Question about the assumption of revelation

A. In my opinion, no. This is logic that is not specifically related to human nature. If some agent created something, he probably wants something from it, otherwise he wouldn't have made it. This is true for humans, monkeys, fish, and any other entity. Maybe God is different, but the starting point is that there is no reason to say so and the burden of proof is on the one who claims so. The same goes for the principle of causality. I assume that it is true in every world and for every entity and event. This is because it is a general discussion and not an empirical result. In other words, it is philosophy and not science. I didn't say that man is the crown of creation. But he is the creature with the choice, and apparently it was implanted in him so that he could use it. And for that, he needs to know what is required of him. And playfully, anything is possible, but that is common sense and whoever claims otherwise has the burden of proof on him. The assumption that something so planned and complex was just created by accident is completely implausible. It is possible, but the burden of proof is on the one who claims it. B. Midrashim do not come to describe reality but to express an idea. Morality does indeed oblige all beings in the world and it does not necessarily require revelation. But I wrote in my book that morality cannot be the ultimate goal of creation, since morality is intended to make a healthy society. But do not create a society and there will be no need for it to be healthy. Therefore, this cannot be the explanation for our creation as people and as a society. The second level, the law, requires only one group from among all of humanity. I wouldn't say that a priori, but after it was made clear to us in Revelation, I don't see it as a difficulty. Just as there is one head for the whole body, and each organ has its own role. The entire organism together fulfills the general role. By the way, this body was written from the Jewish perspective. Christians and Muslims think that they are the head, and perhaps they are right. But apparently the collection of these organs can function better when each of them assumes that they are the head. I remind you that all of these are a priori considerations. They do not stand alone. I add to them the revelation that occurred and came to us in tradition, which together with the a priori considerations creates the complete picture. In other words, I do not claim that there was a revelation because of the a priori consideration that it is likely that the Creator will reveal himself. This is only one component of the argument. In addition, there is the tradition that transmitted to us the fact of revelation and its content. These two together reinforce each other. My first book deals with all of this.