From God to God, giving the Torah

I didn't go into examining every possibility you raised because the scheme I presented answers all of them. There are problems with the various possibilities as well. For example, something mechanical is out of the question as a result of the physico-theological argument. Because it itself would require a cause/creator. And so on.

Yes…

I never said there was no reason why we were created, in my opinion saying that is completely absurd, it is impossible for a wise God to do something for no reason when even a simple person does not do things for no reason.
My point is that there must be a reason, but who told us that the reason God created us was so that we would do something specific (because of our ego that it must be related to us?! ).
It is possible that He created us for something external to us that stems from the fact that we exist with free choice and awareness (and not something specific that He wants us to do).
And because it is either this possibility or the possibility that the Torah is true
And because there are many “blunders” in the Torah And almost endless problems (there are solutions but sometimes more subtle and sometimes less)
Therefore, it must be concluded from this in the measure of probability that the possibility without the problems found in the Torah is more logical and therefore also more correct in the end

In addition to what the Rabbi wrote about the mechanical possibility, I meant that he is like the Creator, as with God you don't need a reason for someone to create him (first spinner) the same thing as a machine, only that the machine is without awareness or will (it is not really a machine because no one created it, but that is the intention)
Thank you very much.

I already explained. Who said? He.
I understood what you meant, and that's what I answered. Such a machine needs a reason and therefore is not like the Creator.

My mother,
I have gone through almost all the arguments of biblical criticism and various scientific difficulties. It seems to me that the failures in the Torah that you are talking about are based on various assumptions and interpretations that are not necessary at all (both Torah and scientific), and if you remove them, the 'failure' disappears.

Hello Moshe

I didn't say that the difficulties are questions that cannot be answered, I also meant that they can indeed be answered, but sometimes there are very strong questions about them or very narrow excuses, or in general things seem wrong, (I think that you, especially, who have gone through almost all the arguments of biblical criticism and various difficulties, know this as well)

You are right that everything can be answered and everything can be excused

But things seem narrow most of the time

Now I might have remained silent if there were no other options available, but there are other options that do not deny the existence of God (which I think is necessary)

Therefore, in my opinion, the options that do not include such and such problems are preferable to the option of the Torah.

Hello Rabbi,

I understood the Rabbi to say that if there is a God, He also apparently gave the Torah.
In my humble opinion, the Rabbi also used the example of the teapot.
The Rabbi said that the philosophical evidence excludes the claim of “God will reveal Himself to someone” from being “a teapot in space” because we already know that God exists, but in my humble opinion, just as I know that there is a teapot, it still doesn't tell me anything about the fact that He is in space.
The same thing is that I know that there is a God, it doesn't tell me anything about the fact that He revealed Himself to someone as long as I have no indications of this.
So I will ask about the Rabbi's answer
Who said that He said?
Because as I understand it, the tradition itself and other evidence do not provide sufficient evidence to prove that God gave the Torah. (They may provide greater evidentiary power over other religions clearly if I assume that one of them is certainly correct but are not sufficient for strong evidence on their own).
Therefore, because of all the problems that we all know (despite the sometimes narrow answers to them).
It is better to go for the options that do not include such and such problems and therefore are preferable to the option of the Torah.

In addition, I would be happy to explain why the machine needs a reason and God does not?

You are repeating the same thing again. I explained. I have nothing to add.
If it is a machine that does not need a reason, it is God. If it creates a complex world, it means that an explanation is needed for why it is the one that creates such a world. With God, it is a decision and therefore does not require an external explanation.

Hello, my mother,
My argument is not as you say, I believe that the (good!) difficulties are usually based on assumptions or interpretations (including scholastic ones) that are not necessary.

Sorry Rabbi, but I didn't understand the explanation and I hope the Rabbi will explain it to me.
I understood from the Rabbi during the lessons that belief in God as the giver of Torah is relatively baseless without the knowledge that God exists, and without the knowledge that God exists it is like a “teapot”.
And I don't understand why we should conclude from the fact that God exists that He gave Torah when there are more logical possibilities compared to this possibility that God gave Torah at Mount Sinai, which has many problems and flaws.
Thank you.

I don't understand what's not clear. I explained that if there is a God, he probably wants something from us. We have a tradition that he gave the Torah and that's what he wants. Arguments can be made about each of these two sides, but both of them together are stronger than either one separately. I don't see anything more logical than that.

Rabbi
I don't understand why he apparently wants something from us, where does the Rabbi deduce this from? To me, this seems like an arbitrary decision without reason! Why does the Rabbi think that the option that he wants something from us is more likely compared to the other options? It's not clear to me why the Rabbi thinks it makes more sense? On what basis did the Rabbi make this decision?

Because if He created me and gave me a choice, He probably wants something from me that I will do on my own. And if a tradition comes along that He does expect me to choose all sorts of things, that closes the circle.

Apparently he wants me to do something on my own decision and apparently the tradition that is passed on to me is correct

Although there are sides who say that he does not want anything from me,
In addition, that tradition contains many “inconsistencies” with what I would expect from divine Torah

A. My main argument is that I see the likelihood that he wants me to do something offset by the ”inconsistencies” of the Torah,
I feel and do not understand why the Rabbi does this in completely separate stages from each other and does not include the doubts of the Torah to remove the assumption that he wants something from me?
B. In addition, there is also an opinion that he wants me to deduce from the world and morality how to do his will and not by a specific Torah
C. In addition, regarding the machine, sorry, but I did not understand why according to the Rabbi this is not true, apparently
Just as there is no need for a reason why God decided something
So there is no need for a reason why the machine operates in a certain way.
(That is, it was always like this from the beginning, just as I do not ask why God in the first place exists as one who wants certain things.)
And if the Rabbi means probability,
then just as it is probable that there would be a God who would want to create a world, it is the same probability as the probability that there would be a machine that does exactly the same thing.

I said what I had to say.

Yes, but you didn't answer the question, at least that's what I think.

And it's a shame

I have to repeat clichés that I usually don't like. This is not a question but an answer. The questions here have been answered.

Each of these answers is a response to another answer.
And it seems to me that the Rabbi does not address this ”answer”. Although I think it is indeed worth addressing. And I would be happy if the Rabbi would address it.

I would be very happy if the Rabbi could perhaps guide me a little on the subject or if he could guide me on what to look at so that I can reach the correct conclusion.
Thank you very much.

Look at what is written here in the thread. More detail is in the first fifth conversation, but there is no need for that.