Basic questions about faith in God (before and after the proofs)

In my opinion, a God who does not allow for the proof of His existence in an absolute and clear manner is not perfect. This is a strong fear that undermines His very existence.
Under no circumstances will I give my life in the army that defends a country and a people from an enemy, when I am not absolutely sure and without any doubt that there is a country, and there is a people, that are mine and that it is appropriate to give my life for them.

Even regarding the correctness of a certain military operation – it was necessary for the soldiers to agree and understand the correctness of the operation and its vital need, but for reasons of government and society, the good of society is (and in any case its consent) to trust the decisions of policymakers who were authorized to do so by the majority. This is also not agreed upon, but understood by many. In any case, even from this perspective and in terms of battle, when I give myself to God I need absolute certainty, more than that derived from social conventions due to necessity, and especially when God is supposed to be able to prove this to me, which is prevented from every commander and ruler who sends his soldiers into battle.

Regarding simple intuition (I saw what you write about it in the notebooks, and still – ) whoever takes opium and feels good – is blessed. I even envy him, I wish I had.
But – as long as he does not know this absolutely but only from an inner or subconscious feeling or he ‘simply knows’ without really seeing it in his consciousness or thought, I treat his intuition as a mere imagination.
Does it make sense to surrender a soul based on intuition??? Does it make sense to behead a son based on intuition??? Does it make sense to kill another Jew who violates the Sabbath because he was unable to draw the very complex logical and philosophical conclusions and did not even receive that intuitive revelation???
And in general, for some reason, this intuition is usually found in those born to a Jewish mother (especially if she believes...) and not in billions of others, many of whom have a simple and clear intuition that one of the thousands of other gods is God.
I feel sorry for the God whose believers believe in him intuitively.

You wrote several times in your words about the assumptions I make and about the ‘burden of proof’.
I will respond to this:
He who claims to have a God and demands total devotion from me must prove his reality. The burden of proof is on him no matter what.
It is audacity to assume that there is a God or even to prove it to a certain and not absolute level, to assume that I am obligated to believe in it and therefore to be obligated to his commandments to the point of self-sacrifice and killing those who do not believe and transgress his will, and to determine that if I fail to understand this, it is neither intuitive nor logical – The burden of proof is on me in establishing the demand for proof.
I really think so. And I know that many, many more think so. And many more disbelieve in Him and have put their doubts behind them because of this. And many of these would very much like to believe in Him if only the Lord of the universe would reveal himself to them, but He does not open a window and throws the burden of proof on the shoulders of faith that are too lazy to seek Him.
If He existed, He would know that the people He created were created as those who make assumptions and seek certain proofs, and He provides what is needed to reassure their minds and adhere to their faith in Him.

The aforementioned assumptions and the demand for proofs are not excessive. They are the result of common sense (the thinking of a normal thinking person and what is found = common sense), and I think you would be sinning against the truth if you too did not assume this before the many philosophies.
If the answer to the assumptions of logical, accepted, and normative assumptions is that their difficulties are pressing (and are nothing more than excuses, as is well known) alongside the demand to bear the burden, this is not a sufficient divine answer for me.

P.S.
These words are written not in a sardonic way, but out of the pain of faith and the groaning of the heart.
I mourn for the God who has been lost from me and for the faith that has died within me.
Who will give me the eastern moon and illuminate my eyes from my heart, or at least the chambers of my heart with the light of faith?
From those depths the cry rises.

Hi Daniel, good evening!
Since I too am struggling with these kinds of questions, I would be happy to get in touch if you are interested.

