Proof of God from Life; Genesis 2:7

Before getting to the proof lets discuss Genesis 2:7

Genesis2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Rashi explains the dust came from the four corners of the Earth so that wherever he may die the Earth would accept him. Alternately from the Earth  from where the future Temple would be built.  That man was made of both earthly and heavenly matter. Animals have an inferior soul. Mans has understanding and speech.

Rambam - Guide for the Perplexed Chapter L : “It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being,

Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two thousand five hundred years,....”   {ETA In Rambm's Beit Habechirah - Chapter 2 Paragraph 2 - Adam, the first man, offered a sacrifice there [the location of King David's alter] and was created at that very spot, as our Sages said: "Man was created from the place where he [would find] atonement." }

Per modern science there was no original Adam, mankind arose much more than 2,500 years prior to Moses, and Man was not created from earth/clay. There was no breath or soul from a supernatural being required for human life to come about - more on this later.

Not only is Genesis most likely a false myth it has numerous pagan parallels.

Here are just a sampling from the book Myth Legend and Custom In The Old Testament by Theodor H. Gaster 1969 

Beginning Page 9 “This fancy [referring to Man formed from Clay/Earth] is, however, by no means confined to scripture. The Mesopotamians too conceived man to have been fashioned in such a manner.”  The goddess Aruru is said to have pinched him out of clay.  The mother-goddess Mama/Mami  formed seven primeval males and 7 primeval females out of clay. [There is that magic number 7 again.]

Egyptian Mythology - the potter god Knum molds man on the wheel.

Greeks - Prometheus molds the first man out of clay and water.

Similar types of stories are found among the aborigine Australian Blacks, the New Zealand Maoris, the Indian classic Satapatha Brahmana,  and on and on. 

Beginning on Page 19 “The rude clay, we are told, was animated by  the breath of God. This Idea too is by no means exclusive to the Bible.”

Here are a sampling of examples from the book.

Hindu myth has creator god Prajapati bring life to man in the same way thus imparting to him mental and spiritual faculties.

Yorubas of West Africa have the supreme god Olorun give life to an insensate clod in a similar manner.

Similar stories are found among some native American tribes, some Eskimos etc: etc:
------------------------------------------------

Is the Genesis false myth consistent with the hypothesis that the Torah is true ? That the Torah is from God ? In other words, does this verse increase our confidence that the Torah is true ? That it is from God ? I would say no and no. Not just that. I would argue it is evidence against both those hypotheses. 

Now onto the argument Proof of  God from Origin of Life. (Related to this argument see Proof of God from Origin of Life,  Proof of God from Free Will, Justice, Consciousness, BLANK )

It is obvious that say a rock is different in so many ways from a living moving human being or animal or perhaps even plants . There must be a thing that differentiates inanimate things from the animate and give living things the ability move etc: and that thing must be spiritual since we can not detect or see that thing as we would regular physical things. The thing may be called a spirit or soul - something that animates the inanimate. Moreover, death can be explained by that spirit or soul leaving the Human/Animal/Plant. (The above is similar to Animism a widely held ancient belief.)  To the argument we may add humans have consciousness, self awareness, feelings, memory etc: and a spirit or soul can account for such things.
It is a short leap to add god giving the soul or spirit or breath.

It could be ancient man came up with similar reasons for the existence of souls or spirits and may be the basis for the commonality of the ghost/soul/spirit/supernatural breath  mythology. 

{Wikipedia Life - Life is a process, not a substance. Life is a self-sustained chemical system.}

A rock is not living because it’s type of atoms and arrangement of atoms is not in a configuration to provide the appropriate chemical reactions as in life. 

There is no evidence for souls or spirits or supernatural breaths. There is nothing in physics, biology or chemistry that allows for the introduction of spirits/souls/supernatural breaths into any of the equations or any of the theory.

Near Death experiences, memories, feelings can all be accounted for by modern science thru materialistic biological effects. There is no need for ghost, spirits and souls to explain any of it. 

Proof of God from the Gaps, Sherlock Holmes, and Absence of Evidence

Updated thru 4/4/2106

Many proofs of god suffer from these related logical fallacies. Fallacy of incredulity or argument from ignorance or god of the gaps, false dilemma and the Sherlock Holmes argument.

I will briefly discuss the fact that absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of likely absence. 

Argument from Ignorance - arguing a claim is true because it has not been shown to be false. Example -  God made a covenant with the Jews at Mount Sinai. Or God created the Universe as described in Genesis. You were not there so you can not disprove either one. (For now lets ignore the very unlikely 600000 plus witnesses figure and other evidence the Torah got the creation story wrong.) However, the onus is not on me to disprove the stories. The onus on the person making the claims to support them. 

God of the Gaps Fallacy - plugging a gap in knowledge with God being responsible. Example - Science can not explain how life arose from matter, hence God did it. (For now lets ignore scientific research into this.) 

Fallacy of Incredulity - XYZ is so incredible. I cant imagine XYZ being true. Therefore XYZ is false. 
Example - The suggestion that small mammals eventually evolved into humans cant be true because it sounds so unbelievable. (For now lets ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution.)

False Dilemma -  Reducing the number options usually to just two. Example - Since the Universe could not have come from ‘nothing’, God must have created it. Here  just two options are provided. But there are other possibilities. Maybe the universe or it’s building blocks always existed.  Besides Physicists have offered cosmological models of a Universe coming from nothing and models requiring no supernatural intervention.  Another example is found in one version of the Kuzari argument. It begins either a revelation by God actually took place at Sinai in front of a mass of people or the Sinai story is false. But there are many other options. Something could have happened and it was mistakenly interpreted as a supernatural event. My Kuzari posts discuss a number of plausible scenarios. 

Sherlock Holmes Argument  “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

Suppose John Doe is found stabbed to death in his home.  The detective creates his list of suspects

a) The Butler
b) The Maid
c) The Wife
d) A supernatural being

Suppose the detective has eliminated a) thru c) as being the murderer, then choice d) must be the culprit.

Lets examine the fallacious conclusion.

First, we can not eliminate all possibilities, since we don’t know them and sometimes can not even imagine them.  There are thousands of other potential suspects unlisted or reasons why Jon Doe is dead. Did he fall on the knife or stab himself ?

Second,  we often can not claim certain things are impossible because our knowledge is often insufficient for doing so. Also, maybe the reason we think the Butler innocent is only because he fooled us somehow.

Third, after eliminating a) thru  c) is the  remaining possibility viable ? Are supernatural beings even a valid option ?  In other words simply eliminating choice a), b), c)  does not mean d)  is guilty. We know people kill other people based on past experience, so options a) thru c) are plausible possibilities.  But should d) be seriously considered to be on the list ? We have no empirical evidence or reason to believe supernatural beings stab people nor do we have any reason to believe they even exist.  In other words, if the list was expanded and ranked according to likelihood, d) would be at towards the very bottom of the list with arguably a zero or near zero probability. 

{ETA 4/4/2016 In the 2016 Sherlock movie The Abominable Bride we find support for my interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. I am only about halfway thru the movie as I write this. 

