Question

I have a fundamental question about Judaism and the revelation at Mount Sinai that has been burning in me for quite some time, and I haven’t been able to find a sufficiently satisfying answer.
As I understand it, the revelation at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah by the Creator are the foundation of Judaism, without which Judaism cannot exist.
When I was younger in yeshiva, questions came up for me about the revelation at Mount Sinai—whether it really happened or not. In my search, I found quite a few answers that more or less satisfied me; my mind was put at ease and I was able to move on relatively quietly to the rest of the questions I had about Judaism.
Among the answers I found were:
1. The argument from prolonged mass revelation
2. It was promised that a mass revelation would not recur
3. The witness/tradition argument from father to son
4. The burden argument: that they accepted upon themselves commandments that are not logical
5. The implantation argument: that it would not have been possible to implant the Torah’s stories in later generations
6. The constant repetition and study of the Torah’s commandments throughout the generations (the commandment of Torah study)

Recently I became interested in the scientific method, and I discovered a method for reaching conclusions that are as correct as possible by understanding logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and suddenly I was able to identify all the fallacies in the above arguments (circular argument, ad populum, argument from lack of imagination, hasty generalization, false dichotomy, straw man, and more).
(We can expand on the fallacies later.)
And especially in light of Carl Sagan’s standard, which claimed—and rightly so—that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
That is, if I claim that I have a 40-inch screen at home, then presumably you would have no reason not to believe me. But if I claim that I have a 2000-inch screen at home, you would of course want to see some shred of evidence that televisions of that size are even made.
And since in the revelation at Mount Sinai they want to prove not only a human gathering and receiving a Torah, but also a metaphysical appearance of God and that He spoke to the people of Israel, and in addition commanded us to do or refrain from certain things, then the evidence needs to be much, much stronger than in a natural case.
The only answer I managed to find to my claim is that if the revelation at Mount Sinai had been transmitted with absolute certainty from generation to generation, then we would not have free choice, because then God’s very existence and the truth of the Torah would be as clear to us as the sun, and we would not be able to act against it or commit transgressions. And that is not what God wanted.

This answer doesn’t hold water, because even in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) itself, the people of Israel sinned several times even after what they saw at the splitting of the sea and even immediately after the giving of the Torah and divine revelation.

But practically speaking, my biggest question on this subject is about God.
How can it be that He can come to us with complaints if we sin, or judge our behavior for heaven or hell and the World to Come, if the evidence for the revelation at Mount Sinai is such weak evidence???
Did He want us to rely on faith without good evidence, or just vague feelings, regarding perhaps the most important decision in our lives and the purpose of the world??
And if you ask me: so what evidence would you want in order to believe that there was a revelation at Mount Sinai? I would answer that God knows better than all of us what would satisfy us, and He would give us what would make us believe in the truth of the revelation at Mount Sinai.
 
 

And in addition to the revelation at Mount Sinai, this question also applies to the method itself of determining Jewish law in Judaism, which suffers from a very serious problem called appealing to authority.
For example: Rabbi A claims that going to the army is something one must die rather than transgress, while Rabbi B claims that it is a Torah-level commandment that one is obligated to do. Each of them can bring countless proofs and arguments for the correctness of his opinion, but there is only one truth, and neither of them can really prove that he is the one who is right and not the other rabbi.
So all that happens when we listen to one particular rabbi and not another is because of appealing to authority—in other words, we believe him and rely on him that he understands and that he is really correct.
And as you certainly know, appealing to authority is a logical fallacy that can sometimes lead you to the truth and other times not.
The example I gave is only a contemporary example, but my question is also about the Tannaim/Amoraim and perhaps even those before them…
And here my question returns:
How can it be that He can come to us with complaints if we sin, or judge our behavior for heaven or hell and the World to Come, if even the evidence offered by His own guides to justify their opinions is such weak evidence???
Did He want us to rely on faith without good evidence, or just vague feelings, regarding perhaps the most important decision in our lives and the purpose of the world??
 
 
I’m sorry for the length. But I’m very interested in what you think about the subject, and I truly hope that maybe you’ll be able to open my eyes to things I haven’t noticed 🙂