Would you be convinced by your own arguments under different conditions?

Rabbi Mikhi in his book also mentioned
regarding tradition that if it is easy to forge a tradition of the type of the people of Israel of many from many
then there should have been other examples
of a tradition of many from many
which shows that it is certainly not easy to forge

You wrote, “If I had been born in a Polish village, I might have been a believing Christian who followed his priest.” And “In the court of Ma’ale, the Polish villager will not be found in a place worse than mine.”
A nice idea, although it contradicts the words of the Ramach, which are expressed in the way of the Lord (Part 2, Chapter 4): “The one prepared for the nations of the world for the NIV: However, the NIV will not find any nations besides Israel, and the souls of the righteous among the nations will be given a reality in an additional respect and will be attached to Israel themselves, and they will be treated as a garment is treated to a person, and in this respect whatever good will come to them, and there is no way for them to achieve more than that at all.” You are certainly entitled to disagree with Ramchal”s words, but you will have to cite a source for your understanding that differs from the accepted Jewish tradition, as reflected in Ramchal”s words.

And the more difficult question – Would you also agree with the Sunni Muslim believer who lives in Gaza and believes with all his heart that killing Jews and expelling them from the lands of the ”Muslim nation” is among the most important commandments he can do in life, even if he dies for it for sanctifying the name of Allah? And he will certainly receive direct inspiration from the ”act of tying” (which he may even believe was the tying of Ishmael) that a person has to do the will of God even when it goes against his inner morality. Will he also receive a place no less than yours in the next world?? After all, he also believes with all his heart in the tradition that he has accepted as absolute truth?

1. A strange question. First, did the Ramchal cite a source for his words? Second, if, as I said, the exclusive discourse is for internal needs, the Ramchal's discourse can also be interpreted this way.
2. I believe this about every believer of any type and in any behavior. Within the limitations written in column 372.

I didn't understand – Where do you get the idea that the words of the Ramach”l (and other traditional sources that mention a similar idea) are intended for internal needs and how do you know that they are not understood literally? Do you think the Ramach”l is actually lying when he claims that Gentiles do not receive a reward like the Jewish people?
And what about the billion Chinese and another billion Indians who never knew the Torah at all, and have no idea who gave it? According to the plain meaning of the Rambam”s words, they too will not be rewarded in the next world, and so are his words (Hilchot Malachim, Chapter 8’ Halacha 11) – “Anyone who receives the seven commandments and is careful to do them is one of the righteous among the nations of the world and has a share in the world to come, and he is the one who will receive them and do them because the Holy One commanded them in the Torah, and we were informed by Moses that the sons of Noah were commanded to do them before, but if they do them because of the finality of the mind, then he is not a resident alien and is not one of the righteous among the nations of the world or one of their sages”
And beyond that – It seems that this is how the difference between the people of Israel and the „ Gentiles” was understood simply throughout the Jewish tradition – Isn't that right? What is the source of this new idea that contradicts the meaning for every Jew in the tradition?

Unfortunately – I can't find column 372, how do I search for a specific column?

You probably didn't understand me. I didn't claim anything about Rambal, because I'm not particularly interested in his teachings. I just noted that if you bring his words as evidence against me (which is not evidence at all), it's not evidence either.
I'll give you the same answer to all the sources you bring. What makes Rambal better than Rambal? He knows about it about as much as I do and Rambal, which is to say, nothing.
Beyond that, don't bring evidence from the Gentiles who don't keep the Seven Commandments. This is the sin of their ancestors, as explained in the Gemara in 137 and in the Rambam in Pihamash and in the Meir Shem.

Well, dismiss with a wave of the hand both the words of the Rambam and the words of Ramallah and the words of the Shevins.
But you didn't answer the main question - doesn't your position contradict what is accepted and understood in the Jewish tradition from generation to generation (and, not coincidentally, is also reflected in the words of the aforementioned sages)??

Column 372:
https://mikyab.net/posts/70789/

According to the Rambam, it is enough that they only attain the mushkil. Even a Jew who keeps all the commandments but does not attain it will not reach the next world, and there is no difference between a Jew and a non-Jew.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

I suppose we may disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There's a famous saying that says that for a non-believer, there's no pain in being a believer as he is (which is not true, on the contrary, in some of the subjects anyway).

I'll just try to clarify a little more, since in the meantime I'm keeping the commandments – what good will it do if I cling to my disbelief? And if I'm convinced by your arguments, then it's all for naught.

I'll address them in the order you wrote them:

1. If belief were not widespread, would you be inclined to imagine some kind of being who created?
In my opinion, the question is ten times better than the excuse, since the invention of an inexplicable and unlimited spiritual power, etc., is at the level of being from nothing.
Even such a difficult question does not produce far-reaching conclusions that have no evidence in everyday existence and never have (unless we rely on the witness's argument for divine revelation).
The variety of possibilities/inventions is endless, and in my opinion it is better to remain unknown.
The example of footprints in the sand seems to me far from the imaginary, since in the case of footprints you are discussing reality according to our knowledge, as opposed to a Creator whose existence is not linked to the rules we know.

