How can G-d be proven?
The most common argument for the existence of G-d and the divinity of the Torah among all Jews- Talmudist and Karaites alike, is the Mass Revelation argument. It goes like this; there were 3 million whiteness of G-d speaking to Moses at Sinai, and this cannot have been faked.
The common counter argument is that there is no reference to this event outside of the Torah, now this is kind of irrelevant; the Mass revelation argument rests on deductive, not inductive reasoning,thus the Torah doesn't have to be assumed true beforehand enable for it to apply. This is because the argument deals with the introduction of the Torah not the Torah itself.
\
Let me explain.
The three possibilities
It is an automatically assumed fact that Jews believe in the Mass revelation, this is because their parents told them about it,and their parents before them told them about it and so on. So, there must have once been a group of Jews from which this belief came from, this being the first to pass it down and teach it to their children.
Now the way I see it the Torah was introduced to these people in one of 3 ways, those are; they were lied to, they were lying, or they were telling the truth. So through the process of elimination we will dismiss all of the impossible or nonsensical possibilities with deductive reasoning.
Possibility #1; they were lied to:
This is nonsensical to assume, you could rationally conclude that Muhammad lied about his revelations, but not that Moses did, and here's why- mass revelation. Muhammad could claim that he received revelations from G-d alone and a lot of people would take his word for it, but it is impossible for Moses to have lied about his revelations without everyone knowing since part of these revelations is that everyone was there to see it, and if they weren't, then no one would accept it.
Here is how Rabbi Mizrachi explained it:
"If I went to 3 million people, and I told them that they all were slaves in Japan, and that I led them across the Ocean into Canada, and that I made it rain food, and we fought Giants, and that G-d spoke to me in front of all 3 million of them, and he gave me this book, they would say 'Rabbi, maybe you're not feeling well- we never lived in Japan, you never made it rain food, we never fought Giants, and we never saw G-d talk to you!' That would be it for my book no one would accept it."
So obviously it wasn't introduced this way, with Moses walking along and telling everyone that the Exodus happened- it would never had worked.
Possibility #2; They were lying:
Another common counterargument is that the Exodus didn't happen and that "they just told us that it did," but this is in essence just a conspiracy theory; that all the Jews got together and colluded to say that G-d spoke to all 3 million of them- and for what?
So that they would have to get circumcised? It makes no rational sense why they would do this, and it is impossible for such a large scale collusion to have taken place. Thus we are left with the third and only possibility.
Possibility #3; they were telling the truth:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Fact is there are no other possibilities as to how the Torah was introduced other than that it is true. So if you can find another possible way that the Torah could have bee introduced, then my entire argument fails, but until then it still stands and by deductive reasoning we must conclude that the Mass Revelation at Sinai really happened.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I read the second paragraph and refuse to read further, because it is already nonsensical. While I could sit here and tear the article apart, I unfortunately don't have the time. I'll leave this article to one of my better colleagues, they should be able to help you understand the flaws that exist in the article, and do it in a way that is much more sufficient than I would be able to do it.
Forum guideline number 10: No advertising or self promotion. And yes, its that obvious you wrote it.
"Common sense proves that the Mass revelation at Mt. Sinai did as a matter of fact happen"
Nope. Common sense alone can not be used as a proof.
And, the biggest problem with you whole "My Sinai Common Sense" argument is this: the only piece of anything that mentions said mass revelation is, and here's the kicker, the Bible.
So, in fact, you have still failed. Why. The bible hasn't been proven. Therefore, your only source saying it happened is not trustable.
EDIT IN RESPONCE TO YOUR EDIT:
"Or just accept the fact that god exists"
When did I give you permission to tell me what I can and can't do? When did I give you the authority to tell me what my options are?
Oh! That's right! I didn't!
http://karaitesblogg.blogspot.com/2016/09/how-do-we-know-that-god-exists...
I edited it to fix any misunderstandings in my arguments, it should be good now.
"When did I give you permission to tell me what I can and can't do? When did I give you the authority to tell me what my options are?
Oh! That's right! I didn't!"
You didn't have to- that's just how debating works.
The article you cite (and which you wrote) includes the statement that "we cannot determine if there is a G-d unless we have first defined G-d". That at least is true. If god is defined as a hurricane or heat wave, then we would have to accept that we have indeed seen it on many occasions. Wasn't thunder and lightening part of the so-called revelation on Sinai? But surely there's more to god than a bit of atmospheric turbulence and static electricity.
So why don't you share your definition of what we would need to see before we could say that we'd seen god?
Harry, you need a course in basic logic. A refusal to look at your off-site link does not constitute proof of your god! Let me play your game. Go to my thread "Science Gives God The Bump!" (08/07/2016 18:47) and either accept atheism or provide a serious counter-argument.
