Hi.

1. I don’t understand how the physico-theological proof helps here (aside from the fact that it itself is not necessarily certainly true, something that the Kuzari itself already discusses at length and decides that the world was created only because of tradition), because it speaks about a creator devoid of will toward me, whereas my question is about the miracles and the revelation at Mount Sinai, which testify to will toward the Jewish people. That is, I don’t mind accepting that there is a first cause, but that does not help the question I asked, because I asked about God’s will and revelation toward us, not about a mere first cause.
What I mean to say is that even if we assume there is a first cause that created everything, that does not answer the question. This is because even if all these supernatural powers were created by a first cause (according to the physico-theological proof), the fact that human beings (like the magicians of Egypt) can already use them according to their own will does not prove that with Moses it was different, and that it was God’s will that this happen, rather than simply a far, far more talented magician who had learned the wisdom of using these powers in a much more significant and far greater way than the magicians of his time, and by this did the miracles and the revelation. And therefore, once there are already magicians in Egypt who can act supernaturally, there is no difference between them and Moses, and I don’t know whether one must say that the miracles and revelation are the will of God rather than Moses’ action unrelated to God’s will.
What I mean is that once there is a supernatural component in the story, as there was with the magicians of Egypt, I can no longer know what here is God’s will and what is not, because I already see that there are supernatural powers operating according to the will of ordinary people, even if they are not the ones who created them, and seemingly the same may be true of Moses.

2. Regarding the parable of the blind man who became sighted. What I wanted to say is something like this. Suppose Reuben was blind for a period of time and afterwards became blind again, and during the time he was sighted he saw certain things. I don’t know whether it is correct that he would necessarily rely on that. Who says he saw the whole picture, and who says the sense of sight is really something real? After all, he experienced it only for a certain time, and there is no guarantee that it was not some illusion that someone created, since this is not an ongoing reality but a one-time reality.
Seemingly the same applies to the revelation at Mount Sinai. I don’t know (and it could be that they didn’t either, and it’s not clear why they would rely on it) why I should rely on something one-time whose certainty is not fully clear.
“Questions 2 and 4 should be directed to the Holy One, blessed be He. I do not deal with His considerations as to when and how to reveal Himself.” — maybe, but what greatly adds to this doubt is that all this revelation happens only in Moses’ time; the miracles always happen after Moses says they will happen; and the revelation at Sinai also happens after the people are unwilling to accept Moses’ words and want to hear God Himself (which really looks like Moses’ magic, according to this, because if it really was God’s word I would not expect Moses first to tell them and for them to refuse, but rather that there would immediately be a revelation. And here too the revelation happens only after Moses said it would, except that this time the people of Israel were not immediately convinced, and it may be that another round of some supernatural magic was needed).
I think that if God truly wanted to reveal Himself, it would not depend so much on one human being, or at least He would rule out this doubt by revealing Himself at another time in a public-national way like at Mount Sinai.

3. “Conspiracy theories can always exist, but someone who experienced something has the primary right to interpret what he experienced. The burden of proof is on whoever claims that his interpretation is incorrect.” — I think that from everything I wrote, and especially from the first point (in this response), there is fairly reasonable room to worry that this is not so much a conspiracy theory, because neither they nor we can know whether that revelation was really from God or whether it was simply another act of Moses’ magic toward the people.

I would appreciate your answer.

Such a magician, who managed to bring a nation of slaves out from under the oppression of an empire, and gave them an ethical Torah that over the course of time they passed on to all humanity. A magician who didn’t make sure to pass his crown on to his son, who was willing to confront his God in order to save his people, who wrote in his Torah that he too was punished and would not enter the Promised Land because of a small sin—this is not just a magician, this is “Master-chef” 🙂 And it’s worth learning from his Torah and walking in his ways.

Best regards, Ari Potter

You can look at the proof in the book, in the third talk. There I dealt with it in detail. In my opinion it’s an excellent argument. You read the introduction and the fifth talk and then ask about the third talk? If it matters to you, read that talk and then we can discuss it.
As for the rest, I answered here. I don’t have much to add.

No problem, two or three days and I’ll get back to you after I read the talk.

I read the third proof, and I’m still asking what I asked.

1. The third proof doesn’t help much here, as I wrote in the comment on your answer, because in any case this proof is about a God (or gods, plural) without will toward reality (that is, if one accepts it at all, since as I wrote in the comment on your answer it is itself not necessarily certainly correct).

