for belief in G-d is undeserved because such beliefs are not the result of scientific endeavor. Dawkins, the self proclaimed spokesman for atheism, claims that theologians can no more theorize about G-d than a “fairiologist can measure the dimension of fairy wings”. However, the idea of being careful not to disparage the belief systems of others is not about deserving respect from a scientific perspective; it’s about having sensitivity. Worship is a manifestation of love and awe. People naturally get offended when you tell them that they have invested all this intense emotion for nothing. The religion of any culture is not just a belief system to be refuted at every opportunity; it governs a person’s entire life from the womb to the grave and instills a code of behavior, notwithstanding there are those who threaten to cut off the head of anyone who dares to infer that their religion is not peaceful.

On the other hand, the belief system of the so called atheists who accept as their god this disconnected, impersonal force beyond nature do not have any rules to which to conform. Consequently, those non-believers who obey the laws of their respective societies and even perform acts of kindness are unwittingly conforming to the laws handed down by the very G-d that they so eagerly deny. However, those laws make sense from the perspective of human logic, so people conclude they don’t need G-d to be good. The practical benefit of a society with laws that protect the rights of individuals is easily determinable, so most intelligent people agree with the need for law and order and basic moral guidelines.

Furthermore, scientists indicate that the scientific process is superior to the study of theology because the knowledge of the latter is given as truth as opposed to being arrived at through experimentation and or deductive logic. One major flaw in this reasoning is in making the assumption that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all the same. The fact is that they are not. Additionally, to say that the latter two arose from the first is also fallacious. For one thing, the Jews had nothing to do with the rise of Christianity or Islam. Notwithstanding that one of our guys became an object of worship, the Romans made the former into an official religion after the destruction of the Second Temple and annihilation of millions of Jews. For another, the proponents of the “new religion” added a new book to the Torah written in Greek utilizing the original format. Moreover, the followers of Mohammed incorporated both the old and new Testaments and added yet another book written in Arabic called the “Koran”. The fact remains that Jewish culture and the Torah did not evolve into anything else. They remain the same to this day unchanged and unscathed despite all the attempts over all these past centuries to wipe them from the face of the earth.

Therefore, in examining whether scientific theorem-based knowledge is deserving of more respect than the knowledge from Torah, we need to compare the two as to veracity and reliability. First, the source of all the information we have obtained to date is the same for both science and Torah. On the side of science, since no human can create something from nothing, every process in nature has to pre-exist its discovery. Therefore, that which is undiscovered is hidden and that which is known has become revealed. On the other side, the same thing happens when Talmudic scholars discover new insights; a hidden part of the Torah becomes revealed. The difference is that the scientific “revelation” is unreliable because new discoveries change the way we look at things, whereas the body of Torah knowledge has never changed and its scholars look at the world and its contents exactly the same way today as their predecessors did thousands of years ago. So, which is the more reliable?

For example, most people believed that the world was flat until Copernicus made public his astrological findings. Then the atom was the smallest particle of matter until the discoveries of the electron in 1896, the proton in 1919 and the neutron in 1932. Somewhere in the middle, there was the founding of quantum electrodynamics in 1928 followed soon after by quantum mechanics. Then in 1929, Hubble introduced the theory of the expanding universe. However, the two main physics theories that emerged from the early twentieth century, quantum mechanics and relativity, proposed radically different descriptions of the universe. In more recent years, physicists like Stephen Hawkings have proposed “the theory of everything” (TOE), which is a hypothetical theory of physics that is meant to fully explain and link together all known physical phenomena. Some scientists even believe that a comprehensive TOE, which is near at hand, will, out of necessity, include information on how the “primary creative force and the ongoing creative process relate to the universe and its contents.”

Ironically, this profound conglomeration of scientific thought called “the TOE” sounds very much like the future age of redemption (AOR) foretold in the Torah, during which all physical phenomena will be revealed and understood under the leadership of the Meshiach. Moreover, if any of the scientists want to find out “how the primary creative force and the ongoing creative process relate to the universe and its contents”, they need only to open The Tanya, the previously mentioned work of Kabbalah compiled by Rabbi Schneur Zalman (of blessed memory) and published more than two hundred years ago in 1799. There you will find “The Theory of Everything” explained in clear, concise and lucid detail.

