If I’m still not a prophet, where do I read 404??

403. I made a mistake. The latest one.

I claim that there is providence in the following ways:

A. The judgment itself that comes because of sin (say, a serious illness) is providence. It’s a bit paradoxical to call it that, but that’s my position.

B. When there is no judgment/decree from above, but the person is still under providence (for good). For example, he is saved from a natural chain of events that was supposed to cause him illness/a serious injury. But this comes before the illness/injury strikes him. And that is as a result of commandments/merits he has in this world or from other incarnations.

Besides that, maybe there are situations in which a person is not under providence at all, and then materially it can turn out well or badly. He is left entirely to the laws of nature. If nature treated him well—he profited. Spiritually, of course, that is the worst possible situation.

"""You claim that in principle it exists but it is never activated.""" (quote from Michi)

I claim that it exists, and if it is activated then it is almost always *before* judgment is issued.
And therefore when you (Michael Abraham) come to examine the effect of prayer, you are examining it after judgment has been issued.
And with all due respect to rabbis who say, “Pray and you’ll see how God heals you,” I don’t agree with them. Here I’m with you—apparently we do not see improvement in people for whom others prayed after the decree was issued.

You are right that your position is that what I hold cannot be refuted.
But on the other hand, the approach of “pray and God will send you healing” or “pray and God will send you a livelihood” seems to me quite problematic, and it is דווקא that approach that I find odd you attack.
For someone who is under providence, God sends healing or livelihood according to what he deserves based on his merits, and not because he prayed while in distress.

Don’t get confused, I’m not attacking specifically that. I’m attacking your approach. You make a claim with no backing and then say that because it cannot be refuted it is true, or one cannot claim it is untrue. I have no reason at all to assume it is true, and therefore I assume it is not true. This is Russell’s celestial teapot. I claim there are five-winged fairies that fly every morning over the Eiffel Tower. Can you refute that claim? So in your opinion is it true? Scientific generalization too takes facts we have observed and draws general conclusions. On what basis? Because if it happened in what I saw, it is probably a general law. The same applies here: there is no indication whatsoever of involvement, so it is reasonable that there is no involvement. That is all.

The fact that what I claim cannot be refuted is not really the reason I think there is providence.

I hold that there is individual providence (as I presented it) for several reasons:

* There are such views among our sages (it matters less to me that from your perspective that is not an authoritative source for this matter).
* My own feelings (intuition) and experiences.
* Many stories from other people. People who seem reliable.
* It can be inferred from the stories of the Torah.
* Clear collective providence (which presumably is made up of many hidden instances of individual providence—miracles).

You attacked Russell’s “teapot” argument, and in the first book of the trilogy you showed where his mistake lies.
But notice that you are mistaken in exactly, exactly the same place that he is mistaken, with respect to those who claim God intervenes.

Not at all. But I think we’ve exhausted this.

Maybe we have exhausted it. But for the readers’ benefit I’ll paste here a link to your comment regarding belief in the revelation at Mount Sinai:

"""We know because our ancestors told us""" (quote from Michi).

Does that meet any criterion of refutability?
Interesting . . .

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%A8-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99

Or as Rabbi Dr. Jungster said at the conference you organized for the book launch:

"""The feeling I had from reading the book—why doesn’t Rabbi Michi go the final extra mile: what’s written in the Hebrew Bible is also not true . . . there is no point in keeping commandments . . ."""

And again, as I already wrote in another question—"the World to Come" also is not refutable.
And truly, according to your way of thinking, Michi, there is no indication of its existence.
If I claim that God’s intervention is something that cannot be discerned, and the World to Come is also something that cannot be discerned, why draw a distinction between hidden intervention (which one is not supposed to see) and the World to Come (which one is not supposed to see)?

