Monday, May 28, 2012

The Tragedy of Faith (updated)



            As an atheist in yeshiva, I tend to get into some interesting conversations about seemingly anything and everything. In the course of the discussions regarding belief in God and keeping to the orthodox religion there are to arguments that I keep hearing to which I can’t help feeling sad and hurt that humanity is in this state. Sadly, however the more I hear these I am slowly moving from pity to frustration.
            The first of these is in the respect given to the “virtue” and “gift” of simply believing (emunah p’shutah). The sad thing is that I hear this from people who are intelligent and rational and nonetheless yearn for this simple faith. Rather than follow their own logic they prefer to struggle with their own thoughts just to maintain some level of faith. It hurts me to see people in this state. To see people whose mind is telling them that two plus two is four yet wish themselves to see it as five because this is what their culture demands of them is saddening.
            Why do people consider faith a virtue? Why is believing in something notwithstanding the lack of evidence to support it, and some times in the face of contrary evidence viewed as a virtue!?!?
            In my experience, to the extent that a person is willing to think critically, to just that extent he can be saved from following foolish and sometimes wicked ideas. As much as people criticize Hitler for being an atheist (which he was not), a big part of the blame must go to the believing sheep of a people that followed him. Just as no critical thinker could possibly go along with his bizarre pseudoscience of racial superiority, no critical thinker could follow such absurd ideas as the ones religion claims either. The one thing in which we have advanced above all other animals is our critical thinking skills, and yet some people throw it away in exchange for the cheap comfort of religion. I find it maddening. Belief cannot give you real knowledge about the world; it cannot give you any usable information. I find it ironic that these people use phones, medicines, airplanes, and GPS, yet shun the thought process that made it possible.
            The other claim I have been getting is that even if Judaism were all false, it is still a preferable worldview to the secular existentialist. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. First of all, lying to yourself should never be forgivable let alone preferable. Secondly, it is a horrid, pathetic, and restrictive way of thinking in its own right and especially when compared to reality, the comfort of delusion cannot compare to the amazement of knowledge.
Last night I sat by a meal at a friend of mine, and for dessert he served cherry pie and fruit. As my host started saying a nice piece of torah regarding why the Jews were asleep during the giving of the torah I stared at my piece of watermelon. I noticed that it these white things going through it which resembled veins. As I further marveled at the similarity between various life forms, I realized that the watermelon on my plate was a (very) distant cousin of mine, the watermelon and I share a common ancestor. How mind-blowingly amazing is that!? How can that compare to what my host was discussing? To take that back a step further, the silver spoon with which I was eating the watermelon and I also have something in common. We are both made of heavy elements and that means that we were cooked up in a star.
This feeling of oneness with everything that is based on facts is infinitely more preferable to me than the schismatic view that Judaism takes. From a Jewish perspective, there is me, and everything else is (to quote the Ramchal) means to which I can attain reward in the next world. How pathetic is that?
It gets even worse, as a Jew you must believe that you are inherently and fundamentally a different species from all other species. A Jew walks down the street knowing that he is different from the goyim around him, he thinks differently than the goyim around him, he feels differently than the goyim around him, he lives and dies differently than the goyim around him. How much human solidarity gets lost here? How many opportunities for true human connection get lost over this self-imposed ghetto? Instead, I can look around and see how much I have in common with the regular American, the Chinese, the African American, the Italian, and the Arab. Consequently, I can learn so much more about people, I stop believing the xenophobic fear I was raised with, I am more comfortable in my world.
Furthermore if accept the facts of evolution as opposed to the false idea that God created us, I suddenly view our future quite differently. As a believer in the Torah, you must accept that we are the greatest living creature that could ever be, we are perfect, and created in God’s image. I however, understand that we are just a product of evolution. While I cannot say that being human is that bad, it is rather good actually, I can dream though of what we will evolve to over the next few million, or billion years. If we evolved from amoebas in the short time span of this planet, can you imagine where we will be in the future? I do not view the past as perfect, I do not view the knowledge that we gained in the past, or the present for that matter as perfect. Rather I can dream about a future species that will have evolved from humans that will be as similar to us as we are to the amoeba and will be capable of so much more. The possibilities are endless, and to think that I am a part of this process is TRULY awe-inspiring.
            

60 comments:

  1. "Why do people consider faith a virtue? "

    for me, its less about the actual faith, and more about the meaning that it gives my life - otherwise i am just a large, more evolved watermelon. also, the maintaining of a (harmless) heirtage that has been around longer than many others and gave millions of people meaning throughout the generations. that maintenance could be viewed as virtuous - especially if there are many good parts to it, like community, chesed, family....etc

    even though i know its all man-made bullshit

    ReplyDelete
  2. i would like to respond to you comments in reverse order. i am not saying that community is a bad thing. human solidarity is a great example of how we are inherently good to each other. furthermore if you choose to stay in the jewish community because of that, i understand you. however if you call that virtuous i will have to disagree with you. while you may or may not be making a smart decision what you are doing is a cost-benefit analysis, this is not virtuous this is selfish, and i dont mean to say that because of that you shouldnt do it, i am saying that it can not be called virtuous.
    about maintaining your "harmless" heritage, you are making the assumption that it is harmless, i would like to argue that it is not. if you were to have a baby boy (you might even have one already, i dont know) your "harmless" heritage would obligate you to mutilate his genitalia, hardly harmless. secondly the indoctrination of children with fear and lies should be the best reason to avoid this heritage and is a powerful example how this heritage cripples many. furthermore, the isolation from the outside world (by calling them goyim and us yidden) diminishes our chances of working together for a better future. furthermore, hoping for the death of man (the goal of this world is the next) and of humanity as we know it (bias homoshiach) can not be conducive to hoping and planning a better future, it leads to apathy.
    as far as meaning goes in life, if as you yourself admit, you know that the jewish fairy tale is false, you have answered your own question. life has no inherant meaning, however WE get to choose for ourselves what is meaningful to us. you have done so yourself by saying that you CHOOSE judaism to give your life meaning. i implore you to explore other avenues of meaning that do not hurt yourself or others. go talk to random people, on the train, in starbucks, in the doctors office, online, or wherever you are. see what gives people meaning in life. i have done so myself and found a much richer variety of human experience than i could have ever dreamed of.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "cost-benefit analysis, this is not virtuous this is selfish, and i dont mean to say that because of that you shouldnt do it, i am saying that it can not be called virtuous"

    Sounds like according to you there is no such thing as ANYTHING virtuous. if there is, please say....or tell me something that does not go through some sort of cost-benefit or not viewed as selfish (in my view, many relgious jews are very unselfish, when compared to secular society as a whole)

    "mutilate his genitalia" - many secular people do this too for health reasons (and other social reasons) - it seems to me its more like piercing an ear than mutilation, but i guess we can disagree.

