About God, and reward and punishment

Rabbi, it's hard for me to understand how you can base something so big and significant on Occam's razor. A big claim requires big proof.
That's right. The whole argument is proof that the world is indeed fair.

All science is based on Occam's razor. Big enough for you, or does that mean you get it too?
And besides, there are several gods. So what?

A. Science proves reality while you try to prove the transition. And besides, there are rare times when science has not discovered in the end that it was wrong and changed its explanation. A scientist does not need to know that he is facing the law of gravity while you and I need to know who we are facing (during prayer and in general).
B. It's a complete heresy, but everything is fine.
C. To clarify – does the Rabbi indeed agree that the argument proves that the world is fair?

What does it matter? Either you accept the razor principle or you don't. And by the way, God exists in reality.
The argument doesn't even pretend to prove that the world is fair. It assumes that
Okay, I suggest we end the discussion. I find it pointless.

Rabbi, I would just like one last clarification: Where did the argument assume that the world is fair? Is there some hidden assumption that I am not paying attention to? In the second assumption, I was talking about a hypothetical world that is unjust.

A second assumption is that a world without justice deserves destruction (an assumption that itself is not entirely clear to me). That is, you assume that the business is conducted ethically.
Beyond that, the conclusion really doesn't follow from the assumptions. How is there justice in the world? Because it's not destroyed? So we're back to the assumption that the matter is being handled fairly.
But this. Please don't pull my tongue again. This is really a completely unnecessary discussion.

The rabbi says just one last thing, then you decide whether to answer or not.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying:
Mother I Would I destroy the world? Of course not. How is it obvious not? From morality, just as it is obvious not to murder
Mother I Would I destroy an unfair world? Of course I would.
That's why I know the world is fair, not because it isn't destroyed - but because I wouldn't destroy it.

I saw that the Rabbi wrote here on the site that he doesn't know if there is reward and punishment. I wanted to ask what the Rabbi says about dividing offenses between a person and another person for which there is a punishment [He will send me down to the world again if there is trouble] because it is understandable, after all, I have hurt someone, but for offenses between a person and a place there is no punishment because he is not a person and I cannot hurt him, and therefore there is no reason to assume that he will punish us for this. And regarding reward, there is no reason to assume that it is possible, as the Rabbi explains, that he created us as slaves to serve him for a spiritual purpose by fulfilling mitzvot and nothing more.

I ask the Rabbi because it bothers me many times what is the point of giving a punishment if I haven't offended God. At most, it seems to me that if I didn't do my duties, He will bring me down to earth again so that I can complete the purpose for which I was destined.

I have no idea.

I saw that the source of the reward in the next world is the same as in the kiddushin that the rabbi asks, "Is it written for the sake of prolonging your days?" regarding honoring your parents? The rabbi brings a story from someone who honored them and died, and therefore she comes to the conclusion that it is a reward in the next world, according to the rabbi, who claims that it is doubtful whether there is a reward in the next world. How do you explain the promise of the verses? [There is apparently evidence here, according to the rabbi, that even our rabbis did not say facts from the Holy Spirit, but rather by virtue of evidence from verses and their context.]

This should be extended to Toba. Indeed, it seems that the Gemara learns this from observing the world and from its explanation. But it does not have to go as far as honoring parents. Such a consideration exists with respect to every injustice in the world (righteous and evil). It is more likely that this is just further reference or confirmation of an existing tradition or an existing explanation.
The promise of the verses can be explained in several ways, and building a new conclusion on verses is really not the most reliable thing. It is also written an eye for an eye and it is written until I come to the Lord with a hair's breadth, and more. Here are some suggestions:
1. A quality right-hander. Have a good day.
2. They will prolong your life as a public. A public that respects parents has a longer life expectancy (not necessarily one that respects itself). Due to evolutionary altruism.
3. Your life will generally be prolonged, unless there is another reason that contradicts this (such as the well-known explanation of the Rabbis about the caution in the Havdalah about the cup that gave him male sons). That is, honoring parents leads to longevity, but if there is another reason to shorten one's life (for example, that his father was not careful with his vows), then they can be shortened.
And so on and so forth.
All of this, of course, calls into question the very evidence that the Gemara presents, and indeed it is very weak evidence. Wart. It seems that someone today draws such a renewed theological conclusion from observing a single case. It is written in the Torah that the king shall not multiply wives for himself and his heart shall not turn away. There is a king who has many wives and his heart shall not turn away. Therefore the prohibition is invalid or the explanation is incorrect, etc. Just look at how my conclusions regarding providence that are obtained from observing the conduct of the world and science in general (and not just a single case), and you will understand how hasty and not serious this conclusion of the Gemara is. A legend.
Therefore, in general, when there is no evidence from verses and no clear tradition from Sinai, then even if there is a logical consideration in favor of the Avva, it is at most a logical consideration with a speculative conclusion. Is this conclusion correct or not? I have no idea. Maybe so, but I would not base on it principles of faith and concepts of heresy and firm certainty as is usually heard in relation to these perceptions. I have written more than once that it also seems logical to me that there is some continuation, but such a consideration can create at most possible speculation and certainly not absolute truth or a binding principle of faith.