There is a logical error here. A God who does not allow certainty about his existence is not perfect because you assume that he would like to give us certainty and is unable to. This is a logical error for religious reasons: 1. If he does not want to give us certainty for some reason, then there is no incompleteness here, but only a way of thinking that you do not understand. 2. Even if he cannot give us certainty, this does not necessarily indicate a drawback. There are logical obstacles to which he is also subject (he cannot make a round triangle). I have written about this several times here.
And it is not at all clear to me what the reason is that bothers you. Do you get along with the fact that he created a world full of suffering and evil? Is uncertainty the only drawback you find in the world? It really makes me laugh.
I think that first of all you need to examine yourself in one of two ways:
A. If you have good evidence for his existence, then these difficulties seem weak and unimportant to me. They certainly do not make good arguments. The fact that you do not understand how God works is because He does not belong to your world and there is no reason for you to understand.
B. On the other hand, if you do not have evidence for His existence, then do not believe in Him, regardless of these difficulties.

I do not know if you were in the army and what you do, but if you do not act in a place where you are not sure, you do not have much to do in the world.

You are talking about an inner or subconscious feeling as the basis for belief. I am talking about strong evidence. Now we must return to the two options I described above (do you have arguments or not). This is the meaning of my words about the burden of proof. If you do not believe, then you do not believe and there is no need to resort to these dubious difficulties to justify it.

The fact that this intuition happens to be found in Jews does not explain anything. I have explained this several times. See, for example, column 294 and more.

See my words at the beginning of the discussion on Anselm, where I explained the meaning of the initial intuition and its role in relation to logical arguments. There is nothing wrong with arguments coming from a first intuition. In fact, it is always so.

Do not identify my words here with the conventional preaching that tells a person that his questions are answers and not questions. I did not write that and I do not usually speak that way. What I said was that your particular difficulties seem to me very weak, and they cannot justify abandoning the faith unless you do not have it in the first place.

In my opinion, if you think carefully about what I wrote and do not insist, you will realize that there is no real difficulty here. I encounter quite a few difficulties in faith, some better and some less. These really belong to those who are less.

Thank you for your response.
In the vast sea of your rich website, I don't know if this is the place for this discussion. If you direct me to another place – I will write there. In the meantime, I am here.

To your question: Right now I don't believe. At all. In anything.
But, I want to believe. Why? Maybe because I have the 'crazy' that Rabbi Chaim of Valais spoke of, maybe I miss the wonderful religious experiences that cannot be experienced without faith, or maybe for other reasons.

I started from Genesis, proving the reality of the Creator, when the plan was to continue afterwards to prove the existence of Mount Sinai and the Torah from heaven, the inhabitants of the land, the people of Israel, the 13 principles, the laws of the sages, etc., etc.
And I can't even reconcile in my heart or in my logic the beginning, the very reality of the Creator.
I know my first words on the subject (I have answered many and I answer wrongly with the force of their regular teaching in my mouth and delivered to eager audiences), also the proofs that do not originate in the Holy Scriptures, but also the rejections of all of them.
I still do not despair of asking and searching, lest perhaps I may receive the fulfillment of the promise ‘Then you will understand the fear of the Lord’ and the knowledge of God will be found’. I have searched and found none, and indeed I do not believe.

The best conclusion I have managed to reach is that I will probably not succeed in reaching absolute proof by human means. I was glad to see you fair and honest and writing this as a preface to your notebooks. In other wells I found this admission only in the depths, after I had reached many times to get every drop out of them.
I know many questions in faith in their stages and levels (yes, even the question of good and evil in the world), and I know religious and philosophical answers to all of them. After all, among my people I sit and stand, in a place and position and for a time that is necessary to know all of this. Knowing that it is possible to discuss anything, it is fascinating and even full of wisdom, and even a vision for the time. But – I cannot find absolute proof.

If it were a question of other matters that do not concern a real entity and in any case my commitment and total enslavement with all my body and soul, at all times, in this and the future, my decision-making method would probably be different.
But this is not just a question of deciding on matters of study, work, residence, marriage, family, investment, etc., which, although they can sometimes have a critical impact, I understand and know that part of life is reaching decisions on important matters and acting on them, even if the level of certainty that led to that decision is not absolute. (At this stage of the discussion, I don't mind including in this list things that concern life and death, such as the army, etc., examples that you provided above. Although I personally would need absolute certainty about the justice of the goal, since I refuse to say that it is "good to die for.", but let's leave that for another discussion. Incidentally, the insight that "if you don't act in a place where you are not sure, you don't have much to do in the world" is not a theoretical Gothic insight concerning the nido.) In such matters, I would see no flaw in the fact that logical arguments are based on a primary intuition that is not proven, but even this on the condition that any conclusion that arises from this does not require forcing the conclusion on someone who lacks this basic intuition, certainly not denying his freedom and killing him based on the conclusion of the intuitive philosopher. As mentioned, I myself would not commit myself completely and enslave my body and soul to the conclusion that arises from such arguments, but that is a personal decision.

