...if you consider yourself an atheist or agnostic what would be sufficient proof to you for the existence of God?He quoted an interesting argument from Walter Wurzburger's God Is Proof Enough:
There is no irrefutable evidence of the existence of God which could convince radical empiricists, who a priori rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention. Even if it were possible to produce video tapes of the Sinaitic Revelation, they would still say 'let us find the natural causes of this extraordinary and puzzling event.'Here is my response:
A proof that might work for me would be a book (or scroll), given to all of humanity, that dictated a reasonable set of rules for all people to live by. Further, the rules would be timeless and easily understandable to even the simplest reader. When people followed the rules listed in this book, they would consistently become better people and care for the betterment of all humanity. There would be a direct correlation between people observing the laws in this book and a reduction in violence/increase in peace. This book would also have to be true in every way. i.e. no insane claims like Noah's Ark.
I don't think such a document would be beyond god's abilities.
Do you think the Torah meets these requirements?
69 comments:
You saying “the rules would be…easily understandable to even the simplest reader.”
Would not make it that as you say “When people followed the rules listed in this book, they would consistently become better people and care for the betterment of all humanity. There would be a direct correlation between people observing the laws in this book and a reduction in violence/increase in peace.”
Most of ethics is “not easily understandable to even the simplest reader.”
Further if a book would be believed by you to be revealed by G-d why should other supernatuaral claims be the same problem for you?
RG,
> Most of ethics is “not easily understandable to even the simplest reader.”
So, you're saying god is unable to write a book of ethics understandable to all people?
The way he made people and the way he made ethics no.
He could have chosen to make all people extremely intelligent or else make his code really simple but He didn't.
Even if that book did and/or does exist, how would you know it was from G-d?
(Oh, just for the record, I believe the Torah came from G-d, but I do not believe it fits your description of the other book. But the reason I ask this question is mostly to play devil's advocate... it's just more fun that way.)
> The way he made people and the way he made ethics no.
> He could have chosen to make all people extremely intelligent or else make his code really simple but He didn't.
Are you saying that god's abilities are limited?
Jessica,
> Even if that book did and/or does exist, how would you know it was from G-d?
If the document produced the results I described in the post I would see that as some sort of on-going hidden-miracle. The creator of such a text would (by definition) have a much better understanding of humanity than we have of ourselves. Such a knowledge would sufficiently impress me.
Of course, the proof I'm suggesting is also the product of my own cultural bias. I was raised to think of the Torah is some sort of evidence of god. It should come as no surprise that I'm now suggesting a perfect (by my standards) Torah would satisfy me.
"Lubab No More said...
> The way he made people and the way he made ethics no.
> He could have chosen to make all people extremely intelligent or else make his code really simple but He didn't.
Are you saying that god's abilities are limited?"
If G-d can't demand of you to both where Tefilin and not at the same time is that a limit on His abilities? Is an inability to do what is by defintion meaningless a limitation?
Why should it have to be given to all humanity to be proven correct? If it works with a section then you can see how it would work for the world? It can’t be given to everyone if not everyone accepted it. Also why should it be easily understandable to all? If it works it works.
RG,
I'm not asking for a contradiction. This isn't asking god to make a rock he can't lift. I'm asking for a direct book of rules that will make people ethical. (Perhaps it would take a miracle to write such a book?) Again, do you believe such a thing is beyond god's abilities?
> Why should it have to be given to all humanity to be proven correct?
Like I said this is "[a] proof that might work for me".
But what's the point if it is only given to some people? So they can show the rest of the world "the way"? And if such a people existed, do you think they have shown "the way" to the rest of the world?
> Also why should it be easily understandable to all?
So liers, con men, and clergy can't alter its meaning to their own purpose.
“Lubab No More said...
RG,
"I'm not asking for a contradiction. This isn't asking god to make a rock he can't lift. I'm asking for a direct book of rules that will make people ethical. (Perhaps it would take a miracle to write such a book?) Again, do you believe such a thing is beyond god's abilities?"
If we have free will isn't it dependent on us for the outcome? If G-d can make us have a good outcome and still give us freewill then it doesn’t matter what the rules are. He is all powerful. He can then make any rules and we will be peaceful anyhow. Also if G-d made our psychology as it is how is it a miracle to write a book that way. You are altogether positing the existence of good as if it is uncreated even if and we know it was, the universe was created. That’s supernatural.
