Best way to answer a teen about H's existence?

HindaRochel

Tue, Aug 07 2007, 1:36 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

Isn't the point of a proof that it should be understood? If not, then what's the point. A proof that can't be understood is worthless.

Fair enough. Put more precisely, it should read:

What is the point of the author of the Kuzari putting forth a proof that cannot be understood when the very purpose of publishing the book in the first place was to present a proof to the historicity of Matan Torah?

Tammy

That is a good question, especially since the persons not understanding it are the ones to whom the proof is given. It is one thing to offer a complex mathematical proof to a math professor and another to an eight year old. (not comparing you to an 8 year old in terms of intellect, but to degree of understanding).

The proof being cited is intended for the masses, if it doesn't answer the question or, even more so results in deeper questions and more estrangement than it is of little value.

TzenaRena

Tue, Aug 07 2007, 3:14 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

Oh, and BTW, Tzena...

The ad hominem attacks really don't prove anything. The Kuzari proof stands or falls on it's own merits, regardless of whether or not I'm an "empty person," arrogant, or lack Yiras Shomayim.

I would appreciate it if you stick the issues and not attack me personally.

Thanks,

Tammy

translate the Latin please? I'm responding to your criticism's of Kuzari, reminiscent of Bible criticism. If you consider that an attack, maybe you shouldn't criticize the holy seforim. Instead of saying something is "false" or "flawed", you could say that the answer doesn't satisfy your question. That would be very different.

But if someone says that a chibur of one of the Rishonim has a davar reik, then we answer that the davar reik is mikem.

Tammy wrote:

that in itself is proof that it can be understood if one's desire would be to do so. (If one desired to not accept it, they could deny it!) R. Yehudah Halevi wouldn't write something without a point! But then again, how could we show how "smart" we are if we just admit that?

HindaRochel wrote:

The proof being cited is intended for the masses, if it doesn't answer the question or, even more so results in deeper questions and more estrangement than it is of little value.

You mean the Kuzari needs your haskamah to whether it has value?

Quote:

And I think this is the crux of the matter. Tammy, much to the angst and anger of many, has shown that the proof is flawed. Others will have the same questions and reasoning skills and will also remain inconvinced of the matter.

She has not shown anything other than that she hasn't fathomed the proof, and she would rather criticize it than understand it. davar reik hu mikem.

TammyTammy

Tue, Aug 07 2007, 3:22 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

Ad Hominem means "to the person." The fallacy is in not responding to the point being made, but rather attacking the person making it.

An extreme example would go like this:

Person A: The Earth goes around the sun.
Person B: You're so stupid.

The fallacy in the argument is that it does not address the point being made. Whether or not the earth goes around the sun does not depend at all on the other person's stupidity or lack thereof. By calling me an "empty person," or telling me that I lack Yiras Shomayim or that I'm arrogant is really beside the point. The Kuzari proof does not stand or fall on my level of Yiras Shomayim, my arrogance or my emptiness. Therefore, I'm asking you kindly to address the issues.

I've treated you with respect in this conversation. I have not issued an ad hominem attacks. I have not insulted you, called you any names, nor ascribed any personality traits to you. I would kindly ask you to reciprocate and stick to the issues and not what you think of me.

Tammy

TammyTammy

Tue, Aug 07 2007, 3:30 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

The point of a proof is to convince people of something and to show it to be logically true. If I already know it's true, then I don't need the proof.

In any event, your assertion that one has to want the proof in order to see it is ludicrous. No matter how much a person may want to see otherwise, I can still prove that 2+2=4 (in base 10 math), that each of the angles in an equilateral triangle is 60 degrees and that an even number times an odd number will always produce an even number. It doesn't have anything to do with a person's "desire" to see the proof.

Quote:

She has not shown anything other than that she hasn't fathomed the proof, and she would rather criticize it than understand it. davar reik hu mikem.

No, that's not true. You haven't shown the proof to be true. I've responded to every challenge that was given to me in this thread. You and others have attempted to validate the proof, but in every case, there has been a fatal flaw or fallacy in the argument.

The point isn't that I don't want to see it -- heck, I'd LOVE to see an absolute proof to TMS. And who knows, maybe there is one out there. But the Kuzari proof isn't it -- it just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. It's most fatal flaw is that it assumes the very point it is trying to prove.

Tammy

TzenaRena

Tue, Aug 07 2007, 3:44 pm

Tammy, I'm sorry you misunderstood my comments, which weren't meant to refer to you specifically, and I wasn't trying to call you names. I apologize that it came across that way.

I don't consider you an empty person, and if I did, I'd have to consider myself the same.

