I appreciate the honesty, but I don’t appreciate the position.

What are the chances that you would hold your beliefs if you had been born into a different family, in a different country, in a different society? You just happened to be exposed at a young age to a certain approach. Is that a reason to hold onto it your whole life? It turns out that the long books you wrote are nothing more than an attempt to hit targets that were set in advance—not by you, but by your kindergarten teacher.

Hello Daniel. Here you are raising, one after another, worn-out (and mistaken) questions that have been answered more than once on the site.
I’ll ask you again: what are the chances that I would know the theory of relativity if I hadn’t studied it in the physics department? Is that a reason to abandon the knowledge I acquired there, or to regard it as something subjective and non-binding? What are the chances that a secular person would remain secular if he had been born into a religious family? So by your reasoning, secularity too is just environmental construction. If so, we are left once again with the question of who is right and what the truth is.
All a person can do is examine his positions and hear other positions, and then form a view. And indeed, it is true that when he examines things, he has biases and a priori assumptions that he brings with him into the discussion. So this is no guarantee that he will not err (in science too, you spoke about confirmation, not proof, remember?), but it is the most and the best he can do. Therefore I present arguments in favor of my positions to the best of my understanding. If someone disagrees with them, he is welcome to explain why, with a substantive argument addressing the matter itself. To claim that these arguments are incorrect because I was born into a religious home is a pitiful ad hominem argument, aimed at the person rather than the issue. The convenient refuge of the desperate atheist.
By the way, ever since Kant we have known that people usually raise reasons and arguments that justify their a priori positions (I have often called this in the past a “theological” argument, as opposed to a “philosophical” one, though not in the usual sense*). That is human nature, and it is not necessarily illegitimate. See my fourth notebook on this, or my book The First Being.

What about going back in time to the period of the revelation at Mount Sinai? If that were possible, one could see whether the Torah was really given or not.

Or special glasses with which you could see God, and then check whether He exists.

There are several things that will cause a believer to take off his kippah: a shower, immersion in a mikveh, and a haircut!

Tested and proven!

Best regards, Barber Shauer

It’s just that seeing God is impossible, and in fact He is also not clearly defined. Time travel may be possible, at least theoretically (after all, we are talking about travel in an additional dimension). If that is indeed possible, then it would put all religions to the test of refutation.

Rabbi, if I’m not mistaken, didn’t you state in the first book that if someone refuted your proof regarding the revelation at Mount Sinai, you would “take off the kippah,” no?

I don’t have a proof. If they convince me that it didn’t happen.