    "children with fear and lies" - have you ever spent any time in a modern orthodox community or co-ed yeshiva? this may happen in the yeshivish schools, but some other more moderate orthodox do not implement this.

    "the isolation from the outside world" - same comment here as above, a more modern rational approach to orthodox judaism typically does not promote this - the opposite actually, if you ever read any YU or SRH stuff, torah umadah, torah im derech eretz....

    "hoping for the death of man (the goal of this world is the next) and of humanity as we know it" - i think you have a very simplistic understanding of that stuff. there is some deeper meaning there, again in my view...that y'mos hamoshiach is a frame of mind - I would never wish for the end of humanity (again more moderate strains of orthodoxy may appeal to you here)

    ReplyDelete
  4. just because an action is virtuous does not mean it has no element of being self serving. The key however is the also, for example if I were to save a childs life im sure I would feel good about it. That would not detract from it being virtuous. You took quite a jump from me criticizing your “faith” as being self serving and there being no such thing as a virtuous act.


    In regards to child mutilation. Unless I am much mistaken the consensus among doctors is that circumcision is not a healthy thing to do to a baby. However if you truly feel that it is the right thing then wait until the child grows up and ask him if he wants to do it. Explain the benefits (health and social) and see if he is jumping at the idea. I think it is clear, if you could ask the child he would say no and please do not say that you are doing it for “health” reasons when its being done by a rabbi in shul not by a doctor in a hospital


    As to your next two points I should know that I attended YU, and to the extent that they treat religion as a joke is the extent that I find it tolerable. The more they realize that the bible is not the infallible word of god, the more they grow as humans. The same can be said for the modern community, their indifference to god is their redeeming quality. However why should I stop there when I can go all the way I deny god.


    With you yimos homoshiach perspective, again the more you realize that YOU with YOUR logic can realize that not everything in the bible is true, the more we will agree.


    Just to point out though, my article is on the tragedy of faith and you have been a shining example of where free thought can take you, as long as you are willing to question, and NOT just assume if the torah/rabbis said so, it MUST be true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Atheists just follow scientists like blind sheep. I'm not prepared to drink the Kool Aid and believe in the magic evolution fairy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Atheists do not have to follow anyone. It is not a proposition, it is a lack of a belief in the theory of god/gods, atheism predates science. As far as my "belief" in science, please see my post entitled "the power of skepticism", I do not drink anyone's Kool Aid.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course atheism is religion like anyother, except more false and evil than most.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

    20th century science has torn it apart.

    You've been misled by a few kefirah klowns whose arguments don't hold up under skeptical scrutiny.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2011/11/science-versus-atheism.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. how can atheism be a religion? it is like calling not playing basketball a sport.

    i have not been lead or mislead, i am simply saying that i do not know that there is a god.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're definition is meaningless because the word "god" is impossible to define.

    Actually, atheism is a religion which preaches that the Biblical God does not exist and evolution created us. Evolution is a myth based on nothing but faith.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/12/higher-power-as-i-understand-him.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. well then by YOUR definition of god, i have found no evidence for a god (or anything else for that matter) that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything. do you have any evidence to support your claim this exists? i do not know such a being to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No problem.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. which part of that was supposed to be the evidence for a being that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything? i saw nothing resembling evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Beginning from:

    "The evidence supporting this"

    is proof of Judaism.

    Judaism teaches, among other things,

    1. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is the Creator and Ruler of all things. He alone has made, does make, and will make all things.

    10. I believe with perfect faith that G-d knows all of man's deeds and thoughts.

    http://www.ou.org/torah/rambam.htm

    ReplyDelete
  15. you have supplied no evidence for your claim of god, and little if any for the wisdom in the torah (debatable).

    i clicked on the link where it says torah is validated by nature and history to find two "proofs". 1 the watchmaker 2 the anti conspiracy.

    as far as "proof" number one, this is false. we can safely assume that watches are made by watchmakers because we know that watchmakers exist and we can see them making watches. we do not know that a creator exists and have never seen him make a universe. so although in the case of watches we can assume that a watch is made by a watchmaker, it is only because we see this to be the case time and time again. as opposed to a universe where we have no precedent or evidence of a universe maker.

    as far as your second claim and i quote "The Anti-Conspiracy Principle states: If a large group of people, for example 10,000 or more, unanimously claim to have had a certain experience, they must be telling the truth."

    That is not true, they can all be mistaken in their interpretation of the event as we see in the case of the miracle of our lady of Fatima which was witnessed by somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people and must be wrong. the sun does not turn colors, zig-zag or dance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

    ReplyDelete
  16. "we can safely assume that watches are made by watchmakers because we know that watchmakers exist and we can see them making watches"

    Not true. We know that anything showing complexity and purposefulness was created by an intelligent designer. For example, when primitive people first see modern technology, they assume that it was created by a god or spirit, however they do not assume it has always existed or originated spontaneously.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs_and_practices

    "That is not true, they can all be mistaken in their interpretation of the event"

    Fair enough. So if people are so deceptive, delusional and gullible how do you know that the Holocaust happened or the Apollo moon landings happened?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

    ReplyDelete
  17. first of all thanks for showing me about "cargo cults" they are fascinating. i do not see however why YOU would bring them up as they demonstrate clearly the positions which i hold.

    1. it is not necessary to impose supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena, when we can rather seek natural ones. it is actually the case for most phenomena which could not be explained naturally at first and were therefore explained as supernatural, that a natural explanation was eventually found.

    2 just because some people have witnessed an unexplained event (the airplains in the case of cargo cults) does not mean that their interpretation of said event is correct.

    furthermore, in regards to the holocaust deniers, they do not deny it because of a lack of evidence (as i do with god) they see the evidence and assert that it was fabricated. in that case they must prove that such a fabrication indeed happened and if they cannot, i have no reason to doubt the abundance of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "it is not necessary to impose supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena, when we can rather seek natural ones"

    There is no plausible natural explanation for life.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/05/how-did-life-originate.html

    "it is actually the case for most phenomena which could not be explained naturally at first and were therefore explained as supernatural, that a natural explanation was eventually found."

