Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Does the Torah say that Moshe wrote it?

It is well known that Orthodoxy believes that the books from Bereishit (Genesis) to Devarim (Exodus) were written by Moshe (Moses). It is also well known that modern academic theory believes they were written by multiple different authors, or in some minority opinions, a single author drawing from multiple sources, and assembled into a final text sometime long after the time of Moshe, most likely after the Babylonian Exile. Throughout the blog I've provided some evidence to support the multiple authorship idea. (here, here, here, and here for a few places). However, today I'll ask something different. Namely, I'm asking what the Torah itself says about its authorship, which is an entirely different question that who actually wrote it. In other words, if someone was to pick up the Torah not knowing anything about it, who would they think the author was. To me it seems clear that the Torah claims that some sections were written (or spoken at least) by Moshe but other sections were clearly not.

Again, remember that we are not concerned with who actually wrote what. What we are concerned with is what the Torah is saying about who wrote it, if anything.

Let's take a look.

Sections that indicate non-Mosaic authorship

The first section, and the most obvious section to indicate non-Mosaic authorship is the very end which describes the death of Moshe, and the succession of Yehoshua (Joshua). This difficulty stretches all the way back to the Talmud where Rabbis offer several resolutions. One resolution is that Yehoshua actually wrote these verses. The other option is that Moshe wrote it through some sort of prophecy. However, given that there's no indication of specialness of that section in the text, the simple reading implies that this was not written by Moshe.

There are indeed some other sections that point to non-Mosaic authorship. For example, at the beginning of Devarim, it says (Deut. 1:1)
These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan
The implication "beyond the Jordan" indicates that the author, and the supposed audience, are both located on the other side of the river, which couldn't be Moshe since he never crossed the Jordan river.

Similarly, Gen 36:31
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
The verse indicates that the author is living at a time after a king of Israel existed.

Even the medieval scholar Abraham Ibn Ezra indicates a few verses that he thinks were added later. He points out that the sections marked in bold (Gen 12:6)
And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the terebinth of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
and (Deut 3:11)
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.-
seem to have been added by someone later. Although Ibn Ezra says the vast majority of the Torah was written by Moshe, he does allow for some verses to be different. It's clear from these texts that the author of these sections, even if they were added later, obviously was not under the impression that Moshe wrote it all, since he himself wouldn't have added these parenthetical asides.

Sections that the Torah claims Moshe wrote

There are lots of places in the Torah were Moshe writes something, usually what is previously discussed. Here are the six places where Moshe is commanded to write something.
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven' (Exod 17:14)
This is referring to the battle with Amalek which happened previously. It's not clear what the memorial is. Also it should be noted, that in the original vowelless Hebrew, "the book" and "a book" are indistinguishable. The vowels were only fully agreed upon much later, long after the standard Jewish approach was that Moshe wrote everything.

The next section is:
And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. (Exod 24:4)
The indication is that "all these words" represent the chapters 21-23, which is a litany of mostly civil laws, in many cases similar to the code of Hammurabi.

Next we have:
27 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.' 28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words (Exod 34: 27-28).
Here the specification is that Moshe wrote the ten commandments. Note that these are not the ten commandments we are more familiar with, but the earlier set that is mentioned in the preceding verses. Also, this verse is describing Moshe writing these commandments on the tablets and not necessarily in the text we have. It's not clear at all from context that Moshe wrote down the words we just read, they could have been someone else copying the text off of the tablets that Moshe wrote.

The fourth indication of Moshe writing stuff appears a few books later.
1 These are the stages of the children of Israel, by which they went forth out of the land of Egypt by their hosts under the hand of Moses and Aaron. 2 And Moses wrote their goings forth, stage by stage, by the commandment of the LORD; and these are their stages at their goings forth (Num 33:1-2).
Where, here the implication is that Moshe wrote the following verses, which winds up being the list of encampment sites in the wilderness. Or at least he is claimed to have recorded the encampment sites, even if he didn't write the verses describing them.

Finally, at the end of Devarim we have two mentions. The first
And Moses wrote this law (Torah), and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel (Deut. 31:9).
is the only time we have Moshe writing something referred to as a Torah. However, it's obvious from context that what's being implied is the majority of the book of Devarim, which are supposedly the words of Moshe. This section continues later in the chapter:
24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law (Torah) in a book, until they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 'Take this book of the law (Sefer Torah), and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee (Deut 31:24-26).
I've argued in a previous post, that this Sefer Torah is none other than the Sefer Torah that was found in the time of Yoshiyahu (Josiah). There is yet another indication that this Torah that Moshe is said to have written is not the full five books as we know it, but rather some smaller version. The verses in question are from Yehoshua (Josh 8:30-32).
30 Then Joshua built an altar unto the LORD, the God of Israel, in mount Ebal, 31 as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of unhewn stones, upon which no man had lifted up any iron; and they offered thereon burnt-offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace-offerings. 32 And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote before the children of Israel.
It's unlikely that Yehoshua inscribed the entire Torah onto an altar as it would make a prodigious project (and would likely not fit on any altar of reasonable size anyway.) The word used in this section is Mishne Torah which is translated here as a "copy of the Torah" but can mean a second Torah. The second half of the sentence "which he wrote before the children of Israel" could either be a repetitive clause referring to Yehoshua currently doing the writing, but that seems redundant. More likely the reference here is to Moshe and it's saying that Yehoshua wrote down exactly what Moshe wrote before the children of Israel, which we just read about in Deut 31:24. So the simple conclusion is that Yehoshua wrote Devarim or at least some section of Devarim down.

But wait, there's more. The previous verse specifically mentions something written in the "sefer torat moshe" the book of the Torah of Moshe, specficially a commandment not to make an altar of cut stones. This is a specific reference to something that Moshe says in Devarim. In fact, this whole section was commanded in Devarim.
2 And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over the Jordan unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster. 3 And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law (Torah), when thou art passed over; that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the LORD, the God of thy fathers, hath promised thee. 4 And it shall be when ye are passed over the Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster. 5 And there shalt thou build an altar unto the LORD thy God, an altar of stones; thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them. 6 Thou shalt build the altar of the LORD thy God of unhewn stones; and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the LORD thy God. 7 And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there; and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God.
Do the words of the Torah include this instruction to write the words of the Torah in this specific instance. Seems strange. What exactly is being referred to as the words of the Torah. Something else it seems.

There is another mention of Moshe writing that occurs in between the last two sections.
So Moses wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel (Deut. 31:22).
The song is most likely the song Ha'azinu which comprises the next chapter. From context it would seem that this song was not part of the "Torah" that Moshe wrote, but a separate composition.

Writing in the third person

Summing up so far, we have a bunch of sections that are explicitly attributed to Moshe, although it's not clear where and on what he wrote them. Nevertheless there is a clear case to be made that the text of Moshe's speech in Devarim was claimed to have been transcribed, by him, into a Torah.

However, we also have sections which strongly apply a non-Mosaic author. These include the preamble to the speech of Devarim which has an implied author who is currently residing inside Israel. A modern day reader would probably think that Moshe wrote down his speech in Devarim, and then a later author compiled it and included the preamble and the description of him compiling it.

But perhaps we're applying modern day writing to biblical styles. So let's expand the original question and instead of considering a modern day reader, let's consider someone reading the text ~2500 years ago. Someone who was familiar with the composition types of the time. What would they make of the authorship.

When I was pondering this, the first question that came to my mind was, "is it typical for biblical authors to write about themselves in the third person?" All of the Torah is written in third person. Similarly, all of the historical books (Yehoshua through Melachim (Kings)) are third person. However, when we deal with the prophets, we see something more interesting.

Many prophets start out by identifying themselves as the author in the third person, and then later switching to first person. I'll provide some examples.

Amos intro: 3rd-person
1 The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake. 2 And he said: the LORD roareth from Zion, and uttereth His voice from Jerusalem; and the pastures of the shepherds shall mourn, and the top of Carmel shall wither (Amos 1:1-2).
 Amos continuation: 1st person
Hear ye this word which I take up for a lamentation over you, O house of Israel (Amos 5:1)
Thus the Lord GOD showed me; and, behold, He formed locusts in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings. (Amos 7:1)
Hoshea intro: 3rd- person
The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel (Hosea 1:1). 
Hoshea continuation: 1st person
And the LORD said unto me: 'Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend and an adulteress, even as the LORD loveth the children of Israel, though they turn unto other gods, and love cakes of raisins (Hosea 3:1).
Yishayahu intro: 3rd person
The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah (Isaiah 1:1).
Yishayahu continuation: 1st person
In the year that king Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple (Isaiah 6:1).
And so on. One finds similar patterns in all of the prophets. Now, it should be noted that there are places where some of the prophets (but not all) switch back to third person. This happens in many of the "narrative" sections that appear throughout some of the prophets. For example Chapter 37 of Yishayahu. In fact, Yishayahu often switches between 1st and 3rd person intros into paragraphs. The same occurs in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah). Yirmiyahu might be a special case since it's suggested that the text was written by his scribe Baruch ben Neriah. Interestingly Yehezkel (Ezekiel) sticks to first person entirely after the introduction.

What can we make from this? Well, in my opinion it indicates that you would expect some first person statements, especially in the intro to prophetic sections. Furthermore, the introduction sections always indicate the correct time and place of the prophet. For example, the Yishayahu introduction is written in third person, and mentions that he was a prophet spanning the reign of four kings.

In contrast, the Torah never has any first person introductions. It's always, "God spoke to Moshe saying." Again, the exception is Devarim, in which there are intros that begin with, "and then God spoke to me."  Devarim is most similar to the prophetic writings in that it has a third person intro and then moves into first person. However, unlike Yishayahu or any of the other prophets, the intro has a  marker that indicates a later date of composition in that it mentions, "the other side of the Jordan."

And what about the rest of the Torah? It seems from the text itself that only a select few sections are attributed directly to Moshe. Certainly the entire book of Bereishit is not explicitly attributed to him. Neither are all the third person narratives. Furthermore, the composition style is more different from that in the prophetic works with explicit claimed authorship that both a 500 BCE reader and a modern day one would probably make the reasonable conclusion that the Torah was written by an anonymous third person author, just like many other books.

More interesting perhaps is what the implications are for the third person narratives and other sections in the prophets. Were these written by the prophets themselves or were they recorded by other people? Would we expect the prophets to have written about themselves in the third or first person? At this point it's hard to say for sure, but the fact that the prophets sometimes write in first and sometimes in third lends me to believe that some of these sections were not penned by them, but added into the books by later editors who assembled the scrolls.

206 comments:

  1. I was wondering why you had been so silent in the debate as of late, I see you were silently preparing a comprehensive response, I like your style!

    2 questions:

    1. Why was it essential for Rabbinic Judaism to insist the entire 5 books were written by Moshe in the first place?

    2. (possibly part of the 1st question) how would Orthodox Judaism look today if complete Mosaic authorship wasn't forced upon the text in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's more that it's much easier to get lost in the long threaded comments. It's not a good way to convey information. Points are scattered. Furthermore, there's an expectation for quick responses, where I really like to think things through more carefully.

      1) The Rabbis were in the habit of assigning authorship to everything. Moshe is by far the post prominent individual in the Torah (despite not appearing at all in the first book) so he was the obvious choice. You can look at Bava Batra 14b-15a to see how the Gemara apportions the book authorships.

      2) Now, while Mosaic authorship may not have been essential for early Rabbinic Jewry, it becomes essential in the Talmudic era. This is because they claim that the Torah came directly from God. And there was only one intermediary who could speak directly with God, Moshe. So it becomes absolutely essential to Orthodoxy that Moshe wrote it. If you lose Mosaic authorship you lose the full claim of divinity of the Torah. This is one of the reasons why it's such a flash point, and why Rambam included such a stringent version of belief of Mosaic authorship in this articles of faith.