There have been several murders committed by the a ghost or zombie. Watson and Sherlock are casing out a home. Outside a ghostly apparition is seen. The home is sealed close. Nevertheless  a man is stabbed to death in the home ! Moreover, Watson claims to have seen the  ghost/zombie inside the house and claims the ghost is the culprit. Sherlock responds to Watson -  eliminate the impossible i.e the ghost,  and observe what remains.  So Sherlock would not consider a ghost or living dead as a possible explanation for being the murderer.  

I bring this movie to your attention as humorous refute for using Sherlock to prove supernatural. Sherlock himself rejects supernatural even when there is eyewitness testimony and other reasons to support supernatural as the murderer.}

Lets suppose there is some phenomena for which we can not conceive an explanation for. We  then claim God is responsible for the phenomena. Even if God did exist it would be  faulty logic. God may exist, but maybe he was not responsible for the phenomena. For example, God may say I threw the dice but let chance determine the outcome. Or perhaps God would say I am not responsible for that particular phenomena which emerged on its own or was caused by some other supernatural entity or natural force.

To return to the idea of absence of evidence. 

Suppose I call you after you return home from work and  tell you an Elephant was in your garage the whole day.  Should you believe me ?  You may ask me the color and if I said pink you may smile. But suppose I said grey ? You may call in experts looking for odor, hair, dander, urine, excrement remnants etc: and after doing a diligent investigation no evidence of the Elephant is found. You ask many neighbors, the children who played in the street, the police, the fire department etc: and nothing at all suggests an Elephant was in your garage. I think most rational people would agree absence of evidence is evidence of likely absence of the Elephant being in your garage today.  

Some religious people claim absence of evidence for 600000 plus people at Sinai is not evidence of absence of 600000 plus at Sinai. But is this reasonable ? Such a large mass of people would most likely have left some traces in their wanderings. They likely would have left an  imprint on the Egyptian country and a significant  large  imprint on entry into Canaan. Some surrounding cultures would surely note such a large Exodus perhaps recording it or acting on it. Then there are enormous logistical issues which I will not delve into. Virtually every, if not every  expert who has studied the issue rejects 600000 plus. Not a single expert advocates 600000 plus. We can safely claim absence of evidence for 600000 plus people at Sinai is evidence of likely absence of 600000 plus at Sinai.

Proof of God via Jewish Survival, Jewish Suffering, and the Bible Predictor (Part Two) ?

Updated thru 3/23/2106 1/2/2018

Part one outlined the argument and provided some critiques. This post will continue the discussion and provide a note on the Kuzari argument. 

‘Judaism’ is a very old religion, amongst the oldest surviving. Religions evolved over time. The claim that Orthodox Judaism is essentially the same religion as given at Mt. Sinai is so contrary to every single thing we know about religion, society and culture  that it should be treated with the utmost skepticism and rejected outright unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

The Judaism of the ancient Israelites is almost certainly not the same Judaism of any Jewish denomination around today. Even if there was an Avraham Avinu (Abraham),  he did not invent a religion from scratch. The idea of gods and how to worship them predate him.  Nor did Judaism start at an [alleged] Mt Sinai event since some Torah commands predate it and there was a prior relationship between the Jews and El/Yahweh before that date. The same is true for many other religions, there are probably several African, Asian, North and South Native American religions that have prehistoric roots. Also for example when did Christianity start ? With ‘Jesus’ or  with Paul or some other founder ? I would argue no. Christianity  had it’s roots in preceeding religions, including Judaism which had it’s roots in etc: The same would apply to Islam. 

When some Rabbis advocate the Kuzari argument and claim religions require a giver or founder they are either lying or ignorant.  Some religions may have a founder others do not. And ‘Judaism’  has a fare number of potential ‘founders’ as mentioned in my discussion of the Kuzari argument. 

{ETA 1/2/2018 I need to add the obvious. Thousands of religions, myths, legends etc; have no known founder. Consider those from native American Indians, African tribes, ancient near east cultures, ancient Europeans etc: etc: }

Here are some old religions from the book Charts of World Religions by H. Wayne House 2006 

Chart 8

Hinduism  c.1800 BC - founder unknown or none

Zoroastrianism c. 1300 BC founder - Zarathustra

Shinto c. 600 BC founder unknown or none. [However per World Religions MacMillan Compendium  page 995 - regarding Shintoism - it has no founder with the exception of several sects. ] 

{ETA 3/9/2016 And from the book The Great Religions of the Modern World - E.J. Jurji editor, 1947.  Beginning on page 141 - Shintoism lies at the center of an intense nationalism. “For some two thousand years it has furnished an interwoven system of beliefs and ceremonies whereby the Japanese  people have dramatized and suported the chief interests of their national life.”  IT IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE ON EARTH TODAY OF AN ANCIENT TRIBAL FAITH THAT HAS SURVIVED THE CENTURIES AND LIVED ON INTO THE PRESENT AS THE NATIONAL RELIGION OF A CONTEMPORARY STATE. [my capitals. Does this uniqueness imply Shintoism is true ? Does this prove the Japanese gods/spirits has been protecting the Japanese ?  

Shintoism shares some beliefs  with Judaism including:]

Immortal Soul, 
Divinely ordained national destiny, 
Guardianship over the nation by the supernatural - for Shinto it is the eternal ancestral spirits,
Efficacy of Prayer and Offerings
The presence of invisible gods at shrines.}

[ When was ‘Judaism’  founded - Do we begin with the alleged Abraham ? Or the alleged Sinai revelation ?  One or more Jewish Kings or perhaps one or more of the Prophets. Perhaps Ezra ?  Abraham according to the chart is 2100 BC and the chart uses that period.]

Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world 762 million (chart 58) and Zoroastrianism has 2.5 million followers (chart 79). Both are of comparable age to Judaism.

[Longevity of a religion is not evidence of the truth of the religion.]

From Encyclopedia  of Religion and Society 1998 W. Swatos, Jr (Editor) 

Page 226 Hinduism has no recorded founder and has sacred text dating back as far as 1500-1200 BCE. 

P 571 Zoroastrianism formed in the early part of the first millennium BCE. “The Judeo - Christian Idea of the Devil was borrowed from Zoroastrianism at the time of the [Jewish] Babylonian exile.” [This is what is called evolution of religion. It is one reason ‘Judaism’ survived - the Jews  adopted from surrounding cultures and adapts to them. Another good example of this is Philo and Rambam adapting and adopting Greek Philosophy into Judaism. Today ‘rationalist’ or the more scientifically educated Jews twist themselves into a pretzel attempting to adopt to and adapt to modern scientific ideas to Judaism. I will come back to this notion later.] 

{ETA 2/22//2016 From the Book How The Great Religions Began by Joseph Gaer 1951 New and Revised Edition

Beginning on Page 201 “Zoroaster was the first religious leader in the world to teach the belief in an abstract god, a god one could not touch or hear or smell or see.” 300 years after Zoroaster dies, Alexander the Great conquers Persia and sets up the Greek religion. People secretly teach Zoroastrianism to their children. 500 years later Zoroastrianism religion is restored. 400 years later Arabs force a new religion on to them under the threat of death. Some choose death, some accept the new religion, and some flee and practice their own religion  in new places. Zoroastrianism prohibits anyone joining their religion; you have to be born into it. [This last requirement should sound familiar to Jews, however Jews do allow converts.]

