Is the God of the Torah good?

[Lillefix]

So if you compare eye-witnessing something vs reading it in a book (by whom actually?) - I'm sure you'd prefer the witnesses.

Absolutely. So where can I talk to these witnesses?

 

[civ2]

I'll just state the FINAL time:
Judaism is based on an uninterrupting tradition from father-to-son and/or from teacher-to-student.
That tradition actively dates back to the actual participants of the Sinai revelation at which there were some 3 million Jews present, who experienced G-d first-hand.
To boost this tradition, many prayers and similar stuff that reminds us of those events were incorporated in the everyday life of Jews.
Also, every Jewish holiday has a wide reminder of events of those days, usually connecting them to the generation of Sinai or at least mentioning it.
So, unless at some point in time ALL (and I do repeat, ALL) Jews "invented" Torah in the way it is now - the tradition is exactly what I say: the preserver of the past events in their TRUE form.
As of Hinduism, I did say that I see no EVENT there to be the SOURCE (beginning point) of tradition.
A BOOK is not such a point - unless maybe for Jedism.
I'm tired of repeating the above point to a crowd that fails to listen.
So, either prove me wrong (with actual facts, not insults like "primitive people" - who built PYRAMIDS, yeah???) or just actually give some thought to what I say.
Better first do the second though.

 

[Lillefix]

So, either prove me wrong (with actual facts, not insults like "primitive people" - who built PYRAMIDS, yeah???) or just actually give some thought to what I say.

BBC documentary in three parts on the historicity on the bible. I'll sum up the important parts: Moses didn't exists, Abraham didn't exist, David didn't exist,Exodus didn't exist and (a united)Israel didn't exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGXemCRNNH4

 

[Old Hippy]

the tradition is exactly what I say: the preserver of the past events in their TRUE form.
As of Hinduism, I did say that I see no EVENT there to be the SOURCE (beginning point) of tradition.
A BOOK is not such a point - unless maybe for Jedism.

OK.... putting Hinduism aside as their book(epic poem?) actually tells of pre-existing traditions/beliefs that are far older...

your arguments still support Buddhism, because at his death witness were present and the faith has been passed down ever since meeting your criteria

I not saying your beliefs are wrong .... only that your reason for them is actually quite common and is used by many different faiths as a proof of there correctness

So your argument actually supports my Buddhist understanding... in this context "the truth" becomes almost meaningless

 

[fishjie]

Let's see. He wiped out the entire human population via flood. He's ordered massive genocides of the canaanites. He hardened pharaoh's heart so that he could slaughter all their first born. He punished David's affair with Bathsheba by murdering their child (LOL). He punished David when he took a census by sending a plague on the innocent people (LOL). Achan was punished for his sin, but God slaughtered his children in addition. Dathan and Korah were punished for their rebellion, but so were their kids. He sent she baurs to maul little kids to death for killing Elisha a bald head.

The list goes on and on. But dude is a child killer and delights in it. Disgusting despicable character.

 

[civ2]

Not gonna repeat myself.
Also, archeology and paleontology are both too subjective to be decisive in such big-scale topics.

Simple question that no one ever answered me:
WHEN and WHO "invented" the Torah - and the ENTIRE Jewish nation took it for granted???
(Not those outdated "theories" of compilation - tell me EXACTLY who and when forced the entire nation to believe in its history the way it WASN'T, according to you.)
Tell me THAT - then we'll might discuss it.
All other stuff is bound to be "maybe"s.

 

[Old Hippy]

Not gonna repeat myself.
Also, archeology and paleontology are both too subjective to be decisive in such big-scale topics.

Simple question that no one ever answered me:
WHEN and WHO "invented" the Torah - and the ENTIRE Jewish nation took it for granted???
(Not those outdated "theories" of compilation - tell me EXACTLY who and when forced the entire nation to believe in its history the way it WASN'T, according to you.)
Tell me THAT - then we'll might discuss it.
All other stuff is bound to be "maybe"s.

well it dose not realy matter,"WHEN and WHO"... as all other faiths have also done the same thing, in their way with their religous scritures... your story might be unique (even true) but the process of it is not... its the same as a Buddist monk living close to Tibet and his scriptures

 

[Defiant47]

So, either prove me wrong

Very well.