    Actually, you're mistaken. 20th century science has greatly discredited atheism, while many earlier proofs of evolution have also been discredited.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2011/11/science-versus-atheism.html

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2011/06/atheism-myth_13.html

    You are promoting an atheism of the gaps.

    "just because some people have witnessed an unexplained event (the airplains in the case of cargo cults) does not mean that their interpretation of said event is correct"

    We know that machines always have intelligent designer of some sort. Primitive natives realized that when seeing unknown modern technology. Children as well perceive this regarding the world around them. It's just common sense.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html

    Richard Dawkins as well admits that everything appears to be designed, but simply insists that it's an "illusion".

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-11-23/

    In reality, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

    "furthermore, in regards to the holocaust deniers, they do not deny it because of a lack of evidence (as i do with god) they see the evidence and assert that it was fabricated. in that case they must prove that such a fabrication indeed happened and if they cannot, i have no reason to doubt the abundance of evidence."

    in regards to the Torah deniers, they do not deny it because of a lack of evidence (as i do with evolution) they see the evidence and assert that it was fabricated. in that case they must prove that such a fabrication indeed happened and if they cannot, i have no reason to doubt the abundance of evidence.

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

    ReplyDelete
  20. floods, earthquakes, conception, disease, electricity, thunder, the rising and setting of the sun, the movement of the planets, the seasons, birth defects, and just about everything else we have a good, solid, reality based, scientific explanation for, originally had only supernatural explanations. therefore, unlike the poor islanders who saw the airplanes and in lack of a natural explanation assumed a supernatural explanation, i will assume that our ignorance is NOT a reason to assume it is unknowable, and i will wait patiently for a natural explanation.

    i therefore re-assert "it is actually the case for most phenomena which could not be explained naturally at first and were therefore explained as supernatural, that a natural explanation was eventually found."

    secondly, you claim that " 20th century science has greatly discredited atheism, while many earlier proofs of evolution have also been discredited." since atheism is simply nothing more and nothing less than the assertion of a LACK of belief in a god or gods, science cannot discredit atheism unless it has proven a god. if there is such evidence please share it.

    as far as your claim that "We know that machines always have intelligent designer of some sort. Primitive natives realized that when seeing unknown modern technology. Children as well perceive this regarding the world around them. It's just common sense." simple childish observations are no way to determine reality, just ask anyone with a basic working understanding of the counter intuitive realities of relativity and quantum mechanics.

    finally, you state that there is an abundance of evidence for the torah and deniers assert that it was fabricated, please demonstrate the "abundance of evidence" that the torah is either 1. entirely true and/or 2. the word of a god.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "originally had only supernatural explanations"

    You may be thinking of animism. Jews always believed that God created the laws of nature. Scientists simply study God's creation. They no more discredit Torah than a plumber or a dentist does.

    "science cannot discredit atheism"

    How about the Big Bang, the fine tuning of the universe to allow life, the fact that life appeared immediately after the the earth's surface stabilized, the fossil evidence continuing to indicate catastrophism rather than evolution?

    "simple childish observations are no way to determine reality"

    I assume that things are what they appear to be until proven otherwise.

    "please demonstrate the "abundance of evidence" that the torah is either 1. entirely true and/or 2. the word of a god. "

    Sure.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am not confused the gemorah says that thunder happens to wake people up to teshuva, grass only grows because of an angel telling it to do so, nothing happens on this world not even a person moving his small finger without it being decreed from heaven. In pirkei dreb eliezer it says that when hashem wants to send a blessing onto this earth, he does not send rain water he opens his storehouse of water instead. In beraishis rabbah it says that since egypt does not get rain it gets its water from gan eden instead.

    Secondly, what you claim as science discrediting atheism says nothing about a god. You mention some facts and some opinions (and some downright errors) about scientific questions, nothing that refers to a god. Not one proof of a being that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything.

    in addition if you assume the big bang as a fact you have already discredited the torah, since the torah claims that the world was created in six days a little less than six thousand years ago. (not to mention getting the order all screwed up)

    finally in response to my request for proof you sent me to the very arguments we are debating.

    so again please prove that a being exists that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything.

    and please prove that the torah is either 1. entirely factually true and/or 2. the word of a god.

    you have done none of them.

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

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I am not confused the gemorah says that thunder happens to wake people up to teshuva, grass only grows because of an angel telling it to do so, nothing happens on this world not even a person moving his small finger without it being decreed from heaven."

    And how has any of that been proven false?

    "In pirkei dreb eliezer it says that when hashem wants to send a blessing onto this earth, he does not send rain water he opens his storehouse of water instead. In beraishis rabbah it says that since egypt does not get rain it gets its water from gan eden instead."

    First of all, can you provide exact citations? Secondly, many Aggadah are allegorical.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah#Literal-allegorical_teachings

    "Secondly, what you claim as science discrediting atheism says nothing about a god. You mention some facts and some opinions (and some downright errors) about scientific questions, nothing that refers to a god. Not one proof of a being that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything."

    In 1859 when Origin of Species was first published atheism was far more plausible scientifically than it is today, as I explain.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2011/11/science-versus-atheism.html

    Based on your logic, that whatever trend things are going in they will continue to go that way, I can expect atheism to be entirely discredited in another century.

    "in addition if you assume the big bang as a fact you have already discredited the torah, since the torah claims that the world was created in six days a little less than six thousand years ago. (not to mention getting the order all screwed up)"

    Not true.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

    "finally in response to my request for proof you sent me to the very arguments we are debating"

    I sent you overwhelming evidence.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

    If you choose not to read it, then you're simply in denial, which is what I would assume to be the case.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/07/jewish-skeptics-and-sex.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. By the way, just to save time, and I've been doing this for years so I think I know what to expect, after all is said and done you're going to claim "Yes, the arguments for Torah may appear to make sense, however obviously they must be false since the vast majority of scientists do not accept orthodox Judaism." To which I will say what I initially said above "Atheists just follow scientists like blind sheep. I'm not prepared to drink the Kool Aid and believe in the magic evolution fairy."

    http://yeshivasdiscordia.blogspot.com/2012/05/tragedy-of-faith.html?showComment=1339941444820#c3993045683891887464