Beginning page 267 Regarding Judaism - At the time of Cyrus the Zoroastrian Persians were friendly to the Jews and the Jews studied the Persian religion and learned from it. Yahweh the god of several tribes and protector of Israel now becomes the creator of the world, the latter  similar to a concept in Zoroastrianism. Jews also learn from Zoroastrian life after death, heaven and hell and carried these beliefs into Judaism.  From the Zoroastrianism Saoshyant (redeemer), the Jews invent the coming of their own redeemer and give him additional attributes not found in Zoroastrianism.  By the time the Jews return to Israel with the help of Cyrus Judaism had greatly changed. 

[The book argues that Zoroastrianism influences Judaism and that argument has merit.  But Judaism most likely was also influenced by  Egypt and other ancient near east cultures. Cultures that may have influenced Zoroastrianism.]}

So what additional mechanisms (reasons I may not have previously provided - I can not remember) can account for Judaism’s survival ?

A) There is an element of Jewish Tribalism.  Also an element of nationalism/patriotism - that Israel is their land  given to them by their God.

B) The ‘Jewish’ God can adapt  to all sorts of fancies. The State God, The Divine Warrior, The Fertility / Rain Giver God, The Vengeful God, The Loving God, The Mighty God, The Threatening God , The Mystical God, the Redeemer God, The Just God, The Merciful God, The Law Giving God etc: etc: . He can be the Creator God, The Philosopher’s God, The Metaphysical God, The Theologian’s God, The Source of Morals God etc: etc etc. In short, a flavor to suit just about anybody’s taste (except us skeptics and atheists) and in any period of history.  

C) Judaism includes a mix of miracles, holidays, magic, amulets,  harvest (fertility) festivals, spirits, demons, angels, prayers, incantations, superstitions, holy objects, rituals and souls.  There are fascinating legends and myths passed on in the Torah, holy texts and oral traditions. There are alleged holy people who have special powers and abilities. {ETA 2/28/2016 - Some Orthodox Jews give credence to dream visitations from dead ancestors and relatives.} Those provide a sort of mass folk appeal. In addition they create social cohesion and alliances. 

D) For the Jewish elitists, they may find refuge in ‘rationalistic’ Judaism, which tends to pooh pooh some of the things mentioned in C), things  that have so much folk appeal. Philo and Rambam accommodated Judaism to Greek Philosophy.  In more modern times the rationalists try to accommodate Judaism to science ending up twisting themselves into pretzels in the process.  Typically these innovators are  first disparaged but eventually find a stream where they can fit in and eventually are accepted by most more or less.

E) Eventually Judaism becomes essentially Monotheistic with one God Yahweh. By definition that means no other gods. Polytheists when captured by another ‘tribe’ can readily usually adopt to that new god, so their religion can more readily change and  individuals can more easily adopt the new religion.  However, the monotheistic Jews would have a difficult time changing their God. 

{ETA 2/22/2016 F) Judaism is not monolithic. Part of it's staying power is the numerous denominations ranging from Humanistic Judaism to the numerous sects of Ultra Orthodox. Jews can usually cross from one denomination to another. Again providing a sort of menu. This same situation was most likely true in ancient times - the various forms of the ancient Israelite religions or for example Hellenizing  Jews versus the Maccabees. 

A  mix of stiffness and flexibility characterizes Judaism and this likely plays a role in it's survival. }

{ETA 3/23/2106  Orthodox Jews consider the future resurrection of the dead and the world to come as important principles of Judaism. 

From the Book Understanding Judaism - Jacob Neusner Editor- Beginning Page 35 The [Rabbinic Jewish] belief in the world to come with it’s concomitant belief in bodily resurrection is an importation from Zoroastrian civilization. Both stem from non Jewish sources. }

The essential ideas of A) thru F) most likely provide staying power for Christianity and Islam. 

Related Posts Proof of God from Prophecy , Proof of God from Israel  , The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs 

Proof of God from Design Part 2 or Disproof of Evolution

This is a continuation of Proof of God from Design ? , which I will assume has been read. 

Many religious people think that if evolution is ‘proven’ false, then a God must exist. Actually, all it would mean is that evolution is false and that we should seek other explanations. Maybe, there are unknown factors that also are important. For example, when Darwin first proposed the origin of the species, his theory was not as certain as it is today with advances in genetics, experiments, new fossils, improved dating techniques...

Nevertheless, for many people having a natural explanation for the origin of the species probably does make it easier for some to be an atheist/agnostic. I think this was true in my case. 

Years ago there were Rabbi's and many Orthodox Jews claiming that there was a mass conspiracy by scientists to foist a hoax called evolution on the public. Sometimes they would augment their claim with ad-hominem attacks such as the scientists were rapist or criminals. How ironic that those same Rabbi's who use the Kuzari argument to argue there could not have been a mass conspiracy for the Exodus-Sinai Story would have you believe there was and still is a  virtual world wide conspiracy to delude the public with a scientific hoax ! Mind you, many of these scientist come from countries unfriendly with each other. Their work is peer reviewed and moreover could be publicly checked by interested parties. The Rabbi's thought that evolution was in conflict with the Torah, and I do agree with them on that score. That was almost  certainly the motivation for Rabbis, some Orthodox Jews and most other religious people for attacking evolution. It was the real reason then and is still the real reason today.

Yet, in my first years at University I found my professors who taught evolution were kindly, friendly and  sharing. They were dedicated teachers and researchers, nothing like the claims of those Rabbis. They were good people; how dare those Rabbis besmirch my innocent and humble professors. 

This post will provide some arguments against evolution (still put forth by religious people) and provide brief responses mainly (but not only) based on the book Evolution for Dummies by Krukonis and Barr 2008. This book is a fairly accessible book about Evolution and I would recommend it as a good introduction to Evolution and for fleshing out support for most of the scientific details supporting this post.

1) Evolution is only a theory, meaning it is just speculative guess.

Response:

Evolution is about genetic change over time in a population, a species etc:. Scientists can see these changes, measure them, and sometimes figure out when they occurred. Scientists today know natural selection and genetic drift are two key driving forces for the changes.

Evolution is a fact. The scientific theory of Evolution has an enormous amount of evidence to support it and is almost certainly true. 

2) Evolution violates the Second Laws of Thermodynamics

Response:

Earth is not a closed system and receives ordered energy in the form of essentially parallel rays of light. The energy is used by the Earth residents to increase complexity. Energy is then exhausted by the Earth’s inhabitants to Universe in an un-ordered form. Thus there is no violation of the Second Law. 

3) Scientist have proved Evolution wrong.

Response:

Scientist have not disproved ‘evolution’, but have added new insights and mechanisms to Darwin’s original book which in some instances were wrong. To mention just two new mechanisms: Genetic Drift; Random factors and events.

4) Evolution is Random. A 'complex' work by Shakespeare (or say a bacteria) could not occur by random chance. 