Logical fallacy 1: appeal to historical tradition
The idea of a historical tradition lends little credence to an argument, especially one that attempts to prove something so extraordinary as a divine being. There are many historical traditions throughout the world that I'm assure you would agree are based on false premises.

Even the idea of the various religions effectively disproves the notion of such an appeal, since we have multiple historical traditions that contradict each other; therefore an appeal to historical tradition is NOT proof of truth.

Fact 1: people in the past believed wrong things
I could probably expand this to "people believe wrong things". Regardless, the fact is that people back in the ages when these stories started being passed down generations, believed numerous false things. For example, in the past, we've had humanity believe that the Earth is flat - yet that is demonstrably wrong.

As such, any claims by these "3 million Jews" that they "experienced God" is without basis. It is not credible, and definitely is NOT proof of the truth of the Torah.

Fact 2: stories passed down generations get modified
In school, we teach our children a little game. One child thinks of a message, and discretely whispers it to another child. The message gets passed down, and then the last child says the message out loud. It is invariably different from the original.

This is especially true of entire books such as the Bible, where a great deal of the contents is dependent on interpretation. The fact that the Torah has been passed down so many generations is an argument against the truth of the stories within.

Logical Fallacy 2: prophecy fulfillment
The realization of prophesies does not prove other facts that the person or book claims. Prophecies can become true because of vague and ambiguous wording (alongside a liberal interpretation), or even due to pure chance.

If I were to predict the weather for the next 5 days, and by random chance get it right, this does not mean that anything I speak of is the truth.

The existence and fulfillment of various "prophecies" within the Torah is meaningless, and is NOT proof of its truth.

Logical Fallacy 3: length of history
The length that a belief is held is not a measure of its truth. It wasn't until a few centuries ago that humanity realized that the Earth is not flat. However, for the majority of humanity's existence, it was believed that the Earth is flat. The fact that is was believed for so long (a belief passed down through generations) does not make it true.

The fact that the Torah is an extremely old religion does NOT prove that it is true.

Logical Fallacy 4: burden of proof
It is not necessary to disprove a claim; it is only necessary to show that the claim has insufficient proof. For example, if I were to claim "there are invisible unicorns on our planet", you would not be able to disprove that. You should not believe it as true just because you can't disprove it. We could easily construct statements that lack proof, prompting us to believe contradictory things simply because we cannot disprove either.

Therefore, the fact that the Bible or the Torah or the claim "there are invisible unicorns" cannot be disproved, does NOT prove that it is true, and in fact prompts us to disbelieve.

You can try to come up with a proof to justify your belief, but I am fairly confident that I can prove that it is an inadequate proof for justifying belief.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Since you make this last claim, I invite you and any one else to take this quiz, and address any apparent hits you and they receive: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php
Any true hit is a contradiction, which in my eyes would make your view point impossible. Similarly biting the bullet and claiming uncommon ideas to be true is a sign of error. However the quiz may be wrong.

I took the test and am a pretty hard core theist:

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Tasted fine to me.

What I was referring to - was the EVENT of Sinai revelation, with 3 million people PRESENT there.

3 million people standing shoulder to shoulder cover about 70 acres of flat land. Throw in animals, tents, food latrines etc., it would get much larger. Waste disposal would be a serious problem. How many gallons of urine and pounds of feces would be "dumped" every 24 hours? It seems like way too many people for the very severe conditions posed by the Sinai.

 

[civ2]

Logical fallacy 1: appeal to historical tradition
The idea of a historical tradition lends little credence to an argument, especially one that attempts to prove something so extraordinary as a divine being. There are many historical traditions throughout the world that I'm assure you would agree are based on false premises.
Well, I did say it was an event that involved lots of people vs other stories that involved just few.
The credence of thousands is far higher than dozens.

Even the idea of the various religions effectively disproves the notion of such an appeal, since we have multiple historical traditions that contradict each other; therefore an appeal to historical tradition is NOT proof of truth.
See above.