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

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thunder is the noise created by the air pressure change due to lightning. Grass grows because it gets proper nutrients and sunshine. As for the quote about the rain in pikei dreb eliezedr its at the end of perek 5
    Once again, you seem to be missing my point. ATHEISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLLUTION, OR THE BIG BANG, ATHEISM PREDATES BOTH THOSE THEORIES. Should evolution be proven or disproven, should the big bang be proven or disproven, neither is a statement of proof about your description of god. You don’t seem to understand this, atheism is simply, nothing more, nothing less, then saying I have not seen any proof of a god.
    In response to your view of genesis you claim that adam, having lived in the year 3762 BCE was the first to have language, you further claim that the first writing is a Hebrew inscription from the year 1,500 BCE this is not true, not from the torah perspective and not from science either.
    Here is an example of writing from the year 5260 BCE (7300 years ago)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet
    In your post entitled “why we should be orthodox” which is where you keep sending me to find your “proof” there is only two arguments that by any stretch of the imagination can be defined as proof of a god at all (not meeting all your criteria though). Those are the watchmaker argument, and the conspiracy argument. I believe I have disproven your conspiracy argument and I have shown you why your watchmaker argument CANNOT apply to the universe.

    You then go on to your best argument, I enjoy sex. This is the lowest you have stooped so far. You have left any semblance of reason behind and reached ad hominem, congratulations you have successfully dragged this conversation into the mud.

    You then say that I will claim that “"Yes, the arguments for Torah may appear to make sense, however obviously they must be false since the vast majority of scientists do not accept orthodox Judaism." No, I do not agree that the arguments for the torah maker sense. Neither do I care what the majority of scientists believe; I will say however that the FACTS of science and the ATTITUDE of science are incompatible with the torah. You do however make me realize that I should write something about the contradictions between science and torah, perhaps in the future.
    In response to you accusing me of “drinking the kool aid” and being a “blind sheep” when you first leveled this accusation against me I referred you to my post entitled the power of skepticism, I will supply you with a link this time as well. http://yeshivasdiscordia.blogspot.com/2012/06/power-of-skepticism.html
    Please check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm very sorry, however this blog is so confused and nonsensical, I must wonder if you have any clinical diagnosis.

    "Thunder is the noise created by the air pressure change due to lightning. Grass grows because it gets proper nutrients and sunshine."

    Yes and dinner is cooked by my stove. However my wife turned the stove on. By the same token air pressure creates thunder however God creates air pressure.

    "As for the quote about the rain in pikei dreb eliezedr its at the end of perek 5"

    Found it.

    http://www.usc.edu/projects/pre-project/graphics/pre04/pre0406b.jpg

    "When God wishes to bless the plants He opens His heavenly storeroom and rains on the earth masculine water."

    Whatever exactly it means, this is obviously allegorical, as are many aggadah.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah#Literal-allegorical_teachings

    I suppose according to you George Orwell's "Animal Farm" would prove that English people have no knowledge of zoology.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

    "ATHEISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLLUTION"

    Wrong.

    Allow me to quote popular science writer and atheist Richard Dawkins

    "although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

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

    And Steven Weinberg, a physicist, Nobel laureate and atheist

    "What happened was that much of the early basis for religious belief was dissolved by science. It wasn't that scientific discoveries made religion impossible... it's that they made irreligion possible. It became possible to understand how things worked without the religious explanation and particularly, I think, more important than anything any physicist did, was what Darwin did, Darwin and Wallis."

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/7800058/Atheism-Tapes-II

    ReplyDelete
  29. "atheism is simply, nothing more, nothing less, then saying I have not seen any proof of a god"

    That definition is worthless because you cannot define the word "god".

    "Here is an example of writing from the year 5260 BCE (7300 years ago)"

    Wrong. The earliest writing is cuneiform, appearing about 600 years after the creation of Adam.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform

    The earliest alphabetic writing is in Hebrew, from the Sinai at about the time the Torah was given.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age_alphabets

    "there is only two arguments that by any stretch of the imagination can be defined as proof of a god at all"

    There are plenty more. For example, take the next one. If the Torah is bogus, how do you explain the five descending levels of Judaic literature?

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2010/03/jewish-literature-seeing-effects-of.html

    "I have disproven your conspiracy argument"

    Wrong. You haven't presented one example of a successful conspiracy of 10,000 people who knowingly all told the same lie, which was later somehow discovered to be a lie.

    "I have shown you why your watchmaker argument CANNOT apply to the universe."

    No. You've just arbitrarily decided it doesn't. This is a logical fallacy called "special pleading".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

    "You then go on to your best argument, I enjoy sex."

    Of course that's the motive of orthodox Jews who convert to atheism. Why else would they embrace such lunacy? Allow me to quote an orthodox Jew who converted to atheism, David Assaf professor, Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University, Israel

    "One of the most common factors leading religious youth away from the fold is the contradiction between sexual life and religious life. When you’re Orthodox and also a maturing young adult, you’re unable to express your sexuality, and that leads to significant inner conflict. Especially for men; where it starts with masturbation."

    http://www.unpious.com/2012/05/interview-with-professor-david-assaf/

    "the FACTS of science and the ATTITUDE of science are incompatible with the torah"

    I've shown they aren't at all, just the opposite.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/10/biblical-deluge.html

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/02/torah-and-archaeology.html

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/does-egyptian-history-contradict-torah.html

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2011/11/science-versus-atheism.html

    "I referred you to my post entitled the power of skepticism,"

    I see no skepticism, but rather merely a rationalization for becoming a traitor and taking the easy way out.

    “Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”

    Malcolm Muggeridge, British journalist

    http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/17437.Malcolm_Muggeridge

    ReplyDelete
  30. Definition of atheism:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

    Now, can we please put this aside.

    You say that “That definition is worthless because you cannot define the word "god".” Have you forgotten that we have defined god as per your description: a being that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything.

    “The earliest alphabetic writing is in Hebrew, from the Sinai at about the time the Torah was given.”

    However I have demonstrated that language which you propose did not exist before adam, has indeed existed for thousands of years before the time you claim that adam lived. You have simply shown that written language using letters, as is common in the western world had only begun a few thousand years ago. However I showed that ideographic writing as is used in china has existed for at least 7300 years.

    “ You haven't presented one example of a successful conspiracy of 10,000 people who knowingly all told the same lie, which was later somehow discovered to be a lie.”

    Here is how you present your principle: “The Anti-Conspiracy Principle states: If a large group of people, for example 10,000 or more, unanimously claim to have had a certain experience, they must be telling the truth.”