      Delete
    2. Any thoughts on the strange line in that gemara - "Moshe wrote his sefer and the parsha of Bilam"?

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I saw that too. I'm not sure exactly. One interpretation is "his sefer" is Devarim in which we are explicitly told he wrote it. But elsewhere the Gemara has him writing all five books of the Torah. Could be a minority opinion. Again, not entirely sure.

      Delete
  2. I think its just a consequence of insisting that the entire Torah came from God. If it came from God, it was necessarily given through Moshe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kefira, true, the comment system of the blog is difficult to navigate.

    1. Good point, the rabbis were in the habit of obsessively organizing everything into categories and systems. Much has been written about why and how they did that.

    2. Why did they see it as so black and white? Why couldn't it be 'divinely inspired' or edited later? Nobody has a problem lighting the chanukiya and saying 'asher kidshanu bemitzvosav' on a derabanan. In hindsight, I believe the rambam's 8th has backfired tremendously, and has forced orthodox Jews to take fundamental / indefensible positions that ultimately leads to abandonment of rabbinic Judaism altogether

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why did they see it as so black and white? Why couldn't it be 'divinely inspired' or edited later?"

      Remember that the Talmudic Rabbis were forced into defending Judaism from the encroaches of Christianity, which claims that the Torah has been nullified and replaced. Similarly, the Rambam was forced to confront Islam's claim that the Hebrew Bible was corrupted. It is useful to read the 8th ikkar in that context.

      Delete
    2. Something I have pondered - The Jews could say to invaders this is our Land, G-d gave it to us. As proof - it is all written in here in this holy book.

      Also, religion can be used to unite a country. The 'government' and 'special interests' tells the masses - this book is from G-d so we all must follow it.

      Delete
    3. The worship of Torah replaces the worship at the Temple which is no longer available. During an exile the Torah can be used to preserve the Jewish tribe.

      Delete
    4. @ACJA, you need to go a step farther in your pondering!

      Many nations have a foundation myth, however it usually involves a god, or other event, leading them to an uninhabited area which they set up their new city. Israel's foundation myth have them conquering other nations along with repeated promises from God that the land was there's always. Why?

      I have an answer here, but I'll let you ponder first.

      Delete
    5. You may be hinting at the the origins of the Israelites and or the origins of El and or YHWH . It would be a good topic to write about though, but I am not going there now. My pondering is - the Israelite holy text could provide justification for 1) Why the 'Israelites' had the right to 'invade' of Canaan and to reside there, and 2) To rebuff the invasion of Israel by other Nations.

      Delete
  4. Good point, I often hear religious apologists using the argument that scientists / atheist don't have definitive answers while they do. I guess the rabbis and the rambam needed those 'definitive answers' to fend off the critics of their times. And of course, the famous 'guilt argument' that our ancestors died to defend the torah while we have abandoned it, is very much related as well. Which brings me to the following question:

    Can a rational jew, having established almost certainly that the torah isn't god given, still stake priority claim to the land of Israel?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In what I regard as a perfect illustration of cognitive dissonance on stilts, a new post by an (apparently) Orthodox scholar with very impressive academic credentials argues for a blanket acceptance of the torah's divinity as a prerequisite for any discussion of the merits of academic Biblical Scholarship or religion in general.

    I'm including a link to it for those of you who want to have a crack at it.

    http://myobiterdicta.blogspot.com/2015/11/torah-academia-and-historicism.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Deut 1:1 These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.

    I think "Are Roster" in http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/11/vort-switching-shmuel-and-shaul.htmlwas was arguing that Deut 1:1 ‘ever yarden’ is a place marker, a name of a place.

    However, the translations I have seen treat ‘ever’ as a direction.

    Numbers 36:13 - the term used is 'al yarden' . Why would Deut 1:1 change the term to 'ever yarden' ? Also Deut 4:21-22 uses 'ever yarden' to refer to west of jordan. Deut 1:1 The word 'ever' is most likely meaning direction. Also see see Deut 11:30 and Deut 3:8 these verses imply ‘ever’ as beyond, on the other side.

    If ‘ever jordan’ was understood as a place marker, why does the Torah have to narrate Arabah etc: Why bother writing ‘ever yarden’ ? It seems pretty clear the author is writing for people already on the west side of the Jordan.

    Now one verse alone may not convince someone the whole Torah was not likely from Moshe. But see Spinoza - there are many such verses - all this strongly implies that all the pieces of our current Torah can not be of mosaic period origin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here are questions I asked ARE ROSTER. PLEASE EXPLAIN to me how the entire 5 books fit on the alter [pun intended]. Also do you think the entire 5 books were read as verse 35 writes ?

    Joshua 8::30 Then Joshua built an altar unto the LORD, the God of Israel, in mount Ebal, 31 as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of unhewn stones, upon which no man had lifted up any iron; and they offered thereon burnt-offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace-offerings. 32 And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote before the children of Israel. 33 And all Israel, and their elders and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, as well the stranger as the home-born; half of them in front of mount Gerizim and half of them in front of mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded at the first, that they should bless the people of Israel. 34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law. 35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them.

    Does this not all strongly imply the Torah did not consist of all 5 books ?

    So far waiting for a response.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kefirah and Are Roster - REgarding Yehoshua (Josh 8:30-32)May not be referring to writing on the Altar. See Deut 27:2-4 refers to free standing stones.

      Delete
  8. Good post Kefirah and it seems inspired by my question to "are Roster'. I was taught the whole Torah was from G-d and or Moshe. But it seemed odd to me the Torah's words themselves never said such a thing. My suspicions were confirmed by Ibn Ezra and Spinoza's arguments that the Torah was most likely not written entirely by Moshe. The fact that so many came to believe the Torah was all from G-d and or Moshe shows how wrong a 'national tradition' can be. The evidence supports the Torah was not from Moshe, yet people believe it is ! So much for Gotllieb's Kuzari Principle.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Alter. You claim that "it seemed odd to me that the Torah's words themselves never said such a thing [that Moses wrote the Torah]" Can you tell me any other book in Jewish history that is MORE (or at least equal) emphatic about its authorship. In other words, the Torah states that Moses wrote this Torah. What more could the Torah have done? You have implied that the Torah could have said, "Moses wrote these five books," but why would you assume that the Torah was divided into five distinct books? I repeat: Please present a SINGLE book in the history of Judaism (pre-printing press) that is more emphatic about its own authorship? Are you requiring Moses to insert a footnote after each verse?

    Regarding Spinoza and Ibn Ezra's arguments, they merely point to a few words being added later. You claim that this implies that the rest of the book was written post-Moses as well. I will, therefore, repeat my challenge: Can you tell me of a single book in the history of Judaism (Mishnah, Gemara, Rishonim, Achronim) in which subsequent additions weren't added to a text? The fact that there are so many varying girsaos in all our texts proves that additions kept creeping in. The only exception is, interestingly, the Torah. The Torah doesn't have nearly as many girsaos as other texts. In fact, I'm not aware of a single dispute in the Gemara which was based on two sages having varying texts. So, I do agree that some changes may have developed, but that in no way implies that the rest of the book wasn't from Moshe.

    Regarding Joshua's "large" stones, why do you assume that they couldn't fit the five books of Moses? The Gemara (Sotah 34a) states that the Tannaim, when visiting the site measured the stones as being 40 seah. The Alshich explains that this means that the stones were three cubits tall and had a perimeter of four cubits. Recently, according to the Sefer "Vinitzdak Bakodesh" (pg. 398), he tested it in public and determined that the entire Torah could easily and clearly have been written on stones of this size (All these sources are from Pilaos Eidosecha).

    You have admitted that individual parts of the Torah were likely written by Moses. But that opens a huge can of worms. First, that means that subsequent admirers deliberately added to his text. Second, that would mean that you believe in some sort of Exodus. But, as Israel Finkelstein argues, "putting aside the possiblitify of divinely inspires miracles, one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large groups of slaves from Egypt left Egypt" [since the Egyptian army was too powerful to suffer such as loss]. Are you open to a divine exodus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are Roster writes “@ Alter. You claim that "it seemed odd to me that the Torah's words themselves never said such a thing [that Moses wrote the Torah]" Can you tell me any other book in Jewish history that is MORE (or at least equal) emphatic about its authorship. In other words, the Torah states that Moses wrote this Torah. What more could the Torah have done? You have implied that the Torah could have said, "Moses wrote these five books," but why would you assume that the Torah was divided into five distinct books? I repeat: Please present a SINGLE book in the history of Judaism (pre-printing press) that is more emphatic about its own authorship? Are you requiring Moses to insert a footnote after each verse?...’

      We have been thru this, and Kefirah wrote this post about it. Also it is not just that the Torah never writes the entire set of scrolls Gen thru Deut are from a single individual, it implies they are not so many times. Again read Spinoza carefully why he says this is as clear as sunshine at noon. The Torah has doublets, triplets, anachronisms, contradictions,and third person reports. Not what is expected from a book claimed to be written by God and given at a single specific location and time at Mount Sinai around 1200 B.C. But you Are Roster are working with an apriori dogma.

      Are Roster writes “Regarding Joshua's "large" stones, why do you assume that they couldn't fit the five books of Moses? The Gemara (Sotah 34a) states that the Tannaim, when visiting the site measured the stones as being 40 seah. The Alshich explains that this means that the stones were three cubits tall and had a perimeter of four cubits. Recently, according to the Sefer "Vinitzdak Bakodesh" (pg. 398), he tested it in public and determined that the entire Torah could easily and clearly have been written on stones of this size (All these sources are from Pilaos Eidosecha).’

      I would have to see the calculations in Vinitzdak Bakodesh. Maybe he has photos ? Are the stones written on with ink or cut in ?

      Joshua 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them.

      He read the entire 5 books ? Is that what you really think happened ?

      There may be an apologetic response for a few of the problems. But there are so many problems with the claim of a single author circa 1200 B.C. You have to explain away each one. Do find you the apologetic answers intellectually honest ? Or are they ad-hoc explanations ? Do you find the apologetic responses satisfying ?

      Are Roster writes “You have admitted that individual parts of the Torah were likely written by Moses. But that opens a huge can of worms. First, that means that subsequent admirers deliberately added to his text. Second, that would mean that you believe in some sort of Exodus. But, as Israel Finkelstein argues, "putting aside the possiblitify of divinely inspires miracles, one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large groups of slaves from Egypt left Egypt" [since the Egyptian army was too powerful to suffer such as loss]. Are you open to a divine exodus?”

      I don’t remember admitting “that individual parts of the Torah were likely written by Moses.” But I may have said some portions of Torah are possibly from Moshe or the Mosaic period. The admirers could have modified his text or not. They may have taken his scrolls and added more scrolls. I never denied some sort of Exodus or Exoduses could have happened. This proves to me you don’t read what I write and do not read my posts I tell you to read, making me have to repeat my self over and over again. An Exodus of over a million people most likely did not happen - this is accepted by every scholar who has studied the data.

      Delete
    2. This is my last response until next weekend (recent upheavels in my schedule have rendered me into a complete workaholic).

      1) The Torah never writes that all the five books are from a single individual because it was ONE BOOK. The Torah states that "the Torah" was written by Moses. I can't DEMAND that the Torah say anything more, just as NO OTHER BOOK IN JEWISH HISTORY ever says "every sentence in this book was written by John Doe." Furthermore, my central argument for mosaic authorship, as true with most other books in history, is from the fact that we have a tradition that Moses wrote the five books.

