Beyond Proof: Exploring Three Arguments for God’s Existence

In a letter to students the Lubavitcher Rebbe listed three arguments for God’s existence. These form a ladder to faith, which falls away once we reach it.

Nov 15, 2024

In the spring of 1959, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh and last Rebbe of the Chabad movement, received a letter from a group of high school students. They asked him a question: as skeptics, could they be shown irrefutable proof of God’s existence?

By this time, the Rebbe was widely recognized and respected by many, devoting significant time each week to responding to the hundreds of letters he received from all over the world. Notably, before becoming the Rebbe, he had studied philosophy and mathematics at the University of Berlin and later engineering in Paris, including auditing lectures at the Sorbonne. His background in both science and broader fields meant that people often reached out to him with questions about the intersection of science and faith, which likely explains why these young people chose to write specifically to him.

The Rebbe opened his response by addressing the complexity and relativity of terms like “proof” and “reality,” and noted that the letter did not specify what kind of proof would satisfy the writers. He then went on to present three different arguments for the existence of God. More precisely, he offered two arguments as “proofs” and a third, which challenged the very notion of needing proof.

We will summarize these three points and then attempt to uncover the underlying thought process within them. The order in which the Rebbe presented the arguments, as we’ll show, hints at a mental journey—a ladder of reasoning that leads beyond argumentation to an elevation above it. Finally, we’ll take this process one step further, to a concept implicit in the Rebbe’s words, but not explicitly articulated.

Three Arguments

The first argument is a classic one from Jewish sources. It states that the fact that the story of the God’s revelation to the Israelites at Mount Sinai was the collective experience of an entire nation, and was passed down as such through the generations, is itself a proof of its truth.

A single person might imagine or fabricate something, and rumors about miracles or revelations happening elsewhere could be easily invented. But how could an entire nation, millions of families, one day begin to lie to their children that their ancestors witnessed something like this, and repeat that every Passover? The only way that generations across the globe would consistently pass on this same testimony is if at some point a whole generation had actually witnessed it.

Thus goes the first argument. You may be, and probably are, unconvinced by this. We understand this, but ask you to suspend your judgment for now and read on.

The second argument is also well-known, and this time can be found outside the Jewish tradition too. It posits that the existence of a complex, fine-tuned universe with a vast amount of components operating in harmony, points to a designer.

If we stumbled upon a factory filled with robots operating automatically and in sync, we’d have no doubt that an engineer had designed and built the robots. Indeed, the more self-sufficient and harmonious their operation would be, the more impressed we’d be with the engineer’s intellect. Likewise, the universe, even down to the level of physical matter, is such an intricate system, with billions of particles working in harmony and obeying delicate, precise laws, that this serves as proof of an intelligent Designer behind it. This is the second argument, also known as the “argument from design.”

The third and final argument is the most intriguing, and appears to be an original argument of the Rebbe. After politely presenting the students with the two classic arguments, the Rebbe allowed himself to question the very premise behind their request. Those asking for proof of God’s existence, he wrote, assume that the reality of creation itself is beyond doubt, and they base their question on the existence of a hidden Creator behind it. But this very assumption is, itself, questionable. According to the latest scientific findings, he wrote (referring to relativity theory and quantum physics), the nature of reality itself is far from certain: the matter that seems solid has been revealed to be composed of intangible energy fields; time that seemed absolute is now seen as relative; causality, once thought mechanical, is now understood as probabilistic; and our ability to perceive reality is fundamentally clouded by uncertainty.

In fact, long before these scientific developments, philosophers such as Descartes, Hume, and Kant had grappled with a basic problem: the reliability of the senses. How do we know that what our senses show us truly exists? Given this, the Rebbe wrote, it’s actually simpler to believe there is a Creator than to take reality as an unquestionable given. It makes more sense to think there is a guiding reason behind the mystery of this uncertain existence than to cling to a reality that may be virtual.

The Rebbe closed his letter with a remark that human nature is such that when we are presented with simple proofs, we often resist them precisely because of their simplicity. But he expressed hope that this would not be the case with these young people and that their preconceptions would not prevent them from considering the arguments thoughtfully. He invited them to respond and share their thoughts, even if they did not agree at all.

The Sequence of Arguments

Let us focus our attention on the order in which the Lubavitcher Rebbe presented these three arguments. The sequence does not appear to be arbitrary. But what exactly was the rationale behind it, and what does it teach us?

The first thing we can note is that the three proofs seem to gradually advance from concepts that match with the spirit of past generations, to those more aligned with the mindset of our own era.

