Comment on Debate with Yaron Yadan

Assuming you accept the following three assumptions:
“1. The Torah is full of errors and falsehoods. 2. God is free from errors and His wisdom is sublime. 3. The Torah was written by God. ”
Do you see a difficulty in your position? Even if the source of belief is external to what is written in the book. (Tradition and the argument of the witness).

I do not accept assumption 1, and this is mainly because of assumptions 2 and 3. If there is something that seems problematic to you, it is likely that it is an interpretive error on your part (you did not understand the verses correctly) or that you were wrong in your assumptions (i.e. these are not nonsense).
I emphasized that my assumptions 2 and 3 are not based on the content of the book and therefore precede the formulation of the position regarding 1. Beyond that, in the examples Shiron himself gave, I showed him that he was wrong. Therefore, assumption 1, even according to his method, is simply arbitrary. As mentioned, according to my method, it is wrong.

If so, would there ever be such a foolish mistake that would cause you to not accept conclusion 3?
Also, we have no certainty about premise 3, so given premise 1 it would greatly weaken 3. (Of course, if you are certain about 3, this is the plausible conclusion).
Don't you see any difficulty in this?!? It's simple probability.

—–
Another question you said there that the distinction between Torah and morality is not yours, unlike the one that distinguishes between Halacha and morality. (I think Rabbi Kook does too) and this is the view that most religious people, I understand, hold.
Do you have any sources for this?

In principle, it is possible. Something that is clear on the face of it that is complete nonsense (although even then I will assume that it is a later addition). But I do not know of such a thing.
If I have reached conclusion 3, you need very proven nonsense to reject it. There is none.

Regarding halacha and morality, you can search the Torim website, and I also have a series of lessons in which sources are also discussed. By the way, you are mistaken in understanding the prophecy. On the contrary, it is simply that he completely disconnects and does not recognize morality, but when you read, you see that he does recognize it.
The division between halacha and morality is a simple fact that those who deny it (like Rabbi Kook in several sources) are among the most perplexed. There are many laws that are not related to morality in any way. I claimed that there is complete independence, even in moral laws.
But I do not really care who thinks this way and who does not and whether most religious people think this way or that way. I say what I think, not what others think.

Regarding the Risha, let's say we take the creation of the world, the myth in Genesis conflicts with physics.
From here either this will undermine the credibility of the Torah or we will say that the Torah is not intended as a science book.
If the tradition of the credibility of the Torah is not certain and satisfied with us, we can use this nonsense to decide that the Torah is not divine.
In this way, if you add enough nonsense, you will have a serious challenge. And this is exactly what Shiron explained to you.

—
It is clear that there are commandments that are not related to morality, but there are commandments that appear to be moral, we understand that these are immoral things, except for immoral commandments. The accepted perception of both is the true morality.
The religious assumption that is accepted by most religious people is very relevant, because it is the tradition. If you challenge the tradition, there is no reason not to challenge the giving of the Torah.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist (I don't know why the Americans use this title) to understand this. It's clear. And I answered that.