But knowing God and the one who is born from it is not at all like all of these:
First, because it is much more binding than any other decision. When God wants me to commit myself to Him totally, forever, to the point of sacrificing my own life and even killing another for His sake, He will please and present Himself without leaving any room for doubt in the one committing. If He then disappears from me and leaves me full of questions about His ways of conduct – I can probably deal with that, because I have known Him up to this point. But first of all – He will prove to me His reality. (And here I will repeat the question I already wrote in the previous correspondence – how can one accept and agree to the killing of another who does not believe only by virtue of the faith of the first who commands him to kill his neighbor? What kind of logic would agree to obey a God who is not proven with certainty when he commands to slaughter one's son or anyone else???. Even less than that, in corporal punishments such as whipping, there is no punishment from the law and according to many the reason is because it is possible that it will be found to be a sin, God and so on regarding the Nidūd).
Secondly, the very statement that He does not want or cannot give us certainty about His existence fundamentally undermines His existence as one that requires total submission to Him as stated.

The statement that His thoughts are not my thoughts and that there are things that cannot be understood, I will accept only after I know and understand with my own mind that there is a God. Then – in his hands I will entrust my spirit, thoughts and understandings. It is impossible to begin the process, the proof of God, by saying that I will not be able to understand. This is an argument that is not accepted by me.
For the same reason, I will not accept the excuse of a logical obstacle. After he proves that there is one, I may not care if he encounters technical or logical difficulties in turning a triangle into a circle. But I will not accept a logical obstacle in the first element – its very existence.

And by the way: Look, I don't see myself in the Smart Question competition, and presenting the questions that bother me as funny, dubious, very weak and less good difficulties will not remove them from my mind and will not bring me to faith (by the way, this is the way some Israeli communities deal with questions of faith at any level, as is well known. With those who seek my advice and answers, I make sure to act in a way that respects their hardships and struggles, unless their intention is to tease and mock, and I have already made it clear that I really do not come from such a place here).
And more: According to the laws of the Torah, the obligation and mitzvah to believe also falls on me, the one with the weakest and least good questions, as well as on every 13-year-old boy throughout the world, Jew or Gentile. Is this possible? (And in plain language: Does God only know how to deal with the difficult questions and not the less good ones? …).

I will once again express my gratitude for dedicating my time.

How old are you, Daniel?

What do you say about free will? There is a system of belief that the Rabbi doesn't like that much and I thought I had renewed it until I saw none other than debater Ben Shapiro say it and another one.

K,
I would be happy for an explanation or reference to anything that would bring me to faith.

So answer Mr. Daniel.

What to answer, to the question what is my opinion on free will? Why is it relevant to the subject? This is a huge topic that stands on its own. If it is relevant in any way – direct me there.

Daniel,
The things you write touch the heart and to a somewhat lesser extent (in my humble opinion) the intellect. I will tell you something from my experience regarding the abyss of faith that I have encountered (and have encountered) in my life. And perhaps, even this is highly doubtful, it could be a certain solution for you. For me, it is at least a partial solution.
I would suggest that you be strict and at the same time be lenient regarding belief in the existence of God.
To be strict is to try to accept that the question of His existence is first and foremost a rational question in which it is possible to present a reasonable and reasoned argument (in my opinion, Michi does this not badly at all) and to compare this with the alternative. The alternatives that arise from your words are not reasonable in my opinion, and this is precisely the critical question.
To be lenient means to give up a little on the historical biblical God (a personal, “living” God) and to seek first of all a “natural religion” one that is less institutionalized and less tied to a concrete tradition. God as the object prior to the subject and living God. I am of course not talking about abandoning religious life, if indeed you are really a dos, but I certainly see value in intellectually and ”spiritually” distancing yourself from the Jewish mind.
I don't know if I managed to say something sensible this time.

