Receiving testimony about a miracle

This is not explained in the notebook, because the main attack you presented from David Day is that it is *unreasonable* to accept evidence of a miracle. Therefore, you attacked him for being conservative and claimed that we are not supposed to see anything unreasonable in a miracle. A miracle is simply a reality that is not familiar to us, but as soon as we have a good enough reason, we will accept it.

But the argument I present is different. It claims that it is unlikely to receive testimony about a very rare event even if it is very possible that it will occur. Because most likely the witnesses did not actually meet in the event (because it is a rare event) and therefore it is better to assume that they lied or misinterpreted reality.
For example, if you met a person on the street who claimed to have met the king, he would need to provide better testimony than a claim about a meeting of an ordinary person. Because the king is 1 in seven billion in the N. Only a miracle is much, much rarer, for example, the Mount Sinai stand is the only seminal event of revelation throughout history.. and therefore there is almost no chance that anyone actually met him.

I didn't understand. That's Yom's argument.

No. The argument you brought in the notebook is whether it is possible to receive testimony about an event that is not known to us from our experience. Miracles and revelations are things that are completely unfamiliar to our normal deterministic reality, and therefore David Hume claims that it is not really reasonable to accept them…
To this you replied that this argument is flawed in its conservatism and in the assumption of the requested. You also replied in the form of Yossi beating Yossi that the induction for David Hume's method is not at all well-founded and cannot make his claim difficult.

On the other hand, I say that it is not reasonable to accept testimony about a very rare event even if it is reasonable to assume that it will occur sometime. Because most likely the witnesses never met him (because he is super rare) then it is not possible to accept their testimony about having met him. Because it is more likely that they would lie than that they would tell the truth. (The net is bigger than the fish)

I did not notice the distinction between the thin and the thin until it was examined. It seems to me to be the same thing, and therefore my words there also concern this.

I will use the idea you wrote there.
If you asked Reuven “What time is it?”
and he answered “That the time is 12:34″
It is reasonable to assume that his testimony is not reliable, since his chance of telling the truth is 1/1440 (the number of minutes in 24 hours).
Reuven himself has no reason to assume that he was wrong because from his point of view he knows what came out and therefore he did not enter the statistical problem at all. But I cannot trust that he knew, because that is the question itself in examining his testimony. Therefore, I need to weigh several parameters:
1. What is the chance that the time will come out to be 12:34 (unlikely)
2. What is the chance that he lied/distorted and was mistaken in his words
3. What is the chance that he was mistaken in his vision or understanding.

So it's true that paragraphs 2 and 3 are probably not the most significant. But 1 is the most significant and therefore it can significantly undermine my confidence in his testimony. It is outrageous to assume that something that is 1/1440 and therefore his testimony should be rejected.

(Specifically, 1/1440 is probably not a small enough number to disqualify testimony, but if we assume that this is testimony about an event that happens only once in the world, such as the standing of Mount Sinai or a solar eclipse, this is a truly very zero number, since it is much more likely that they will not observe the event out of the ”infinity” possibilities for observation that creation provides us with)

First, the example you gave is wrong. Chance is not a relevant parameter for a question like this. Only if you don't know do you go by chance, but if you ask what time it is and someone answers, they are probably telling the truth. There is no reason to assume anything else. Every time they say has a tiny chance, and it has no meaning.
The chance relevant to the discussion is the chance that they are wrong or lying.
But for our purposes, I really don't understand what is going on here.

But the chance that it is true is zero 1/1440!
So it is true that there is some credibility towards him, etc., but it is still weak in relation to the probability that he is indeed right. (And assuming that we are not talking about such few possibilities as ‘What time is it’ then he does not have much credibility at all)

This is an improvised parable for the question I asked above: Most likely there will be no testimony about a miracle, so when there is testimony about a miracle, the chance that it is true is tiny. The question is also true towards testimony about a solar eclipse, let's say. Because usually there are no solar eclipses.

Sorry, I wrote this on my phone and the autocorrect distorted everything… so I'll rewrite it..

You claimed that my calculation is incorrect,
but the chance that he is telling the truth is zero 1/1440!
So it is true that he has some credibility in his claim, etc., but it still remains weak in relation to the probability that he is indeed right and he is telling the truth.
(And if it were a claim without so few possibilities as 'what time is it' then it would not have much credibility at all)

This is an improvised parable for the question I asked above: after all, most likely a miracle will not occur and we will not hear testimony about a miracle, so when we have testimony about a miracle, the chance of assuming that it is indeed correct and reliable is tiny. The question is also true regarding testimony about the occurrence of a solar eclipse, let's assume that solar eclipses do not usually occur. .