Response:

Evolution is not completely random. Mutations (errors in DNA replication and transmission) may be random, but natural selection sorts thru the mutations in a non random fashion. Scientist now know that given the time available, the process of natural selection acting on random mutation is more than sufficient to generate our own species.

5a) Evolution can't result in big changes in physical characteristics.

Response:

Small changes can result in big changes. Scientist know from laboratory evidence that tiny changes in DNA sequence can have major implications for body plan.  

5b) Mutations can affect existing structures or traits but can not be responsible for new ones.

Response:

The truth is mutations can so be responsible. For example - sometimes gene duplication results in multiple copies of the gene, and these copies may evolve along different trajectories.  Changes in one copy that could have been harmful are no longer harmful because there is a spare copy, and in fact could now be advantageous. This process allows an increase in the number of genes and diversification of function.

5c) Maybe evolution can lead to changes within a lineage, but it can not lead to lineage splitting or new species.

Response:

Gradual change can lead to reproductive isolation, a key characteristic of species differentiating. Chapter 
8 in the book discusses various mechanisms of species differentiating 

The arguments of 5a, 5b,5c are sometimes stated as micro evolution might occur but not macro evolution. The responses above still hold and the existence of ‘missing links’, vestigial body parts support macro evolution. There is much more support to be found here: 
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Macroevolution.cfm

6) There are no missing links.

Response:

There are not that many fossils and they are hard to find for obvious reasons and because speciation often occurs in small isolated pockets - see  Chapter 8 of the book.  So we will not always find a specific missing link between two species. Nevertheless, transitional fossils have been found including: “Fish with legs  Whale with legs  A series of feathered dinosaurs leading up to flight” (Page 339)

7) Some biological structures ‘clearly’ show evidence of  an intelligent designer. 

Response:

What objective criteria do they provide that allows any observer to determine when a certain biological structure requires an intelligent designer and when it does not ?  

Moreover, evolution can  provide natural explanations how the structures may have arose.

Positing an intelligent designer raises more questions than it answers. For example - Where does it exist ? How can we test for it’s actual existence ? Does it still exist ? Why may it have designed these structures ?  Why are there vestigial parts if the structure was intelligently designed ? Why is there so much evidence for evolution ? 

8) Evolution can’t  create complex structures. Irreducible Complexity - for example the eye would be useless unless all the parts worked together and were there from the get go.

Response:

Scientist have a very good idea how the eye evolved from intermediary structure. Also page 341 “Just because a system is made up of a series of parts doesn’t mean that those parts evolved to perform functions they now perform.”

Also consider a bird’s flight feathers. Feathers are found on earlier non flying dinosaurs and had some other function. The feathers became co-opted for flight. Also see 13)

9) Evolution is a Fringe Topic 

Response:

Evolution is central to modern biology, medicine, conservation and agriculture. 

10) There is a science conspiracy to foist evolution for anti religious reasons.

Response:

Page 343 “Evolution is a fact that scientists can measure and test. As we further our understanding of the underlying processes responsible for evolution, we refine our theories about the details. If these theories ever seem at odds with particular aspects of religious belief, be assured that the was merely a consequence of following the data and never an intentional goal.” 

Also see my introductory paragraphs. 

11) This argument claims there was extremely rapid evolution during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ and evolution can not account for it. There  maybe other such periods. 

Response:

Evolution does not predict or require a slow rate of change or a constant rate of change.  Also, changes can occur rapidly if the environment drastically changes for one reason or another.  A massive extinction of a dominant type of animal say the dinosaurs would allow say a pre-existent small mammal(s) to rapidly emerge and evolve to exploit their new environment. 

For the Cambrian Explosion see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

{ETA 12/11/2019 From the book Magic Universe - The Oxford Guide To Modern Science Nigel Calder 2003:

Page 490 Regarding Cambrian Explosion - Al the animals had essentially the same set of genes. By exploiting the genes in different ways they were able to diversify in a mere 10 million years. 

Page 106 "The Cambridge explosion, so graphically illustrated in Yunnan and British Columbia, now makes better sense than it did before , in light of recent laboratory discoveries about evolutionary discoveries about evolutionary mechanisms at the molecular level. These allow natural experiments with body plans to proceed more rapidly than previous theories had supposed."}

Whenever confronted by religious people using ‘science’ to prove religious beliefs or to discredit evolution , check the scientific literature and not just the few cherry picked articles the religious person presents. 

12) Evolution is not falsifiable

Response:

Evolution predicted humans and other great apes descend from a common ancestor. This can be disproved based on genetics - i.e if we shared more DNA with other mammals than with say chimps. It has been found that humans do share more DNA with chimps than with any other mammal.

Another example could be fossil of an animal dated from an era (strata) much earlier than where evolution predicts the fossil should be found. Examples can be multiplied. 

No evolution falsifiable information exists to date. 

13) Evolution can't create new information.

Response;

Sure it can.  PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) did not exist until humans made them. Yet some bacteria evolved very complicated ways to break them down. Remarkably, the way they evolved to do this was by kludging together biochemical pathways that serve other functions.  Also see 8)  

Related posts Genesis and Evolution  

Kuzari Part 11

This is a continuation of the Kuzari Argument begun here,  I would suggest skimming all my prior Kuzari posts. 

Here is one version of the Kuzari argument, but similar sentiments  permeate many versions of the Kuzari argument.

“Where the ‘Exodus-Sinai story’ false, it wouldn’t have gotten beyond the innumerable other people - like us but who came before us - who heard it.” Moreover, so many people can not be wrong.

It may surprise where this version of Kuzari argument (the portion in bold face) came from. It is a direct quote and readings from page 103 of the book Rumors by Jean-Noel Kapferer 1990  I simply replaced the book’s word ‘rumor’ with ‘Exodus-Sinai story’ !

[Rumor, myth, legend, urban legend, national tradition,  collective memory, group think overlap sharing much in common and are not a reliable source for truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. ]

Beginning on page 103 from Kapferer  and in regard to the previously cited bolded 'proof'  he has this to say: “ The group is thus assumed to have filtered the rumor before it reaches us.”  This is one reason rumors can spread even amongst intelligent and educated people. In addition: “To believe in a rumor is to manifest one’s allegiance to the group voice, i.e. to collective opinion.” Rumors contribute to social cohesion. [ Tribal allegiance would be very important in ancient times,  and provides ample motivation for beliefs even in the absence of  evidence. Survival of the tribe may depend on widespread beliefs.]


[Kapferer's  book is based on social psychology, crowd psychology and behavior, marketing, individual psychology and other academic disciplines. It is rooted in empirical evidence, in empirical studies of numerous rumors, some in real time as they are evolving. It is rooted  in actual human behavior. It  behooves people who give credence to the Kuzari arguments/principles to spend some time reading such books.]

Page 139 Often rumors have no original truth.  Rumors may result from a constructive process by a group faced with an ambiguous event. [Could a major Volcano eruption be conflated with God(s) by ancient people ? Yes. My prior Kuzari posts documented this amongst several different cultures. Somehow some escaped Israelite slaves manage to survive in the desert.  This could be ascribed to divine intervention. There were probably other  ambiguous events that could lead to the the construction of the Exodus-Sinai stories by a cadre with certain interests.]