    To which I responded that although they may or may not have seen the said event I have no reason to accept their interpretation of said event. I further showed you an example where somewhere between 30,000 to 100,000 people all claimed to have witnessed an event and we cannot accept what they are saying as true, since the sun does not dance, turn colors or zig zag.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

    Therefore your principle cannot be used to prove gods existence via the Sinai event.

    As far as your watchmaker argument, I have demonstrated that the reasons why you could safely assume that a watch had a watch maker does not apply to the universe. The reasons being 1. We know watchmakers to exist independently of the knowledge watches; as opposed to the case of the universe, we do not independently know a universe-maker to exist. We know that watchmakers make watches we have seen this event we have many documented cases of this happening, we have no such documentation in the case of the universe.

    “There are plenty more. For example, take the next one. If the Torah is bogus, how do you explain the five descending levels of Judaic literature?”

    This does not prove a god of you description or any god at all, it shows that each generation of rabbis changed their approach and had a respect for the previous generation.

    You claim that the reason I don’t believe in god is that, I enjoy sex.
    “Of course that's the motive of orthodox Jews who convert to atheism. Why else would they embrace such lunacy?”

    First of all this logical fallacy is called ad hominem

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Secondly, you just threw out the opinions of every healthy human being who is an atheist. Every healthy human being enjoys sex. If you don’t find that to be the case with yourself I would advise that you see a doctor.

    In response to your claim that science and torah do not contradict each other, I mentioned earlier that I intend on writing a full-length piece on it.
    In response to my piece on skepticism, please see what I wrote before about ad hominem.
    “I see no skepticism, but rather merely a rationalization for becoming a traitor and taking the easy way out.”

    If you do not want to discuss it that is ok but to throw it out like that is to commit the very fallacy that you accused me of.

    “This is a logical fallacy called "special pleading".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading ”

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Have you forgotten that we have defined god as per your description: a being that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything. "

    Hindus and Buddhists also do not believe in such a being but are not atheists. Atheism means no Biblical God plus evolution.

    "showed that ideographic writing as is used in china has existed for at least 7300 years"

    That's not writing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_symbols#Meaning_of_the_symbols

    "Therefore your principle cannot be used to prove gods existence via the Sinai event."

    Then neither can the testimony of Holocaust survivors and war criminals prove the events of the Holocaust. And the documents of course could all have been forged by Zionists and the Allies.

    "We know watchmakers to exist independently of the knowledge watches"

    It makes no difference. Primitive people do not know that car factories exist independent of cars, yet nevertheless realize that some sort of intelligent designer built cars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs_and_practices

    "This does not prove a god of you description or any god at all, it shows that each generation of rabbis changed their approach and had a respect for the previous generation. "

    It proves that the Jewish people were elevated to an incredible spiritual level at Mount Sinai and descending from that point, providing convincing circumstantial evidence that God exists and revealed the Torah.

    "First of all this logical fallacy is called ad hominem"

    Wrong. Ad hominem would be for example claiming that because you like sex, you must be wrong. I'm saying the reverse - You believe something wrong because you like sex.

    "commit the very fallacy that you accused me of."

    You lost me. I'm not arbitrarily claiming that you're an exception to a generally accepted rule.

    With all due respect, are you high?

    ReplyDelete
  32. “Hindus and Buddhists also do not believe in such a being but are not atheists. Atheism means no Biblical God plus evolution.”

    If I were debating a Hindu, I would ask him/her to proof their gods. I am asking you to defend your position of god. As far as Buddhism goes, it is debatable if they believe in god/gods, if they did and I was debating one I would demand proof as well. I am debating YOUR belief in god as per your definition.

    “That's not writing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_symbols#Meaning_of_the_symbols ”

    You are correct, I sent you to the wrong link the correct link is here

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet

    Dated back to the year 5260 BCE 7300 years ago

    “Then neither can the testimony of Holocaust survivors and war criminals prove the events of the Holocaust. And the documents of course could all have been forged by Zionists and the Allies.”

    Again, I do not believe the holocaust happened because people said so. I assume it happened because of the abundance of evidence. Yes, the documents might have been forged, but then the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that the forgery happened. If there is such evidence I would accept it, if there is none then I may safely assume that the holocaust did indeed happen.

    “It makes no difference. Primitive people do not know that car factories exist independent of cars, yet nevertheless realize that some sort of intelligent designer built cars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs_and_practices ”

    Yes, and like those poor souls on the islands, in lack of a natural explanation they invoked a supernatural one. You are repeating their fallacy.

    “It proves that the Jewish people were elevated to an incredible spiritual level at Mount Sinai and descending from that point, providing convincing circumstantial evidence that God exists and revealed the Torah.”

    It does not, I gave a perfectly natural explanation, and you just ignored it and re-asserted your original claim of a supernatural event.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Causes.2C_beliefs_and_practices

    Once again, you have not demonstrated any proof of a being that would meet your criteria of god, a being that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything.

    Neither have you demonstrated your "abundance of evidence" that the torah is either 1. entirely true and/or 2. the word of a god.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "If I were debating a Hindu, I would ask him/her to proof their gods."

    Hindus believe that the Ganges River is a god.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_in_Hinduism

    Do you deny the existence of the Ganges River?

    "You are correct, I sent you to the wrong link the correct link is here"

    Yes, but that's not writing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_symbols#Meaning_of_the_symbols

    "I assume it happened because of the abundance of evidence."

    Which is just because people say so.

    "Yes, the documents might have been forged, but then the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that the forgery happened."

    Then the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that the Torah is forgery.

    "You are repeating their fallacy."

    They are basically correct. An intelligent designer made the cars. Likewise an intelligent designer created life. You are trying to deny common sense which is obvious to even illiterate natives and small children.

    You DON'T have to have a seen a watch made to know that there must be a watchmaker. Complexity and purposefulness is proof alone.

    "I gave a perfectly natural explanation"

    Judaic literature was written in five primary stages with authors in the later stages 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.

    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 100 CE and likewise a rabbi living in 1600 CE would never contradict a rabbi living in 1000 CE. Needless to say, 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.

    Please explain this naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  34. “Hindus believe that the Ganges River is a god… Do you deny the existence of the Ganges River?”

    Thank you for raising a fantastic point. Of course, while I do not deny that the river Ganges exists, that does not imply that I therefore believe in their god. Likewise with your claim that “Judaic literature was written in five primary stages with authors in the later stages never contradicting those in the earlier stages” (even though it is debatable) this does not prove anything divine, let alone a god of your description. This shows a respect one generation had for the other.