The first argument, that which asserts that testimony passed down by an entire nation has undeniable validity, seems to lack the persuasive force it once had. While it’s actually quite difficult to refute and therefore carries a certain undeniable weight, it’s unlikely to convince many educated people in our time (those it does convince are likely already believers, or on their way to becoming ones). In fact, they’re likely to sneer at it. This lack of acceptance does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the argument; rather, it reflects a broad modernist resistance toward such “medieval” sounding arguments (a fact the Rebbe himself hinted at this in the end).

The second argument, the argument from design, has a somewhat stronger foothold today and is indeed still the subject of widespread discussion. Modern science continues to uncover additional layers of complexity in nature, intricately woven into the most fundamental physical levels, defying any simple reduction. Empirical evidence has accumulated in support of what is called the “anthropic principle,” which suggests that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for life, especially intelligent life. For these reasons, some scientists accept a version of the argument from design as a basis for believing in some kind of intelligence behind the universe, even if not the personal God of the Bible. Still, the argument does not enjoy widespread support. A great many intellectuals are skeptical of it and invest effort in trying to refute it on biological and physical grounds. Despite the evidence in its favor, this argument too struggles to gain traction among the educated classes, which still finds it somewhat contrived and anachronistic.

The third argument, however, concerning the inherent uncertainty of reality, belongs to an entirely different category than the previous two. Ironically, despite challenging the apparent solidity of scientific knowledge, it actually resonates far more with the spirit of the times than the first two. If any idea might strike a chord with sophisticated thinkers today, it is this one. Though it, too, is constructed somewhat like a proof and seeks to bring one closer to belief in a Creator, it does so not by instilling certainty but by sowing doubt—first in the belief in creation itself, and then in the denial of it having a creator. In offering this line of reasoning, the Rebbe is making a kind of “quantum leap” into a new intellectual space, where the starting point is not reality, but the Divine.1

Another thing to note is that as the arguments approach our era’s mentality, they grow less encompassing. The first argument, if accepted, proves not only the existence of a Creator but also the truth of the Torah, the Exodus from Egypt, and the 613 commandments. The second argument, by contrast, only purports to prove the existence of an intelligent designer, possibly a benevolent one (as the laws of nature are conducive to life), but certainly not the God of Israel who gave the Torah. Finally, the third argument is not a proof at all but a challenge to the very existence of creation itself, thus indirectly opening a pathway to belief in a Creator.

The more we approach the modern mindset, the less we can say with certainty.

Four Arguments, Four Worlds

To go deeper into the underlying pattern of the sequence of proofs we shall now enlist some Kabbalistic concepts.

Kabbalah speaks of four “worlds” that form reality, each one residing above the other: Asiyah (action), Yetzirah (formation), Beri’ah (creation), and Atzilut (emanation). The term “worlds” doesn’t necessarily refer to separate metaphysical realms. It could also be construed as referring to levels of perceiving reality. Each of the four “worlds” constitutes a worldview—a picture of reality as seen from a higher perspective than its predecessor.

Among these worlds, Atzilut or Emanation represents a sublime level of awareness where there is no separation between the Creator and creation, whereas the three lower worlds do experience such separation. In this context, a demand for proof of the Creator’s existence could only come from the three lower worlds. Indeed, we can draw a detailed parallel between the Rebbe’s three arguments and the lower worlds, in ascending order:

The first argument aligns with the world of Asiyah, action, the lowest and most earthly level. This is a world of concrete facts and gradual, uninterrupted causality. Accordingly, the first argument, based on testimony, relies on the existence of a causal chain of transmission, one embedded within reality and history.
The second argument corresponds to the world of Yetzirah, formation, a more spiritual realm characterized by harmonious and perfect order (akin to the Platonic world of “forms”) as well as strong emotional experiences. Likewise, the second argument exists in a plane of thought that contemplates the perfect order and purposefulness of the world, and the emotional awe that it inspires.
Finally, the third argument belongs to the world of Beri’ah, creation, which is yet loftier than the previous two and requires a leap to a new level of consciousness. This world embodies the act of creatio ex nihilo (creating something from nothing) and is thus characterized by an awareness that the world’s existence is contingent upon a higher will. These characteristics accurately reflect the third argument, which goes beyond the laws of nature to question the very existence of the world, and probes the boundaries between it and what lies beyond.

This correspondence also explains why each of the arguments the Rebbe listed proves less than the one before. The lower the world, the more concrete and detailed its view of reality, while the higher worlds perceive reality in a broader and more abstract way. Similarly, the sequence of arguments moves from specific, well-defined proofs to broader, more open-ended ideas, granting the individual greater freedom to believe in certain things while rejecting others.

