In order to prove that something is supernatural, you have to know everything that is possible in nature.
Do you have such knowledge?

The previous comment was meant to show that it’s impossible for you to have proved such a thing.

A more important point: prophecy, as you understand it, is basically just a form of magic. And it is contrary to the Torah.

Rabbi,
There’s no need for thanks — I’d appreciate your watching it.

Last Decisor,

The expression “supernatural” is not meant to describe some ontological matter, but as an illustration — something that it is not reasonable that the author of the Torah could have known by means of his ordinary human perception. The ontological discussion is a different subject. Maimonides, for example, thought that prophecy is something natural — there is nothing in it that runs contrary to human nature (or to God’s nature), and he may be right about that.

The video explains the meaning of the proof — whether according to John Mackie or according to Popper. This is not a deductive proof, but rather empirical confirmation for a hypothesis that had already been raised earlier for other reasons.

Before you claim that this is belief in magic, I would expect a non-ad hoc definition that distinguishes between belief in magic and rational belief. Why, for example, when I receive a message on my cellphone and attribute it to a certain person, is that not considered belief in magic?

You’ve got a lot of hidden assumptions here. Each one with a low probability. And on that you’re building a proof?
And in general, those who believe these hidden assumptions don’t need this proof — it adds very little for them, and in any case they don’t think in terms of proofs but of beliefs; while those who think the chance that your hidden assumptions are true is one in a billion — what you call a proof, they call nonsense.

Belief in magic is belief that human beings can violate the laws of nature.

There’s a lot of naivete in this whole “proof.”
It’s not clear what audience you’re addressing. To religious people it will sound like a gimmick, and to secular people it will collapse immediately at the stage of your assumptions.

Last Decisor,

As long as you don’t bother to specify what the “hidden assumptions” are or where the “naivete” in the proof is — your criticism doesn’t really get off the ground. One could make the same claim about it that it makes about the argument in the video: that it is naive and contains hidden assumptions, each of which has low probability — without bothering to specify what they are.

If belief in magic is defined as belief that human beings can violate the laws of nature, it is hard to see where there is supposed to be any problem from that standpoint for the proof in the video. There is no reliance there on belief that human beings can violate the laws of nature.

As the one proving the proof, you’re supposed to write out all your assumptions. I’m not supposed to discover them for you.

And if it turns out that you are not at all aware of the hidden assumptions, then your proof is worth about as much as a proof that Harry Potter exists because children believe in him. Those children are not aware of their hidden assumptions.

As for magic: supernatural means magic. And that’s the title, so of course there’s a connection even without referring to the content at all.

Knowledge of the future in the sense you mean is a matter of divination and soothsaying, which is a Torah prohibition that you are accusing Moses our rabbi of violating.

By the same logic one could say: as the one challenging the argument, you’re supposed to write out all your assumptions (the hidden ones, each of which has a low probability). I’m not supposed to discover them for you. And if it turns out that you’re not aware of them at all, then the “critique,” the “challenge,” or the “refutation” is worth about as much as refuting the roundness of the earth simply because there are Flat Earthers.

Of course, in truth all this pseudo-criticism is not serious at best, or meaningless.

As for the claim about belief in magic, you previously defined belief in magic as belief *that human beings* can violate the laws of nature. Not as belief in something supernatural. Are you now changing your definition?

The prohibition of divination and soothsaying does not stem from the fact that someone is trying to predict the future, but because of the *way* in which he purports to do so. Weather forecasters also predict the future, and they are neither soothsayers nor magicians.

It makes no difference at all what you claim against me by the same logic; it’s you who comes with declarations of proofs for the supernatural when everything is based on assumptions that you do not know / do not reveal.

As for magic: prophecy in your conception is identical to the way of magic and not to the way of forecasters.
It’s okay to admit that you believe in magic. All those who believe in the very possibility of knowing the future are like that.

The prohibition of divination and soothsaying is not connected to the method. There is also an inquiry here into the reason for the verse. That is a basic assumption not accepted by everyone in the religious world.
Maimonides certainly held like you, but there were also those who held otherwise. In any case these are speculations, and one cannot permit divination and soothsaying even if it involves a proven method.

Copenhagen, is there a written version of this?

There are drafts that need to be put together into a coherent document, and they also rely on the fact that this is in video format with captions from a presentation. At the moment I don’t see a reason to bother creating a reading format — although it wouldn’t involve much effort — because in my estimation the time required for reading would not be less than the time needed for watching.

Surprising. I’m an obsessive consumer of reading material, whereas I consume analytical material in video only if there’s no other option. You can’t skip upward with your eyes to check something, take it in mentally, and stop to think without making a really conscious decision, and the pace (even at 2x speed) is painfully slow until my mind goes off on a spontaneous nighttime stroll in the grove where that chinaberry tree is under the yellow fence near the bridge with the protruding stone at the side. In any case, due respect to the effort, of course, and I wouldn’t presume otherwise. With God’s help I’ll study the video soon; many thanks. Still, it’s important to note that you have an exceptionally pleasant radio voice, and even from the little I heard it’s evident that you’re a veteran discussion fox.

Copenhagen, I also think written material would be worthwhile; it seems to me it would also be much faster for you than editing a video.
And especially if it’s already transcribed, is it possible to upload the transcript? It really does feel to me like that would make it easier to reflect on the points.

The surprise is mutual. After all, from childhood a great deal of our knowledge is acquired through classes and lectures. The video is not fundamentally different from a lecture with a presentation, plus a few relevant images to make it easier to watch. As for pace, my preference is for fast, but there are those who actually complained that it was too fast for them. And just like with reading, you can stop at any moment, go back, think about the points, and return.

Be that as it may, I identify with the need, so I may try to put it in writing, though probably not very soon.