Need I remind you that the Debate Forum is designed for live participation? Off site material should only give added support and details to your presentation, not be a substitute for it. At the very least give us a decent, detailed summary of the key points. If all you can do is throw out links to off-site material, then be advised that many of us have better things to do than run through a maze of canned sites. You are almost as bad--but not quite--as those creationists, when cornered, who tell you to go read a 300 page book which will "have all the answers."
Your job is to give us enough of an argument to encourage us to check out some site.
It was a specific post. I can copy paste it off my post if you want.
Harry,
Your link was mercifully short so I read it and, yes, I'll reason with you!
Let me start by giving you a definition of "sufficient proof." It may be that I've missed some necessary qualities, but I think it's a good start. We can add to it if we discover something missing.
SUFFICIENT PROOF for a claim:
1) The evidence must rule out, beyond a reasonable doubt, all significant alternative conclusions. If the evidence can support other conclusions that have proven valid from time to time, then we have a significant alternative conclusion.
2) The claim must describe reality correctly. There must be no significant conflict with objective facts and other proven knowledge. A significant conflict is a conflict that cannot easily be side-stepped by a small, sensible repair, the result of a significant conflict being to seriously damage the credibility of the claim.
3) The claim must pass critical tests of any predictions that it makes.
4) The candidate proof cannot involve major disagreement among respected, knowledgeable experts who have no axe to grind. Such disagreement signifies that the claim is still in contention and, therefore, not proven.
So, God talked to Moses in front of 3 million people in the Sinai? Right away we have a major violation of 2) in that Moses never existed, that being a wide-spread feeling among modern scholars. You are also in violation of 1) in that Moses' life has strong parallels with mythology, suggesting a modified story rather than history. The idea of 3 million people busting out of Egypt, sweet-talking the Egyptians into giving away their jewelry, and then living at a location in the Sinai for 40 years, there being a singular lack of evidence not to mention a gross violation of historical numbers, is a horrific violation of 2). This is fantasy, not reality! We also have a violation of 3) in that a god who is not shy about showing himself to 3 million people would not likely be shy about showing himself today.
Not only has simple folklore not been ruled out (a violation of 1)) but it's the only credible explanation given that all of the "historical" facts are wrong. No, Harry, you have no proof of God here!
So people who were never there saw someone who didn't exist talking to something that nobody can describe or define.
1. Yes, I will need to prove Moses before I can prove G-d. I will do that soon but as for now I can tell you that we concluded Narmer to be real off of less references.
2. How does Moses life have strong parallels with mythology? What mythology? And of who?
3. Actually there are references to the Israelite's in Egyptian stone as conquered people, also a Egyptian papyrus scroll referencing most of the 10 plagues. And they didn't sweet talk the Egyptians into giving them their Jewelry, they took it from them at knife point.
4. Enable for G-d to reveal himself and talk to people there needs to be a prophet holy enough to actually be in the general vicinity of G-d without being incinerated. But there is no such prophet. Also, if G-d revealed himself once why do it again? To prove it to modern atheists? only 100 or 200 years from now you guys will start speculating that THAT mass revelation never happened, so what's the point?
5. How has folklore not been ruled out? If the mass revelation never happened how did it get introduced into the popular belief?
5.
Mr. Truman,
"2. How does Moses life have strong parallels with mythology? What mythology? And of who?" - Truman
Consider Sargon of Akkad. His mother had to bear him in secret. She could not safely keep him, so Sargon was put into a sealed basket and set adrift on the Euphrates River. The basket happened to be spotted by the gardener of the King of the Sumerian city of Kish. And, being in the right place Sargon went on to do great things. Remarkable parallels, don't you think?
The fact remains that serious archaeologists have now ruled out the Exodus and, therefore, Moses. Perhaps the threads to the Moses story were borrowed from Sargon's story or some other ancient figure.
"3. Actually there are references to the Israelite's in Egyptian stone as conquered people, also a Egyptian papyrus scroll referencing most of the 10 plagues. And they didn't sweet talk the Egyptians into giving them their Jewelry, they took it from them at knife point."
This first reference to the Israelites has nothing to do with Exodus. They were listed, as you noted, as one contingent of conquered peoples for an Egyptian military expedition. As for the 10 plagues, if we strip away the supernatural nonsense we find natural disasters that served as models for the Genesis story. Great sandstorms could bring darkness. Algae blooms could redden parts of the Nile and make the water undrinkable. Given the right weather, explosions in the frog population may have occurred. The Moses story simply latched onto the great disasters possible for that region.