It's related,
but I'd love to know your age
and I think I've found two other common methods in America that link the questions.

I won't try to force it. Too bad 😉

Doron,
Thanks for the response.
I won't believe because there is no alternative. There are many unresolved questions in the world.
Indeed, I miss the innocent and sincere faith, and I would love to return there, but only if I truly believe in it.

K,
You intrigued me.
I am in my late fifties.
Regarding free choice, I am familiar with many concepts (Jewish and other), from determinism to perfect free choice in everything.
As a believer, I was close to Rabbi Dessler's teaching on the subject, in my opinion it has a heart-warming combination of determinism with a choice that allows for experience and reward and punishment, and it fit in with my Torah knowledge.
As of today, I have no opinion on the subject. I don't really have an issue with it, and apparently the main issue is about personal responsibility (civil and criminal), and perhaps this has an impact on the way children are educated and the philosophy behind it. Since I am not a legislator or a criminal lawyer, and I have already congratulated the last Baruch Shapatrani, I am listening and waiting on the matter, but I still don't see the need to express a definitive opinion, if there is one at all.

Daniel,
Maybe I didn't phrase it well.
In my opinion, belief in the God of natural religion is forced upon us. As soon as we try to give more concrete cognitive content, the debates begin about which content is more relevant to that intuitive belief. Here, what seems right to me is to understand what, in your opinion, is the successful expression of that belief. For me, this cognitive and intellectual move – based on intuition – has tremendous existential and emotional significance. I found what seemed right to me, that is, which alternative is the least bad, and from there I moved forward.
In no way am I saying that ”I saw the light ” or that faith is an effective support for me in everyday life. It is not. But this is the most I have managed to achieve at the moment.
If it is not good enough for you, then no. Legitimate.

Okay, so then,
There is the cosmological view, which assumes that something exists as a primary cause.
Because it is primary, it has teleological capacity.
{NB We only know of two factors that constitute such a capacity - free choice or randomness}
Also, the primary cause has the capacity to cause the current situation. Otherwise it would not be able to explain it. {This turns out to be part of the definition}

Now, if we assume that the current situation is dualism (and of course it depends on which subtype, but for most dualists they talk about types for which the argument remains).
Then there is a primary cause that has the capacity to bring about the creation of consciousness.
{Add to that the primary cause is teleological in nature, and there is free choice can be a great explanation here and even better than randomness.}
Since we know that consciousness can affect matter, it will be easy for us to assume that the primary cause is consciousness.
For example.

It will also be possible to create a cosmological view of consciousness, you need a primary consciousness to create consciousness.

But the assumption of dualism nowadays is often linked to another assumption regarding free choice (which, according to what you wrote, you believe in, it is enough for me that during your life you had a choice once. Then you don't think everything is materialistic anyway).
{Also, even if there is no choice, then it is possible that there is dualism only of a different subtype, but here they will usually try to explain it in materialism, although it is not at all clear that it is particularly successful}.
Therefore, in order to be a dualist, you can read extensively in the book The Science of Freedom.

Here Shapiro added another Kneitsch, but I think I explained the beginning much better than him 🙂

Please consider the argument and then we will see in which direction to continue.

It would help me if you spoke in more understandable language.
Many things have been said against the cosmological argument and the teleological argument, and I have already come to the conclusion that they do not lead me to an absolute proof that cannot be refuted at all.
Where did you get the idea from me that I believe in free will? In any case, I have no opinion on it as of today, and I don't mind saying anything about it, as long as it doesn't oblige me. If it does oblige me in something, I will have to resort to proving that understanding.
I did not understand what you wrote about consciousness.