“> Why should it have to be given to all humanity to be proven correct?
Like I said this is "[a] proof that might work for me".
But what's the point if it is only given to some people?”
Because only some accepted it.
“And if such a people existed, do you think they have shown "the way" to the rest of the world?”
The world is better than it was thanks to us. We don’t kill each other. If a Jew does it’s shocking news. We are a very peaceful people especially the more we actually adhere to what we preach.
“> Also why should it be easily understandable to all?
So liers, con men, and clergy can't alter its meaning to their own purpose.”
But how would you have more ethical behavior. To you ethics is never complicated or involving subtle details every single day? Sure G-d can make a code like that but in order for us to be more peaceful as a result we have to also be less complicated and pretty dumb creatures or else have us rigged up to be more peaceful to begin with so that there is little peace needed to begin with.
LNM, that reminds me of Descartes' proof for how he knows G-d exists. Because was able to imagine a perfect being, clearly a perfect being exists. Can I call you Descartes from now on, please? :-P
Whoops! I meant "Because he was able to...". Left out the "he". Silly me.
RG,
> If we have free will isn't it dependent on us for the outcome?
No. Free will is independent of the commandments. If you follow the commandment "Do not commit adultery" you will not commit adultery.
But you're avoiding the question. Again, do you believe the creation of a direct book of rules that will make people ethical is beyond god's abilities?"
> We don’t kill each other. If a Jew does it’s shocking news.
Really? According to Wikipedia the murder rate in Israel is higher than Scotland, South Korea, United Kingdom and many others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#2000s) Seems like large populations of Jews aren't that different from other civilized nations. (FYI, this wiki article is chock full of sources).
> Sure G-d can make a code like that but in order for us to be more peaceful as a result we have to also be less complicated and pretty dumb creatures or else have us rigged up to be more peaceful to begin with so that there is little peace needed to begin with.
Do you think the following commandment is complicated? "A man shall not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman". Do we need to be simple people to understand this?
By changing the definitions you are only avoiding answering the question. Again, do you believe that a straightforward book of rules, that will make people (like you and me) ethical is within god's creative abilities?
Jessica,
> LNM, that reminds me of Descartes' proof for how he knows G-d exists. Because [he] was able to imagine a perfect being, clearly a perfect being exists. Can I call you Descartes from now on, please? :-P
I'm a fan of "I think, therefore I am". On the other hand, "I think, therefore He is" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
You call me whatever you want. Everyone else around here does. ;)
“Lubab No More said...
RG,
> If we have free will isn't it dependent on us for the outcome?
No. Free will is independent of the commandments. If you follow the commandment "Do not commit adultery" you will not commit adultery.”
The outcome of what the world will be like will depend upon us. Of course if we follow a command the command will be followed..
“But you're avoiding the question. Again, do you believe the creation of a direct book of rules that will make people ethical is beyond god's abilities?"
If that’s all you want to know then you are positing that G-d did not create ethics but that it exists independently of Him somehow and he somehow has to figure it out. How is it a miracle as you were describing it for an all powerful G-d to figure it out if yet we are supposedly able to figure it all out. Your question as stated is too ill thought out.
“> We don’t kill each other. If a Jew does it’s shocking news.
Really? According to Wikipedia the murder rate in Israel is higher than Scotland, South Korea, United Kingdom and many others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#2000s) Seems like large populations of Jews aren't that different from other civilized nations. (FYI, this wiki article is chock full of sources).”
You mean large populations of Jews more cut off from their heritage. Also not everyone in Israel is Jewish. One out of five isn’t. Think about your neighborhood and other Jewish ones. It’s too much for you to acknowledge anything special about your people. And also what are you quoting Wikipedia for? Further not all of the population is Jewish. One fifth isn’t and if not for the terrorism the murder would be tremendously less.
“> Sure G-d can make a code like that but in order for us to be more peaceful as a result we have to also be less complicated and pretty dumb creatures or else have us rigged up to be more peaceful to begin with so that there is little peace needed to begin with.
Do you think the following commandment is complicated? "A man shall not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman". Do we need to be simple people to understand this?”
Oh so how about two men in bed but not doing the act? When a constitution is made or a law why have judges as after all many laws sound simple enough.
“By changing the definitions you are only avoiding answering the question”
You are confusing analysis with changing a definition.
“Again, do you believe that a straightforward book of rules, that will make people (like you and me) ethical is within god's creative abilities?”