The fact that there are supernatural powers in reality does not tell me that this is God’s will even if He created them, and even if He seemingly reveals Himself, it could simply be that a certain person is activating those supernatural powers that He created in reality in the way that person sees fit, and not necessarily that it is God’s will. In the same way another person would activate them differently, and then too there would ostensibly be a revelation.

Just as we see in Egypt that there were magicians who controlled and activated certain supernatural powers, even if we say some god created them, that does not prove this is his will—and seemingly the same is true of Moses, that perhaps he was simply a much better magician than they were and used those powers much more effectively. In the same way, it could be that a person would learn the wisdom of magic and act differently, and “choose” another people and give them a different Torah! Just as the Egyptians used those powers in a certain direction, so too Moses—except that he was simply better than they were, and that says nothing about whoever created those powers, who may be entirely without will! All the Jewish people know at that time are supernatural powers that are controlled, to some extent, by human beings—and why should this time suddenly be different? Doesn’t it seem much more likely and reasonable that someone here simply learned this wisdom thoroughly, than that some new God should appear here with a will toward a people, whom we have never heard of in a proven and real way? Suddenly something new appears here—where was He all that time? It seems to me easier to reject the revelation than to accept it, because if He really existed until now, why is He appearing only now? That runs against everything humanity knows.

2. Besides that, as I said in the comment on your answer, the whole conduct here of the divine revelation is highly suspicious.
The people of Israel go after Moses and what they experienced at Mount Sinai, even though in Egypt too there were people who had supernatural powers and it could be that he was simply better than the magicians in this wisdom (and of course the Jewish people’s basic assumption was that there is a God, since they were waiting for someone to redeem them from Egypt, according to the accepted tradition at least; but for an objective observer from the side, that assumption does not really apply)—a first reason to remain doubtful about the revelation.
Another reason: all these things that happen nationally happen only in Moses’ time, so even if you tell me that I don’t deal with the considerations of the Holy One, blessed be He, still it is very suspicious. Why does everything happen in Moses’ time and not afterwards? We would expect there to be public proof not only in Moses’ time, because as I said there is a reasonable doubt that he is a magician!
A third reason—the revelation happens only after the refusal of Moses’ words about the Torah, as I wrote in the comment on your answer.
A fourth reason—after the revelation, what Moses had said beforehand is clarified to the Jewish people as if by magic (or sorcery), and he becomes the exclusive emissary of God’s word, with no deviation from his words. Isn’t that a little strange?

I don’t understand why all these factors do not constitute a reasonable doubt that rejects the revelation?

I would appreciate your answer.

Everything was explained there and here.
A non-volitional factor is not an explanation. It is just another law of nature that itself requires explanation. Moreover, if its structure mechanically dictated reality, the question returns: who is responsible for it itself?
The assumption is that a system of laws requires a lawgiver, not a generator of laws.
The magicians too are human beings who use nature (if indeed there ever were such magicians at all). And the question is who made them and nature.

I don’t understand.
When you discussed the physico-theological proof in the book, you explained that according to this proof there is a creating God, but without directed will toward reality, such that there could equally well be several gods. In any case, what follows from this proof is that the creating God does not want something from reality.
Now we see magicians in Egypt acting with supernatural powers (which, for the sake of discussion, God created) in a certain way, how they want (the fact is that when they wanted, the staff turned into a snake, the water into blood, and the frogs came out of the water).
Who says that Moses was not one of the better magicians in the world, who simply grew up there and perfected himself much more than they did, and used the supernatural powers in reality (which God created, for the sake of discussion) in the way Moses wanted? Just as they did, so too he did, only in a much better way.
That says nothing about God’s will. It could simply be that these powers exist in reality and anyone sufficiently wise, like Moses, can use them as he wishes and fool people.
Just as the magic in Egypt reflects nothing, it could be that this too reflects nothing, and just as with Moses, it could be that some other wise man might have arisen and produced a different revelation and given a different Torah to another people!
I would appreciate your answer.

In other words, just as God allows the magicians in Egypt to operate supernatural powers as they wish, who says it’s not the same with Moses? Even if God supposedly reveals Himself, how do we know it’s not a fiction created by Moses?

I don’t understand what you wrote here (what is the connection between a God with will toward reality and the question whether there are several gods), and I am also unfamiliar with the statement you are quoting in my name (that the creator can be without will in relation to reality).
As for the subject of magicians—with all the proper respect I have for them from the depths of my heart—we have already exhausted it to the point of bloodshed.