    “Yes, but that's not writing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_symbols#Meaning_of_the_symbols”

    That is true, the Vinca symbols may not be writing by any modern definition. However I sent you a link to the dispilio tablet

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispilio_Tablet

    “Which is just because people say so.”

    That is not true, the holocaust has left behind a lot of evidence, aside from people saying so. If you still live in Israel I would recommend you visit yad vashem. It is a terrifying and chilling experience.

    “Then the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that the Torah is forgery.”

    Again, not true. The burden of proof would be with me only if there was evidence for a god or the torah’s absolute truth.

    “You DON'T have to have a seen a watch made to know that there must be a watchmaker. Complexity and purposefulness is proof alone.”

    You cannot extrapolate from watches to universes as I explained. Furthermore, if complexity and purposefulness demand a creator, then so much more so that a creator must demand a creator and so on ad infinitum.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Of course, while I do not deny that the river Ganges exists,"

    So what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in gods? You don't believe that anything more powerful or intelligent than humans? How do you know that such beings don't exist in a different solar system?

    "This shows a respect one generation had for the other."

    No. One generation (which lasts about 30 years) could contradict another. However Judaic literature is divided into five distinct stages each one spanning centuries. There is no natural explanation for this, hence it's a proof of God's revelation at Mount Sinai.

    "I sent you a link to the dispilio tablet"

    Which contains Vinca symbols.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols#Discovery

    "If you still live in Israel I would recommend you visit yad vashem."

    An Israeli museum! That's supposed to prove anything! LOL! The Holocaust is a Zionist hoax fabricated to justify the theft of Palestine from the Palestinians.

    http://radioislam.org/sindi/typic.htm

    Or it is if you believe that people are dumb enough to believe anything, as you apparently do regarding Judaism.

    "The burden of proof would be with me only if there was evidence for a god or the torah’s absolute truth."

    Which of course there is.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html

    "You cannot extrapolate from watches to universes as I explained."

    Everyone did until Darwin, including all leading scientists.

    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185

    And as I demonstrate Darwin was wrong.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

    "Furthermore, if complexity and purposefulness demand a creator, then so much more so that a creator must demand a creator and so on ad infinitum."

    There is no reason not to believe that the Creator is eternal, as Jews do believe. Creation, however, cannot be eternal since that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

    ReplyDelete
  36. “So what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in gods? You don't believe that anything more powerful or intelligent than humans? How do you know that such beings don't exist in a different solar system?”

    When I say that I do not believe in gods I mean that no evidence has been found for any supernatural being. Furthermore, I do not believe in anything, and that includes more powerful or intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms. I do not know they exist, I don t know that they do not exist therefore, should evidence arise for either, I will accept it.

    “However Judaic literature is divided into five distinct stages each one spanning centuries. There is no natural explanation for this, hence it's a proof of God's revelation at Mount Sinai.”

    First of all even if this were true it would be a non-sequiter, distinct levels in writing is a statement about human actions and can and should be explained in terms of human interaction. It says nothing about a god, or a DIVINE revelation at Sinai.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

    Secondly, let us actually look at it. That after the closing of the tanach, the mishna and gemorah, you could not disagree with it, is not really shocking, that was discussed and agreed on at that time. About rishonim and achronim, I asked around in my yeshiva for a source for this idea that an achron cannot argue on a rishon. I asked my sho’el u’maishev, some of my chavrosus, and my rosh yeahiva. Much to my surprise I learnt that it is not agreed on who is the last rishon and who is the first achron, it seems to be a bit fuzzy. What was even more shocking (to me at least) is that we DO find achronim arguing on rishonim (the vilna gaon, and the pri chadash amongst others).

    “The Holocaust is a Zionist hoax fabricated to justify the theft of Palestine from the Palestinians.”

    I think you are joking but to be on the safe side, I will repeat. If they claim that such a hoax and cover-up happened then the burden of proof would be on them.

    “ http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2012/01/why-weshould-beorthodox.html “

    Please quit sending me this link as proof, you have sent it to me at least five or six times. I have seen it and we are now discussing those very ideas that you propose in that post as evidence. If on the other hand you think that after sending it to me six times that there is something there that I still don’t get, then either explain it better, or give up on sending me there. It’s starting to get annoying every time you send me back to reread the very ideas we are discussing.

    “Everyone did until Darwin, including all leading scientists.”

    First of all that is not true, evolution predates Darwin.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Pre-Darwinian_theories

    Secondly, even if they did it would not change the fact that you cannot extrapolate from watches to gods.

    “There is no reason not to believe that the Creator is eternal, as Jews do believe. Creation, however, cannot be eternal since that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.”

    This has nothing to do with the fact that if you postulate that complexity demands a creator the same must be applied to the creator itself leading to an infinite regress.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "When I say that I do not believe in gods I mean that no evidence has been found for any supernatural being. Furthermore, I do not believe in anything, and that includes more powerful or intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms. I do not know they exist, I don t know that they do not exist therefore, should evidence arise for either, I will accept it."

    Earlier you said that atheism is a lack of belief in the theory of god/gods. Now you're saying apparently something entirely different. You simply don't believe in anything unless there is sufficient evidence. Well neither do I, however I'm not an atheist. So once again, you can't define atheism.

    Therefore allow me to help: Atheism is the belief that the Biblical God does not exist and evolution created us.

    "distinct levels in writing is a statement about human actions and can and should be explained in terms of human interaction. It says nothing about a god, or a DIVINE revelation at Sinai."

    I'm waiting for your natural explanation. If there is none then please admit that you are wrong and repent.

    " If they claim that such a hoax and cover-up happened then the burden of proof would be on them."

    So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Torah is a hoax.

    For my part, I don't believe that humans are limitlessly deceptive, delusional and gullible. Therefore of course I believe in the Holocaust and in the Torah because large scale conspiracy theories are implausible.

    "First of all that is not true, evolution predates Darwin."

    Before 1859, almost all humans, and almost all Western scientists, were what would be called today creationists and intelligent design advocates, because you can indeed extrapolate from watches to God. Read a little history, this isn't a secret.