"""The World to Come or reincarnation of souls (that is not the same thing) are theses that nobody has any way to examine. Information reaches us from the Holy One, blessed be He, about such a thesis, and the only question is whether that information is reliable (that is, whether the Holy One, blessed be He, really said it) or not. By contrast, regarding providence, we are talking about a claim concerning a change in the laws of nature by the Holy One, blessed be He. That is something we are supposed to see, and the fact that we do not see it is a refutation of that thesis (maybe there are excuses, that He is hiding from us and so on, but the burden of proof is on the one who claims it).""" (quote from Michi)

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%a2%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%91%d7%90-%d7%90%d7%9c-%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%94%d7%aa%d7%a2%d7%a8%d7%91%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%A7%D7%99%D7%AA

Indeed, that was the final hammer blow showing that we’ve exhausted it. Someone who doesn’t understand the answer to these failed arguments simply didn’t read.

Sorry. I’m unable to understand. If you want to explain—you’re welcome to. If one of the readers wants to explain, he’s welcome too.

I’ll summarize for the readers and ask again:

You reject God’s intervention when I inform you in advance that one is not supposed to see it operating (empirically) after prayer.
In your view, this is a thesis that cannot be refuted.
If so, what is the difference between that and belief in the World to Come or belief in the revelation at Mount Sinai?
After all, those two beliefs also cannot be seen, and also cannot be refuted.
So why toward them do you

If Rabbi Michi is done, his students who understood him are invited to answer according to his position so that I can understand.

As stated, everything has already been written, and I do not understand what is unclear. I’ll explain once more.
The difference is written in the column. If you have other reasons to accept the claim, then the fact that it is not refutable should not bother you. For example, the existence of the Holy One, blessed be He. That too is a thesis that cannot be refuted, and I accept it. The important question is whether there is a good reason to accept the claim or not.
As for the revelation at Mount Sinai, there is a tradition that conveyed to me a fact that there was a revelation. If I accept that testimony, then why should I care that it is not refutable? In the column I gave the example of a person who tells me he saw something. I wrote that I would accept it even if it is not refutable.
As for the World to Come, I really don’t know. If it is a tradition from Sinai, I will accept it. If it is an invention of people over the generations, however wise they may be, I doubt it. For me, relevant tradition is only what was given at Sinai. A tradition that conveys to me ideas or insights of people over the generations is not strong enough for me to accept something implausible.
And in the bottom line I’ll add one more thing, which I already wrote. Since one does not see intervention by the Holy One, blessed be He, in the world, the required conclusion is that there is no such intervention. Here not only is there no reason to accept it, there is reason to reject it. Now you are proposing hypotheses according to which we are not supposed to see it (hypotheses about which I already explained that they are not correct in themselves, because even according to your own view we should see it). These are ad hoc hypotheses that cannot be refuted, and therefore there is no reason in the world to accept them.
I very much hope that now things are clearer. Everything was already written earlier, and it also does not seem very complicated to me.

First of all, I thank you for your willingness to answer; if you find it appropriate to read and respond, I’d be glad. If not, your students and those who understand your reasoning are more than welcome to do so.

***Important clarification***
Whenever I mention “individual providence,” I mean individual providence that cannot be empirically tested.
Call it “God is hiding from us” or “religious apologetics” or whatever you like.
As far as I’m concerned, this is a position worthy of being presented, certainly alongside the rest of your arguments.

***Facts***
Regarding the World to Come, it is very doubtful that it was received at Sinai. There is no serious hint to it in the Written Torah, and no hint that it was received orally at Sinai. Unless you are going to propose something I do not know.

Regarding providence—there are actually clear mentions in the Written Torah and elsewhere in Scripture—both individual providence and providence over the collective.

***Analysis of the facts in light of your argument***

So if you are prepared to accept the thesis that one is not supposed to see intervention (empirically), because everyone sins, then all the more so it should be easier for you to accept intervention, because unlike the World to Come it is mentioned in Scripture!
Oh, and I’ll mention something else—collective providence is in fact visible, and as stated, also exists from Sinai, yet you find other explanations for it . . .

"""Now you are proposing hypotheses according to which we are not supposed to see it . . . These are ad hoc hypotheses that cannot be refuted, and therefore there is no reason in the world to accept them.""" (quote from the Rabbi)

These are insights not only of mine, but of every believing Jew.
I only emphasized that it makes a lot of sense that one does not see it, because everyone sins—religious and secular alike—through theft, malicious speech, cutting people off on the road, desecrating God’s name, sexual prohibitions, etc.
Therefore, there is no reason we should see clear evidence that religious people get less cancer or lose less money on the stock market.