I’m sorry that I keep drilling into the subject of magic, but I still haven’t understood what the difference is between the supernatural acts that the magicians of Egypt did and the miracles and revelation that Moses did.
Where exactly is the line between magic and truth? And how can we know it? After all, we have already seen in reality—at least according to the history described in the Torah—that there is magic that breaks nature. Who says that this entire revelation itself is not one huge magical act? How can we know?
Granted, if the world always operated according to the laws of nature, and then they were broken in one striking event, then we could know that there is a supernatural force here not subject to anyone. But if there were always forces that broke nature and operated according to the will of certain people, then the fact that there is another such force operating with a certain person proves nothing, because it is no longer unique, just as the others also prove nothing. And the fact that he is much more varied and stronger than they are—maybe he is simply more talented…
I don’t understand how we and the Jewish people throughout the generations accept this, when it could be that there was simply one person who was very talented in magic—something proven in Egypt to be powers that can break nature (!)—who deceived us, and likewise someone else could have arisen and produced a different revelation and a different Torah.
I apologize for asking this again and again; I’m simply trying to understand your answer, and I don’t understand what you answered, and I don’t understand the difference between the things I presented, and it bothers me a lot.

Everything was explained. I’ll briefly repeat.
1. The argument from revelation joins the other arguments and is part of them. It does not stand alone. On the contrary, the other arguments support the tradition of the revelation, not vice versa.
2. Even in the argument from revelation, the argument is not based on the miracle that occurred there but on the very encounter itself. The people there experienced an encounter with the Holy One, blessed be He, and that is what was transmitted in the tradition. When I tell you that I met so-and-so, you believe me not because I tell you miracles and wonders about the meeting, but simply because I told you I met him. You can of course claim that it was all an illusion and there was no meeting, but that is just a skeptical claim. I could also claim that you do not exist and your words are my illusion. Or that any other encounter with a person is an illusion. In any case, in my argument I do not rely on the miracle in the event (although there was a miracle. This very encounter is a kind of miracle).
3. I am not at all sure that Pharaoh’s magicians existed and performed magic. As is known, Maimonides and others interpret some events in the Bible as a dream or an allegory.
4. Even if the magicians existed and were created, they are using powers about which we must ask where they came from in the world. Like the laws of nature, the miracles and other powers also require a lawgiver and creator. The fact that there are other people using various powers only proves that there are powers and that they have some source that created them.

Okay, I feel like I’m making a little progress, but I still haven’t understood something.
I understand that if there were magicians, that proves there is one source for everything—but who says we met the source?
I understood what you wrote in point 2, that this is just a skeptical claim, but on the other hand, where is the line between illusion and reality? Once the laws of nature are broken by people, who says this time it is different? Who says this is not just another use of the laws of nature / miracles by Moses in order to create a simulated encounter with the source and with His will?
How do we know where the line is? After all, according to Judaism, the miracle of the plague of blood was God’s will, whereas the magic of the Egyptians to turn water into blood was not God’s will—and yet they did it. So how do we know that this revelation is His will and an encounter with Him, rather than something a certain person did in accordance with the “laws of miracles, etc.,” thus creating, as it were, an encounter with Him even though it is not really Him, just like with the plague of blood, where you see that people can create the same effect in a “miraculous” way even if it is not His will (let’s leave aside the differences the commentators explain, since at the end of the day they did turn water into blood).
(I understand that the proof is from the encounter itself and not from the miracles that surrounded it, but seemingly the encounter too can be faked, as above.)
Sorry for repeating this—I just really want to clarify it…
I would appreciate your answer.

In other words, what I’m asking is: just as one can create the reality of a miracle and it breaks nature and is not God’s will (like the Egyptian sorcerers in the plague of blood), so too perhaps one can apparently create an encounter that is not really God’s will, because from the moment you break the boundary of nature, seemingly we can no longer know the limits of these things….

I’ll explain again, although this was also explained in the book. After one reaches the philosophical conclusion that there is a God, now a tradition comes to us that He revealed Himself. Indeed, this could be the result of some magician or other, but once one believes in the existence of God there is no reason to assume that. As stated, the proof is not the miracle and the deviation from nature that took place there, but the encounter itself. You also do not cast doubt on my report that I met Reuben on the street. You do not ask me who told me that it really was him and not his cousin (who was also named Reuben). Because there is no reason to doubt my words. Regarding an encounter with God this is even stronger, because it is likely that God (whose existence, remember, we believe in) would not allow someone to impersonate Him and give us instructions in His name. The same applies here. Whoever claims that it was magic bears the burden of proof. That’s it.