      2) How do doublets prove that God didn't author the book? In fact, although I am somewhat skeptical about the conclusions of bible criticism (i.e., I am hesitant to conclude, based on literary analysis, that the five books of Moses didn't have one single HUMAN author), the arguments of Bible criticism are the strongest proof for divine authorship. They claim Moses didn't write it. Agreed. Their alternative, however, seems completely bizarre: an anonymous author cobbled together various texts, sometimes switching back and forth mid-verse. Does that theory make any sense? That leaves us with one sane alternative: Divine authorship. This argument I just made is a weak one only because the arguments of bible criticism aren't absolute (I wish they were). We can't absolutely rule out single human authorship (based on literary methodology).
      3) Why do I have to provide photographs regarding this event? It is you, dear alter, who needs to provide proof that this isn't possible. You are arguing that the five books of Moses couldn't fit on 12 "large" stones. Can you offer a scintilla of evidence for this claim?

      Delete
    3. @ Are Roster

      I need to add a couple things to my prior comments to you.

      Even one word in the Torah can make all the difference in dating it. You cant dismiss this evidence by saying well it is only one word. Examples are found in Spinoza’s write up.

      I cite Ramban and Radak to demonstrate to you there is no Jewish claim there is an unbroken national tradition of Torah amongst the Jews. It has nothing to do me my opinion of their reliability

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Are Roster writes “1) The Torah never writes that all the five books are from a single individual because it was ONE BOOK. The Torah states that "the Torah" was written by Moses. I can't DEMAND that the Torah say anything more, just as NO OTHER BOOK IN JEWISH HISTORY ever says "every sentence in this book was written by John Doe." Furthermore, my central argument for mosaic authorship, as true with most other books in history, is from the fact that we have a tradition that Moses wrote the five books...”

      You central argument is defective for reasons given in my prior comments.

      No use beating a dead horse - my responses are in my prior comments to you and also read Kefirah’s post here and Spinoza - why Moshe was not likely the author. And you have been informed why I think it is unlikely the Torah itself never implies that Gen 1 thru Deut was all written by Moshe/G-d. Also see this post by Kefirah.

      See my comments to you here:

      http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/11/vort-switching-shmuel-and-shaul.html

      and http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-modern-kuzari-argument.html

      and http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-population-problem-of-torah.html


      Are Roster writes “2) . Their alternative, however, seems completely bizarre: an anonymous author cobbled together various texts, sometimes switching back and forth mid-verse. Does that theory make any sense?”

      You are knocking down a strawman. Anyway - FYI ancient ‘authors’ often did just that ! They would cobble together scroll and stories and make a book out of it. For more see my comments to you at

      http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/11/vort-switching-shmuel-and-shaul.html

      and http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-modern-kuzari-argument.html

      and http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-population-problem-of-torah.html


      “3) Why do I have to provide photographs regarding this event? It is you, dear alter, who needs to provide proof that this isn't possible. You are arguing that the five books of Moses couldn't fit on 12 "large" stones. Can you offer a scintilla of evidence for this claim?”

      I think it is very unlikely - here is why - the letter density would be greater than any ancient document. Also, I am not sure they even had the technical ability to write the letters so tiny. The altar was not a very large monument.

      Also Joshua 8:34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them.

      He read the entire 5 books ? Is that what you really think happened ?

      Delete
    6. @ Are Roster - To clarify - I was not asking for photos from Joshua's times. I meant did the Vinitzdak Bakodesh provide photos of the bible in the simulated stone sizes. Can you provide me a short summary of the calculations ? What letter density per square inch was the book claiming ?

      Delete
  12. No one claims that Moses authored the Torah. Rather God spoke and Moses wrote it down. In other words God is the author and Moses was his scribe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spinoza etc are using the classic straw man technique of false logic.

      Delete
    2. @ Jacob Stein - do you really think so ? You have to be able to address every anachronism, doublet, triplet, contradiction third person report in an intellectually honest fashion - can you do this to your own satisfaction ? If so, you are good to go your own way. I could not, so I went my own way.

      Delete
    3. I seem to recall seeing a few commentaries in some editions of the Torah. Why don't you check them out?

      By the way, you need to address every bit of evidence that the Apollo moon landings never happened.

      http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

      Can you do this to your own satisfaction? Or do you simply accept the fact that the preponderance of evidence is on the side of NASA and leave it at that?

      Delete
    4. @ Jacob Stein - The Talmud or a commentator saying the entire 5 books are from G-d is not at issue here. Good Grief. Where in the Torah does it write the entire 5 books are from G-d ? I repeat - what pasukim in the Torah imply the ENTIRE 5 books are from G-d ?

      Delete
    5. Jacob Stein- I am making no assertions about Apollo moon landing. You must like to go fishing since you provide so many Red Herrings.

      Delete
    6. You realize that the illogical arguments which you use to rebut Judaism would not make sense anywhere else.

      Delete
    7. Nobody is perfect. Some people find my arguments sound others do not not.

      Delete
  13. @ Jacob Stein - where in the Torah does it write the entire 5 books are from G-d ? I repeat - what pasukim in the Torah imply the ENTIRE 5 books are from G-d ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Jacob Stein For example how do you know that G-d told Moshe to write Gen 1:1 ? Does the Torah ever say that ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is our oral tradition.

    Where does it say in Hamlet that William Shakespeare wrote the entire play?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok - I hear you about Oral tradition about the Torah being entirely from G-d. But this is not something the Torah itself ever writes. Just so you know - I dont place full credibility in any oral traditions, especially those that are self serving and especially those involving supernatural claims.

      Delete
    2. About Shakespeare writing Hamlet - I think there was some dispute about that, maybe there still is. This is where scholarship comes to the fore. They search for evidence to support or refute him as author.

      Delete
    3. The structure of Judaic literature validates the oral tradition.

      Judaic literature was written in five primary stages with authors in the later stages rarely or never contradicting those in the earlier stages:

      - The prophets; 1300 BCE to 300 BCE.

      - The early rabbis; 300 BCE to 200 CE

      - The Talmudic rabbis; 200 CE to 500 CE

      - The Talmudic commentaries; 500 CE to 1500 CE

      - The commentators on the Talmudic commentaries; 1500 CE to present.1

      Other religions have two stages – the founder and the commentators on the founder. There is the New Testament and canon law, the Koran and the Sharia, etc. The founder of course has special importance, however after him any great scholar is entitled to offer an opinion. In the Catholic Church, for example, Doctors of the Church continue to be added up to the present.

      In Judaism, a rabbi living in 1000 CE would never have considered contradicting a rabbi who lived in 300 CE and likewise a rabbi living in 1600 CE would never contradict a rabbi living in 1000 CE.

      No one after 300 BCE claimed to have the gift of prophesy. This is why the canon of the Bible was closed. There was universal reverence for the sages of each earlier era. This is in spite of the fact that since the destruction of the First Temple, 2,400 years ago, the Jewish people have not possessed any central authority capable of declaring and enforcing a new era of Judaic literature. These eras seem to have formed spontaneously because of a universal recognition that current leaders did not possess the spiritual and academic greatness of earlier ones.

      This clearly proves that the Jewish people were in fact elevated to a great spiritual level 3,300 years ago at Mt. Sinai and from that level they have been gradually descending ever since. There is no other explanation for these numerous levels.

      This clearly validates all of rabbinical Jewish tradition, including the Talmudic law, since the spiritual giants of the earlier Jewish eras would obviously never have falsified anything.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. @ jacob Stein - yep I read that from you someplace else. Oral tradition is not under discussion now. I have asked you to provide pasukim from the Torah that calim the entire Torah is from G-d, or if you like Moshe. And what do you do ? Tell me oral tradition. LOL

      Delete
    6. Jacob Stein - I think kefirah had a post on oral tradition that may interest you.

      Delete
  16. A divine author could well have referred to things which had not yet happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. What's the alternative? Ezra? Then why did all Jews and Samaritans accept it and how did all other versions vanish from history with no trace or mention?

      Delete
    3. Jacob Stein - I and others have been thru the samaritan issue at http://undercoverkofer.blogspot.com and also I provided you with a link here at kefirah. So we will not go down that road again. But you still provide more Red Herrings. I am asking where in the Torah it says it is all from G-d. I am not asking for so called proofs it is from G-d. Good Grief.

      Delete
    4. Jacob Stein writes "What's the alternative? Ezra? Then why did all Jews and Samaritans accept it and how did all other versions vanish from history with no trace or mention?"

      You are a troll - we have discussed at http://undercoverkofer.blogspot.com - that no one but you claims Ezra wrote Torah from scratch. Now you repeat it again ! Second - The Jews lost many of their sacred scrolls. Sometimes they were intentionally destroyed or left to wither away.

      Delete
    5. My father taught me why do we despise the pig ? The pig shows his cloven feet and says see I am kosher. In other words DON"T LIE. DON'T MISLEAD. DON'T BE INTELLECTUALY DISHONEST.

      Delete
    6. Cocker you are the troll. Although beyond reasonable doubt the Torah is of divine origin, you keep raising some silly objections.

      It's like I'm dealing with some Apollo moon landing conspiracy theorist who keeps insisting that there is no proof, there were Coke bottles in Apollo TV transmission, how do I explain the confession tweeted by Buzz Aldrin himself

      http://huzlers.com/buzz-aldrin-admits-apollo-11-moon-landings-fake-simply-set-see-tweet/

      The Torah isn't a hoax. Deal with it.

      Delete
    7. @Jacob Stein - look up the word troll - you are one.

      I asked you a simple question here - I never claimed anything. Where in the Torah does it ever write or imply that Gen 1 thru Deut is from G-d and or Moshe ? And you not responded to that question. I ask what time is it and you tell me the weather.

      Delete
    8. @Jacob Stein - You claim to have read Spinoza - but your words betray you. Spinoza himself never says Ezra wrote Torah from scratch. So go ahead and knock down your strawmen.

      Delete
  17. "Where in the Torah does it ever write or imply that Gen 1 thru Deut is from G-d and or Moshe ?"

    How about this Deut. 31:9

    וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה, אֶת-הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, וַיִּתְּנָהּ אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי, הַנֹּשְׂאִים אֶת-אֲרוֹן בְּרִית יְהוָה; וְאֶל-כָּל-זִקְנֵי, יִשְׂרָאֵל.

    Moses wrote this Torah and gave it to the priests.

    What more do you want?

    And if that doesn't work for you, then it's written in same place in Hamlet where it's written that Shakespeare wrote it. Nowhere. It's oral tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The indication is that "all these words" represent the chapters 21-23, which is a litany of mostly civil laws, in many cases similar to the code of Hammurabi."

    Not really.

    http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_yitro.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have no idea if the moon landings happened or not, i have no idea if i really exist or i'm just a program running in some computer software, but i get up in the morning and assume reality is what makes most sense. It makes sense based that there were moon landings, it does not make sense that i should accept supernatural origins of the old testament, new testament, or koran. And for you, Jacob Stein, to give you one glaring example, there was no world flood that wiped out almost all of humanity 4,000 years ago, so right there you see your holy book is WRONG, but you insist on your tautological nonsense in trying to make sense of the nonsensical. If im not mistaken, the whole toratemet agenda which you cited was engendered in a futile attempt to refute yaron yadan who decimates your fairy tales with a withering carpet bombing of reason and rational thinking. The truth will set you free.

    ReplyDelete
  20. e, my dear little lower case e, first of all could you please tell me what you mean by "supernatural"? Nature basically means anything which exists, so of course no one believe in supernatural things because that would mean believing in the existence of things which are by definition non-existent.

    "there was no world flood that wiped out almost all of humanity 4,000 years ago"

    Sure there was. Besides the Biblical record, the Deluge is recorded in the oral histories of most ancient nations throughout the world. Considering the fact that natural floods are never extensive enough to leave the survivors believing that they are the only humans remaining alive, apparently these Deluge legends are based on a miraculous global flood.

    Additionally, there is evidence of a global catastrophe at about the time of the Deluge.