Fact 1: people in the past believed wrong things
I could probably expand this to "people believe wrong things". Regardless, the fact is that people back in the ages when these stories started being passed down generations, believed numerous false things. For example, in the past, we've had humanity believe that the Earth is flat - yet that is demonstrably wrong.
They still do.
Like yourself.

As such, any claims by these "3 million Jews" that they "experienced God" is without basis. It is not credible, and definitely is NOT proof of the truth of the Torah.
Suuure, like you WERE there to know.
Whereas my great...........grandpa/ma definitely WERE, and then told their children who..... who told me.
Yeah, you can always play the trump of "hallucinations" - regardless that it's millions of people and FORTY years (MANNA, people tend to forget about it; oh, and it WASN'T the way the "scientists" want it to be - the many details of it would NOT apply to a simple bush or whatever).

Fact 2: stories passed down generations get modified
In school, we teach our children a little game. One child thinks of a message, and discretely whispers it to another child. The message gets passed down, and then the last child says the message out loud. It is invariably different from the original.
Unless WRITTEN in a BOOK.
Exactly my point - double-checking by BOTH tradition AND books.

This is especially true of entire books such as the Bible, where a great deal of the contents is dependent on interpretation. The fact that the Torah has been passed down so many generations is an argument against the truth of the stories within.
Maybe so for Hinduism (just guessing, don't care much) - not so for the nation that held its scholars in highest esteem while most of the nation being learned at least to read it.
Simple example:
In the 1000s, Rashi wrote his commentary on the entire Torah - and stated he wrote it "for a FIVE-year-old"!!!
And he MEANT it.

Logical Fallacy 2: prophecy fulfillment
The realization of prophesies does not prove other facts that the person or book claims. Prophecies can become true because of vague and ambiguous wording (alongside a liberal interpretation), or even due to pure chance.
Maybe.
But some are too "big" to be just a "chance".
I won't delve in it now - maybe some time later.

If I were to predict the weather for the next 5 days, and by random chance get it right, this does not mean that anything I speak of is the truth.
What about next 500 years???
Again, see above.

The existence and fulfillment of various "prophecies" within the Torah is meaningless, and is NOT proof of its truth.
How atheistic indeed.
BRAVO!!!
"This can't be true cause I don't want it to be true."

Logical Fallacy 3: length of history
The length that a belief is held is not a measure of its truth. It wasn't until a few centuries ago that humanity realized that the Earth is not flat. However, for the majority of humanity's existence, it was believed that the Earth is flat. The fact that is was believed for so long (a belief passed down through generations) does not make it true.
OK, I see people can't READ what I write:
EVENT. WITNESSES. TRADITION.
How is that compared to Earth being flat or not???

The fact that the Torah is an extremely old religion does NOT prove that it is true.
Not my main point anyways.

Logical Fallacy 4: burden of proof
It is not necessary to disprove a claim; it is only necessary to show that the claim has insufficient proof. For example, if I were to claim "there are invisible unicorns on our planet", you would not be able to disprove that. You should not believe it as true just because you can't disprove it. We could easily construct statements that lack proof, prompting us to believe contradictory things simply because we cannot disprove either.
I don't need to prove it to MYSELF.
Neither did my parents, their parents..... back to the very EVENT which you DISREGARD.
WHATEVER.

Therefore, the fact that the Bible or the Torah or the claim "there are invisible unicorns" cannot be disproved, does NOT prove that it is true, and in fact prompts us to disbelieve.
Well, I actually PROVE it by saying that IGNORED thing about tradition.
But I see, I speak to a wall.
A very self-confident wall to begin with.
WHATEVER.

 

[Ajidica]

You know, there is such a thing as a quote function. You can use it by going

(the text you are responding to)[/_quote]. (without the _ between [/ and quote obviously). It would make it much easier to understand what exactly you are responding to and makes your posts easier to read.

 

[civ2]

You know, there is such a thing as a quote function. You can use it by going quote(the text you are responding to)/_quote. (without the _ between / and quote obviously). It would make it much easier to understand what exactly you are responding to and makes your posts easier to read.

Which I do, unless there are dozens of text pieces I have to QUOTE separately.
And I did make it obvious by bolding the text.
So your claim is just pretexts.
Sorry.