    "This has nothing to do with the fact that if you postulate that complexity demands a creator the same must be applied to the creator itself leading to an infinite regress. "

    No. There is no reason not to believe that the Creator is eternal, as Jews do believe. Therefore He requires no creator. Creation, however, cannot be eternal since that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

    ReplyDelete
  38. “Earlier you said that atheism is a lack of belief in the theory of god/gods. Now you're saying apparently something entirely different.”

    In case I am confusing you, let be clearer. I don’t believe in the theory of god/gods because it there is no proof to substantiate it.

    “Therefore allow me to help: Atheism is the belief that the Biblical God does not exist and evolution created us.”

    Once again, atheism has nothing to do with evolution and is not limited to the biblical god.

    “I'm waiting for your natural explanation. If there is none then please admit that you are wrong and repent.”

    First of all, even if I couldn’t, it would simply be a statement about my lack imagination, and/or my lack of information about history. Secondly even if there was no explanation, the most I could say is I don’t know, you have not yet explained why a lack of a theory as to why there are these (supposed) hierarchies would therefore mean that you have proven the existence of a being that 1. creates everything 2. controls everything and 3. knows everything.

    Finally, I have given you the natural explanation you asked for. After the closing of the tanach, mishna, and gemara, it was AGREED (read, arbitrarily decided by semi-evolved primates) that this could not be argued on anymore. In between the rishonim and achronim on the other hand, the distinction is arbitrary, debated over, superimposed after the fact, and has no real relevance. Furthermore, the claim that you make that “a rabbi living in 1600 CE would never contradict a rabbi living in 1000 CE” is false. The gra the pri chadash, the shagas aryeh, and right up to r moshe feinstien ALL ARGUE ON RISHONIM. When I say that they argue I do not mean that they side with one rishon over another, I mean that they disagree with rishonim even though their opinion is not supported by any other rishon.

    “So the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Torah is a hoax.”

    Since I responded more than once to this and explained why this is not so, and yet you still insist on repeating it like a moron, I will stop responding to it.

    “No. There is no reason not to believe that the Creator is eternal, as Jews do believe. Therefore He requires no creator. Creation, however, cannot be eternal since that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.”

    I did not say that the creator needed a creator because he is limited in time; I said that if your postulate that complexity demands a creator then that must apply to a creator as well. If by stating that god is eternal you are trying to demonstrate that god could not have been created, then you have also proven that you accept that complexity does not demand a creator. In which case I see no reason to accept that the watchmaker principle is a rule and especially that you cannot conjure up a god to satisfy this principle.

    ReplyDelete
  39. i see i missed one of your points in my response

    "Before 1859, almost all humans, and almost all Western scientists, were what would be called today creationists and intelligent design advocates, because you can indeed extrapolate from watches to God. Read a little history, this isn't a secret."

    unless i am mistaken the link i sent you should have given you the HISTORY of pre-darwinian evolution. in either case here it is again

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Pre-Darwinian_theories

    ReplyDelete
  40. "I don’t believe in the theory of god/gods because it there is no proof to substantiate it."

    Can you define the word "god"?

    "atheism has nothing to do with evolution"

    Not according to popular science writer and atheist Richard Dawkins

    "although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

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

    And Steven Weinberg, a physicist, Nobel laureate and atheist

    "What happened was that much of the early basis for religious belief was dissolved by science. It wasn't that scientific discoveries made religion impossible... it's that they made irreligion possible. It became possible to understand how things worked without the religious explanation and particularly, I think, more important than anything any physicist did, was what Darwin did, Darwin and Wallis."

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/7800058/Atheism-Tapes-II

    Can you name one atheist who does not believe in evolution?

    "First of all, even if I couldn’t, it would simply be a statement about my lack imagination, and/or my lack of information about history."

    Can I dismiss any seeming contradictions between science and Torah as being simply a statement about my lack imagination, and/or my lack of information about science and Torah, and even if there was no explanation, the most I could say is I don’t know?

    "After the closing of the tanach, mishna, and gemara, it was AGREED (read, arbitrarily decided by semi-evolved primates) that this could not be argued on anymore."

    Why? No other religion does that.

    "Much to my surprise I learnt that it is not agreed on who is the last rishon and who is the first achron, it seems to be a bit fuzzy."

    But it is agreed that there are two distinct eras. According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, scholars in one era within the history of halachic development do not challenge the rulings of previous-era scholars, and hence Acharonim cannot dispute the rulings of rabbis of previous eras unless they find support from other rabbis of previous eras.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharonim#Consequences_for_Halakhic_change

    Still waiting for a natural explanation and if there isn't one then I expect you to admit your errors and repent.

    "Since I responded more than once to this and explained why this is not so, and yet you still insist on repeating it like a moron, I will stop responding to it."

    Because you can't justify you special pleading, whereby you arbitrarily accept some historical facts and reject others which are inconvenient for you.

    "then you have also proven that you accept that complexity does not demand a creator"

    Of course it applies to life, because life has not existed eternally and we know it was created. The only question is: did God do it or evolution. I have already demonstrated that evolution is false.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

    "unless i am mistaken the link i sent you should have given you the HISTORY of pre-darwinian evolution. in either case here it is again"

    Those were a few exceptions rejected by the scientific community and of anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I meant "by everyone else". Darwin doesn't even bother mentioning these predecessors.

    ReplyDelete
  42. “Can you define the word "god"?”

    By every definition that I am aware of, it is a supernatural power that either created or controls this universe or both created and controls the universe. I have seen no evidence that would make me reach that conclusion.

    “Not according to popular science writer and atheist Richard Dawkins”

    This is his OPINION

    “And Steven Weinberg, a physicist, Nobel laureate and atheist”

    Again, this is an opinion; there is a difference between the opinion of a scientist and his science. Although Steven Weinberg is a top notch physicist, his opinions outside his area of expertise (physics) is as good (or as meaningless) as anyone else’s is.

    “Can I dismiss any seeming contradictions between science and Torah as being simply a statement about my lack imagination, and/or my lack of information about science and Torah, and even if there was no explanation, the most I could say is I don’t know?”

    Yes and no. If there was proof that the torah is true then until you have a better theory (more accurate and better predictive power) you can remain in doubt and say it is the best working theory. However, you should be on the lookout for a better theory that would be able to both, explain all the evidence that seems to be in favor of the torah, and explain the science that seemed to be contradicting yo r theory (torah). However if you have more contradictions then evidence, or the contradictions are more damning than the evidence, or your theory is so far disfigured to meet the contradictory evidence, I would advise you to give up the theory. In any case, when you do not know something, the best answer is always, to admit that you do not know. It is the honest truth.