    Archaeologists have found evidence of a 4.2 kiloyear BP aridification event, which was one of the most severe climatic events in the past 12,000 years in terms of impact on cultural upheaval. Starting about 2200 BCE, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BCE. It is very likely to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt as well as the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia.

    Perhaps this event was actually the Deluge, which has been somehow misinterpreted as a drought, or it was some after effect of the Deluge.

    So in any case little lower case, do not be fooled and do not be scammed by the preachers of atheism. The truth will set you free.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jacob, you should commend me on my lowe case e, is not the small aleph in vayikra a testament to moses' humility? But i digress.
    Your conflation of terms and convolution of vocabulary will not change my basic premise, to wit: There are laws governing our physical existence, and until you can prove me otherwise, i operate under those assumed laws. If i jump off a roof i will not fly like superman, is it possible that if i try it one day that i really will fly? It is certainly possible, is it possible that one day i will add two and two and it will equal five? Is it possible that i will close my eyes and hum yabbadabbadoo when i open my eyes i will find myself in australia? Anything is possible, is it possible that Jesus is the Son of God? Is it possible that the angel Gabriel spoke to the prophet Mohammed? Is it possible that the Torah was given to Moses by extraterrestrials? Maybe because my dad was a bt and still retained a vestige of his secular education that i can see through your claptrap, which segues nicely into my next observation, namely, that your belief in a worldwide flood contravenes everything we know in the fields of archaeology, history, biology, etc. etc. You, sir, may fool those of limited education, which is why (amongst other reasons) the ultra-orthodox are so opposed to secular education, but your jedi mind tricks won't work on anyone with even a modicum of knowledge and common sense. Live long and prosper, mate.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jacob, you should commend me on my lowe case e, is not the small aleph in vayikra a testament to moses' humility? But i digress.
    Your conflation of terms and convolution of vocabulary will not change my basic premise, to wit: There are laws governing our physical existence, and until you can prove me otherwise, i operate under those assumed laws. If i jump off a roof i will not fly like superman, is it possible that if i try it one day that i really will fly? It is certainly possible, is it possible that one day i will add two and two and it will equal five? Is it possible that i will close my eyes and hum yabbadabbadoo when i open my eyes i will find myself in australia? Anything is possible, is it possible that Jesus is the Son of God? Is it possible that the angel Gabriel spoke to the prophet Mohammed? Is it possible that the Torah was given to Moses by extraterrestrials? Maybe because my dad was a bt and still retained a vestige of his secular education that i can see through your claptrap, which segues nicely into my next observation, namely, that your belief in a worldwide flood contravenes everything we know in the fields of archaeology, history, biology, etc. etc. You, sir, may fool those of limited education, which is why (amongst other reasons) the ultra-orthodox are so opposed to secular education, but your jedi mind tricks won't work on anyone with even a modicum of knowledge and common sense. Live long and prosper, mate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, and btw i find it humorous that you parroted my statement from the New Testament: "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

    ReplyDelete
  24. "There are laws governing our physical existence"

    Are there? You seem to be a little bit behind the times scientifically. Have you heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    "your belief in a worldwide flood contravenes everything we know in the fields of archaeology, history, biology, etc. etc."

    It actually contravenes (I think you meant "contradicts" but I digress) nothing and in fact is the only plausible explanation for the flood legends which are universal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jacob, I'm not a scientist, I know that our knowledge of science and the universe is constantly expanding, i have heard of heisenberg and the uncertaintu principle, certainly it is possible that there are alternate universes, certainly it is possible that we are merely programs running in some extraterrestrial computer, certainly a metaphysical reality is possible in which there was indeed a flood 4,000 years ago that a) killed off all of humanity except for one family (and good old og of bashan), and b) wiped out all land based living creatures except those who found refuge in the ark, but that's all you have: a metaphysical belief system, or as i originally stated, supernatural. You can flash your magic cards of heisenberg and quantum physics to dazzle your acolytes, but i can see through your razzle dazzle con game, as well as anyone- scientist or not- who knows a modicum of history. You, sir, would aptly fill the position of curator at that ludicrous creationism museum down in kentucky, and wisely nod your head in unison with that dingbat ham who got clobbered by bill nye in that debate of theirs (feel free to watch it on youtube, and realize how ridiculous your beliefs about our planet really are.
    And btw, i stand by my usage of the word 'contravene', as in the second definition of the word:
    1. To act or be in violation of (a law, directive, or principle, for example); violate: a sailor who contravened a direct order; a regulation that contravened the new tax policy.
    2. To be inconsistent with; be contrary to: "Such a marriage ... contravenes much of what we know about marriages in this period" (Carol Meyers).
    "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say." (John 8:43)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Not only is your knowledge of science and English a little bit weak, however you are committing a logic fallacy of question begging. This refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. For example: The Deluge could not have happened, because it involves miracles. Miracles cannot happen because there is no God. We know there is no God because the Bible is wrong. We know the Bible is wrong because it mentions the Deluge and we know the Deluge didn’t happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Jacob. I would recommend not criticizing others' scientific knowledge after you bring up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in a discussion of geology.

      Delete
    2. As I made clear, I was refering to the notion that the universe works in a purely determistic manner according to fixed laws. That's a bit discredited.

      Delete
    3. You're not doing yourself any favors with that explanation. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with macroscopic non-determinism. For that we're dealing with chaos theory. And no, that's not applicable to geological erosion phenomena.

      These are things that you don't understand, and you've made it clear in the past that not only do you not understand them, but you do not wish to learn. Which is why I'm not going to bother explaining them any further.

      Delete
    4. I was criticizing determinism. I made no mention of geology.

      Delete
    5. The phenomena in question are determinable. HUP does not apply. (It's painfully obvious why.)

      Delete
  27. My knowledge of english and science is light years more advanced than your average ultra-orthodox yid, and definitely more than required to demolish your silly pathetic attempts to prove there was a worldwide flood 4,000 years ago. You, sir, are the one who has these silly preconceived notions, and like that duplicitous archer who first shoots his arrow, and then draws concentric circles around so his arrow is nestled in the bullseye, you force yourself to defend the preposterous to avoid facing the truth.
    The onus is on you to prove the deluge, matan torah, santa claus, the toothfairy, or the flying teapot orbiting a moon of saturn. YOU prove to me there was a deluge: you can't. YOU prove to me there are miracles. You can't. YOU prove to me the divinity of the torah: You can't.
    And if you want to go down the god route, put this in your pipe and smoke it: "Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!" (John 8:45)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. "The onus is on you to prove the deluge, matan torah"

      Done.

      http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

      And the onus is on you to prove that we are soulless zombies, created by no one for no reason and having no control of our own behavior which is entirely determined by the laws of nature; laws which themselves were created by random chance.

      Delete
  28. Which is why we must accept JESUS as our Lord and Savior! Praise Jesus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The appeal to ridicule.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

      So are we going to go down the entire list of logical fallacies, or is this enough for today?

      Delete
  29. No, appeal to reason. You wish to obtain succor and avoid soulless zombies, christian dogma will answer your search for meaning just as easily as orthodox judaism. Expand your horizons, man, don't be so ethnocentric.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're Christian? If not, so what's your point?

      Delete
    2. It sounds to me as if you are comfortable with your beliefs, which you haven't really given any thought to and you do not want to give any thought to, and you're trolling.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

      Is "e" an abbreviation for "empty head"?

      Delete
  30. Trolling? Kinda like the kettle calling the pot black, eh? I'm pointing out that your search for meaning can go down numerous avenues, but you only chose one, to the exclusion of all others. Very narrowminded, no? Like the kiruv folks like to wax, you can't be a true atheist until you learn all the torah, written and oral, and all the commentaries therof, so i point out to you that you need to learn the canons of sister religions before you can emphatically state that yours is the only one, true path. But of course you won't, for the truth is not your goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure you've checked out my bio, however I was raised as a Christian and converted to Judaism at age 16.

      Delete
    2. I didn't know that, Jacob. Welcome to the tribe.

      Delete
  31. Good job Jacob Stein - for posting so much information irrelevant to Kefirah's blog post. But that is probably your intention. Create smoke and mirrors and derail the topic. Unless you can stick to the tooic I would recommend Kefirah block some of your comments. Not because they should not be discussed - but because they do not belong at this post. I have seen you do the same thing at other blog posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, it all looks pretty relevant to me.

      The point is simply that atheist leaders try to foist on a gullible public nonsensical ideas which would put to shame the worst cult leaders and conspiracy theorists.

      Naturally, people believe whatever is comfortable for them.

      Have you ever wondered why other religions come and go while Judaism is eternal?

      It's quite simple.

      There are an endless number of comforting delusions and these change according to each time and place. However there is only reality.

      A "Jew" means someone brave enough to accept reality.

      Delete
    2. Jacob Stein see you prove yourself to be a troll. More off topic inflammatory comments.

      Delete
    3. Jacob Stein writes "Have you ever wondered why other religions come and go while Judaism is eternal?" OK - how about Zoroastrianism and Hinduism which are ancient. But we are off topic - just pointing out your ignorance.

      Delete
    4. Jacob Stein: "Naturally, people believe whatever is comfortable for them"

      Indeed.

      I am genuinely curious: how do you know that you are right and Alter Cocker is believing what is comfortable - maybe he is right and you believe in Judaism because it is comfortable? You have arguments that seem logical to you, but he has arguments that seem logical to him. So how can one determine which is true and which is false?

      Delete
    5. Zoroastrians believe that their religion began about 600 BCE

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster#Date

      While Jews date their religion from Mount Sinai at 1313 BCE

      http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/73398/jewish/Moses.htm

      if not centuries earlier if you go back to Abraham.

      Also, incidentally, there are few Zoroastrians today and they are nearing extinction.

      http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/01/04/zoroastrianisms-decline-toward-zero/3201

      Hinduism is a culture not a religion. It's like saying "Americanism". You can be an atheist and a Hindu.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Diversity_and_unity

      "how do you know that you are right and Alter Cocker is believing what is comfortable"

      The same way that I know that I am right and Holocaust deniers are wrong. I use my brain.

      There can never be absolute certainty about a past event. So how can a court ever punish an alleged criminal and how can anyone be a historian? We must use our best judgement to make a decision. If we make a mistake, we may suffer the consequences.

      Delete
    6. Jacob Stein: "I use my brain" / "We must use our best judgement to make a decision"

      But Alter Cocker also feels like he is using his brain and making his best judgment. So we have two people, both reasonably well-informed and intelligent, both convinced that they are making a rational appraisal of the facts, yet coming to mutually contradictory conclusions.

      Apparently one can feel like they are being rational and yet come to incorrect conclusions.

      Presumably you would say that Alter Cocker's bias against religion causes him to engage in faulty reasoning. So how do you know that your bias in favor of religion is not causing you to do the same?

      Delete
    7. I'm sure the Pope is a very well educated, intelligent, sincere etc with many millions of likewise well informed follows. How do you that all of here on this aren't wrong and Jesus Christ died for our sins?

      I can just do the best I can with the mind I have the information I have.

      Delete
    8. Sorry, the correct answer is: I do my best to recognize my personal biases and the way in which they can influence my thinking.

      Are you doing that?

      Delete
    9. OK, but when someone is in denial regarding something he, by definition, is unaware of that.

      "It is important to note what makes denial denial and not just refusal to admit to or accept a truth or fact rests in the degree of individual's awareness of the existence of the truth or fact. In denial, an individual does not see or is mostly unconscious of existence of the truth or fact."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

      Delete
    10. I am not talking about denial, I am talking about being aware that you have certain biases and they can influence how you perceive what is rational and correct.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias_mitigation

      Delete
    11. @ Jacob Stein see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism "Hinduism has been called the "oldest religion" in the world,[note 2]"

      Delete
    12. @ Jacob Stein “Zoroastrianism or Mazdaism[n 1] is one of the world's oldest religions, "combining a cosmogonic dualism and eschatological monotheism in a manner unique... among the major religions of the world."