Is it within human ability? If so yes. If it is not within human ability then for sure if G-d gives it is nothing you can complain about as you are then saying you can’t do it but G-d can. Your question was totally illdefined.
Lubab,
I do believe that God can create a book that can be understood by all and maybe He already has, but man keeps fussing with it.
If such a book ever surfaced, would all skeptics embrace it? I don't think that they would. The skeptic mind would always find something that would discredit such a book. Even if God appeared and gave them the book, the unbeliever's would find a natural explanation for their "revelation".
RG,
Thank you for reminding me why I usually ignore your comments.
Anon,
> Even if God appeared and gave them the book, the unbeliever would find a natural explanation for the "revelation".
If you say so.
But like I said this is "a proof that might work for me".
"Lubab No More said...
RG,
Thank you for reminding me why I usually ignore your comments."
Ah yes you don't know an answer so you attack like a teenager.
Is your impoliteness and trying to make me feel as if I am dumb also a part of the ethical code? If so you can keep it.
LNM
The 12 Commandment. Aren't those pretty simple? I've noticed that people don't always want something that is simple. It's too easy.
Lubabnomore I didn't insult you why did you have to insult me as if it makes win an argument. You found out from me that it upsets me if you don't answer so like a baby you do that. I should mention that since I got to know you more it really is no more true that I feel upset. If you'll be a mentch you'll apologize.
You know very well humans are humans. You are merely trying to lay unreasonable expectations of what a text SHOULD accomplish to try to prove your point. This has nothing to do with God's ability but simply about man's limitations. Even your most "righteous" people in our tradition are recorded to having made horrible mistakes, both as individuals and as a nation
LNM,
"I don't think such a document would be beyond god's abilities."
How is that a proof for God though? A sufficiently clever person could write a book like that.
If I write a book that says "Love your neighbor as yourself" and I mail it all over the world then I've created your proof in full.
As Douglas Adams pointed out, G-d exists on faith alone and proof denies faith therefore any attempt at proving G-d disproves G-d automatically by dispelling the faith on which He alone exists.
He may have been an atheist but he pointed out an essential truth for the religious: it is not about being right, but being righteous.
To look for proof of G-d is to look for proof of you being right. To be righteous is merely to have faith that G-d is.
What makes men moral is the quality of their choices. Do they bring them and those around them prosperity, emotional well being, bond, and community? Do they further the people? Or do they lead to destructive things?
The difference between the two is in our hearts and our minds and how well we master them both.
Lubabnomore a problem with political correctness is that by shutting out debate it prevents one from seeing the weakness of an argument. If you want the blog to just have Candyman types who are politically correct themselves and so therefore not into rigorous logic fine, but you did not set up the blog that way. You know you get sensitive by criticism but you have to stop seeing it as personal by definition. Otherwise you are then very hard to debate. You think Orthoprax and I didn’t have heated debates? Do you think either of us are getting heartburn over it. I doubt it very much. I bear no ill will to Orthoprax and on the contrary feel respect for him. True sometimes in debate there is a personal quality to it perhaps sometimes too much but it is superficial to the relationship if the debating is mature enough as well the debaters. You take serious critics personally and get so angry that your blog is no fun. What keeps XGH’s blog fun despite himself is the great variety of contradictory voices he invites with his screeds if not always informative pronouncements. XGH knows that and milks controversy. To a point it can still be interesting.
If you want the blog to just have Candyman types who are politically correct themselves and so therefore not into rigorous logic fine,
Yo RG, as Peter Venkman once said:
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
My "rigorous logic" suggests that the Torah was written by many human beings, and that none of the miraculous events portrayed therein literally happened.
I'm not even sure they were *meant* to be taken literally.
Nowhere in the Torah does it claim that Genesis through Deuteronomy was written by God. If the writers were trying to make it look like God wrote it, they'd have made sure to do a much better job. That answers your question, LNM.
It was only much later, in Rabbinic times, that there arose an Aggadic notion that God transcribed the entire Torah to Moses. This is based on a drasha -- essentially, a play on words.
OJ somehow bought this idea hook, line, and sinker. Probably b/c Orthodox Jews don't study enough Bible, don't study enough Mishna, and don't study enough Talmud.
RG, you know I'm right. Why don't you dig up that drasha for me so we can discuss it?
The Candy Man said...