For example, Rabbi Zalman, in chapter 3 of The Tanya wrote, “. . . the element of fire is in the heart, while the source of water and moisture is in the brain. . .” He was alluding to the fact that intellect manifests in the brain which regulates the flow of fluid and energy and emotion is revealed in the heart which responds to a fiery stimulus in its operation. This knowledge of the human body had always been embedded in the Torah and was revealed to common knowledge among the Jews more than one hundred fifty years before science “discovered” that there is an endocrine system by which the brain regulates all bodily flows and functions and a series of nodes in the heart that fire off electrical shocks to stimulate each heartbeat. 

Okay, I’m willing to believe there was a Navy Seal unit raid on the mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which is a stones throw from one of their largest military bases. I’m also willing to believe that they killed three Muslim men and one woman. There is enough media hype and cyberspace chatter to be convincing. It’s much harder to perpetrate an elaborate hoax these days like the movie, “Wag the Dog.” However, that’s where I have to draw the line. Not that I think that Osama is still at large. If he were, I’m quite sure that after three days he would have shown himself on AL Jazeera if only to make the American administration look really stupid. What enemy could resist such an opportunity to humiliate his foes?

Yet, the press conference announcements, stories and public speeches leave us with unanswered questions. First, Osama was firing at the attackers and hid behind one of his wives who was also shot dead. Then the story changed to her being shot in the leg while trying to shield Osama from the bullets. The dead woman was somebody downstairs who got caught in the crossfire between two of Osama’s men and the Seals. Then the Navy ceremoniously dumps the body into the sea and the administration

spokesman claims they made a positive identification but Obama won’t let anybody look at the pictures. The Secretary of Defense, the Press Secretary and Obama all claim that they verified the dead guy’s identity with DNA and that makes Obama 99.9% certain that it’s Osama, but he won’t show the test result.

There’s the rub. The DNA match is an obvious lie. To have a match with that much certainty they have to have a fool proof DNA profile of Osama taken some time before the raid. The best they could come up with is an approximation profile by using DNA samples from his siblings, most of whom are half siblings, nephews, nieces and cousins.

 Therefore, based on family gene pool, they can’t say with any degree of certainty whether they killed Osama or one of his half brothers, cousins, uncles or nephews. Hence, if we are catching Obama in such an obvious lie, how can we believe anything he or his cronies are telling us.

In conclusion, it’s difficult to believe that Obama would be stupid enough to take credit for Osama’s death unless he had absolute knowledge of Osama’s demise or he had total control over him in a secret place of detention. Nonetheless, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the whole thing about Obama giving the order to take out Osama was a farce. Most likely Osama was already on a slab waiting to be picked up by our guys. The fact is that nine years ago Osama fled Afghanistan into Pakistan and has been hiding there successfully ever since. Our government couldn’t find him until the Osama’s henchmen gave up his body after he died of natural causes. How embarrassing is that? The DNA bubbamises is a feeble attempt to divert attention from the real story that Osama’s people made a deal to hand over his body for the 25 million dollar reward and other considerations. Obama needed the drama because his approval ratings have been in the toilet so he staged the phony raid after receiving proof that the carcass was really Osama’s. Getting rid of the body in quick time, claiming to have DNA verification, announcing that there are classified video footage and photographs and then refusing to show this so-called evidence all leads me to conclude that if they had Osama’s body it was already decomposed to the extent that everyone could see that Osama had been dead for much more than a couple of hours

Okay, so now there’s no body. The secretary of defense said “We’re 99.9% certain that we got Osama Bin Laden.” One reporter asked him, “You mean there is 0.1% doubt that it might be someone else?” The Secretary said that they confirmed the DNA. But, wait a minute! In order to match DNA they had to have a sample taken from Osama sometime earlier and be able to prove that it was from him. From where in the world did they get the pre-existing DNA profile? Hmm? Where did they conduct the analysis? What is the nature of the test? Why didn’t the administration publish the test print out to show us the match?

