The discussion in person
I saw the rabbi’s debate with the atheist and was very impressed by the rabbi’s intellectuality.
But I didn’t understand something. In the debate you argued that nothing is necessary. So how can we draw conclusions? And how can we reach a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of God? And in general, what meaning do our conclusions have about reality?
At most, one can argue that belief in God is rational. But if rationality does not guarantee the correctness of the conclusions that arise from rational methods of inference, it has no meaning whether the belief is rational or not. So let it not be rational. Let it be based on emotion, tradition, just an invention, because I got up on the wrong foot today. In any case, the rational approach is not preferable to another approach here because it too will not lead to necessary conclusions.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks for the answer. I didn't claim that truth and certainty are equivalent. Truth will remain truth even if no one knew it (although there are philosophers who would dispute that).
I have a few more questions
1. What is the level of uncertainty in the existence of God that you estimate?
2. It is true that science is uncertain (and you mentioned the problem of induction in the discussion), but at least it puts things to the test of refutation.
The method of inference, especially about the unknown, does not allow for refutation and it proceeds from basic assumptions. There were already rationalists like Aristotle who built an entire theory on being deduced from basic assumptions and logical deduction, and in the end it turned out that almost everything he wrote was completely refuted.
How can one trust this method of inference, especially when what is outside of reality is so unclear and speculative? Also, how can one estimate uncertainty?
3. Is there no problem with inferring from the known to the unknown? You didn't expand on that too much in the discussion. But in science and mathematics, there have been quite a few incorrect conclusions that stemmed from inference from the known to the unknown (many conclusions about infinity, Zeno's paradoxes, "God does not play dice," and more).
Yes, you mixed it up. You asked, according to my method, that there is no certainty in anything, how can one draw conclusions? That's a mix-up.
1. I don't know how to evaluate quantitatively.
2. There have also been many things in science that have been refuted. So what? On the contrary, what you say is contradictory: after all, what cannot be put to the test of refutation cannot be refuted.
If such an inference cannot be trusted, then you should also trust science. Being subject to refutation is no guarantee of anything.
3. As I said (and I really didn't elaborate on this), every paradigm shift in science is a stance on the unknown. It is clear that it is possible to make mistakes, as in everything. So what? Our vision also deceives us from time to time. So we won't accept what we see?!
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