"If you want the blog to just have Candyman types who are politically correct themselves and so therefore not into rigorous logic fine,
Yo RG, as Peter Venkman once said:
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
Great so use those skills outside science too.
Yo RG, as Peter Venkman once said:
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
And as the Dean said to Peter Venkman - "Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist."
:)
"Must be some cockroach!"
"Bite your head off, man."
“It was only much later, in Rabbinic times, that there arose an Aggadic notion that God transcribed the entire Torah to Moses. This is based on a drasha -- essentially, a play on words.”
“OJ somehow bought this idea hook, line, and sinker. Probably b/c Orthodox Jews don't study enough Bible, don't study enough Mishna, and don't study enough Talmud.”
The Tanach says more than a few times that the Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai.
As for the Talmud Orthodox Jews learn plenty of it.
"RG, you know I'm right. Why don't you dig up that drasha for me so we can discuss it?"
Ok here's from one place:
“Rabbi Levi bar Chama says further in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: What is the meaning of the verse: And I will give you the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written that you may teach them? 'Tables of stone': these are the ten commandments; 'the law': this is the Pentateuch; 'the commandment': this is the Mishna; 'which I have written': these are the Prophets and the Hagiographa; 'that you may teach them': this is the Gemara. It teaches that all these things were given to Moses on Sinai.”
Berachot 5a
>If the writers were trying to make it look like God wrote it, they'd have made sure to do a much better job.
this is coming from a 21st century perspective, or how people would expect text back then?
>It was only much later, in Rabbinic times, that there arose an Aggadic notion that God transcribed the entire Torah to Moses.
So in times of the Dead Sea Scrolls, you don't believed they thought it was entirely transcribed by Moses?
And your proof of this is a mishna?
The Tanach says more than a few times that the Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai.
The whole 'Torah'? Genesis through Deuteronomy? Really? Where?
...Shimon ben Lakish... It teaches that all these things were given to Moses on Sinai.
Yay! You did it, RG. Knew I could count on ya.
It's worth looking up the verse in context. It's in that wacky part of Exodus where everything's so out of order you just keep reading and nodding your head.
What is p'shuto shel mikra -- the literal meaning of the verse? Good question. The next chapter starts talking about the Tabernacle, but I suspect that is not the "law and commandment" to which God refers in the verse. What it is is anybody's guess. It could just be the tablets themselves, although that would make the verse somewhat redundant (which is where Reish Lakish starts).
The Pentateuch's passages about Sinai might suggest that God revealed some laws to Moses. The writers/editors of Exodus interrupt the Sinaitic narrative with a laundry list of laws in ch. 20 & 21. Maybe they thought these were the laws that were revealed at Sinai, along with the Ten Commandments. But none of this revelation is clearly part of the original Sinaitic narrative, so far as I can recall.
Isn't there a similar Talmudic passage where there's an argument about what exactly was revealed at Sinai? I recall an opinion saying, "even unto the stupid questions of the students in the classroom?" Or am I just making that up?
The one with Moses watching Reb Akiva and feeling dumb is also good.
Suitepotato, I really liked your response. It's about our choices and how we live our lives.
I see no way to prove G-d's existence conclusively, only inductively.
Here goes. We feel anxiety that is palpable and real. The discovery of something we call "G-d" occurs when that anxiety is overcome by a series of values and outlooks that closes the holes in our worldview and eliminates anxiety. Just as the anxiety felt real, the thing that filled that void is felt as if it is real. We call the thing that filled that hole "G-d". We think we know G-d exists because "something" filled that hole that we felt. That something then can be said to exist.
Does it exist in a material sense? Obviously not. So what? Is it like love, which feels kind of the same way - is love more than something chemical/biological? Or, is it spritual? Like love perhaps, can it be explained as an evolution of a survival instinct?
I think love is spirtual. Therefore, it's not surprising that I think G-d is spiritual and real. But I don't think we should care. We should act "as if" there is a G-d for the sake of our and society's survival - a sort of communal version of Pascal's Wager.
“The Candy Man said...
The Tanach says more than a few times that the Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai.
The whole 'Torah'? Genesis through Deuteronomy? Really? Where?”
Interestingly Sinai and it’s alternate name Horeb are mentioned in Pesukim even without mentioning the Torah being given in it although when using the name Horeb this is the exception rather than the rule. Mentioning the mountain as something special without saying what specifically happened implies that something was being alluded to that was already known.