 

[Defiant47]

Well, I did say it was an event that involved lots of people vs other stories that involved just few.
The credence of thousands is far higher than dozens.

See Fact 1.

If I invent a story that involves 3 billion people believing in invisible unicorns and get a bunch of my friends to believe it, does that mean that my story is more credible than yours? Mine has 3 billion people, yours only has 3 million.

Even the idea of the various religions effectively disproves the notion of such an appeal, since we have multiple historical traditions that contradict each other; therefore an appeal to historical tradition is NOT proof of truth.

See above.

You did not address the point. When you say "the Torah and my religion are true because of this reason, and this reason, and this reason, and historical tradition", you now cannot say "historical tradition" anymore.

If you or anyone uses "historical tradition" as a basis for belief, then they would be forced to believe contradictory things. For example "Judaism is the one and only true faith" and "Hinduism is the one and only true faith".

Therefore, believing in something because of historical tradition is wrong.

Fact 1: people in the past believed wrong things
I could probably expand this to "people believe wrong things". Regardless, the fact is that people back in the ages when these stories started being passed down generations, believed numerous false things. For example, in the past, we've had humanity believe that the Earth is flat - yet that is demonstrably wrong.

They still do.

Therefore, if those 3 million people even existed, and it isn't just a made-up story thousands of years ago, then they still could have believed the wrong thing.

You could be believing the wrong thing right now because you have faith in primitive, flawed humans.

When you say "the Torah and my religion are true because of this reason, and this reason, and this reason, and 3 million believed it", you now cannot say "3 million believed it" anymore. Because that fact is meaningless. If you were to believe it, then you would also have to believe a lot of wrong things, like the idea that the Earth is flat.

Therefore, believing in something because a large number of people in the past believed it, is wrong.

As such, any claims by these "3 million Jews" that they "experienced God" is without basis. It is not credible, and definitely is NOT proof of the truth of the Torah.

Suuure, like you WERE there to know.

Were you?

Whereas my great...........grandpa/ma definitely WERE, and then told their children who..... who told me.

How do you know that? You have no proof that they "definitely were". And the proof you present is wrong.

Yeah, you can always play the trump of "hallucinations" - regardless that it's millions of people and FORTY years (MANNA, people tend to forget about it; oh, and it WASN'T the way the "scientists" want it to be - the many details of it would NOT apply to a simple bush or whatever).

The fact that it's millions of people is irrelevant. If you use that as justification, you are wrong. See Fact 1 and Logical Fallacy 1.

Unless WRITTEN in a BOOK.
Exactly my point - double-checking by BOTH tradition AND books.

You are very naive if you believe that books cannot be falsified or misinterpreted.

The book also has to be true in the first place, of which you have no proof.

Maybe so for Hinduism (just guessing, don't care much) - not so for the nation that held its scholars in highest esteem while most of the nation being learned at least to read it.

A) You can't prove that the book was correct in the first place
B) You can't prove that the book wasn't modified throughout the process

Maybe.
But some are too "big" to be just a "chance".

Unless the illusion of "big" is simply a delusion created by vague and ambiguous wording.

If I were to predict the weather for the next 5 days, and by random chance get it right, this does not mean that anything I speak of is the truth.

What about next 500 years???

The Torah does not predict every event that has happened over the last 500 years. With ambiguous wording it can be interpreted to have predicted a few select events out of millions.

Let me rephrase my question then. If I predict the weather that will happen in 500 years, the weather that will happen in 1000, and the weather that will happen in 1500 years, get lucky and get all 3 right, does that mean that everything that I write in my book of prophecy is correct?

"This can't be true cause I don't want it to be true."

Wrong. This can't be true because if you use the same logic to justify that it is true on other things, you will get things that are false.

If your proof says that obviously false things are true, then your proof is wrong.

EVENT. WITNESSES. TRADITION.

Event: See Fact 1.
Witnesses: See Fact 1.
Tradition: See Logical Fallacy 1.

If you believe that these things can be used to justify your belief in the Torah, then you are forced to also believe other things that are actually false.