      “Zoroastrianism has survived into the modern period, particularly in India, where it has been present since about the 9th century.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Modern

      Delete
    13. @ Jacob Stein who writes "Have you ever wondered why other religions come and go while Judaism is eternal?"

      Pls see

      http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy_77.html

      http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-via-jewish-survival-jewish.html

      Delete
    14. @ Jacob Stein you are factually wrong when you state "Have you ever wondered why other religions come and go while Judaism is eternal?" There are are some long lived religions that are still practiced today. Besides can you not think of any natural reason why a variant of Israelite religion still survives ? See my links. This is yet another one of your God of Gaps arguments.

      Delete
    15. @ Jacob Stein - pls read why the Torah was not likely all from mosaic period here http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/who-wrote-bible.html

      Delete
    16. I am absolutely rational and totally unbiased. Trust me on this one.

      Hinduism isn't a religion. It's a culture. There are atheist Hindus.

      There exists only one religion in the world which has remained basically unchanged for thousands of years and which has a significant, viable community today: orthodox rabbinical Judaism.

      Others have wondered and marveled at this.

      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/TwainJews.html

      As explained above, the explanation is obvious.

      Just interesting this week I am celebrating the the victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks and Jewish Hellenists. I can imagine 2,200 years ago an Alter Cocker Hellenist ridiculing a tradition Jew "What, you still believe that invisible one god of yours? It's as clear as day the Zeus is the king of gods. Look at the success of Alexander the Great! What has your god done for you, you loser?"

      Delete
    17. @Jacob Stein - not only are you good at fishing proven by all the red herrings you provide, you are also good in sports seeing how you keep moving goal posts. 2 logical fallacies.

      Delete
    18. @Jacob Stein who writes "Just interesting this week I am celebrating the the victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks and Jewish Hellenists. I can imagine 2,200 years ago an Alter Cocker Hellenist ridiculing a tradition Jew "What, you still believe that invisible one god of yours? It's as clear as day the Zeus is the king of gods. Look at the success of Alexander the Great! What has your god done for you, you loser?""

      Where do I ridicule at my blog ? Anyway - finally something we can sort of agree on. It eludes me now, but I think it was even prior Alexander the Great, our people were saying something like: Well maybe Yahweh exists but it seems he is ineffective for good or bad. Meaning as if he DONT EXIST. See I am part of a long Jewish tradition. Happy Chanakah

      Delete
    19. Like Benedict Arnold is part of a long American tradition.

      Delete
  32. Kefirah and Are Roster - REgarding Yehoshua (Josh 8:30-32)May not be referring to writing on the Altar. See Deut 27:2-4 refers to free standing stones.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I want to point out that I am innocent of being a troll.

    "A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in a blog with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    The general topic of this post is the question of whether or not the Torah is of divine origin. I am merely attempting to the open the eyes of those poor, gullible fools who have been duped by atheists in general and scientists in particular. Scientists have for 150 years attempted to discredit the clergy and seize their power for themselves. I am debunking atheism and exposing this scam.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Not sure why people are even attempting to have an intellectually honest discussion with Jacob Stein, aka "Jewish Philosopher" & author of the "torahphilosophy" blog. He's much, much worse than a troll in his refusal to answer pointed questions and attempts to distract with irrelevant responses. That's been his modus operandi from the very beginning. If pressed too far (as in his insistence that there really WAS a global flood 4000 years ago in which all species were destroyed except those on the ark and that the world was repopulated from those animals!) he will always respond with "it was a miracle; God can do anything".

    A troll is harmless and can be ignored once you realize it for what it is. But in this case, I'd really suggest doing a little googling to see what a repugnant individual he is before trying to engage him. Here is just one priceless quote from Stein: "I proudly support the death penalty for men engaging in anal sexual intercourse with other men. The reason for my opinion is simply because this is what the Bible teaches and as a Jew I believe in the Bible." Source: http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2006/11/anti-gay-pride.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my dear, how terrible! Against sodomy! What type of insanity is that?

      You realize that the cost of HIV treatment is about $400,000 total.

      http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/ongoing/costeffectiveness/

      But I guess sodomy is priceless.

      Delete
    2. Jacob Stein - writes "Oh my dear, how terrible! Against sodomy! What type of insanity is that?

      You realize that the cost of HIV treatment is about $400,000 total.

      http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/ongoing/costeffectiveness/

      But I guess sodomy is priceless."

      Many esteemed Jews are former non Jews. You don't have to prove to anybody how truly "Orthodox" you are. My extended family is Orthodox and we would accept you as fully 'equal', nay, even more 'Jewish' than those 'born' Jewish. I can not speak for other ignorant narrow minded Jews though. Jews no longer advocate Death Penalties, and moreover the Torah laws only applied to Israelites not the whole world. Many of the laws only applied while the Jews resided in Israel.

      Delete
  35. I will discuss some random points that I’ve gleaned reading through your back and forth; obviously, I can’t respond to each and every point.
    @Jacob Stein First, I need to give you a yasher koach. When the nascent blogosphere was abuzz in kefirah , you were the sole stalwart that responded to their “reasoned” “arguments.” I believe that many people are frum today because of your lone, and valiant, online voice. The fact that you get called a troll says more about the desperation of your detractors than about the perceived “abusiveness” of your comments. I would advise, however: Always remain cognizant of the fact that these online atheists are simply not amenable to evidence. They have a mental block. There is simply nothing that you can tell most of these people that would have any effect on them. Just recently, for example, when an atheist here claimed that “nowhere” does Rashi say that Moshe read the Torah to the nation, and I supplied him with the exact Rashi which states that Moshe did, he blatantly continued to deny that this Rashi existed. I then realized that I’m not talking with someone who is even slightly open to evidence. It wasn’t worth the effort or the time.
    @throwaway You claim that Jacob Stien’s just as biased as Alter. I beg to differ. Though both are extremely confident about their position, (if I may speak for him) Jacob [and I] are, in theory, willing to consider evidence that contradicts our worldview. We can, in theory, handle doubt. Currently, we are 100% sure that the Torah is divine. But if you’d present evidence that there’s only an 80% chance that it’s divine, would we be impelled to change our lifestyles? Of course not. So we can be open to the other side. Alas, as of yet, the atheists haven’t presented anything of value. Alter, on the other hand, can’t face the evidence. If he’d be even slightly uncertain about his belief about the splicing together of the Torah text (the documentary hypothesis, the evidence for which has mysteriously disappeared, though such a monumental event would have had an extreme and residual effect on the nation), he’d HAVE to change his lifestyle. Thus, who should we trust—one who can consider the other side’s arguments (namely, theists) or those who simply can’t even allow themselves to consider the other side’s arguments (atheists)?
    @Alter I was the one who responded to Kefirah’s “population problem” post, so you don’t need to link the article to me, and I don’t need to respond to it again. There are two central responses to the “population problem,” if it even deserves that title. I have, and will, focus on the third: the evidence for low population numbers is nonexistent. In fact, the only archeologists who make claims regarding population sizes are Finkelstein and one other archeologist (his name eludes me). Another archeologist has stated that Finkelstein’s claims are based on unwritten surveys and reports and aren’t verifiable. Also, Finkelstein is a notorious skeptic. For example, when giving a class to secular students in Hebrew University and he was discussing Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem. He wondered aloud why Sannacherib didn’t destroy Jerusalem. One of the secular [it seems] students sheepishly offered the possibility of divine resistance to Sannacherib (as the Bible claims). He shot back at the student, stating that the premise of our discussion is “rationality.” Thus, he offered rather that Sannacherib, after besieging Jerusalem, realized that Jerusalem’s survival would be an asset as Judea was involved in producing olive oil (apparently, Sannacherib enjoyed lathering himself in Judean oil). I don’t blame Finkelstein for offering a naturalistic explanation. But to view any supernatural explanation as inherently “irrational” tells me that he simply isn’t open to the evidence for the divine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Are Roster - you allegedly read Hoffmeir - who who alos back away from the millions. No historian/archaeologist advocates millions in an Exodus. Why not ? Anyway - I explained to Jacob Stein why he was a troll - why dont you go back and read why. He also insults people. 'Are Roster' you to are beginning to appear to be a troll.

      Delete
    2. @Are Roster here is small sample of Jacob Stein "Is "e" an abbreviation for "empty head"? I can go on but enough said.

      Delete
    3. Are Roster writes "Currently, we are 100% sure that the Torah is divine."

      Wow. What evidence do you have for that? Even the Kuzari argument would not support that notion.

      Delete
    4. @Are Roster "..can’t even allow themselves to consider the other side’s arguments (atheists)?"

      I have considered Orthodox Jewish and Theists arguments and written about them here and my blog. They are not convincing.

      Delete
    5. @Are Roster see my latest post http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/who-wrote-bible.html and Moshe Weinfeld's comments about ancient authors and how they 'authored' books. The DH is rooted in empirical evidence.

      Delete
    6. @ARe Roster - there is nothing that would convince you the Torah is not divine. You will make up excuses. That puts your faith in the category of a Cargo Cult.

      Delete
    7. @ Are Roster - here is a citation from Jacob Stein "The point is simply that atheist leaders try to foist on a gullible public nonsensical ideas which would put to shame the worst cult leaders and conspiracy theorists."

      Can you find all the muddleheaded balderdash and lies in that statement ?

      Delete
  36. @Are Roster
    You say that you and J Stein are "willing to consider evidence that contradicts our worldview" while the atheists here are not. Yet Kefirah dedicated an entire post to specific examples of things that would persuade him to reconsider his current beliefs. Can you provide a similar list? For example: say archaeologists would find a copy of the P, E, etc documents posited by bible critics. Or a nation with a national tradition of divine revelation would be found. Etc. Note that I do not believe that either of those are likely to happen - but if one did, would your confidence dip below 100%?

    And about that 100% - believing anything 100% is the mark of intellectual dishonesty, IMHO. I am nowhere near 100% sure that there is no God. But the more I research the subject with an open mind, the more sure I become. And I must say that your efforts have made me more sure, not less, as I see the weakness of your arguments and lack of recognition of your own biases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) When I say, "I am 100% that the Torah is divine" I should have rather stated, "Assuming I take evidence seriously, I am 100% convinced that the Torah is true." Just as one who claims, "I am 100% certain that I am alive" would need to add the caveat "assuming that I trust my eyes and sensations, then [and only then] am I 100% sure that I am alive." So, yes, if we take evidence seriously, we have no reason to doubt the divinity of the Torah. In other words, I have found no evidence that our evidence is fallible, just as I have no evidence that that I'm deluded about my own existence, although that's of course a possibility. So, in effect, I am 100% that the Torah is divine. Not that I need to be. If I was 80% sure, that would also be OK.

      I disagree with your claim about intellectual dishonesty. How sure are you that there was a temple is Jerusalem? If you're not 100% sure, then you are awfully close to that percentage. Why? By now, there's archeological evidence (or so I am told) that there was a temple, but even before that evidence was presented, you'd be utterly convinced that there was a temple. You would trust nationally commemorated history of the existence of the temple. I'm not trying to convince you, right now, that the miracles recorded in the Torah happened. I'm merely describing my subjective acceptance of its historicity.

      If we'd find a nation that believes in a false nationally experienced nationally commemorated history, my beliefs would surely dip below 100%. And I agree that we won't find such an event. How do I know? Because let's imagine that such an event took place. Let's imagine that the Greeks believed that millions of their ancestors saw Zeus and they commemorated that event with numerous daily commemorations. Don't you think the elementary school GLOBAL HISTORY textbooks wouldn't mention that event? True, they don't mention every myth, but at least the one global history textbook I saw mentions the miraculous exodus, the temple, and other national events -- not claiming that these happened, but that Jews believe etc. So this type of event, if it happened elsewhere, it should be in our textbooks (e.g., the Aztec myth is found in the textbook that I referenced.)