The Arguments and the Soul

The correspondence between the arguments and the four Kabbalistic worlds also illuminates a shift in human consciousness on the path to modern awareness. It suggests that the evolution of our consciousness has a significant element of ascent: we have moved from a mindset of action, to that of formation, and finally to creation. The fact that today we resonate most strongly with the third argument indicates that something within us no longer draws from the lower worlds and can instead find inspiration from the supernal world of creation. Recognizing this ascent is important, as it prevents us from misinterpreting our reluctance to accept traditional arguments as simply a “decline of the generations.”

But let us pause. Before we congratulate ourselves on the high level we’ve attained and dismiss the perspectives of past generations (and their contemporary adherents), we should consider a crucial principle in the development of consciousness. A healthy growth from one stage of awareness to a higher one does not mean abandoning the insights of the lower stage. Rather, the new awareness should include those insights and build upon them.

What value do the simpler, “childish” insights hold, you may ask, now that we’ve attained a more mature one? The answer is that these simpler insights continue to nourish the more basic levels within us, levels which serve as the subconscious foundations of our mature psyche.

This principle suggests that while we may identify most with the third argument and less with the first two, each of the three arguments has value for us on different levels. Even if the first two arguments seem somewhat outdated, certain levels within us still need them and can accept their validity straightforwardly, even if higher levels of our minds are more skeptical.

More specifically, the three arguments correspond to the three fundamental levels of the soul in Kabbalah: nefesh (“anima,” the instinctual level), ruach (“spirit,” the emotional level), and “neshamah” (“soul,” the intellectual level). Each argument can contribute to the functioning of its corresponding level, as follows:

The first argument, based on the continuity of the nation’s testimony, speaks to the nefesh level, our most basic and “childlike” layer, responsible for our actions and behavior. At this level, the argument can support our acceptance of the practical yoke of Torah and commandments, integrating us into the chain of Jewish tradition and practices.
The second argument, the argument from design, appeals to the ruach level, the intermediate realm of emotional experience. This argument can deepen our emotional awe of creation, reinforce the sense that it has a Creator and Guide, and help awaken a desire to connect with and live in accordance with that Creator.
Finally, the third argument, which questions the certainty of reality in relation to divine existence, speaks to the neshamah level, the highest of the three, where intellectual processes unfold. Here, the idea that reality is only “possible” rather than “necessary” strengthens faith in the eternal wisdom of the Torah and enhances contemplation of its mysteries.

Beyond the Arguments

The existence of a fourth world, Atzilut or emanation, where the separation between the human and the divine dissolves, hints at an additional level of development to which we can aspire. At this level, there is no need for arguments, not even the subtle arguments of Beri’ah. From this perspective, the choice to serve God arises purely from free will—a desire to be close to the divine, to be “with” (etzel, same root as atzilut) God, without the need for anyone to “prove” He exists.

This level corresponds to the super-conscious level of the human soul, which lies above the intellectual level. When our super-conscious is aligned with the three levels below it, it sheds new light on them. This illumination doesn’t make the arguments associated with the lower levels redundant, but it does weaken our need for them. It suffuses them with a simple, unshakeable faith that stands tall without any need for proof.

This essay was translated through the kind help of my Patreon supporters:

Yacov Derhi, Adam Derhy, Bruno Schall, Sara Shafran, Jason Kiner, Abigail Hirsch, Asi Ressler, Barbara Honda, Bracha Meshchaninov, Bracha Schoonover, Chana Milman, Charlotte Chana Coren, Cindy Abrams, Courtney LeDuc, Daniel Nuriyev, De’ah Avichayil, Deena Feigin, Devorah Benchimol, Dvora Kravitz, Elisheva & Moshe Cerezo, Emanuel & Elisheva, Eli V., Esther Brodt, Franklyn Valdes, Golan Friedman, Hinda Helene Finn, Jeniffer Volz, Johannita Van der Straaten, Karin Wieland, Laurie Good, Leo, Malka Engel, Marcia Teperman, Mariam Urban, Mark Lewis, Mel Stokes, Meryl Goldstein, Michal Daneshrad, Miri Sharf, Miriam Berezin, Nechama R., Randi Gerber, Raphael Poliak, Reuben Shaul, Ricardo Moro Martin, Rivka Levron, Roswitha Forssell, Ruth Seliger, Shaindel Malka Leanse, Shlomo Shenassa, Shoshy Weiss, Stacy Berman, Stacy Hatcher, Susan Hyde, Stuart Shwiff, Thatfijikidd, Timora Peleg, Tsvi Rosner, Victoria & Alon Karpman, Yael Eckstein, Yael Nehama Respes, Yaffa Wilmo, Yoon Pender, Zeltia Lorse

Become a Supporter