For example, if you justify the Torah based on tradition, then you also have to believe in Hinduism.

How is that compared to Earth being flat or not???

I am using the notion of "the Earth is flat" to provide an obviously false statement.

If you use your belief system, you could justify false statements such as "the Earth is flat". Therefore, your belief system is wrong.

The fact that the Torah is an extremely old religion does NOT prove that it is true.

Not my main point anyways.

It is not a justifiable point at all.

Logical Fallacy 4: burden of proof
It is not necessary to disprove a claim; it is only necessary to show that the claim has insufficient proof. For example, if I were to claim "there are invisible unicorns on our planet", you would not be able to disprove that. You should not believe it as true just because you can't disprove it. We could easily construct statements that lack proof, prompting us to believe contradictory things simply because we cannot disprove either.

I don't need to prove it to MYSELF.

You need to prove things in order to believe them. Perhaps you are OK with believing false things. Then you are right, you don't need to prove it to yourself. But to others, you need to prove it.

Neither did my parents, their parents..... back to the very EVENT which you DISREGARD.

I do not disregard the event. I simply claim that the logic used to justify believing the event as true, could also be used to believe things that are false. Therefore, the logic is wrong, and you should not believe the event until you have a better reason. (Unless you are OK with believing false things)

Therefore, the fact that the Bible or the Torah or the claim "there are invisible unicorns" cannot be disproved, does NOT prove that it is true, and in fact prompts us to disbelieve.

Well, I actually PROVE it by saying that IGNORED thing about tradition.

I already disproved the tradition fallacy. See Logical Fallacy 1.

If you can prove it by tradition, then you have also proved Hinduism. You are now forced to believe in Judaism as the one and only true faith, and believe in Hinduism as the one and only true faith.

Since this obviously makes no sense, your proof is wrong.

 

[civ2]

Defiant
You proved only ONE thing - your own nick.
Cause all your "proofs" are either "I don't know, so you CAN'T know" or "maybe this, maybe that, therefore you're wrong".
I'm too tired/lazy/smart to continue this pointless tennis match of "proofs".
Let's just leave it like that.
Be proud of your defying ability - you have a skill high enough to simply tire anyone.
Well, I'm not gonna wait until that - I'll just quit now.
Byebye.

(I'm not leaving the thread - I'm leaving this branch of discussion.)

 

[Defiant47]

Let me simplify it down for you.

The reason I believe the Torah is this.

If this reason can also be used to justify things that are wrong, then your reason is wrong, and your belief is wrong (until you find an actually good reason).

As it stands, every reason you have presented to justify believing in the Torah can be used to justify believing in things that are wrong, such as "the Earth is flat". [if you do not see a problem with this, then we really are done this discussion]

Therefore, your reasons are wrong (because how do you know you got it right this time), and you have no reason to believe until you find better reasons.

If you have no reason to believe, you should disbelieve. Because if you don't, again, you could be believing wrong things.

 

[Old Hippy]

(I'm not leaving the thread - I'm leaving this branch of discussion.)

that's probably for the greater good... I might start believing in Hinduism if you kept supporting "tradition" as proof...

 

[civ2]

Defiant
Thing is, I don't know of ANY wrong traditions that are based on millions of people witnessing something and then passing it down to their children and/or students for generations.
Either it's not wrong - or it's not millions of people - or it's not a direct tradition held by their direct successors/descendants.
Constitution is an example of a RIGHT "tradition", even if you could say that it started as being known by few - but it was publicized for everyone, that's its purpose to begin with.
Whereas most religions (if they ARE based on tradition, not all are) are based on the testimony of only FEW people, the rest are left to BELIEVE what those first told them.
All this is not so with Judaism and Torah.
So you are wrong in what you say now.
But, sorry, I just said I should drop the case...

Graffito
What that has to do with me?

 

[Old Hippy]

Graffito
What that has to do with me?

you might win the argument, accepting that, i would have no reason not to become a Hindu....

 

[civ2]

I meant - why would _I_ care???
That teasing is pretty pointless, dude.

 

[Old Hippy]

I meant - why would _I_ care???
That teasing is pretty pointless, dude.

but you asked "what has that got to do with me"