This only strengthens my a fortiori question above—if there is no evidence that the World to Come came from Sinai (and there is no indication that it came from there), then it is time for you also to start writing articles against “the concept of the World to Come in Judaism,” since this too is about “ad hoc hypotheses that cannot be refuted.”

I would be very happy if, all of a sudden, you would apply your outlook from the World to Come toward the matter of providence—a thesis that cannot be refuted. And as a bonus you would also have information that came from Sinai.

***Summary of my points***

A. Like intervention that “we are not supposed to see,” the World to Come also cannot be refuted. And unlike providence, it also did not come from Sinai.
So why are you softer with the World to Come?
Why are you unwilling to accept “intervention that we are not supposed to see (empirically),” but willing to accept the World to Come?
Are you yourself guilty of self-imposed prohibition?

B. Even when one sees collective providence, and it is known that this is from Sinai, you still attack it as evidence for intervention, and claim that other explanations can be found for it (Israel’s adherence to the Torah).
Even if we were to see empirical evidence of individual providence, you would attribute it to other explanations, just as you did with collective providence.
Isn’t there a tautology here regarding collective providence?

C. The main thrust of your attack on individual providence (according to your view) is that one does not see results when people pray.
I explained the position that prayer almost never is supposed to change a decree that has already been issued.

D. The thesis of hidden intervention =before judgment has been issued= indeed cannot be refuted, but that is not because I am throwing out the empty slogan of “I don’t know Heaven’s calculations,” but because one really sees that both religious and secular people sin.
Therefore, if one chooses a group of 10,000 people sick with a serious illness, presumably the proportion of religious people in that group will match their proportion in the population. Presumably they also sinned, in accordance with their level.
Likewise, there is also the matter of reincarnation of souls, so that even if one believes with complete certainty about someone that he is an absolute righteous person and it is not clear why there was no intervention for him, one can say that this is a rectification for a previous incarnation. Likewise, this is a good explanation for helpless people who suffer without sinning (children, etc.).
But as you yourself wrote, one cannot really measure righteousness, and I also agree with you that today it is hard to point even to one person who is righteous.

Rabbi Michi,
You wrote to David that he is more radical than you, and that in your opinion there once was.
I personally do not understand. I pretty much agree with him as you understood him, meaning that the implications of the principled existence of providence in our world are very limited relative to what is commonly accepted (though I do not tie this specifically to sins, but that is another topic).
But why are you interested in dividing between “then” and “today”? The dilemmas about God’s involvement in the world come up repeatedly throughout the Hebrew Bible. Questions directed at God and demands that He intervene accompany us a great deal. Why assume such a drastic change?
To my mind it is much more reasonable to assume the idea that one needs to know how to pray. There is quite a bit of support for that in the Hebrew Bible, for example: “And from there you will seek the Lord your God and find Him—*if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul*.” “The Lord is near to all who call upon Him—to all who call upon Him *in truth*.” And more.
At most one might assume, perhaps, that in a period when the surrounding culture was mythic, human beings felt more comfortable praying, since the world was alien and frightening anyway, and so we the monotheistic people of Israel pray not to various gods but to God the Creator of the world. And because the various pagan conceptions were present, closeness to God was also easier. But the assumption of a principled difference between then and now—I find it hard to accept without a reason.
Forgive the length; I’d be glad for a response, and so too all the like.

The motivation is very simple, and I’ve already explained it more than once. I see no indication whatsoever of involvement. On the contrary, everything looks as though there isn’t any. Beyond that, there is a clear policy change in the context of open miracles and prophecy, which by all opinions have ceased. So it is quite easy to claim that all involvement in the world has ceased. There is testimony from prophets that events are brought about by the Holy One, blessed be He, and I tend to accept their words. Today there is no such testimony and everything looks the opposite.
And since we are discussing prayer, I already wrote here that from the Talmud in Berakhot there is conclusive proof that one should not pray about an existing situation, that is, one should not pray for a miracle. But in the past people thought there were gaps in nature and therefore one could pray in such situations, whereas today we know there are none.

