Questions about the fifth notebook and more
Shalom Rabbi, in the fifth notebook, in the section on Russell’s teapot, regarding the transition from deism (when he has convincing evidence) to theism, you brought an example from the Khazari, and in the Khazari example, he says that if there is evidence of the king’s intervention, he will be convinced that there is a king. I think this is the opposite move from what you do in the notebook, because in the notebook you move from a God who does not necessarily intervene to a God who intervenes, and it is not necessary that God exists and will also intervene, but in the Khazari, he moves from a king who intervenes to the existence of a king, and this is indeed a binding move. thanks
How did you arrive at this? In the letter 22 there he writes to the contrary:
22. The Khozari said: Yes, it is, and the first doubt would have been removed from me whether the people of India had a king or not, and I would then have believed that his kingship and his word concerned me.
After the king intervenes (messengers arrive with a famous document and information about medicines, etc.), he will believe that there is a king of some kind.
It's written upside down. But why is that interesting? The principle is clear and true with or without the Khazari.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