Then the media has been going wild anticipating that we are going to at least see pictures of the body to confirm the story to all of the skeptics of this world. People from all walks of life have been saying they need confirmation. Doubts are piling up every where. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the White House would show sufficient proof to quell all doubts as to the veracity of the statement that Osama is indeed dead. Ah, but now we’ve heard from the White House spokesman who said they won’t release the photographs of the body to inflame the Arabs or for propaganda; “That’s not who we are.”

So here’s the deal: 1) The White House announced that a Navy Seal team raided Osama’s residence in Pakistan; 2) They allegedly conducted a DNA analysis and confirmed that the man shot in the head is Osama but never showed us the actual result or explained where they got the prior control sample to set up the profile for a match test; 3) They announced that they took the body to an aircraft carrier and dumped it overboard after a Muslim funeral; 4) They said they have pictures but are refusing to show them to the general public. I’m certain that if the Seals killed a decoy and Osama is still alive somewhere else, he won’t wait long before appearing on AL Jazeera Television to thumb his nose at the world (G-d forbid). So, unless Osama made a deal with Obama to trade information for witness protection, in the absence of any visible shred of corroborating forensic evidence, time will tell whether the dead chicken of the sea is really Osama Bin Laden or has Obama been Lying?

One of the leading arguments against the existence of G-d from the scientific community is that there is no such thing as the “supernatural”. However, since the greatest scientists of our times have openly admitted that there are many aspects to our world and universe that are beyond human understanding, they are referring to something beyond nature. Therefore, the incomprehensible part of nature is by definition, “supernatural”.

So, it seems that we are not really arguing whether there is a G-d or not; but we are debating the way people characterize Him. Hence, this dispute boils down to two opposing schools of thought: first, that G-d caused the world to come into being in some unknown fashion over a period of billions of years, allowed the people to evolve from apes and said in effect, “Do what you will, it’s your world, you only get one chance; make the best of it.” Second, that God made the Heavens and the Earth in six days from nothing, formed the first man from the earth, breathed life into him, separated the first woman from him and told them to “be fruitful and multiply.” He then set up the first rule of obedience as a condition for living forever in paradise.

This second version is what Dawkins summarily dismisses as “delusional”. In other words, either G-d removed himself from the world and is watching for entertainment value or the world is one with Him and He is involved with us every moment continuously giving us our life force and providing challenges to strengthen us. According to Dawkins, the G-d of Israel is obsessive, maniacal and cruel because he demands worship and obedience in exchange for happiness, contentment and eternal life. However, the stark truth is that real cruelty is being aloof and indifferent to the plight of others. Thus Dawkins apparently prefers the unsympathetic detached god watching the show from a comfortable distance rather than be subservient to the One that is in control of all things. 

Moreover, it seems that to the confirmed atheist there is no distinction between G-d and religion. Thus they apparently believe that if they are able to refute the abuses committed by fanatics in the name of religion, they can conclude that G-d does not exist. Consequently, we must make clear the distinction between G-d and religion. First of all, G-d never said, “Let there be religion.” He set up a set of laws and an organizational structure, whereby the leader delegates certain responsibilities to subordinates. Thus, following the tenets of a civilized society, which depends on the rule of law for its survival, is not religion; it’s common sense.

Additionally, there were many varieties of religious worship of stones, trees, the sun, the moon, statues, and mythical gods throughout the ages that predated and came after the start of Judaism at Mount Sinai; but those were all man-made concoctions. If you look at the societies that have long since been dead and gone, you will not find kindness or ethical thought as the rule of law. But, the Jewish culture continues to this day, unchanged as to the source of its beliefs and if you look there you will find kindness to the extent that if one person borrows money from another, the lender says, “Thank you for the opportunity”, gives over the money without charging any interest and never asks the borrower to repay for fear of embarrassing him. This behavior is not religion; this is the rule of Jewish law as handed down from the Torah. Similarly, the famous sayings “Love your fellow as yourself” and “Do not do to others what you hate being done to you” are not religion; they are the law.