Judges Chapter 5:5. The mountains melted from before the Lord, as did Sinai before the Lord God of Israel.
Psalms Chapter 68…
8. O God, when you went forth before your people, when you marched through the wilderness; Selah;
9. The earth shook, the heavens dropped at the presence of God; even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel.
Tanach - Psalms Chapter 68
1. To the chief Musician, A Psalm Song of David.
2. Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered; let those who hate him flee before him.
3. As smoke is driven away, so drive them away; as wax melts before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
4. But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God; let them joyfully exult.
5. Sing to God, sing praises to his name; extol him who rides on the clouds; his name is the Lord, rejoice before him.
6. A father to the orphans, and a judge to the widows, is God in his holy habitation.
7. God gives the lonely ones a home to dwell in; he leads out the prisoners to prosperity; but the rebellious dwell in a parched land.
8. O God, when you went forth before your people, when you marched through the wilderness; Selah;
9. The earth shook, the heavens dropped at the presence of God; even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel.
10. You, O God, sent a plentiful rain, to strengthen your inheritance, when it languished.
11. Your flock found a dwelling in it; you, O God, have prepared of your goodness for the poor.
12. The Lord gives the word; great is the company of those who bear the tidings.
13. Kings of armies flee, they flee; and she who dwells in the house divides the booty.
14. Though you lie among the sheep folds you shall shine like the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her pinions with yellow gold.
15. When the Almighty scattered kings in it, snow fell in Zalmon.
16. O mighty mountain! O Mountain of Bashan! O many peaked mountain! O Mountain of Bashan!
17. Why do look with envy, O many peaked mountain, at the mountain which God desired for his abode? Truly the Lord will dwell there forever.
18. The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.
Nechemia Chapter 9…
13. And you came down to Mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and you gave them right ordinances and true laws, commandments, and good statutes.
14. And you made known to them your holy sabbath; and you commanded them statutes, commandments, and Torah, by the hand of Moses your servant.
I Kings Chapter 8…
6. And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord to his place, to the sanctuary of the house, to the most holy place, under the wings of the kerubim.
7. For the kerubim spread out their two wings over the place of the ark, and the kerubim covered the ark and its poles above.
8. And they drew out the poles, so that the ends of the poles were seen out in the holy place before the sanctuary, and they were not seen outside; and there they are to this day.
9. There was nothing in the ark save the two tablets of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the people of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt...
I Kings Chapter 19…
1. And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword.
2. Then Jezebel sent a messenger to Elijah, saying, So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time.
3. And when he saw that, he arose, and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which belongs to Judah, and left his servant there.
4. (K) But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a broom tree; and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers.
5. And as he lay and slept under a broom tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said to him, Arise and eat.
6. And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baked on the coals, and a jar of water at his head. And he ate and drank, and laid himself down again.
7. And the angel of the Lord came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for you.
8. And he arose, and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that meal forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God…
Malachi Chapter 3…
22. Remember the Torah of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
Psalms Chapter 106…
19. They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image.
II Chronicles Chapter 5…
1. Thus all the work that Solomon made for the house of the Lord was finished; and Solomon brought in all the things that David his father had consecrated; and the silver, and the gold, and all the instruments, put he among the treasures of the house of God.
2. Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the heads of the fathers’ houses of the people of Israel, to Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord from the city of David, which is Zion.
3. And all the people of Israel assembled themselves before the king at the feast which is in the seventh month.
4. And all the elders of Israel came; and the Levites took up the ark.
5. And they brought up the ark, and the Tent of Meeting, and all the holy utensils that were in the tabernacle, these did the priests and the Levites bring up.
6. Also king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel who were assembled to him before the ark, sacrificed sheep and oxen, which could not be told nor numbered for multitude.
7. And the priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to his place, to the inner sanctuary of the house, into the most holy place, under the wings of the kerubim;
8. For the kerubim spread out their wings over the place of the ark, and the kerubim covered the ark and its poles above.
9. And they drew out the poles of the ark, so that the ends of the poles were seen from the ark before the inner sanctuary; but they were not seen outside. And there it is till this day.
10. There was nothing in the ark save the two tablets which Moses put in at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the people of Israel, when they came from Egypt.
This verse:9. And they drew out the poles of the ark, so that the ends of the poles were seen from the ark before the inner sanctuary; but they were not seen outside. And there it is till this day.” and it’s parallel in Kings mentioned above shows that certainly a part of those two books were written while the Temple still stood.