Page 178 The book explains regarding rumors of movie stars  “We prefer a story that does us good to a truth that gives nothing.” [And there is no reason why the same should not apply to some rumors, legends, myths and the Exodus - Sinai stories.]

Page 243 “The resistance of certain rumors to facts sometimes surprises observers. For a rumor to spread, it must survive the legitimate objections inevitably raised by the first people who hear it. Reality must thus at least not have been an obstacle to the rumor.”  The book goes on to explain - "But the proliferation of absurd rumors prove rumor is able to surf on the surface of reality and absorb counter-arguments that people put forward. Proofs and counter arguments are turned around allowing the rumor to persist.” [ This is true today, but how much more so in ancient times with widespread belief in supernatural beings interacting with people and other motivations to accept rumors.]

Page 264 “And what we find is that altogether unfounded information can circulate in society as founded information and has the same mobilizing effects” ;

“Social knowledge is based on faith not proof.”

Page 82 The most important reason we believe rumors is the rumors convey information we want to believe. It may overturn our usual criteria of realism, plausibility, the latter being governed by our desire to believe, not the other way around.

Page 84 Rumors we hear often find an echo in us - this due to belonging to a social group whose opinions, values, and attitude we share. The psychological benefits reaped in adopting and participating in rumors clearly justifies our not being punctilious about their plausibility. However, rumors must include a certain dose of realism - meaning given the state of knowledge of the public the rumor was not improbable.

Page 81 A rumor being narrated may have crucial fallacies, but the audience is not in a critical set, but in a participatory set. The story need only recount events that seem possible while we hear the story. In a social setting the unconvinced generally remain silent and no counter-argument put up.

Page 77 “It is the structural ambiguity of most events which makes them a screen upon which we project previously existing images, hypotheses and opinions: the perception of events is self-validating.” 

Then there is the pleasure of grand explanations to win us over - to provide a framed order. [And what a grand tale the Exodus- Sinai stories are. No wonder they become smashing films.]

Page 79 “ A rumor is an explanatory system, i.e a hypothesis that gives order to observations. In general, when a rumor is far fetched or sophisticated, people like it.” 

Page 80 “ As a rumor spreads it becomes more convincing.” Meaning to say - If people are saying the same thing it must be true right ? [One way a rumor gains a wider number of believers. A small group may start a story pass it along until it becomes widely heard.] 

Page 76 Rumors are often accompanied by ‘proofs’ to endow undeniable credibility.  It provide explanatory power for facts around us and satisfies a need for order in the world around us.
[ And is that not what large portions of the Bible are about  ? How the world came to be. From whence the diversity of the various tribes and nations  in the Ancient Near East.  The Israelite's origins and role on Earth. How to maintain the good relations with G-d...] 

Page 65 Rumor credibility is related to specific characteristics of the person we hear it from and the message transmitted to us. [ Would my Father lie to me ? Would Rabbi XYX lie to me ? ...] [ The Jews are the chosen people protected by the warrior god Yahweh who reveals himself at a mountain has a nice ring to it, especially if you are from that tribe.]

Page 70 What is plausible keeps getting broader and broader. [Consider Hammurabi’s claim of a code given to him by god. This can become a whole tribe got the law from god. Or consider some of the extra miracles and fanciful tales added by the midrashim to Exodus story.]

Page 36 The proverb 'where there is smoke there is fire' is ABSURD. Rumors can be 100% false. They may start in the fertile imagination of witnesses, message receivers, people who deliberately start and spread rumors. Also page 45 one reason people spread rumors are to convince. [Think propaganda for example. Could the Exodus - Sinai stories  serve as propaganda ? Sure.]

Page 36 Rumors may begin in a newspaper article that though written with good intention was false. People read it and then begin to believe it. [So the Exodus story was written in a holy text with good intention, yet it was false. It could then become widely believed. The scrolls written up by the Kings and Priests was the press. Many people who found such scrolls or who read them would treat them as truth.]

Page 34 Manipulation and disinformation can spread rumors. [ Could anyone of ancient Israel’s heroes, leaders, scribes desire to manipulate and spread disinformation ? It is not beyond plausibility.]

 Page 32 Rumors may start due to faulty interpretations of messages. The hearers add to or modify the message. Example: WWI the Germans newspaper reports the fall of Anvers into German hands, bells were rung.  This eventually is written up in the paper Le Matin as: It has been confirmed Anvers barbaric conquerors punished priests for heroically refusing to ring church bells by hanging them upside down in the bells. [Certain anti German biases provided a fertile ground for such evolution and belief  in the story. FYI Le Matin was wrong about Anvers.] “Error in fact consists in constructing information according to a plausible scenario, and rumors reflect images and stereotypes that have gained currency.” [ Biases and prior beliefs may determine what is plausible.]

Page 27 “ Sometimes there are no incident or fact or thing seen to spark a rumor."  “The rumors created the fact.” [Portions or potentially all of the Exodus - Sinai  story's may have no basis in reality.]  

Page 24 “A troubling event/fact may give rise to a rumor. The most ‘satisfactory interpretation’ to the group [this can depend on the sort of people in the group. Ancient or Modern. Superstitions or Not. Etc: etc: ] circulates and  in general is PASSED DOWN TO POSTERITY. IT IS THE ONLY INTERPRETATION THAT IS REMEMBERED." [ My caps. For example the Sinai revelation reads like a short official  scripted version of the event rather than a report of all of what actually occurred. It is that version  of events that get passed down. No dissenting voices are recorded. No alternative views are presented.]

Page 23 Rumors arise when info is scarce. Information has value. [ So rumors about one’s history would be welcome in ancient times. Stories about the Israelite's a grand Exodus  would be welcome. ]

Page 21 Rumors can be started by Authority figures such as Pastors. [ The Scribes could thus spread rumors about a people’s history as in the Exodus.  Why should people reject it ? Because the people did not hear such history from their parents ? That presumes the parent would know their own history better than the Authority figure presenting the history. It also presumes knowledge of one’s history was widely known. Such was not the case thousands of years ago. It also presumes people are skeptical. And if we have learned anything from studying  rumors it is that people today and yesteryear are often not skeptical enough. It also presumes that people will reject an Authority figure presentation over a parents. Maybe, but if covered with enough sugar and application of stick the Authority figure’s presentation can gain traction. Authorities also have the means to perpetuate a story.]

Page 27 Testimony can be a source of rumors. Witnesses provide false information with the same self assurance, with same good intention as they provide true information.  What we sustain sometimes reflects more our mental stereotypes that what we have really seen.  Other considerations are the extent of biases, physical state of the witnesses, and their stress level. [Did the ancient Israelites have biases ? High stress levels ? Mental stereotypes ? Yes, Yes and Yes]

I will now switch to another text- Rumor Mills by Fine, Heath Editors 2005.

Page 141 “Collective memory is thus related to rumor in at least two ways. First Collective memories create fertile ground for the reception of rumor, within the structures of collective memory, certain claims ‘make sense’, are linked to a set of beliefs and attitudes about the nature of the social order, and thus appear plausible to the audience of the rumor.”