We need to begin to realize that in reality we are independently dependent on G-d for everything; even every breath we take. We all walk around in a sea of air. The weight of that column of air that is above us at all times is bearing down on us; this is atmospheric pressure. It is this heaviness that would prevent our lungs from expanding to fill up if not for the surrounding thin sac in which there is a constant vacuum. If any air gets into this sac the lungs would collapse and the atmospheric pressure would cause death. This denotes purpose and purpose denotes design and construction. Moreover, we seem to know exactly how fast and how deeply we need to breathe to regulate the amount of oxygen in the blood without giving it a single thought. Hence it’s G-d’s loving care that keeps us breathing an average of 20 times per minute, 1,200 times per hour, 28,880 times per day, 202,160 times per week and 10,512,320 times per year.

Additionally, when we eat, what prevents us from chewing on the inside of our mouths or biting off pieces of our tongues? Again, it’s G-d’s loving care. Add to that all of the other thousands of chemical reactions with hormones, enzymes, ions and the flow of millions of electrical impulses every minute and you can easily see that every heart beats with the same rhythmic Divine intervention. If all of the complexities of the human body aren’t enough, what about the ecological systems by which the earth and its trees bear fruit or the animals that give us meat and clothing. Since atheists scoff at the notion of intelligent design, what would happen if all of the things that keep us alive were left to chance?

The fact is that the Almighty introduced himself about 3500 years ago to 3 million people at a place called Mount Sinai by saying, “I am the Lord your G-d who took you out of Egypt.” He then issued ten utterances written in tablets made of sapphire, which is what most of us know today as the “Ten Commandments”. The people who experienced the Divine revelation had also seen first hand the 10 great miracles in Egypt and the splitting of the “Red Sea” (The “Sea of Reeds” is the correct translation of the Hebrew words,

). These are recorded facts passed down unaltered from one generation to another for three and one half millennia and this record is how we know that G-d exists and what he wants from all of us, Jew and non Jew alike.

However, we are limited finite beings dealing with an unlimited eternal G-d. There is no imagining or conceptualizing because in comparison we are nullified. The pure scientist kind can stand in awe of the physical universe and all of its natural infrastructure and phenomena, but they are really standing in awe of themselves because they are a part of that which they find so awe-inspiring. However, if you take the water out of any human body, you have less than a handful of dirt. Hence, it seems preferable to stand in awe of the Creator rather than His creation.

On the other hand, our ability to know G-d is extremely limited because as we understand from the Hassidic teachings of Rabbi Schneur Zalman (of blessed memory) of Liadi, Russia (circa 1796), in The Tanya, a book of Kabbalistic revelation, His revealed presence nullifies all physical matter to utter nothingness. Of course this explanation begs the question, “If everything is nullified in relationship to G-d how do we exist?” The answer lies in the fact that the process of creation was making something from nothing. Thus he created time, space, the physical universe and the supernal worlds within himself in a series of contractions; passing his infinite light through filters, so to speak, bringing about the lowest physical world, all emanating from the G-dly energy.

To continue, in the process of the “contractions” G-d conceals his nullifying limitless capacity so that physical beings can be self aware and we can think of ourselves as existing independently. However, we could not maintain any level of self awareness and all physical matter would go out of existence if G-d fully revealed his quintessence. To illustrate, The Tanya explains the concept of nullification by comparing the sunbeam to the sun. The ray of light appears to have independent existence when seen bursting through a window. The observer can even feel its warmth. However, as nightfall begins the ray of light disappears. Where did it go? It went back to its point of origin. There, it has no separate identity because at the source there is only the sun. Thus, when Moses said to G-d, “Please show me your glory,” the Almighty replied “No man may see my face and live.” He was explaining to Moses that all physical matter is like a radiating beam of light that has no separate identity at its source. 

In any case, we do know how G-d deals with us because there is a record of his interactions with various people in history. Our relationship with Him falls into two categories: that of a father and his children; and that of a king and his subjects. The former centers on the needs and wants of the individual and the latter concerns itself mainly with the common good. In both types of relationships there must be a balance of kindness and severity. The parent has to deny the child’s wants on occasion and provide discipline in order to raise a decent human being. Similarly, a leader has to govern by the principle of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few; otherwise there would be chaos. Just as a child needs discipline, adults need to live within a structure of rules and regulations. Additionally, when a child becomes unruly he must learn to control his animalistic impulses through punishment tempered with kindness and when an adult becomes unruly he becomes destructive and authorities must remove him from where he can cause harm. Therefore, in order to be able to accept even the direst circumstances with hope and joy, we must conclude that G-d doesn’t always give us what we want, but he always gives us what we need.