“...Shimon ben Lakish... It teaches that all these things were given to Moses on Sinai.
Yay! You did it, RG. Knew I could count on ya.”
Yeah it was right in the Talmud. So someone learning Talmud would arrive at the conclusion that the Torah was given on Mount Sinai.
“It's worth looking up the verse in context. It's in that wacky part of Exodus where everything's so out of order you just keep reading and nodding your head.
What is p'shuto shel mikra -- the literal meaning of the verse? Good question. The next chapter starts talking about the Tabernacle, but I suspect that is not the "law and commandment" to which God refers in the verse. What it is is anybody's guess. It could just be the tablets themselves, although that would make the verse somewhat redundant (which is where Reish Lakish starts).”
Exodus Chapter 24…
12. And the Lord said to Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the Torah, and commandments which I have written; that you may teach them.
13. And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua; and Moses went up into the mount of God.
14. And he said to the elders, Wait here for us, until we come again to you; and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you; if any man have any matters, let him come to them.
15. And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount.
16. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and the seventh day he called to Moses from the midst of the cloud.
17. And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the people of Israel.
18. And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and went up into the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
It means the Torah was revealed to Moses to give to the Israelites. That’s the context.
“When people followed the rules listed in this book, they would consistently become better people and care for the betterment of all humanity. There would be a direct correlation between people observing the laws in this book and a reduction in violence/increase in peace.”
This implies free will being a factor as I said. Because if it doesn't as you claimed then what is the correlation? The correlation then becomes by definition 100%. If it is just laws mandating then of course if you observe the laws mandating the desired outcome there will be a correlation and that would be a 100% one.
In other words they wouldn't consistently become better people because you have denied them any growth as you just lay it out in a rule book and so by definition they if they follow it they are better. But they would not consistently become better people as you said the issue you were raising did not concern free will which would govern people’s reaction to the rules and so allow them to grow with those rules. You just pose to us a static situation then. They have rules. They follow them and are therefore by definition good and that’s the end of your topic.
I know I'm a little late to this discussion, and I don't have the time to read all the comments, so forgive me if someone said this already, but: if you want to say that the bible makes ridiculous claims, come up with one that WASN'T corroborated by similar stories in other cultures. Multiple stories of a huge flood would imply that perhaps there WAS a huge flood. Sinai, however, not really found anywhere else. Just saying.
emunah, bitachon - these are things we have "with no proof" - its a leap. We can use circumstantial evidence, but eye witnesses or a youtube video of God - i mean c'mon. plus - if in fact it was a provable existence, would that not remove our free will? we would HAVE to believe in god and follow his commandements. how great is hashem that we have to choose to believe.....in my view, science and tanach (not to mention all that cool aish hatorah gematria stuff) give us enough circumstantial evidence
I want to reiterate to the latecomers my position:
The authors of the Pentateuch do NOT claim that the entire Pentateuch was written by God.
If the writers were trying to make it look like God wrote it, they'd have made sure to do a much better job.
RG, none of those quotes even remotely contradict the claim that I am making. The authors of the Pentateuch DO claim a Sinaitic revelation. The Ten Commandments were revealed, but as you quoted from Kings, that's all that was contained in the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible speaks of commandments and laws being revealed to Moses at Sinai. These may or may not be "extras" that appear in some form in the Pentateuch.
But the idea that the entire Pentateuch was revealed to Moses on Sinai, letter for letter? Ridiculous! It's a midrashic idea that over time has been taken literally.
"But the idea that the entire Pentateuch was revealed to Moses on Sinai, letter for letter?"
The text was said to be overtime written by Moses. G-d may have written the Torah in heaven but it's publication on earth took a bit longer. You know how publishing works. The Torah says that Moses wrote overtime the Torah and placed it away as well for all to read. The references to the Torah as a book written by Moses are too many. At best you can make the case for additions to it but that there was a book filled with writing from Moses is simply too much to deny. What else have we called it whatever the form but the Torah?
BEEHIVE,
> The 12 Commandment. Aren't those pretty simple? I've noticed that people don't always want something that is simple. It's too easy.
Good to see you BH!
The 12/10 commandments are straightforward but a number of these morals existed before Sinai. Did we really need god to tell us not to murder? God's top ten list is not terribly innovative when it comes to relations between "man and his fellow" which is where the book I described would have the greatest impact.