“Second, Collective memories, including memories of past rumors, can actually contribute to the production of new rumors; speaker may draw upon or refer to past events in their creation of rumor narratives.”

[Recall,  Judaism really starts with Avrahum Avinu (Abraham our Father), not at Mount Sinai. God makes a covenant with Abraham. This could be part of the ancient Israelites collective memory providing fertile ground for new stories such as a new covenant with God at Mount Sinai. In addition, in developing the Exodus- Sinai stories the author(s) could draw on past memories of a law giver such as Moses, the slavery, escape and survival of some of the Israelites in the desert.  These provide pieces of a story to build the grand story of Exodus-Sinai.]

I will now switch to another text- Rumors That Changed The World E. Chirovici 2015.

Beginning Page IX - In ancient times people, ( in part because of their geographical constraints) people did not distinguish between rumor and information. Recent research has revealed that our brains are not designed to make so clear a distinction, using the same cerebral region for the cognitive integration of both. 

Page X - The human psychical world includes 'magical thinking'  and this type of thought is the perfect ecosystem in which rumors can evolve and multiply - and this is still true today. 

Page XII - Rumor can be used to manipulate, dis-inform and  propagandize. 

 I have cited only some of the numerous facts regarding rumor formation, rumor spread, rumor acceptance, rumor use. (There is so much more if you read the literature regarding national tradition, collective memory, rumor, myth formation and marketing.)   Much of what I have posted can be applied to the many potential and plausible natural ways the Exodus and Sinai mythology began, spread and eventually allegedly became to be accepted as true stories by many Jews. At times I  have provided some hints as well.

We need only provide a single natural explanation consistent with ancient near east beliefs, rumor theory and human beings how a story such as Exodus - Sinai could have gained traction. In pasts posts I have already done this. Yet we can provide other scenarios. Given a choice between a natural explanations over a supernatural explanations we choose the former, even if we can not prove exactly which scenario or combinations therof actually occurred. 

The Exodus - Sinai stories could have been sparked by some real historical events, a maximalist approach if you like. Or the stories could have been made up but with some plausible elements to lend credibility, a minimalist approach. Even some works of fiction have factual elements. Also, it is possible the story began amongst a small tribe of people, and the story was passed down generation after generation until it was codified by the scribes and Priests. By then the small tribe had grown in size lets say with 600000 males.  That figure gets codified into the scribal story. Even Kuzari proponents don’t deny a small group of people can be mistaken. Overtime the small population grows it becomes a larger population. 

Continued Kuzari Part 12

Kuzari Argument Part 10

Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Kuzari Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.

Some of my previous Kuzari posts (begun here ) have specifically discussed this version of  the Kuzari argument. In addition, some information in  my prior Kuzari posts directly or indirectly apply to the RG version as well. 

This post will now argue the principle is flawed for reasons I may not already have discussed (I can’t remember, as you get older you become more forgetful) and by a new example. 

We find the following in the book Rumour in Orleans by Edgar Morin 1971.

“A rumour of vanishing women that shook an entire town, though not one disappearance was actually reported to the police, the near certain belief, held by thousands of Orlean’s citizens, that a white slave trade was being run from the very heart of town, in the fitting rooms six of dress shops - all Jewish  though neither press, radio, nor television had one word say in support of it; a kind of medieval panic that for several days held a modern town in it’s grip, in the age of mass media; a fantastical sexual threat that suddenly conjured up the grim spectre of anti-Semitism here was story that fascinated me when I first read the account of it in Le Monde, L’Express and Le Nouvel Observateur.”  Edgar Morin had studied this rumor in depth and wrote a book about it. How it starts, spreads etc: 

What is important is the false story came to be believed by thousands  including numerous educated people in the 1960's. The story  consisted of numerous vanishing women,  at one point the count was over 60. At this point I am not sure of the final tally nor if the story began to spread to other regions in France.

(Fortunately the government, police, press, media, and other groups mount a counter offensive to repudiate the story and though the story trickled away, there were still some believers. It is my understanding that even about 20-30 years later (or is it even more ?)  there are French (and others ?) who think the story was true. Some claiming it was 'even written up in the news.' )

Imagine the believers in the story telling the story to their children. Potentially thousands and thousands of their descendants could potentially be believers. Would my Father lie to me ?  How could so many of  my relatives, and community believe it ? Such a story could not gain traction and come to believed by so many people unless there was evidence,  right ?  

Lets apply the RG principle to the initial recipients of the story. 

Event = numerous women have been kidnapped.

Is this an event of type E ? Should there be ‘enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence” ? Yes. A large number of women disappearing in 1960's Orleans would result in hundreds if not thousands of complaints to officials, the police, the press, the radio, TV, neighbors  etc: etc Such a story would be all over the  newspapers,  radio, TV, police bulletins. Friends and families of the kidnapped women would be coming forward with pleas. All sorts of warnings would be issued by the authorities, churches etc:. Nonetheless, the story becomes believed  by thousands and it took a concerted effort to bring the rumor to a halt.  

One reason the RG principle is problematic is what ‘left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence’ consists of. How do we evaluate when evidence qualifies as such or does not ?
Easily available to whom ? Who are the people that are determining the evidence ? Who are the people looking for it ?  How would different people interpret the evidence ? Etc: Etc: Arguably very few if any events 'leave behind enormous, easily available evidence' that unambiguously suggest a specific event. This relates to the issue what events qualify as type E.

Another reason the principle is problematic is that people (even large groups of people) do not behave the way RG principle thinks they should. There are many who are not cool, rational,  unbiased and skeptical enough. Especially when it comes to group behavior. Thus such a group may come to believe in a story of an event regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence. Once the story has traction it is passed down to the group’s progeny and even becomes accepted by people outside the group  until we may have thousands and thousands who come to believe the story is true. 

 Maybe the Exodus - Sinai story became accepted by a small group  even without sufficient evidence, (just like the Orleans story began with a small group of people). Eventually the story becomes accepted by thousands.  

Would the Exodus - Sinai stories even qualify as an event of type E ? What sort of evidence was available to the Israelites ? Would that evidence suggest supernatural interventions ? As discussed in Part 9  miracles in the Torah point to natural causes. Even the revelation does so, and  I would suggest reading Part 9 regarding Spinoza's commentary regarding miracles in the Bible, what was reported, how they were reported, why they were reported and how the ancient Israelites perceived events and more. 

The RG principle depends on a link between event and evidence. But this only makes sense for events for which we are familiar with. For events that we know leave behind certain sorts of evidence or for evidence that we know points to certain sorts of events.  Events such as say a fire burned down a house. But we have no experience with supernatural events. What sort of evidence points to supernatural event(s) ? What sort of event(s)  points to evidence of supernatural ? Because that crucial link between event and evidence is broken for something involving supernatural, a case can be made supernatural is outside the scope of the  RG.