      Regarding Hoffemier, he doesn't believe in millions for two reasons: 1) the population of Israel was too small (here, he's relying on Finkelstien) and 2) the Jews, had they been millions, would have had no problem breaking free from Pharaohs grips (here, his speculation isn't based on his authority as an archeologist, but rather on his guess of how nations act.)

      Delete
    2. @ Are Roster - do you think you are being intellectually honest ? Do you actually think what you keep repeating is actually true ? Anyway you never answered my question: No historian/archaeologist advocates millions in an Exodus. Why not ?

      Delete
    3. @Are Roster You also dodged this: Are Roster writes "Currently, we are 100% sure that the Torah is divine."

      Wow. What evidence do you have for that? Even the Kuzari argument would not support that notion.

      Delete
    4. @ Are Roster - From http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/08/kuzari-part-5.html "The Western Pygmy men informed Anthropologist Trilles that the deity dwelled with them during the first ages of man.“The Pygmies say in ancient times their Lawgiving Father-God-King reigned near Ruwenzori; the mountains of the moon.” “In this neighborhood, according to the Pygmies they received the deity’s laws and commandments.” Should we accept their claim ?

      Delete
    5. @ Are Roster - surely the pygmy claim, amongst others should give you some pause. That ancient people could come to believe in similar sorts of revelations.

      Delete
    6. About the pygmies, I have the impression that you are referring to the writings of Henri Trilles, a Catholic priest who served as a missionary in Gabon from 1893 until 1907.

      http://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000025538

      His account seems to be unsupported by other accounts of the religion of Gabonese pygmies.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baka_people_(Cameroon_and_Gabon)#Religion_and_belief_systems

      I would assume that Trille made it up.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. @ Jacob Stein - actually it is not only Trilles. See Pygmy Kitabu by Jean-Pierre Hallet and Alex Palle 1973 Hallet also lived with the pygmies. So now you must claim Trilles and Hallet made it up. Or maybe they were honestly reporting what they were being told by the pygmies.

      Delete
    9. Actually, Hallet seems to believe that pygmies not only had a Mount Sinai legend, but also the exodus and Jesus Christ.

      http://freethoughtnation.com/garden-of-eden-originally-a-pygmy-myth/

      I'm afraid that I'm a little bit skeptical.

      Delete
    10. @ Jacob Stein "Actually, Hallet seems to believe that pygmies not only had a Mount Sinai legend, but also the exodus and Jesus Christ." I think you should see Hallet book. I read it a while ago - I dont recall the EXODUS (escaped slaves etc: etc:) in the book, only something like a Sinai revelation. As far Jesus - well the basic story of son of god(s) is fairly common amongst other cultures. Maybe that is what Hallet was speaking about.BUT THIS IS ALL BESIDES THE POINT. The pygmies claim supernatural being(s) walked amongst them. And gave them laws at a special moon mountain. How can such a story gain traction ?

      Delete
    11. @ Jacob Stein - JUst so you know - The Pygmies and Jews are not the only cultures that claim supernatural interacted with them. White Buffalo Calf Women and another native american tribe whose name eludes me are amongst that category as well. I have no reason to doubt Trilles or Hallet for stuff like that. What might be in doubt is if the pygmies originate some similar legends as found in Torah or if they adopted or adapted them after coming in contact somehow with Egyptian/Christian/Muslim cultures.

      Delete
    12. Anyway, I wanted to post the relevant parts from the inside flap or jacket cover of Pygmy Kitabu:

      “In Pygmy Kitabu, Jean-Pierre Hallet discusses an array of intriguing facts and legends of the little-known Pygmy culture. The highlight of his many observations is the meticulously documented evidence that the African Pygmies are actually the surviving roots of man’s racial, religious and linguistic origin, that they are the direct ancestors of all the races.

      Remarkable parallels exist between the Pygmy legends and the legends of many world cultures-especially the Egyptians and Judeo-Christian. Today the Pygmies still tell the original myths of Osiris, Isis and Horus-the murdered father, immaculate mother, and avenging son, whose story is regarded by most Egyptologists as an older version of the Christ story. The Pygmies also recount the original Adam and Eve legend, the giving of commandments, and the second coming of the Pygmy messiah. Since before the rather recent invasion by the Negro tribes, the Ituri Pygmies were isolated from the rest of the world for some 4,000 years, they could not have been “indoctrinated” by any other cultures or missionaries.

      Through this new study, modern man can trace his origins back to the “Center of the Earth” at the foot of the fabled Mountains of the Moon, near the historical Source of the Nile-the true “Garden of Eden.”

      http://freethoughtnation.com/garden-of-eden-originally-a-pygmy-myth/

      Well, that's all very interesting, however no one else seems to have really noticed this.

      Delete
    13. @ Jacob Stein - are you fishing for red herrings again ? How many people spent as many years with the Pygmies to get to learn the cultures, myths, religions ? But like I said before and repeat again it has nothing to do with Hallet's argument that the pygmies are the root of some myths. What is important is that at some point the pygmies made similar claims at least according to Hallet and Trilles. You can say Hallet and Trilles misunderstood what the pygmies were telling them or perhaps you may claim Hallet and Trilles just lied. I will try to research if anybody claims Trilles and Hallet lied.

      Delete
    14. All religions, languages and races and come from the pygmies.

      We are all pygmies at least according to Hallet.

      I hope the pygmy messiah, in his second coming, will speak loudly enough for me to hear him; I'm 6'1".

      Also in the first coming, was there a pygmy Crucifixion, a pygmy passion, carried out by pygmy Jews? Mel Gibson should be told about this.

      Delete
    15. @ Jacob Stein - We are adults trying to have a conversation right ? Stop the red herrings,straw man tactics and smoke an mirrors.

      Delete
  37. It's Are Roster,
    1) I am as convinced of the historicity of the Torah as you are of the existence of the Second Temple. True, mathematically we can't be 100% sure that either happened, but practically I consider that to be akin to 100%.
    2) There are numerous public miracles recorded in the Talmud. There are some miracles experienced by the entire nation, in fact (e.g., Sanheireb). But I never heard anyone use those miracles to prove that Judaism is true (though it surely increases the likelihood that Judaism is true). Rather, Kuzari enthusiast only use the miracles of the Exodus because they were commemorated from the date of the event until today. For example, you observe the sabbath in some sense (or at least it appears that way). The Sabbath was a cycle of recording "the seventh" day. Did you ever doubt that maybe this cycle is corrupt? Probably not, because you trust our tradition. I trust our tradition regarding the Exodus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference between 100% and 99% is very important, and I'll tell you why.

      If you are 100% sure that a story such as the Exodus/giving of the Torah could not be accepted as national tradition unless it is factual, then you are done and will have no questions.

      But if you admit that there is a small (1%) chance that it could be accepted as national tradition despite being non-factual... then that actually is the most reasonable explanation of what truly happened. Do you disagree? Don't you think that an explanation not involving supernatural events is more likely than one that includes them? Perhaps Kefirah can put this in terms of Bayesian priors better than I can - but is that not intuitively correct?

      Are Roster and/or Jacob Stein: if you truly care about convincing someone who is unsure, rather than coming up with glib answers that will allow you to confirm what you already believe - give me a good answer to this question. More than anything, this is what has caused be to switch camps from belief to nonbelief.

      Delete
    2. throwway613 Regarding your last paragraph - I am not sure about Are Roster's and Jacob Stein's motives. Are they here to have honest discussion ? Or to create smoke and mirrors ? I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
    3. @throwway613 A Bayesian approach doesn't make much sense when describing miraculous or supernatural events. These have, at best, indeterminable probability. I have attempted to explain this in the past to Are Roster but I'm pretty sure he either didn't understand or refused to understand.

      Delete
    4. Briefly, it seems that you are using some sort of Humian argument against miracles, that it's always more likely that the evidence for a miracle is corrupt rather than accepting that a miracle took place. Scientists, including archeologists, use this type of argument when discussing the exodus.

      Though scientists like these types of arguments, philosophers don't. William Lan Craig, a christian apologist and philosopher, claims that "a majority of philosophers argue that Hume's argument is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE."

      But even if we accept Hume's argument, Hume admits that evidence can rise to the level that it can prove a miracle. Thus, if all the writers living in the 15th century believe that the earth became dark for eight days, Hume claims we should trust that evidence for a miracle. Indeed, if 600,000 people would tell you that they saw the 40 years of the Exodus, you would believe them, wouldn't you? In fact, contemporary science tells us many otherwise absurd ideas about the universe. A Kefirah probably knows more about this than the rest of us, but many respected physicists believe that there are an infinite number of universes with alternate laws of nature. That's just as absurd as 40 years of manna, yet we (rightly) accept it, because we trust the reports of the physicist. I don't see any reason to distrust the reports of our devoted ancestors "who were righteous, who were many, and who would never with to trick us" (to quote the Ibn Ezra).

      Delete
    5. Thanks for replying - I thought I would have to wait until Sunday!

      Hume does indeed state this case eloquently:

      "...no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

      I think that is reasonable. Do you disagree? (Don't bring a general quote about someone disagreeing with Hume. Hume wrote a lot of things. Explain why you disagree with this specific statement).

      So which is more miraculous - God speaking to people, or the existence of a story which is nationally regarded as factual yet is in truth nonfactual? You "don't see any reason to distrust the reports" but that is not the question. The question is, would it an actual miracle for those reports to be incorrect?

      Delete
    6. @ Are Roster write "[Per Hume] Thus, if all the writers living in the 15th century believe that the earth became dark for eight days, Hume claims we should trust that evidence for a miracle." I maybe trust that the earth became dark - but it need not be supernatural. There are after all possible natural explanations. Hume would not have known this back then.

      Delete
    7. @ Are Roster writes "Indeed, if 600,000 people would tell you that they saw the 40 years of the Exodus, you would believe them, wouldn't you?" Did it involve miracle upon miracle ? Can we examine the physical evidence ? Did they have reason to mislead intentionally or otherwise ? Is there contradictory evidence ? But this is besides the point. For Exodus all we have is fabulous tale - that is contrary to logic, reason and evidence. I would accept a smaller scale Exodus.

      Delete
    8. @ Are Roster writes "In fact, contemporary science tells us many otherwise absurd ideas about the universe."

      If you mean by "absurd" contrary to common everyday experience, I understand what you may mean. But you should know they develop their models rooted in science and evidence. It is really fascinating study.

      Delete
    9. @ Are Roster writes "That's just as absurd as 40 years of manna, yet we (rightly) accept it, because we trust the reports of the physicist." NO Mr. Roster. The scientific models are rooted in science and we dont accept them because of "trust". They need to be supported by all the science we currently have and there is still plenty of controversy about the correct cosmological model. But religion is magic beings and magic that have zero evidence. Religion is based on trust. Science is not based on trust.

      Delete
    10. @ Are Roster writes "I don't see any reason to distrust the reports of our devoted ancestors "who were righteous, who were many, and who would never with to trick us" (to quote the Ibn Ezra)."

      This were you an I diverge. I dont "trust". Also our ancestors were not angels but living in a difficult region. Maybe their intent was to trick their enemies . I see you have not yet read Spinoza.

      Delete
    11. @ Are Roster writes "But even if we accept Hume's argument, Hume admits that evidence can rise to the level that it can prove a miracle."

      I have to refresh my Hume again. Suppose Hume did argue that way. We are not there. We are not even close to that level. In fact we are still at ground zero in terms of actual evidence for miracles.

      Delete
    12. throwway613 very well said - we need to weigh two scenarios A) miracles did not occur B) A story about miracles that allegedly comes to be be 'believed' by some Jews to have actually happened.