In general, it would help me if you spoke in more understandable language. Speaking in the form of codes and titles is difficult to understand, and in a fundamental matter like faith, perfect understanding is not a luxury and a privilege.

No no no, I meant a teleological factor (known in Hebrew as a purposive factor) and not the teleological argument.
Suppose there is: reason1(“God”)←reason2←reason3←reason4←our world.
We ask what is the cause of our world? Reason 4. But what is the cause of 4? So they say that 3 caused it, but what caused 3-? 2! And what about 2-? 1. And what caused one.
So you say no, nothing caused one. It is something different from the chain of causes that followed it.
But how can that be? First it causes regression and therefore you conclude that it is another cause. But anyway, there is no problem because one is a causer of causes.
For the most part, the deterministic world can be seen as billiard balls, if you see a billiard ball in motion, then either each ball moves because of a previous ball that hit it (this is Steinitz's analogy to Newton, who saw matter as billiard balls).
Or another possibility is something outside the field that creates a causal chain. Let's say the person with the stick who performed a deliberate action.
If so,
something that creates a causal chain can be one of three possibilities {maybe more, but that's a question for Rabbi Michi, in any case we have no knowledge of anything else}.
1. Randomness – something that creates a process and is not caused by a previous cause. 2. Free choice – what is also called purpose, voluntary factor ← etc.

{3. Theoretically, it was once believed that matter is essentially purposeful, let's say water tends to rise, but today it's quite outdated, but you can add this as a third option, that is, that the first cause was destined to create the sequel.

The cosmological view assumes that everything has a cause, and therefore at the beginning there is an entity that generates causes “←”.
This is not the type of known cause.

But if you believe in free choice, then it's easy to say that this entity did it voluntarily.
For two reasons,
First, it's a kind of stance on the familiar. (Why not randomness? Here we can use the teleological argument, which Rabbi Michael Avraham calls theological physics. If so, option 2 or 3 remains.

Second, the first cause “←” must be an explanation for the causes that follow it.
It must be able to cause them. For example, we will not assume that the reason the piano was created was because there was an ant that built it, but the fact that he was an engineer is fine.
Therefore, if there are people in the world with free will, it is reasonable to assume that the primary cause can cause their existence. And especially that it is a great reason ←.

Hence, it is reasonable that “can” have the ability to create free will. Therefore, we will assume option 2.

Furthermore, if you assume that the world is not only materialistic but also dualistic, that is, it consists of matter and spirit (or soul) and the spirit affects matter, then we can say that it is reasonable that the primary cause can be spiritual or something spiritual is mixed in it. After all, we know that spirit affects matter.

Or at least that there is a primordial matter that is primordial and a primordial spirit that acts in it. (This is the description of the philosophers mentioned in the old books).

What is the reason to believe in dualism? Usually due to free will or the existence of consciousness.
You can read the reasons for this in the book The Science of Freedom.

The lines of discussion you have set out here prevent progress in it in advance.
After all, I wrote that there is no way to reach certainty, even if you were right that certainty is required. So what exactly are you asking me? Can't certainty still be reached? It is not possible.
But I claim that there is no need to reach certainty, and as far as I understand it, that is the only point in discussing it.
If uncertainty prevents you from giving your life - don't give it. If it prevents you from forcing - don't force. What does that have to do with the question of faith itself?
You write that you don't believe in anything. So what do you want to discuss? Of course, if your intention was only to say that you don't have certain faith, but according to you, only certain faith is faith, then that means that you do believe. And now we are back to discussing whether certainty is required.

Rabbi, if someone has 60% faith, then he fulfills the easy and medium commandments but not the hard and severe ones.
Do you think he is coherent?

Absolutely. At least it can be coherent (depending on what his reasons are and what his doubt is).

Thanks for the answers.
I will look into them carefully.

Here you can see another combination of the claim with the evidence from epistemology:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K10-9rDXG80

I must have gotten confused in what I mentioned above. But as you can see, the argument starts there too.