"The Israelites had done as Moses told them; They had ASKED the Egyptians for jewelry of silver and gold, and for clothing,..." Exodus 12:35 NAOB 4th ed. (boldface mine)
"The Israelites had done Moses' bidding and borrowed from the Egyptians objects of silver and gold, and clothing. And the LORD had disposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people, and they let them have their request; thus they stripped the Egyptians." Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (The new JPS translation according to the traditional Hebrew text).
Yep! They sweet-talked the Egyptians. Don't see any knife play here, do you? Pure fantasy!
So, poor God can't show himself without incinerating everyone? Sounds like a serious handicap! God had no problem showing himself to, you say, millions of Hebrews back then. But, in an age of cameras, God plays hide-and-seek. Why wouldn't God reveal himself as often as needed? Why not appear to modern atheists? Does God like withholding critical information so that intelligent people reject him? A far better explanation is that God doesn't exist and can't put in modern appearances. Ancient, undocumented claims are worthless.
How has folklore not been ruled out? What have you done to rule it out? Have you even considered the possible origins of folklore? Archaeologists tell us there was no Exodus, no Moses, so where did he come from? Why the similarity to Sargon? How did mass revelation get into popular belief? Probably the same way that the story of those 500 people did, who popped out of their tombs (in one of the gospels) and went into Jerusalem. There are all kinds of ways that folklore and myth can get started. You are not thinking critically!
"Consider Sargon of Akkad. His mother had to bear him in secret. She could not safely keep him, so Sargon was put into a sealed basket and set adrift on the Euphrates River. The basket happened to be spotted by the gardener of the King of the Sumerian city of Kish. And, being in the right place Sargon went on to do great things. Remarkable parallels, don't you think?"
Actually no, this is just a rumor and a lie started by Zietgeist the movie, truth is there are no records or legends about the birth or childhood of Sargon, making this claim literally impossible to be true.
"This first reference to the Israelites has nothing to do with Exodus. They were listed, as you noted, as one contingent of conquered peoples for an Egyptian military expedition. As for the 10 plagues, if we strip away the supernatural nonsense we find natural disasters that served as models for the Genesis story. Great sandstorms could bring darkness. Algae blooms could redden parts of the Nile and make the water undrinkable. Given the right weather, explosions in the frog population may have occurred. The Moses story simply latched onto the great disasters possible for that region."
Like I said, the Torah records plagues which really happened, whether or not the exodus happened or how these plagues became a part of Jewish belief is a separate subject altogether, though I am convinced that it did happen based on evidence, see "patterns of evidence the exodus."
"Yep! They sweet-talked the Egyptians. Don't see any knife play here, do you? Pure fantasy!"
It's somewhere else, Exodus 3:22:
"Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.”
Plunder?
"So, poor God can't show himself without incinerating everyone? Sounds like a serious handicap! God had no problem showing himself to, you say, millions of Hebrews back then. But, in an age of cameras, God plays hide-and-seek. Why wouldn't God reveal himself as often as needed? Why not appear to modern atheists? Does God like withholding critical information so that intelligent people reject him? A far better explanation is that God doesn't exist and can't put in modern appearances. Ancient, undocumented claims are worthless."
He revealed himself to the Israelites, but if you were G-d why waste time revealing yourself every generation just to silence rumors that maybe you don't exist? Besides, there are other reasons he wouldn't do this.
"How has folklore not been ruled out? What have you done to rule it out? Have you even considered the possible origins of folklore? Archaeologists tell us there was no Exodus, no Moses, so where did he come from? Why the similarity to Sargon? How did mass revelation get into popular belief? Probably the same way that the story of those 500 people did, who popped out of their tombs (in one of the gospels) and went into Jerusalem. There are all kinds of ways that folklore and myth can get started. You are not thinking critically!"
No, these myths arose because someone just told them that they happened, we find no record of anyone but Jesus getting resurrected, and he was only witnessed by 12 people to have done this, it is entirely possible that this could have been a lie.
Mr. Truman,
Did you actually say that there are no records or legends about the birth of Sargon, that its all a rumor and lie started by a movie?? Give me a break! A quick check of Wikipedia shows that the birth legend goes back to a Neo-Assyrian text from the 7th century BC. It has been around long before that movie!
There is no independent evidence that Egypt was hit with 10 plagues, one after another. No doubt the memories of various plagues over many years were rounded up, given supernatural exaggerations, and viola! The ten plagues of Egypt. The gods of antiquity were largely limited to what those ancients experienced in nature, so of course there will be some resemblance to actual plagues.
Note how the god of that story is acting like an adolescent who rigs events so that he can show his stuff! God sure showed those Egyptians--and their gods! God is like a kid playing with toy soldiers, and he sets a trap for pharaoh's army and drowns them all! What a glorious victory! Glorious, that is, for a Bronze-Age god. As usual, innocents suffer for the sake of God's glory. To me that's sick!