      We have zero evidence that the miracles actually occurred. But we have plenty evidence for myth formation , legend formation , hoax formation,unreliability of national tradition, and propaganda formation amongst humans. We have strong reasons to doubt the traditional Torah story - i.e including population sizes amongst a key reasons.

      Delete
    13. Let me just jump in a second.

      The more likely an event is, the less evidence is needed to convince us that it happened.

      The Watchmaker Principle (design needs an intelligent designer) proves that God created us.

      Since God created us, there would seem to be high probability that at some time he would have appeared to us and told us what he wants us to do.

      That revelation would probably be made to a very large number of people because a revelation to one person would have no credibility. That one person could be either mentally ill or a scammer.

      The only time in recorded history when such a revelation occurred was 3,300 years ago at Mt Sinai. Since there is significant written and oral tradition that this revelation occurred, we may accept it as factual.

      Delete
    14. I will grant that if one already believes in God, the idea of God speaking to humanity is much less miraculous/improbable.
      But many people do not rely on the argument from design as it has well known flaws. If one's confidence in the existence of God comes only from a Kuzari argument, do you agree that Hume's point invalidates that argument?

      Delete
    15. "If one's confidence in the existence of God comes only from a Kuzari argument, do you agree that Hume's point invalidates that argument?"

      You may as well ask, if our knowledge of the Holocaust came only from Zionist sources, do I agree that it may be a hoax?

      Actually Watchmaker is flawless and it is as simple and obvious as anything known to man.

      Darwin tried to refute Watchmaker with his Origin of Species, however he fails miserably.

      Nevertheless, scientists have seized upon Darwin because it provides a means of grabbing prestige and power from the clergy.

      This is not a conspiracy, but rather a self serving delusional belief. Scientists deny Watchmaker much like Muslims deny the Holocaust.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Holocaust_denial_in_the_Arab_world

      And if you believe that scientists are impeccably rational and honest, and would never deceive themselves because of strong personal bias, I would suggest reading this.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/opinion/whats-behind-big-science-frauds.html

      Delete
  38. Let's try this again.

    If you are happy with the watchmaker argument, good for you.

    I was asking what you think about someone who is not happy with that argument - if you do not feel capable of answering that question, then don't.

    If someone does not accept the watchmaker argument, yet believes on God based on a Kuzari argument, do you agree or disagree that such a belief is successfully challenged by Hume's logic above? If not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With Darwin, there isn't much reason to believe in God.

      "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
      Richard Dawkins

      http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

      The atheist creed:

      I do not believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
      I believe in Evolution and in its Prophet Charles Darwin.
      If any man says "man was not created by Evolution" let him be anathema.
      If any man says "Darwin was wrong" let him be anathema.

      Delete
    2. I am asking a sincere question. If the traditional Jewish God truly does exist, there is an answer to my question. I don't know what the answer is - do you?

      If you do, please tell it to me.

      The question again:

      If someone does not accept the watchmaker argument, yet believes on God based on a Kuzari argument, do you agree or disagree that such a belief is successfully challenged by Hume's logic above? If not, why not?

      Delete
    3. I think I made myself clear above:

      "You may as well ask, if our knowledge of the Holocaust came only from Zionist sources, do I agree that it may be a hoax?"

      I don't mean to be disrespectful, however why didn't that analogy make my position clear? Without the Watchmaker principle, there is no basis for a belief in God, therefore obviously no belief in prophesy, miracles, etc etc.

      Delete
    4. I'm not sure how the Holocaust/Zionist question relates to what I wrote. Can you elaborate?

      In terms of the watchmaker principle - I think I understand what you are saying. So with respect to my question, you would agree that if one's belief in God stems only from the Kuzari argument, Hume's logic would successfully challenge. But if one does accept the watchmaker argument, then God speaking to people is not improbable and Hume's logic does not apply.

      I personally do not accept the watchmaker argument, and thus do not accept the Kuzari argument either.

      Thank you for clarifying your position. We can move on to a discussion of the flaws in watchmaker argument, if you are interested.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. @ Jacob Stein writes "Without the Watchmaker principle, there is no basis for a belief in God, therefore obviously no belief in prophesy, miracles, etc etc."

      Maybe I was wrong about Jacob Stein - so I deleted some of my accusations towards him. He now seems to be suggesting the Kuzari argument is not enough to prove G-d. If so, Jacob and I agree. However the argument from design does not work even if so called common sense requires a designer - see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/ and http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-through-design.html

      Delete
    9. http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-thermodynamics.html I meant this post as another argument against design.

      Delete
    10. God deniers are just like Holocaust deniers.

      Both groups have their long lists of "irrefutable" "clear as day" nonsense arguments and both groups, however numerous and well educated, are obviously (to everyone else) driven by certain ulterior motives.

      Delete
    11. @ Jacob Stein God believers are just like antisemites.

      Both groups have their long lists of "irrefutable" "clear as day" nonsense arguments and both groups, however numerous and well educated, are obviously (to everyone else) driven by certain ulterior motives.


      See how silly that sounds

      Delete
    12. @ Jacob Stein - non believers dont have to prove there is no G-d, although I think I have made a decent argument against El/Yahweh existing. The onus is on believers to provide very good arguments and evidence for such a G-d.

      Delete
    13. Believers don't have to prove there is no evolution, although I think I have made a decent argument against Darwin.

      The onus is on non believers to provide very good arguments and evidence for evolution.

      Delete
    14. jacob Stein "The onus is on non believers to provide very good arguments and evidence for evolution."

      I agree with slight change: "The onus is on believers in evolution to provide very good arguments and evidence for evolution."

      And this they have.

      Delete
    15. Jacob Stein writes "Believers don't have to prove there is no evolution, although I think I have made a decent argument against Darwin."

      The second part should read against evolution, not Darwin.

      The first part needs to be clarified: Evolution has much support. People who deny evolution need to demonstrate why Evolution is not a valid theory. Theyu also have to account for all the evidence in favor of it.

      Delete
    16. @ Jacob Stein - more to the point - if you claim there is a flying supernatural monster in the sky you have to support that notion. I am not obligated to disprove it.

      Hope this clarifies your confusion.

      Delete
    17. The burden of proof rests on the members of every religion to prove that theirs is the truth.

      Which of course I have met and surpassed in my book The Jewish Manifesto, available in pdf on my blog Torah Philosophy, kindle or paperback on amazon.

      Delete
  39. Atheism is a religion.
    Atheists have a god: evolution.
    Atheists have a prophet: Charles Darwin.
    Atheists have a bible: Origin of Species.
    Atheists have priests: scientists.

    Atheists have a creed:
    I do not believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
    I believe in Evolution and in its Prophet Charles Darwin.
    If any man says "man was not created by Evolution" let him be anathema.
    If any man says "Darwin was wrong" let him be anathema.

    Like so many other religions which have come and gone before and since, it's an obvious scam embraced by certain people because it makes them comfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  40. How about we try to discuss the watchmaker principle on its own merits.

    You have summarized it above as "design needs a designer". Which design are you referring to?

    A) All biological life currently or previously in existence B) The original single-celled life form from which others evolved

    I would rather discuss B than A, since I do not think a discussion of evolution would get anywhere, based on your previous discussions with Kefirah. So if you say 'all biological life is evidence of a designer', I would say, no it isn't, it could have evolved. And then we would go around in circles about evolution.

    But I think we could maybe have a productive discussion about whether that original source of life is evidence of a designer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The Watchmaker principle is quite simple.

    We never witness a complex mechanism with many moving parts all working efficiently for a certain purpose form spontaneously.

    A machine cannot come into existence unless an intelligent being creates it. There is always a designer.

    Organs in living things, down to the organelles in every cell, are complex machines performing a purpose. Therefore they must have been created by an eternal intelligent designer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regarding evolution, Daniel Dennett has correctly described it as a universal acid which eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea#Universal_acid

      In other words, evolution is the gospel of the new religion of atheism, however, like the Christian gospel which preceded and other false religions which will follow it, evolution is an obvious scam. Its endorsement my scientists is no more impressive than the Pope's endorsement of Christ.

      Delete
    2. "We never witness a complex mechanism with many moving parts all working efficiently for a certain purpose form spontaneously."

      "A machine cannot come into existence unless an intelligent being creates it. There is always a designer."

      Are we talking about a designer, or someone physically forming a mechanism? For example, a bulding has an architect and a builder. Presumably you are saying there needs to be an architect (designer) of living things. Are you also saying God needs to physically put the pieces together? You say we do not witness a complex mechanism form spontaneously - yet when a baby is formed in the womb, for example, all the various working parts come together. How does that happen - do you believe that it cannot be spontaneous and therefore God must do it personally, or do you accept that the development of the fetus is the outcome of the chemical/physical structure of the DNA molecule as well as the other components of each cell, i.e. it follows from the laws of nature just as a ball falling when you drop it.

      Delete
    3. My parents created me, my grandparents created my parents and so on going back to the first man who was created by God as explained Genesis 2:7

      http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm#7

      Delete
    4. So your parents are the intelligent desginers? Animals are created by their parents too.

      I am asking how any baby is seemingly spontaneously formed out of a fertilized egg in accordance with the laws of chemistry and physics, when you say a complex machine cannot be spontaneously formed. Unless you are saying the baby is actually physically constructed by God, which I don't think you are saying but wanted to confirm.

      Delete
    5. Let's say a brilliant engieer would design a car which would create more cars. No car factory would ever be needed again. The engineer just builds one car which sucks up dirt and water off the ground, transforms that internally into a little car which then flips out the trunk of the parent car. The little car proceeds to suck up dirt and water as it drives along, grows bigger, someday produces it's own mini-cars etc.

      We do not have cars here produced by blind chance, such as a tornado hit a junk yard. Rather we have an apparently endless sequence of self-reproducing super cars, the first one of course designed by a brilliant engineer.

      As of this writing, a team of some of the world's top engineers are working the last bugs out of driverless car.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_self-driving_car

      What type of engineer could create a car which is not only self driving but also self fueling (consuming dirt and water) and self reproducing? Probably no engineer of flesh and blood.

      Delete
  42. "We do not have cars here produced by blind chance, such as a tornado hit a junk yard. Rather we have an apparently endless sequence of self-reproducing super cars"

    Exactly right. So if we look around and see these self-reproducing super-cars, but then go to the old junkyards and see the older models, which are slightly less modern than the ones on the street today... and in the even older junkyards there are ones even more primitive, with fewer bells and whistles though still self-replicating... and the even older ones are not even recognizably cars, but something simpler, and so on - our question then becomes, how did the first self-replicating vehicle get here? Was it designed intentionally or did it come together some other way?

    The important point then is that we need to discuss the complexity and engineering genius of that original proto-vehicle, not the ones on the road today. The ones on the road today have been accumulating extra features for many generations, by natural processes.

    That sounds strange, that cars can accumulate features by natural processes - because they can't. The theory of evolution states that biological creatures can, however.

    As I mentioned, I would rather avoid a discussion about evolution here because you already had one with Kefirah. But we can still discuss whether that original vehicle (life-form) shows evidence of a designer or not. How can we determine that? First we have to define what that original life form would have looked like - a bacteria? A virus? Then we can discuss whether such a thing can arise by chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The self driving, self fueling, self replicating super car created in the future by a super human engineer would never change, just as living species never acquire new limbs or organs. It would just keep on reproducing according to the original blueprint, as do living things.

      Earlier more primitive vehicles have existed and do exist today, and no one doubts that an intelligent designer made them as well.

      Delete
    2. You are completely ignoring the point I made. We can continue the conversation if you address it.

      Assuming that biological organisms can and do evolve, do you think that even the original ancestor life form is evidence of a designer, or could it have arisen as a combination of non-living chemical structures?