RG, none of those quotes even remotely contradict the claim that I am making.
The below looked pretty good to me.
“Malachi Chapter 3…
22. Remember the Torah of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.”
Sums it up for me.
“RG, none of those quotes even remotely contradict the claim that I am making. The authors of the Pentateuch DO claim a Sinaitic revelation. The Ten Commandments were revealed, but as you quoted from Kings, that's all that was contained in the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible speaks of commandments and laws being revealed to Moses at Sinai. These may or may not be "extras" that appear in some form in the Pentateuch.”
The Torah is filled aside from the Ten Commandments with what you call the extras. We don’t see any laws mentioned except for the Ten Commandments in the Torah at the revelation at Sinai.
Are we to postulate laws we don't read about as the nonextras? Great so we have Oral law even according to you.
"Did we really need god to tell us not to murder? God's top ten list is not terribly innovative when it comes to relations between "man and his fellow" which is where the book I described would have the greatest impact."
Lubabnomore it was innovative in its time and we still haven't reached as high. How many people covet? Coveting as something bad is not so obvious.
HH,
> You know very well humans are humans. You are merely trying to lay unreasonable expectations of what a text SHOULD accomplish to try to prove your point.
Interesting that you assume I was trying to make a point and not simply giving an honest answer to the question. But in any event...
Yes, "people are people" which is why a text that would enable everyone to transcend their nature would impress me. I expect a Godly-text to have God-like results. But don't give me too much credit for creativity. The basic parameters I've laid out for this "magic book" are essentially a modification of the claims that many people say the Torah is able to achieve.
OP,
> If I write a book that says "Love your neighbor as yourself" and I mail it all over the world then I've created your proof in full.
I think the post mark would be dead giveaway that it didn't come from god. But anyway I think you may be on to something here. Could a mailing (or more realistically a campaign) have the same effect? I wonder... If you need help licking stamps let me know!
Your comment also got me thinking. What if the golden rule was highlighted in the 10 Commandments. I wonder how different the world would be.
“Yes, "people are people" which is why a text that would enable everyone to transcend their nature would impress me.”
But if the results are guaranteed people don’t have freewill. If they don’t have freewill they can’t transcend anything. They are then robots and can only be reprogrammed. So what have you proven.
“I expect a Godly-text to have God-like results.”
For Nongods? Lubabnomore you have outlawed any possibility for G-d’s existence. You are asking G-d to make a rock He can’t lift. If you want guaranteed results you can’t have everyone be better only programmed differently. But if that’s the case no one is really better as no one is free. You want G-d’s existence to be so obvious no one disagrees. Otherwise you want your freedom.
Miri,
> Multiple stories of a huge flood would imply that perhaps there WAS a huge flood. Sinai, however, not really found anywhere else.
I specifically choose "Noah's Ark" as an example because a floating zoo built to the specifications in Torah could not hold every species of animal on earth. Forge the fact that Noah wouldn't be able to actually collect all the animals on earth. Etc. etc. etc.
But as far as the flood... The multiple stories imply the Torah version is, at best, and exaggeration. According to the Torah there were only a handful of (surviving) witnesses to the flood. On the other hand, there were allegedly hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the revelation at Sinai which (if it happened) should have created at least as many versions as the flood did.
Am I wrong?
"On the other hand, there were allegedly hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the revelation at Sinai which (if it happened) should have created at least as many versions as the flood did.
Am I wrong?"
Of course you are. You don't get as many versions if at all of an event from the same group telling of it. The reason why you have so many flood stories is because there are different peoples around the earth telling the story.
That's "Forget" not "Forge".
"Rabban Gamliel said...
"On the other hand, there were allegedly hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the revelation at Sinai which (if it happened) should have created at least as many versions as the flood did.
Am I wrong?"
Of course you are. You don't get as many versions if at all of an event from the same group telling of it. The reason why you have so many flood stories is because there are different peoples around the earth telling the story."
Viewed your way we should have as many versions of any events we see as the number of people. So don't rely on anything then like the landing on the moon which was viewed by so many on TV.
>If the writers were trying to make it look like God wrote it, they'd have made sure to do a much better job.
Um, you diden't respond to my objection
>Interesting that you assume I was trying to make a point.
Of course you were trying to prove a point. You lay out perfect unreasonable expectations and then say "aha, you see, the Torah is obviously not fulfilling the expectations that I set forth, hence it can't be from God."