2. We know that the stories of many peoples were woven into the Torah, and there is no evidence of its truth from what is written in it, how is the Torah different from other traditions that have been preserved?
And in particular, there is an admission of the fact that for part of the time the Torah was not before them and they did not keep its commandments (and to prove from this that it was not invented, since if it had been invented – the writer would have brought up the fact of its disappearance, I will reply that this is the only way to insert a book that did not exist before, only by telling a story that it existed and disappeared).
The fact that the tradition exists to this day proves that we are a people of stubborn people who feel obligated to keep it, but not about the first number
And if the tradition is not evidence in itself, then even if you conclude that there is a higher power, since it is not subject to anything that it itself created, how do we know that it has a will / purpose / instruction?
You are trying to introduce into the unknown and incomprehensible to the human mind – rules that are familiar to us.

And I go one step further, even if it is depicted that there was a Mount Sinai event (which I fail to understand how a reasonable person [and this is to say the least in relation to your knowledge and logic that are visible to all] can accept a story about a one-time event with voices and lightning and in the background the voice of God echoing, etc.), and perhaps the first creator handed over different galaxies to secondary creators, and the God specific to our galaxy decided to command the people of Israel, etc.? And in this developed imagination, the great God sits and grinds his nails because in this galaxy the local creator misled his creatures compared to another galaxy that does his true will? Is such an imagination less logical than the revelation of a supreme God on Mount Sinai?

3. A. The assumption you are turning to by virtue of the question – in my opinion does not make sense.
A supreme power, a God who has always existed, perhaps reward and punishment after death and a host of other beliefs that I do not know which of them are true in your opinion and which are not, but as a rule – is this what you call a default of logic? We would not be able to understand such a concept if our ancestors had not instilled it in us (those who previously worshipped idols as I mentioned in the initial question).

B. Sounds environmentally friendly, but didn't you paint a picture in which everyone is in a movie that is indeed important, but the main actors are the tiny percentage that God spoke to and brought out of Egypt, etc.?

4. Agree in principle.
Since your logic – one of all beliefs is right, you have only the one before you and that you have researched and studied until you are convinced of it.
My question was, would you have reached the same conclusion if you had grown up without faith?

In the margins of your words:
In the knowledge of a Supreme Being that we cannot attain the end of it, it is possible that the Jewish people are the chosen of the nations and the rest are nothing but a stream of horses.
Hereby I repeat the claim that what is naturally defined as beyond our attainment – what should we include in the rules by which we think?

And why distort the Torah command to kill Amalek, and refrain from saving a Gentile on the Sabbath according to the Meiri, and on this the way to adapt the Torah with great urgency to our way of thinking?
I do not know your opinion on the time of the creation of the world, but I assume that you do not claim the number tishb”e, and why not? These are the words of God, and what is a woman born of in the mysteries of God's ways?

What kind of soul is yours,
If the logic that is familiar to us – there is no way to digest the idea of God (and it is better to remain in the question)
And if there is such a thing – then it is not within our grasp and we accept the entire Scripture as it is without change and search for individual opinions or burning sacred cows?

In my logic, you burn the cows that seem wrong to you but accept the mother of all cows that is not within the grasp of human reason.

Thank you again for taking the trouble to answer before, and even more so if you answer now.

With gratitude,

Gil

Hello Gil.
I have a bit of a hard time with such gaps (I no longer remember exactly what was written above). I will try to address your last words in themselves, although I saw in them mainly stubborn repetitions of the same thing that has already been answered.

1. You are just insisting. The example of footprints in the sand is excellent. Even if you had never seen footprints and creatures as such, you would still see sand with footprints on it. You would conclude that there was someone here who made them. This is not at all the result of experience but of logic.

2. This is insistence again. Indeed, the Torah itself had room to doubt it. And certainly in the details that were woven into it. So what? There is tradition here on the one hand and arguments about God on the other, and it is the combination of both that creates credibility. Regarding the gaps in the historical timeline, this is a common mistake. There were no such gaps. The finding of the Torah in the days of Josiah is evidence in the opposite direction, and I have already elaborated on this here and in my first book of the Book I will return again to both sides of the tunnel. The credibility of tradition is not disconnected from the arguments in favor of the existence of God. You write the following sentence:
“And if tradition is not evidence in itself, then even if you conclude that there is any higher power, since it is not subject to anything that it itself created, how do we know that it has a will / purpose / instruction?”
As if I have not written anything so far. I see no point in repeating that.
Regarding the status of Mount Sinai and the witness argument, see my columns on the witness argument, 671-2. There you will be able to see how a reasonable person is supposed to accept this very logical argument, and why anyone who does not accept it is simply stubborn.

3. I did not understand what you meant by a’ (as I recall, I do not remember the details of the discussion, and I have no idea what you are referring to). B’ is again stubbornness in a nutshell. I explained everything well.

4. I don't remember what you mean.

The rest is baseless statements. Allow me not to comment because I have nothing to comment on. I can comment on arguments but not on statements.