    “Why? No other religion does that.”

    This is what was agreed upon by all present; it was their decision to do it that way.

    “But it is agreed that there are two distinct eras. According to Orthodox Jewish tradition, scholars in one era within the history of halachic development do not challenge the rulings of previous-era scholars, and hence Acharonim cannot dispute the rulings of rabbis of previous eras unless they find support from other rabbis of previous eras.”

    Yes, there is two distinct eras, however; it is simply historical with no halachic ramifications. I don’t know where you got your information about orthodox tradition from but as I already said I asked my rosh yeshiva, my sho’el u’maishiv and today I asked a posek as well; they all said that we DO find achronim arguing on rishonim (examples given were: the gra, the pri chadash, the shagas aryeh, and even r moshe fienstien). Also please do not use a wiki link to establish halacha, try that with your rov and see what he says (but rabbi, it’s a b’iferishe Wikipedia…).

    “Of course it applies to life, because life has not existed eternally and we know it was created.”

    Once again, if you have accepted anywhere that complexity does not mean that it was designed/created, then you cannot prove that a god exists simply because life is complex. Because by your own admission complexity only sometimes suggests that there MIGHT be a designer/creator.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "By every definition that I am aware of, it is a supernatural power that either created or controls this universe or both created and controls the universe."

    That would be a good definition of God in the Abrahamic tradition, however not in other religious traditions. So again you seem to be simply denying the Biblical God.

    "This is his OPINION"

    These opinions seem to be respected by all atheists.

    "If there was proof that the torah is true"

    And of course there as, as I keep repeating and you keep denying.

    "This is what was agreed upon by all present; it was their decision to do it that way."

    For 2400 years Jews have been widely dispersed. What could have led to global agreement? Why don't other religions show similar behavior?

    "Also please do not use a wiki link to establish halacha, try that with your rov and see what he says"

    The link has a source in the footnote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharonim#Consequences_for_Halakhic_change

    "they all said that we DO find achronim arguing on rishonim"

    These are the rare exceptions, not the rule.

    "if you have accepted anywhere that complexity does not mean that it was designed/created"

    Anything except something which is eternal and therefore had not creation or creator.

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. “That would be a good definition of God in the Abrahamic tradition, however not in other religious traditions. So again you seem to be simply denying the Biblical God”

    Here is two sources for a definition of god

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

    By all the definitions listed in these two sources I deny the concept of god (with the exception of some of the fifth definition in dictionary.com I have experienced some of those things myself and it is not supernatural, the rest I have seen no evidence for)

    “"they all said that we DO find achronim arguing on rishonim"

    These are the rare exceptions, not the rule.”

    And this is what you want to build your belief of god on. A seemingly “for the most part true” phenomena (in other words, not necessarily or entirely true) with natural explanations for most of it (tanach, mishna, and gemorah). Hmmm I see where your convictions come from, and I must ask, are you delusional, or simply desperate?

    (btw read the hakdama to igros moshe, where he explains why it is ok to pasken against a rishon)

    “Anything except something which is eternal and therefore had not creation or creator.”

    You just prove that it cannot have had a designer/creator; if so I can assert that there are other exceptions (such as universes, and life) and that the watchmaker theory is a generally ok rule of thumb and not a law of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  46. " A seemingly “for the most part true” true "

    It's entirely true that these five divisions exist and you have no natural explanation for them. I assume you're going to repent.

    " if so I can assert that there are other exceptions (such as universes"

    That would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

    ReplyDelete
  47. "That would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion"

    i dont see what you are trying to prove, can you please elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The universe cannot be eternal because it would have reached a state of entropy an eternity ago.

    ReplyDelete
  49. whoever said the universe was eternal? I said that if you acknowledge that the watchmaker principle has exceptions then is not a law, it is just an ok guess. If thats the case then based on that principle you cannot have proven that such a creator exists, because by your own admission complexity does not necessarily demand a designer/creator.

    for example gravity is a law, i can use the law of gravity as a basis on which to prove other phenomena, if it can be broken even once then it is no longer a law, and i cannot use it as anything more than an ok guess.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The Watchmaker Analogy is that any created thing which shows complexity and purposefulness must have been created by an intelligent designer. God is the eternal Creator, He was not created.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "The Watchmaker Analogy is that any created thing which shows complexity and purposefulness must have been created by an intelligent designer. God is the eternal Creator, He was not created."

    this is called circular reasoning (or begging the question)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    you conclude that there must have been a creator because it has been created, and you know that it was created because it must have had a creator.

    your conclusion (that there is a creator) is already assumed in your premise (the universe is created)

    ReplyDelete
  52. The universe must have created since otherwise it would have reached entropy an eternity ago.

    I think I've already said that about six times.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  55. ARE YOU SMOKING CRACK?!?!

    we are not arguing if the universe exists, we agree it does. we are not arguing if it is eternal, it clearly seems to be finite in time. we are arguing if it was CREATED or not. it is clearly finite in time, that does not mean it was CREATED, if we agreed that it was created then by definition it would need a CREATOR. however this is exactly what we are arguing about. was the universe CREATED, or not. you cannot prove that there was a creator by assuming it was created if THIS IS what you are trying to prove. this is called begging the question or circular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Things which have not always existed have been created. We have not always existed, therefore we have a creator. And we know that an intelligent designer created us because our limbs and organs demonstrate complexity and purposefulness. And Darwin's attempt to refute that, which established the religion of atheism, fails as I explain.

    http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

    ReplyDelete
  57. things arise nothing all the time. if you study modern physics (as opposed to ancient philosophy) you would know that something arising from nothing is the rule not the exception.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

    ReplyDelete
  58. Not really. Nothing comes from nothing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

    Anyway, the point is the universe was created, it is not eternal, as God is, and therefore the complexity and purposefulness of living things, for example the heart or the eye, can be explained only by an intelligent designer. This rule doesn't apply to God who is eternal.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Not really. Nothing comes from nothing"

    you can violate the conservation laws so long as the sum total of energy remains the same, as you would have known if you would have followed the links i sent you to.

    "Anyway, the point is the universe was created, it is not eternal"

    this is a false dichotomy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

    i agree that the universe is not eternal however i deny that it was created.

    "This rule doesn't apply to God who is eternal"

    i understand that, but then you must admit that your general guess (watchmaker principle) is just a general guess and does not allow you to conjure up non-existent beings to satisfy it.

    ReplyDelete