Exodus 3:22 says the same thing, with minor details added, as did the verse I quoted. I am perplexed as to why you even quoted it. Where's the knife play, the strong-armed robbery? The Israelites ASKED for the gold, silver, and clothes. The last sentence merely brags about how they sweet talked the Egyptians out of their wealth. Pure fantasy!
Why is it "wasting time" for God to reveal himself as needed? If I were God, I would not be playing hide-and-seek! There would be no question about who the boss is.
Your non-answer about ruling out folklore needs no comment. Elsewhere on this thread I have more to say about your "proof."
There is no evidence Moses existed . He is a mythological figure and was certainly not the author of the fairy tales attributed to him.
@harry truman
We HAVE tried to reason with you. We have refuted your evidence. We even gave you the basic guidelines for real proof, yet you ignore even the most basic fundamental requirements for REAL proof. Your little self-promoting article is a sham as are you AND it's a violation of the forum rules.
Actually you just ran off, you also misinterpreted my means of proving my claims thus arguing a point I never made, i.e. "if the bible says so it must be true!" Even though I never made that "point."
Where in form rules are outer sites banned?
When you are looking at the forum page. Just the general list, scroll all the way down to the bottom, and note number 10.
There isn't evidence that three million people ever walked the area at that time, Harry. They would leave mountains of evidence. Unless those millions didn't eat anything, didn't drink anything, didn't start a single fire and didn't have a common latrine. It sort of renders the rest of it as myth if you can't even show that the people were there with archeological evidence in the first place. Archeologists have looked, it would show, it's only your ignorance that promotes such an argument.
Harry Truman : Do you think god appreciates and notices that every time you spell god you put a space in for the o? Do you think he would get angry if you fucked up and forgot? Spelled out G O D! Would you get time out? A poor report card? Hell fire for eternity? What's up with that?
In Rabbinic Judaism they believe that it is bad to destroy the name of G-d, so they put a dash there to prevent the name of G-d being destroyed by someone who doesn't know better.
I do it as a custom, even though I do not believe it is a commandment.
How does putting a dash between g and d prevent some one from destroying the name of your god? Can I not simply take a pen and continue that dash all the way through and cross the word out? We can blaspheme no matter how you try to protect the word.
To acknowledge god on an atheist website would be to risk defacing his name. Harry would be doing his god a disservice by using his title in a place full of people that don't believe he exists. Sort of like the way Jehovah's Witnesses won't stand for the American Pledge of Allegiance because they can't pledge their allegiance to anything but Jehovah. Harry pledges his allegiance to his god by referencing him in a way that disallows us to deface it.
You would be half right if I was going by the original reason, I actualy just spell it that way to distinguish myself as a Jew. Customary.
@ Harry Truman
What does the word "proof" mean? How would you define it?
Is personal opinion sufficient to be called proof?
Is common sense sufficient to be called proof?
Is an argument sufficient to be called proof?
A fact that cannot be true in any other circumstance than that the conclusion is true. For example; I say that alcohol is flammable, you say it isn't, so I throw a match into a bottle of alcohol and it lights on fire. Alcohol cannot light on fire unless it is flammable, therefor this is proof that alcohol is flammable.
Likewise; the Torah makes claims of mass revelation, so I set about proving that these claims could not have came into existence other than that they are true. Which would constitute proof.
Alcohol is NOT flammable. Alcoholic gas IS flammable. If you throw a lit match on alcohol it will not light. If you hold the flame in the vapor of alcohol it will ignite. That isn't anywhere NEAR your original method of proof. So your little scenario doesn't apply.
really- because I once light some alcohaul on fire, it's flamable man.
In order to demonstrate that the alcohol is flammable, you would have to put it in an environment where it cannot evaporate and light it on fire. Throwing a match into a bottle doesn't prove the alcohol burns, only that the gas emitted from it burns. This is what mykcob4 is trying to tell you, you don't have proof the alcohol burns because you can't prove it isn't the gas escaping that is burning.
Your definition of proof leaves a lot to be desired.
We sometimes use brandy to light christmas puddings when we're feeling traditional. Cold brandy won't ignite at all, but if you heat it before tipping it on the pudding so that fumes are emitted, it will produce a beautiful blue flame. I think that's empirical proof that alcohol vapor will burn but not liquid alcohol.
The vapor is flammable that is what you lit not the liquid.
It also depends on the LEL and UEL and the concentration of C5h2OH to water. Try setting fire to beer fumes at room temperature &1atm and see what happens.
Pages