Q&A: Who Says the One Revealing Himself Is Speaking the Truth?
Who Says the One Revealing Himself Is Speaking the Truth?
Question
Hello,
Let us assume that we had been present at the revelation at Mount Sinai, or at least had been born only a few generations after it happened. So that we would have had no doubt that it happened and that there was a revelation there, etc.
Even so, the question remains: how are we supposed to know that the one revealing himself to us, giving us the Torah, and commanding us in the commandments is speaking the truth?
Maybe he is not the Creator of the world, but rather a lesser being than Him that still has the power to split the Red Sea and the like.
Unlike with human beings, where we have tools to examine or assess what they say, or to try to look for interests they might have in lying, when it comes to a spiritual revelation from beyond this world, since we have no indication whether he is speaking truth or falsehood, nor any ability to compare to other revelations where we know whether the speaker told the truth or lied and assess it statistically, why is the assumption that he is speaking the truth preferable to the assumption that he is speaking falsely?
And even if we say that revelation is something that cannot be described at all to a person who has not experienced it, like explaining to a blind person what seeing is. Still, even a seeing person can see illusions, in addition to the fact that it is not clear that part of the tradition of that event also includes a clear tradition about this additional "sense."
Even a person who believes in a God who created the world—how can he be sure that this is indeed the one who is revealing himself to him?
Thank you.
Answer
Even about a person you meet, you cannot know whether he is telling the truth or not. You also have no tools to assess this. You imagine that you have such tools. It turns out that in an encounter one can get an impression. The Jewish people got the impression that he was speaking the truth. Beyond that, if there is a God, there is no reason to assume that the one who revealed himself was not Him but someone else who is also called God (cf. Shakespeare). And besides, as you wrote, as long as you have not experienced revelation, you cannot critique it. Maybe someone who experienced it knows that it is true, like a seeing person and a blind person.
In general, no person can be certain of anything. Not regarding God and not regarding anything else. So what?
Discussion on Answer
There is a presumption regarding God that He would not allow others to impersonate Him in a way that human beings could not detect.
How did you reach the conclusion that there is such a presumption regarding God?
David, the Rabbi answered you from simple common sense; that too is a kind of presumption.
"Beyond that, if there is a God, there is no reason to assume that the one who revealed himself was not Him but someone else who is also called God."
David, for the same reason that if God were to reveal Himself, I would not suspect that He was commanding me for no reason at all, with no interest in my observing His commandments, and on the contrary that He would severely punish anyone who was persuaded to obey Him. It is simple reasoning.
From my experience in the world, I see that human beings are usually truth-tellers, and therefore when a certain statement is placed before me, I assume it is true, and "the burden of proof is on the one who seeks to extract from another," but the default assumption is that it is true. That is not the case with higher beings whose behavior I do not know.
In addition, I myself am a human being, and I can assume that most people act more or less like me, and that gives me the ability to assess whether they are telling the truth or lying.
I want to be precise: I am not assuming that the speaker is not God; I just do not understand why one should assume that the speaker is God. Is that more plausible? I have no ability to assess it, so why not remain in doubt.