What would   'enormous, easily available evidence'  for  supernatural event(s)  such as Exodus-Sinai consist of in ancient times ?  Since the ancient Israelites had  no experience (I am speaking prior to the Exodus-Sinai stories) with supernatural events they would not know what such evidence would consist of. How would anybody be able to determine if the evidence they had corresponds to supernatural or perhaps something else ? The ancient Israelites could also confound natural events with supernatural causes. This is not far fetched since ancient people  would ascribe supernatural involvement for all sorts of natural events. 

Continued Kuzari Argument Part 11

Proof of God from Miracles (Part 1) or Kuzari Argument Part 9

Update thru 8/6/2018 3/19/2020

When writing this post I was not sure to label it Kuzari Part 9  or Proof of God from Miracles because there is overlap. Hence the combined title of the post. 

It may be helpful to skim my Kuzari posts first begun here 

When very young in Yeshiva learning the Bible about all the open miracles G-d allegedly wrought on behalf of his chosen people  it was almost like a proof of G-d. We had a tradition of those miracles occurring, so they must of happened right ?  Plus,  G-d he could do anything right ?

But even when quite young there was this nagging doubt - why did all these open miracles only happen in ancient times ? 

Some religious people argue - but there are miracles still to be observed - like the birth of a child. But those sort of examples are not what a miracle is supposed to represent, something unnatural. Nor do they alleviate my doubt why  no open miracles in more recent times. {ETA 3/19/2020 - If there are no supernatural agents active in our sphere, then we would not observe miracles. If there were  supernatural agents active in our sphere we should be able to detect their involvement, but we have not been able to do so. The lack of observation of supernatural involvement in our sphere supports the notion that there are no supernatural agents active in our sphere.}

Some religious people then argue but G-d does do miracles for the Jews - events such as see my posts Proof of God From Gaza rockets or the Proof of God From of Israel also Proof of God from Prophecy (includes some Israel discussion) . My previous posts explain why such events are not convincing and in addition they are not open miracles.  Related discussion is also found in my post Proof of God from Miraculous Recoveries...

Religious people then resort to apologetics why G-d does not perform miracles anymore. I do not find the excuses convincing. 

If an open  miracle could be established to have occurred beyond a shadow of a doubt I would be open to something beyond known nature exists. For example, if under scientifically controlled conditions a ‘man’ can successfully walk on water whenever we request it. That would mean the ‘man’ is a person with ‘supernatural powers’ or person able have the supernatural demonstrated thru him or an alien with powers we have no knowledge of. 

So in a way even a bonafide miracle would only prove something beyond our known experience and knowledge is occurring. It may not be supernatural being(s). It may be super technological sophisticated alien  beings -  a better explanation than supernatural beings. But to many people the aliens would appear as ‘gods’. 

Later in this post, Hume provides an example of a type of a miracle that needs to be discussed in relation to the Exodus stories. This post will also be citing some of Spinoza on Miracles. As Spinoza will demonstrate we must be careful when reading the Bible stories, that they should not be taken at face value. Also, ancient documents like Bible, were not meant to be ‘history’ as we understand the term today. They had theological, economical, local and international political purposes. Many Ancient Near East cultures would ascribe events, including natural events to the will of the God(s) - the ancient Jews being no different. 

Based on Hume’s discussion of Miracles 

Our everyday experience shows nature operates according to certain ‘laws’ of nature with a very high probability ( arguably 100%, since we are aware of no violation of the ‘laws’ of nature as science now understands those laws).  We read about  miracles in ancient texts and sometimes from reports of living witnesses or stories relayed to us by people. Yet we know there is a  probability of error, a high probability of error within those ancient texts, living witnesses and stories relayed to us.

We may compare the probability of the ‘laws’ of nature of being violated versus the probability of the testimony of miracles being in error. We find the probability of the former being much less than the probability of the latter,  so we reject the testimony of miracles.

Does this mean Hume intends we never accept testimony of ‘miracles’ ? Does not Hume himself propose we accept miracles under certain circumstances ? Later I will propose an answer.

I will not be citing all of Hume’s  reasons and arguments to reject miracles, the interested may read his books - for example An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, from which the following is extracted from Section X - Of Miracles. All the following are quotes  from Hume. I urge the reader to read every word of Hume carefully. 

“...That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish...”

[We hear a story of a Priest turning a stick into a snake. 
Could the story be false ? Would it be miraculous if the story was false ? What would be more miraculous the stick turning into a snake or the story being false ? ]

“For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts, performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the
detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.”

[ Lets begin to apply Hume’s criteria to the Bible miracles. Do we know there a sufficient number of men witnessing the miracles ? No. We only have a story in a book alleging a certain number of men. Were they unbiased ? No. Educated enough ? No. Anything to gain by the stories ? Yes. Was it public enough ? No. It was in a desert hidden from view from everybody except the very people making the claim they are chosen by God. More can be written, but enough has been said.] 

[And here comes  Hume’s alleged loophole to accept a miracle.]

“I [Hume] beg the limitations here made may be remarked, when I say, that a miracle can never be proved, so as to be the foundation of a system of religion. For I own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history. Thus, suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: Suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: That all travellers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: It is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many analogies, that any phaenomenon, which seems to have a tendency towards that catastrophe, comes within the reach of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.”

[Does this mean Hume would accept the ‘dark’ event as a miracle ? He seems to hedge by writing we may accept the event has having happened, but the cause needs to be researched. Anyway, would the Exodus stories qualify for an ‘acceptable’ miracle(s) ala Hume    ? NO. He goes on to explain.]

“Here then we are first to consider a book [Bible], presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.”

[Hume was aware of the Exodus stories and rejects them. And for good reason. Those Kuzari proponents who think they have an ally in Hume are grossly in error.]

[ To paraphrase some other reasons Hume rejects miracles include:  people’s propensity for wonder, surprise and the love of the tale. Also, the unreliability of the witnesses of the miracles who are ignorant and not skeptical enough. Also, the numerous miracles found amongst Hindus, Muslims, pagans etc: etc: opposes the miracles in a single other religion say Christianity.  The Christian will probably argue all those other miracles from  religions and pagans are all false for one reason or another, unreliable for one reason or another  or perhaps some were real but done by Satan or even done by God for them. But our Christian miracles are reliable. Can you hear the Hindus or Muslims responding in kind ?  Convinced ? ]

[ How should people react to the initial Atom Bomb dropping on Hiroshima during WWII ? Should the event been rejected using Hume ? First, I think this event would more or less qualify under Hume's hedge - and thus using Hume we should let the experts research. Second, Einstein and other scientists already thought an Atom Bomb was consistent with science, so there would be no good reason for people to reject the Atom Bomb story even if nothing like it ever occurred, even according to Hume. Third, there is nothing in Hume's argument that prevents us from accepting further discovery of 'new' "laws of nature" or the clarification of 'known' "laws of nature".]

[Does Hume apriori assume miracles are impossible ? I do not think so. Rather, the core of his argument is probabilistic. Today we do not observe 'miracles' and we have 'laws of nature' say like gravity.  We have a story of a man walking on water. What is more likely a true miracle has occurred  or the 'law of gravity'  has been not violated ?