God intervenes in the world by means of a person keeping His commandments.

But a central assumption of the physico-theological proof, at least in your view (the First Cause), is that God coordinates the state of the world. Meaning, you do accept active collective providence.

Absolutely not. He coordinates between our perceptions and the world, and He does that by implanting within us a reliable cognitive system. Without that, there would be no reason for there to be a connection between what we think and what happens in the world. He also coordinates the different components of the world with one another, and He does that through the laws of nature.

Yehonatan Shalom,

“the implications of the principled existence of providence in our world are very limited relative to what is commonly accepted (though I do not tie this specifically to sins, but that is another topic).”

I also don’t know whether it is necessarily because of sins.
I am simply looking at reality—everyone sins—secular and religious alike. Each on his own level.
Therefore, if we take 1,000 sick people, we will see a reasonable distribution of religious and secular people.
And that in itself greatly weakens Michi’s objection of “I don’t see intervention,” which in any case attacks a straw man.

But I agree with you that it does not have to be only sins.
There are also other calculations of reincarnation of souls, collective punishment, and maybe all kinds of other reasons I can imagine, but it would take time to put them in writing.

Rabbi Michi, I’ll divide my remarks into paragraphs, so that if you wish it will be easier for you to respond in an orderly way.
1. Well then, I assume you would not be especially put off by a conception of prayer as something that God engraved into creation (which is not foreign to me).
2. Again, my basic assumption is that prayer is answered when it is done in the right way, which in my humble opinion is not judgeable. The reason I accept this assumption despite the fact that it is not judgeable (I cannot run an experiment and test it, because who can guarantee me that all participants in the experiment are indeed seeking the Lord with all their heart and all their soul?) is that this is what the plain meaning of the verses teaches.
3. I’m not new to the argument that one can always interpret differently, but it was actually you who taught so much that truth need not be certain, and that one should rely on what is reasonable. Right? Well then, what seems probable according to ordinary interpretive tools—I see no reason whatsoever to doubt it as long as I have no good reason to do so. Right?

To David—I do not attribute the small amount of providence specifically to sins. Keeping commandments, in my opinion, is not enough. Job was “blameless and upright, feared God and turned away from evil,” and he received suffering, and he lived (if he was a historical figure at all…) in the period of the Hebrew Bible. In any case, his book was written in the biblical period and presumably in a biblical atmosphere, right? And I won’t elaborate here.

Nothing is certain, and I have never demanded that any thesis whatsoever be certain. But one cannot derive from that that an implausible claim should be accepted, or is reasonable to accept. I explained why the claim is implausible. When one sees nothing of the sort in a very consistent way, the reasonable assumption is that it does not exist.
Embedding prayer in the world does not help in any way to make it reasonable. Our laws of nature have nowhere shown us that prayer is embedded in our world and affects them. Therefore this strange thesis solves nothing.
One can always claim that prayer is answered only if it is done in a way that never happens, and come out alive. What do you want me to say about that? It may be that the law of gravity is not really true at all, and it applies only to objects that appear before our eyes. Objects that behave properly are not governed by gravity (it’s just that there are no such objects). This is exactly the celestial teapot.

I have explained these matters over and over in several places, and they seem self-evident to me (even if not certain, of course). I do not see what more needs to be added. If you do not accept it—then you do not.

Okay, fine.
Allow me just two more sentences—but this idea that prayer has to be in a very specific way is not my invention. It emerges quite clearly from the Hebrew Bible in several places. And more than that—you did not explain how your view, which sees differences in history, answers the fact that the dilemmas about God’s non-intervention also appear in the Hebrew Bible. What was the problem back then?

I don’t see where that emerges in the Hebrew Bible, but even if it did emerge it has no significance. There is no involvement because we do not see involvement. What you are proposing is an explanation for that. Good for you.
In the Hebrew Bible no such dilemmas appear. There is the problem of “the righteous who suffers,” which of course assumes intervention and only wonders what the policy is.
That’s it. We’re repeating ourselves, and on a topic that has already been discussed to death. I’m done.