Finally, the world at large notoriously misconstrues the Torah as a history book with stories and parables. In reality, it is a book of laws; the will and wisdom of our Creator. Every story and grammatical nuance teaches us something. Even the repetition of words and the proximity of certain events that are not in chronological order all carry specific lessons for us on how to behave toward one another in order to establish a nurturing society.

However, just like everything else in this world, the Torah can be used as much for evil as for good. Thus, there is a long history of religious organizations that have added to and attempted to nullify many of its teachings. For example, over the many centuries of dark and middle ages in Europe, the Church of Rome sent inquisitors with armed escorts to find Jewish enclaves and burn the people with their books and scrolls; while more currently, the J—–‘s Witnesses and Mormons relentlessly attempt to convince Jews to accept the “new religion” as an alternative to Judaism in order to be “saved”. Furthermore, bizarre religious aberrations like slapping someone’s forehead on national TV to drive out the devil do not negate or alter the existence of G-d any more than Dawkins and his colleagues can replace Him with science.

Moreover, even the famous atheistic scientists, with their miniscule knowledge of the original Hebrew Bible, have been able to make it clear that the Torah is the source of all belief in G-d. Therefore, in order to nullify the Almighty such individuals have to negate all of the Hebrew Scriptures and the work of all of the Talmudic scholars recorded over the last three thousand five hundred years. In order to do that one must quote line by line at least a majority of the countless inferences and conclusions drawn by all of the great Torah scholars of history and demonstrate that those are the drivel of demented delusional minds. 

Religion has nothing to do with the Existence of G-d; and G-d has nothing to do with the Existence of Religion

To begin with, since the human mind cannot grasp even a rudimentary understanding of the Divine, the G-d concept cannot be anything but metaphoric. Thus, when we say the “Hand of G-d” for example, we are speaking about Divine intervention.

What’s more, atheists like Dawkins scoff at the term “Essence of G-d” and say they don’t get it; but that’s okay because no one else does either. Rabbi Sholom Lipskar, a well-known Torah scholar and Jewish leader in South Florida, explains that the affable name of G-d as given in the Bible representing His “essence” means “infinite light”. Additionally, since G-d has chosen to reveal certain things about His existence in relation to creation, there are certain inferences that we can draw regarding our smallness, the nature of our relationship with Him and the character of Scripture.

First of all, we need to put our limited knowledge of G-d in perspective. This is very difficult for the die hard atheists because they are convinced that there is nothing greater than they are with respect to Intellectual supremacy. However, think for a moment about the difference in intelligence between the host human and the clusters of bacteria that live on the skin and in the bowels. The social distance is so great that we have no concern for the life paths of these organisms. In making a comparison, the intellectual gap between the Almighty and us is infinitely greater. Moreover, human beings and the microbes are both finite limited beings, so that in the presence of the infinite light, there is no difference between them. Yet He is totally involved in our lives with love and caring much more so than the bacteria, which exist solely as an adjunct to sustain human life.

Secondly, when it comes to any subject matter, the opinion of an ignoramus means nothing. What we know about our Creator is exactly what He revealed in scripture (Torah). To be sure, there are those who say that the Torah is the culmination of Jewish cultural mythology or folk lore, but as we go further we shall see that no human mind could have conceived it because it is unlimited. The information contained in the biblical text and the recording of the oral law in the Talmud is so vast that even the most able scholar could not master all of it in a thousand lifetimes.

Yet there are scientific investigators like Dawkins who claim to have reached the “inescapable” conclusion that all of the knowledge expounded upon and passed down from generation to generation for three thousand five hundred years is false and that all of the greatest minds that ever lived were immersed in wasteful psychotic delusion. When it comes to credibility, certainly such eminent scientists would have to agree that the opinion of someone who has spent a lifetime of learning and evaluating a subject with an inquisitive mind is greatly more reliable than that of a person with a little knowledge and a lot of ego.