If you assume a supernatural being exists then you may argue that being can violate the 'law of gravity', and so walking on water is not unlikely. This is an admission that stories of miracles can not be used to 'prove' a supernatural being. In other words,  you have to assume or otherwise prove that  (1)  a supernatural being exists and (2) it can violate the 'law of gravity'. Then it can be argued a story of a miracle is not so improbable as the Hume style argument claims.]

Based on Spinoza’s discussion of Miracles 

I have mentioned Spinoza several times on my blog; he was  perhaps the first Bible Philosopher to help break the bondage of my mind. We will consider Spinoza's discussion on Miracles http://sacred-texts.com/phi/spinoza/treat/tpt10.htm as found in A Theologico-Political Treatise, by Benedict de Spinoza

[We have good reason to believe the ancient Israelites were predisposed to believe in the supernatural.  Confounding the situation is even natural occurrences amongst ancient peoples, including the ancient Israelites are attributed to the supernatural. So for example, if the ancient Israelites are wandering in the desert  and a flock of quail  happen to come their way (Exodus 16:13)  they would attribute it to supernatural. Or if  water issues from a rock (Exodus 17:6) that could be ascribed to supernatural.  Even today many Jews attribute everyday events and the most mundane coincidences to the working of G-d.] 

Here are some relevant highlights but see Spinoza for more support and examples for his contentions. I urge the reader to read every word of Spinoza carefully: 

(5) In fact, the common people can only adore God, and refer all things to His power by removing natural causes, and conceiving things happening out of their due course, and only admires the power of God when the power of nature is conceived of as in subjection to it.
(6) This idea seems to have taken its rise among the early Jews who saw the Gentiles round them worshipping visible gods such as the sun, the moon, the earth, water, air, &c., and in order to inspire the conviction that such divinities were weak and inconstant, or changeable, told how they themselves were under the sway of an invisible God, and narrated their miracles, trying further to show that the God whom they worshipped arranged the whole of nature for their sole benefit: this idea was so pleasing to humanity that men go on to this day imagining miracles, so that they may believe themselves God's favourites, and the final cause for which God created and directs all things.
(7) What pretension will not people in their folly advance!....

(68) In Psalm cv. 24 it is said that God changed the hearts of the Egyptians, so that they hated the Israelites. (69) This was evidently a natural change, as appears from Exodus, chap.i., where we find no slight reason for the Egyptians reducing the Israelites to slavery....

(74) If, therefore, events are found in the Bible which we cannot refer to their causes, nay, which seem entirely to contradict the order of nature, we must not come to a stand, but assuredly believe that whatever did really happen happened naturally. (75) This view is confirmed by the fact that in the case of every miracle there were many attendant circumstances, though these were not always related, especially where the narrative was of a poetic character....

The circumstances of the miracles clearly show, I maintain, that natural causes were needed. (77) For instance, in order to infect the Egyptians with blains, it was necessary that Moses should scatter ashes in the air (Exod. ix: 10); the locusts also came upon the land of Egypt by a command of God in accordance with nature, namely, by an east wind blowing for a whole day and night; and they departed by a very strong west wind (Exod. x:14, 19). (78) By a similar Divine mandate the sea opened a way for the Jews (Exo. xiv:21), namely, by an east wind which blew very strongly all night...

(81) Wherefore we may believe that, although the circumstances attending miracles are not related always or in full detail, yet a miracle was never performed without them....

(82) This is confirmed by Exodus xiv:27, where it is simply stated that "Moses stretched forth his hand, and the waters of the sea returned to their strength in the morning," no mention being made of a wind; but in the song of Moses (Exod. xv:10) we read, "Thou didst blow with Thy wind (i.e. with a very strong wind), and the sea covered them." (83) Thus the attendant circumstance is omitted in the history, and the miracle is thereby enhanced...

I have shown that Scripture does not explain things by their secondary causes, but only narrates them in the order and the style which has most power to move men, and especially uneducated men, to devotion; and therefore it speaks inaccurately of God and of events, seeing that its object is not to convince the reason, but to attract and lay hold of the imagination....

Lastly, in order to understand, in the case of miracles, what actually took place, we ought to be familiar with Jewish phrases and metaphors; anyone who did not make sufficient allowance for these, would be continually seeing miracles in Scripture where nothing of the kind is intended by the writer; he would thus miss the knowledge not only of what actually happened, but also of the mind of the writers of the sacred text. (106) For instance, Zechariah speaking of some future war says (chap. xiv;7):  "It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night; but at even time it shall be light." In these words he seems to predict a great miracle, yet he only means that the battle will be doubtful the whole day, that the issue will be known only to God, but that in the evening they will gain the victory: the prophets frequently used to predict victories and defeats of the nations in similar phrases...

In this way many occurrences in the Bible are to be regarded merely as Jewish expressions. (112) There is no need for me to go through them in detail; but I will call attention generally to the fact that the Jews employed such phrases not only rhetorically, but also, and indeed chiefly, from devotional motives. (113) Such is the reason for the substitution of "bless God" for "curse God" in 1 Kings xxi:10, and Job ii:9, and for all things being referred to God, whence it appears that the Bible seems to relate nothing but miracles, even when speaking of the most ordinary occurrences, as in the examples given above."

[It has been a long time since I studied Spinoza who wrote in the 1600's.  His words still ring so true and are a breathe of fresh air.]

[There have been some scholars who have assumed some kernel of truth in the Bible stories and have used the Bible to provide clues of  natural causes and thus derive some natural explanation of what may have occurred. For example - explanations of manna have ranged from various sorts of mushroom, insect, insect secretion, plant, plant  secretions. So did actual miracles actually happen in the Exodus, or were natural occurring events attributed to G-d ? Even the Sinai revelation could refer a storm/ earthquake/volcano or some combination thereof.  

Some may object that a natural explanation can not account for all the miraculous details of manna such as a double quantity falling the day before the Sabbath. However, those details may be later embellishments to stress Sabbath observance.

From the book The Bible As History by Werner Keller second revised edition 1995 Barnes and Noble beginning on page 124 the Egyptian Plagues still occur:

1) Bloody Nile - could be deposits from Absssinian lake which color flood waters making it look like blood.
2) At flood times - frogs, fleas can become plagues. Lice attack in swarms.
3) Nile Heat/Nile Itch the rash often develops into spreading ulcers,
4) Hail storms - rare in Nile, but can occur.
5) Locust swarms are typical.
6) Darkness - hot wind whirls up sand and block sun. Called the Simoon/Khamsin
7) Death of children ?
 Page 128 Exodus 16 discusses Quails - same thing happens today - bird migration route from Africa to Europe across the Red Sea. Exhausted they land on it's shores. Even today Bedouins in the area catch quails there.]]

{ETA In the same book Werner Keller discusses the "miracle" in Exodus 17 and Numbers  20 - Moses strikes a rock and water flows. Werner provides an actual example from the 30's. Major Jarvis witnessed the Sinai Camel Corps striking a rock and getting water to flow !  Werner believes that Moses learned  the method from the Midianites.} 


{ETA 1/2/2018 Part two of the proof from miracles is here  }

Continued Kuzari Argument Part 10