This improvised parable is nonsense. Probability is relevant to a random event. But here there is no lottery of the date on which a certain date comes out with one chance or another. Please, let's spare ourselves this nonsense.

I accept your statement that this is the case with the seer himself, where all probability belongs to a situation of lack of information and not when I have information. But it is not true that this is the case when the seer is in the status of a witness in a story.
When he is a witness and I have to examine him, then one of the criteria for this is what is the chance that he is indeed right and that he will indeed come out as he said. Obviously, the question arises whether it turns out that he will ‘harm’ the result he claimed or not. This is an issue that must be weighed.

Gilad, I will try to explain it my way (I think you will understand mine better than Rabbi Miki (: )
Once we make a reasonable assumption that there is a being who created the world (this is what Rabbi Miki explained in the four notebooks) then there is no reason not to assume that he can do things above nature, because he created it. So the whole thing becomes more reasonable. Now what you claimed is very true that every mentally ill person who is in a psychiatrist's house claims a miracle, but this is really not similar to the claim of Judaism. When we concluded that there is a being called God, it is more reasonable to assume that he will be revealed. Now it is clear that he will not be revealed through one leader. It is impossible to know whether he is telling the truth or a lie. So we already take his testimony with a limited doubt of 50 percent. But if there really is a God, it is reasonable to assume that he will not give the values of prophecy to fools, but will do so through a direct message that cannot be interpreted and lied to. Which is, as stated, the claim of Judaism. The status of Mount Sinai. Now there will be room to doubt whether there will be Similar stories like this one from Judaism, but since the Mount Sinai event is the only miraculous revelation to an entire people, which cannot be distorted or lied to, then as mentioned, this becomes very plausible. It is not like any fool who claims to have had a miracle. And if Judaism's claim was only about God speaking to our ancestors, there would be room for doubt. But since the most plausible way is to convey the message without half-truths and lies subject to interpretations, then the only way is the witness's claim. Which, as mentioned, is not at all as common as the arguments of mentally ill people with psychiatrists in hospitals.

Thanks Kobi, but my point is not whether it is possible for God to reveal himself to the people, but whether it is possible to receive testimony that claims this. That is why I gave the example of a solar eclipse. Because most situations are such that a solar eclipse will not occur and only a few times do solar eclipses occur, it is unlikely that we will ever receive testimony about this.

Because the chances that the witnesses actually met during the eclipse are extremely low, so it is absolutely impossible to claim that they met with him. While many times people lie and exaggerate, so it is reasonable to apply this understanding here as well.

Gilad, can you bring me witnesses to a miracle again? Apart from the claim of Judaism? Which is not at all common. Now to the point that in the first place you are not willing to accept testimony about a revelation or about something supernatural. Suppose, for example, you were in a city of liars. And literally everyone lies, and you are the only righteous one. Would you rightly feel that everyone thinks you are lying too? But that is not the same thing at all. The point is that people have many imaginary miracles. It is really common. However, when there is a historical beginning that solidifies the people, whether it is supernatural or not, it is not a common thing at all. There would be room for doubt if you brought evidence that is like the Jewish revelation, and not in a cave where it is impossible to verify the claim and it is actually in another ‘dimension’. When you bring me more miracles of mass groups, we will talk about how it will be possible to cast doubt on the Jewish revelation as well. But you can't compare a miracle or supernatural thing of Muhammad, or something that is supposed to be supernatural in the first place, and a revelation of metaphysics to physics. Like Judaism claims. It's like you can't compare a soccer team winning a game to a kid playing soccer against his friend.

I don't know why you're avoiding my example with the solar eclipse.
Finally, when Judaism claims that such a folk miracle only occurs once in the world, then it's really not common.
On the other hand, national histories of peoples can be wrong or lie. And throughout the world, many more national histories will lie than tell the truth.
Also, as with the example of the solar eclipse, the chance that the Jewish people experienced a revelation is zero, it's much more likely that they didn't experience it than that they did.

Therefore, in the overall weighing of the first point (which is less significant) together with the second point (which is significant), the chance that we have fallen in Judaism as that reliable and trustworthy testimony is flawed by an unreasonable assessment of reality.

Why do you think that the history of the people is not credible?
Again, you do not point out that it is not the same level. A child who plays soccer claims that he saw Messi in Israel. After six years, another child claims and so on and so on, many more false testimonies are made.
Who to believe and who not? God knows. But when a soccer team of fifty thousand adults and the elderly, children and babies. Claim that they saw Messi, will come to Israel, it is appropriate to give their testimony a more honorable place (even though it is unlikely that Messi will come to Israel without being published in the press, the Internet and the news), understand the point?