In fact, your method is very similar to the Sadducean method, as explained in Josephus, who describes the Sadducees thus: "But according to the teaching of the Sadducees, the soul disappears along with the body, and their main aspiration for the world is nothing but the observance of the laws; for to disagree with the teachers of wisdom, which they follow, is considered good learning in their eyes. This Torah has reached (only) a few people, although to the foremost, but they do nothing (according to it), if it is possible to say (so). For when they come to power, they act unconsciously and even forcibly according to what the Pharisees say, otherwise the masses would not tolerate them." What does the Rabbi think of them? Were they just a party or an organized system?

I didn't write any position here, so I don't understand how you compare my position to anything.
I have no opinion about them. I don't know them.

In general, the description I gave of the Sadducees very much describes the Rabbi's thinking, such as keeping the laws and also disagreeing with the teachers of wisdom, and in our case, they denied the permanence of the soul, etc. They thought with reason, as the Rabbi does regarding everything, including the Messiah, and yet the Sages excommunicated them and wrote about them that they had deviated from the Torah. Why does it not matter to the Rabbi to reconcile this with the Rabbi's worldview? The Sages had a stronger intuition [as explained in your book, "Walking Among the Standing Ones"]

I don't understand what the question is. If they say like me, then I think they're right. Surprising? The question of whether they really say like me or not is a question that should be discussed in its entirety from each aspect separately, but it doesn't really interest me. Especially regarding issues on which I haven't expressed an opinion (like pay and punishment or the Attorney General's Office).
You ask why I'm not excited about the fact that the Sages opposed my views (identity with the Sadducees?)? Again, I don't understand this strange question. I have my own position based on various arguments, and I don't reject it because of ad hominem (reference to an authority or some person) but rather based on arguments. Furthermore, to say that the Sages opposed my views, you need to be specific about exactly which view you're talking about, and not a general statement that it's like the Sadducees and the Sages opposed the Sadducees. This is not a serious discussion, and as far as I'm concerned, it's completely exhausted.

Now I found Yerushalmi 18:2, whose words supposedly can be proven as the words of the Rabbi regarding reward in the world to come, and the late Rabbi Abbahu, who is your blood, Evron, Kumi 13, Naharin, Dafersmon, said, "Lun, all Ilin, to whom?" They said to him, "Your father said, Lun, all Ilin, Daberhu, and I said, "I am tired of it." Apparently, from the simplicity of the words, it seems that Rabbi Abbahu did not think that there is a reward, but that this is how God said it and that is how it should be done.

It's good to pepper this, and that's it.

Does the rabbi perhaps know of books by scholars or rabbis on the subject? Is there such a thing as Jewish philosophy [or is it all taken from their environment]?

not

Why does the Rabbi write about reward and punishment that he does not know, and about other things that the Rabbi writes that follow common sense, such as in your first book, you wrote that common sense is that there is a cause and effect, and there is no reason why we should not say this about God, even though it is an entity with which we have no experience? The Rabbi has an opinion on the matter, and also regarding the meaning of the commandments. The Rabbi explains that it concerns spiritual matters, even though the Rabbi has no knowledge of what happens above, from island to island.

I didn't understand the question. When there is a logical consideration, I definitely take it into account. It doesn't make the conclusion knowledge, but rather something that is proven.

Why doesn't the Rabbi make some kind of analogy of reward and punishment from our world [the court] regarding God?