      Delete
    3. "Assuming that biological organisms can and do evolve,"

      They don't, they reproduce. Reproducing means "making a copy".

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reproduce

      The first copy was made by God.

      Delete
    4. @ Jacob Stein - Intelligent Design, Creationism is pseudoscience. ID and Creationism has been debunked and refuted by numerous experts. Check out some books at a good library. Sometimes the discussion gets a bit technical and involves equations - hardly gist for a blog comment dialogue.

      Delete
  43. Still ignoring the question I asked. If you want to answer, great. If not, that's fine too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "how did the first self-replicating vehicle get here? Was it designed intentionally or did it come together some other way?"

      That's the one?

      We do in fact find in junk yards, and on the road too in some parts of world, more primitive types of vehicles. Sledges, sleds, carts, carriages, Model T Fords, vintage 1950's Cadillacs, etc leading up to the (almost functional) self driving Google cars.

      And we know that intelligent designers created each different variety.

      Even if we had never seen an automobile before, we would know that an intelligent designer created it because all machines are created by intelligent designers.

      Since the modern manufacturing process was unknown to them, indigenous peoples of Melanesia, when first exposed to modern technology, maintained that the manufactured goods of the non-native culture had been created by spiritual means, such as through their deities and ancestors. This was not quite accurate, however they never imagined that these machines had been created but a mindless natural process such as a landslide, hurricane, tidal wave, etc.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

      Delete
  44. Over the past year+, I have become gradually less convinced of the truth of Torah. I am engaging in this discussion not to prove anything, but to confirm to myself that the questions which I think have no good answers, indeed do not.

    I am not convinced by Kuzari as it requires previous confirmation that God exists, as discussed above.

    I am not convinced by the watchmaker argument as applied to current biological forms, since I see no convincing argument against evolution.

    So now we are discussing the watchmaker argument as applied to abiogenesis, i.e. the development of life from inanimate substances. Let me know if you would like to have that discussion or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is the evidence in favor of evolution? The fossil record indicates a series of creations, not evolution.

      About 4 billion years ago life on earth appeared suddenly.

      About 530 million years ago many forms of more advanced life appeared suddenly (the Precambrian-Cambrian transition).

      About 450 million years ago, there was a sudden transition from trilobites to jawed and bony fish (the Ordovician–Silurian transition).

      About 374 million years ago, there was a sudden transition from early fish to the first true amphibians (the Devonian-Carboniferous transition).

      About 252 million years ago, there was a sudden transition from giant amphibians to reptiles and primitive mammals (the Permian-Triassic transition).

      About 200 million years ago, there was a sudden transition from smaller reptiles to giant dinosaurs (the Triassic-Jurassic transition).

      About 65 million years ago, there was a sudden transition from dinosaurs to mammals (the Cretaceous–Paleogene transition).

      Don't take my word for it, just Google and see what comes up.

      Delete
    2. Again, I am not going to discuss evolution here.

      Delete
    3. Then there's nothing else to discuss. Evolution is the de facto god of atheism. If you believe in it, then you have no reason to believe in the Biblical God.

      Delete
    4. @ Jacob Stein writes "Then there's nothing else to discuss. Evolution is the de facto god of atheism. If you believe in it, then you have no reason to believe in the Biblical God."

      While I dont agree with you, I see where you are coming from. Evolution does make it easier for many to reject a God that somehow was involved with making the various species. Origin of life is related, and science has been coming up how life originates. See my blog post on it. THERMODYNAMICS is part of the equation.

      Delete
    5. Jacob Stein - I recommend you read the book EVOLUTION FOR DUMMIES. Also Kefirah already demolished your laundry list. I also provided you with some links explaining why your list is bogus. If you dont want to accept scientific explanations it is because of your apriori attachment to your philosophical fallacies. The few gaps in our knowledge do nothing to bring down the Theory and Fact of Evolution.

      Delete
    6. "Kefirah already demolished your laundry list."

      Where? You mean with the youtube video which involves a computer simulation of some kind? And if somebody else makes a computer simulation proving that evolution couldn't happen with that convince you atheism is false?

      Delete
    7. @ Jacob Stein - I respected you for finally admitting the Kuzari argument fails to prove G-d exists. Kefirah wrote a long summary explaining why your list is bogus. Also I provided you with a link or two for some on the list. I proved to you why your God of the Gaps is a failure. So go and learn - Read Evolution for Dummies and some of the links.

      Delete
    8. @ Jacob Stein Evolution is not proved or disproved by simulations. Evolution has enormous empirical evidence to support it. Simulations would not disprove Evolution. Just so you know - Atheism does not in anyway require Evolution to be true. If Evolution was to be false, it would mean evolution is false, not there are supernatural being(s). For somebody who keeps citing logical fallacies why do you commit so many ?

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. There is plenty of evidence of evolution, just as there is of Jesus being the messiah. Call up a missionary.

      The only problem is: the evidence is completely unconvincing to any rational, objective person.

      If evolution didn't do it, God did. There is no other alternative. This is why scientists desperately promote evolution. For them to say "God did it" would mean shifting all power and prestige back to the clergy and our universities would again become theological seminaries.

      Delete
  45. Back to your point regarding Hume (which you claim demands that we avoid trusting reports of miracles). You quote Hume: "...no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

    As stated previously, even Hume would admit that the evidence for Sinai is sufficient evidence for a miracle (as it is a form of evidence which may be infallible).

    But let's focus on Hume's point. I believe that various Rabbi performed miracles, based on the reports of their disciples (in other words, even if I was sure the Sinai events didn't happen, I'd believe in a personal God). This evidence, Hume would claim, shouldn't be trusted. But let's focus on the following scenario. After the atom bombs went off in Japan, those fireballs were just as miraculous (in the sense that they violated known laws of nature) as a split sea (windows a 100 miles away shattered; that's akin to an atom bomb going off in the Catskills and the windows in Brooklyn shattering). When the news reports came in that this blast took place, Hume would argue that since "breaking news" has been wrong in previous scenarios, and there has never been anything akin to a nuclear bomb, we should not trust these preliminary reports. Yet, despite the fact that "breaking news" is often wrong, since it is usually reliable, even when it tells us that a large fireball exploded, we trust it, despite any Bayesian mythology that A Kefirah prefers to distract us with.

    As David Johnson, a respected philosopher points out, "let us.. treat more gently the devotions of the pious, having ourselves--we philosophers--nothing of interest to say when in reading we change upon a miracle, upon a sea parted or a life renewed..."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Did Hume admit that Sinai was a miracle? I am no expert on Hume but as far as I can tell that did not happen.

    I disagree with the rest of what you said as well but will have to wait until after Shabbos to respond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Are Roster Regarding the Atom bombs - It is my understanding that many in Japan (perhaps many across the globe) did not accept the initial reports because it was such an unusual event. Many common people did not believe such a bomb could exist. AND more. It was war - and it was believed to be Allied propaganda. Can they be faulted ? BUT, many scientists in the know did not rule it out - they knew something of the potential of an atom bomb. After the physical evidence mounted over a period of days or weeks the horrible truth of the atom bomb became believed by everyone. It was not propaganda. BREAKING NEWS IS NOT USUALLY RELIABLE. It is often full of errors. But even if Breaking news is usually reliable we should not accept it as being the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And the more unusual the report the more skepticism we need. And if it involves supernatural yet even more skepticism.

      Delete
    2. @ Are ROster - and the Sinai story hardly counts as breaking news. It is a story in ancient book with errors of fact, that comes to be believed by some people as all true as some point in history. It is not remotely similar to the atom bomb story.

      Delete
    3. @Are
      I agree with Alter Cocker's points re the atom bomb.

      Maybe a better example would be an alien encounter. If I heard one report, or several, of aliens landing, I would be skeptical. But with an increasing number of first hand accounts, and depending on how well I knew the witnesses, I could be convinced. This is exactly as Hume would describe - at the point where the scenario of all of these people lying, misinterpreting or hallucinating becomes less probable than the scenario of actual aliens, that is when the story becomes believable.

      But we do not have any firsthand accounts of Har Sinai, though Kuzari proponents pretend we do. I do not have a tradition in my family that my ancestor Ploni ben Ploni stood in such and such a spot, heard such and such sounds, etc on that day. We do not have any eyewitness accounts of individuals. What I do have is a tradition that I am a Jew, and Jews keep the Torah, and the Torah says it was given at Har Sinai. It may sound like a subtle difference, but it is not the same thing at all as having eyewitness testimony.

      Delete
    4. @ Throwway613 and "Are Roster" - I think "Are Roster" is misrepresenting Hume. See my new post http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html

      Delete
    5. @Throwway613 writes "Did Hume admit that Sinai was a miracle? I am no expert on Hume but as far as I can tell that did not happen."

      HUME DIRECTLY REJECTS THE EXODUS STORIES. Did not "Are Roster" realize this ?

      Delete
  47. It's Are Roster:

    Yes, I do realize that Hume was an atheist, famously so. My point, rather, was that even if we accept HUME'S ARGUMENT (which, as stated before, most philosophers would argue is "demonstrably false"), the Kuzari argument is impervious to Hume's argument. Why? Because, as with Hume's own case, it is a form of evidence which may very well be infallible. Thus, unlike "breaking news" which is a fallible form of evidence (just check at how many "corrections" are printed [to their credit] in the New York Times), nationally commemorated history might be infallible. If it is indeed infallible, then it, by definition, can prove the reality of any phenomenon (I don't want to argue the Kuzari argument again; I am merely stating that if it is indeed infallible, then it goes without saying that it is impervious to Hume.)

    I don't claim that the Sinai story is "breaking news." I am applying Hume's argument to actual situation. Breaking news is quite reliable. The New York Times is almost always right. But it is fallible. Despite its fallibility, when the New York Times reported that a nuclear bomb went off, it would be a report of an utterly unprecedented and supernatural event (unless you were one of the few scientists who were aware of the Manhattan project, or you were in the Soviet Intelligence). Everyone else, according to Hume, should have merrily rejected this report: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0806.html#article

    Yet, empirically, this event turned out to be true. Similarly, if the New York Times would report that aliens landed, I wouldn't consider it to be "irrational" to trust that report, despite the New York Times' fallibility. Hume argument, when applied to reality, doesn't work. Baysien arguments are thus rejected by the majority of philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure Hume was an atheist. He mainly was demonstrating that all religions are based on faith. That they can not be justified based on rationalism.

      Delete
  48. Where did this bizarre idea of infallible evidence come from? I have seen you and others use it in defense of Kuzari. It boggles my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are Roster writes "Similarly, if the New York Times would report that aliens landed, I wouldn't consider it to be "irrational" to trust that report, despite the New York Times' fallibility. Hume argument, when applied to reality, doesn't work. Baysien arguments are thus rejected by the majority of philosophers."

      We have some trust, but not complete trust in the American Press - because of past experience with it and other reasons we need not go into now. What that has to do with a report in the Torah is beyond my comprehension. Second Hume would require a bit more than a single report in the NY Times. See his example - I provide it http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html

      I am not sure Bayesian methods are rejected by the majority of Philosophers - what makes you say that ? The method itself is reasonable but it depends on the context, what assumptions are made and how the method is applied.

      Delete
  49. @ Are Roster writes "My point, rather, was that even if we accept HUME'S ARGUMENT (which, as stated before, most philosophers would argue is "demonstrably false"), the Kuzari argument is impervious to Hume's argument. Why? Because, as with Hume's own case, it is a form of evidence which may very well be infallible."

    Philosophers don’t think all of Hume’s critique of miracles are wrong. Second, they may twink them a bit to make his argument more valid.

    And Exodus does not qualify as Hume’s own case - so you either are lying or ignorant. Hume himself rejects Exodus. See http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html

    ReplyDelete