>The basic parameters I've laid out for this "magic book" are essentially a modification of the claims that many people say the Torah is able to achieve.
Key word is "MANY" and not all. That does not show that according to Judaism, a Torah observant lifestyle is a guarantee of anything.
According to you it would take some special code only written by someone with godlike powers for this to make everyone perfect. You therefore cannot conceive of the code. If you cannot conceive of the code so then you must feel that the human mind cannot conceive of such a code. It is therefore a matter of faith for you to say that such a code exists even for a god. You are also saying that the code we must follow as a result of our minds is less than perfect.
">The basic parameters I've laid out for this "magic book" are essentially a modification of the claims that many people say the Torah is able to achieve."
Such a modification that it is a misunderstanding of what was being proposed.
He just does not want to feel that the Torah has anything special in it.
HH,
> Of course you were trying to prove a point. You lay out perfect unreasonable expectations and then say "aha, you see, the Torah is obviously not fulfilling the expectations that I set forth, hence it can't be from God."
Why do you assume to know what's going on in my head? The (totally lame) argument you've just presented is something you read into my post and not something I claimed.
>> The basic parameters I've laid out for this "magic book" are essentially a modification of the claims that many people say the Torah is able to achieve.
> Key word is "MANY" and not all.
Of course the key word is "many". The Torah doesn't make this claim (as far as I know). My suggestion is an example of "questionable evidence" that might convince ME of god. This is not an offered "proof" that the Torah has shortcomings. (The Torah doesn't need any help in that department). You're assuming (again) a motive other than what was simply stated in the post.
"Lubab No More said...
HH,
> Of course you were trying to prove a point. You lay out perfect unreasonable expectations and then say "aha, you see, the Torah is obviously not fulfilling the expectations that I set forth, hence it can't be from God."
Why do you assume to know what's going on in my head? The (totally lame) argument you've just presented is something you read into my post and not something I claimed."
Well you don't feel that your terms have been met and so to you it disproves G-d.
Is it the only proof for you no. But you know what we mean. You always hide behind supposed technicalities.
>Why do you assume to know what's going on in my head? The (totally lame) argument you've just presented is something you read into my post and not something I claimed.
Well, then I am at a loss for this statement then
"Do you think the Torah meets these requirements?"
I don't think what I am reading to your comment is so farfetched at all. I believe anyone would see that as well
HH,
>> "Do you think the Torah meets these requirements?"
> I don't think what I am reading to your comment is so farfetched at all.
The requirements I put out obviously don't match the Torah exactly ("given to all of humanity", "easily understandable to even the simplest reader"). The aim of the question was to stimulate debate. (I try to end most of my posts with a question to get a discussion started). But I can see how you might have been confused.
Like I said before "The basic parameters I've laid out for this "magic book" are essentially a modification of the claims that many people say the Torah is able to achieve." I was hoping to get some of those "many" people to respond. Similar to what I said to Jessica, this is what I would want a text from god to achieve. This is not what I think the Torah is, does, or claims to be.
Discussion? when you make critique so deeply personal?
"easily understandable to even the simplest reader"
How would such a simplistic morality get people to rise to the heights of perfection? No pain. No gain.
Lubabnomore you really think that the reason why XGH's opponents come back is because he makes sense? Lubabnomore I now see even more how your logic is not there. Whether Skepticism or Faith is true one thing is demonstrable XGH does not make sense. If Skepticism is true it is because of better arguments than his. My G-d what an insult to the great Bertrand Russell. He knew how to think sometimes unwisely but a thinker he was.
The reason why they come is because when someone attacks, you strike back. Also he will introduce interesting ideas or dumb ones for everyone to debate. At its best his site is fun. He also swings in all directions.
Lubabnomore you really think that the reason why XGH's opponents come back is because he makes sense?
XGH and Jacob Stein attract many comments/readers. So that kills Lubab's arguement. The question is why do they attract so many readers/comments. Two reasons:
We like to gawk at train wrecks.
We're bored at work.
What?
Thou shalt not watch R-rated movies and Thou shat not drink alcohol didn't make it on the top ten list??
Must be a Mormon thing....I am sooo ebarrased :)
hey LNM, just wanted to let you know that I added a link to your blog on my site in the "Elsewhere" section. you can view my site at http://philosophy.and.mixtapes.angelfire.com
Hope its alright that I added you. If not, just let me know.
Post a Comment