But I feel I have to take issue with some of the things you are writing. "mikem" doesn't mean you personally, those are simply the words of the posuk and a concept I'm referring to about anyone who espouses that a davar from Torah, Chazal, seforim in Torah Sheb'al Peh are wrong, or empty. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Last edited by TzenaRena on Tue, Aug 07 2007, 3:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

TammyTammy

Tue, Aug 07 2007, 3:49 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Tammy, I'm sorry you misunderstood my comments, which weren't meant to refer to you specifically, and I wasn't trying to call you names. I apologize if it came across that way.

Apology accepted.

Quote:

But I feel I have to take issue with some of the things you are writing. "mikem" doesn't mean you personally, those are simply the words of the posuk and a concept I'm referring to.
I thought that's clear, that it's referring to anyone who espouses that a davar from Torah, Chazal, seforim in Torah Sheb'al Peh are wrong, or empty.

That's fine. I *expect* you to take issue with things I say (if not, we wouldn't be having this argument).

I suppose it boils down to whether or not one considers the Kuzari as TMS. And if you maintain that everything was given on Sinai, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the point I raised earlier:

Quote:

Or, let me put it this way... if you think that everything was given at Sinai, do you think that young R. Tarphon was learning Mishna in the Beis Midrash one day and came across a mishna where he argues something with R. Akiva that he said to himself - "Oh! I guess I'm going to have to hold like this when I get older!"

It's a bit of a silly question, but it illustrates the point nicely. If you maintain that all of these things were given at Sinai and handed down through the generations, then what did R. Tarphon (or any other Tanna and Amora) think when they came across a Mishna or Gemara that referenced themselves?

The point I'm trying to make is that not everything in every sefer came from Sinai. It couldn't have, or else you have the silly situation I presented above.

In addition, there's also Motek's point that I brought up that shows that the Kuzari couldn't be from Sinai anyway, since it describes historical events.

Tammy

Motek

Wed, Aug 08 2007, 9:50 pm

rosehill wrote:

Proving that Hashem exists, and proving that He gave the Torah are two completely different issues. It sounds like this teen has yet to accept step one, so cannot accept step two.

Since "you were shown to known that Hashem hu ha'Elokim" at the Giving of the Torah, the two are intertwined, but I agree that the thread focused on the truth of Mattan Torah when the question is about G-d.

Quote:

I would explore with her further what exactly her doubts are, and why she's not sure.
Is it to do with the intelligent design vs evolution controversy?
Is it how can a benevolent G-d create a world with cancer and death and destruction?
Is it religion causes war?
When you have a better sense of what she's unsure of, we may be able to help you tailor a better answer.

excellent point

Motek

Wed, Aug 08 2007, 9:58 pm

adapted from wikipedia:

Chovos Ha'Levavos (חובות הלבבות, English: Duties of the Heart), is the primary work of the Jewish philosopher R' Bachya ibn Pakuda. He was a Jewish philosopher and rabbi who seemly lived at Saragossa, Spain, in the first half of the 11th century. Chovos Ha'Levavos is highly regarded in the Torah world.

R' Bachya ibn Pekuda held it is not sufficient to accept this belief [in G-d] without thinking, as the child does, or because the fathers have taught so, as do the blind believers in tradition, who have no opinion of their own and are led by others. Nor should the belief in God be such as might in any way be liable to be understood in a corporeal or anthropomorphic sense, but it should rest on conviction which is the result of the most comprehensive knowledge and research.

Far from demanding blind belief, the Torah appeals to reason and knowledge as proofs of God's existence. It is therefore a duty incumbent upon every one to make God an object of speculative reason and knowledge, in order to arrive at true faith.

He starts from the following three premises:

(1) Nothing creates itself, since the act of creating necessitates its existence (see also Saadia, "Emunot," I. 2)

(2) the causes of things are necessarily limited in number, and lead to the presumption of a first cause which is necessarily self-existent, having neither beginning nor end, because everything that has an end must needs have a beginning

(3) all composite beings have a beginning; and a cause must necessarily be created.

The world is beautifully arranged and furnished like a great house, of which the sky forms the ceiling, the earth the floor, the stars the lamps, and man is the proprietor, to whom the three kingdoms—the animal, the vegetable, and the mineral—are submitted for use, each of these being composed of the four elements.

Consequently the universe, being a combination of many forces, must have a creative power as its cause. Nor can the existence of the world be due to mere chance. Where there is purpose manifested, there must have been wisdom at work. Ink spilled accidentally upon a sheet of paper can not produce legible writing.

Motek

Wed, Aug 08 2007, 10:03 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

It's most fatal flaw is that it assumes the very point it is trying to prove.

No it doesn't. You claim he assumes there were 600,000 men from the ages of 20-60 because the Torah says so. Says who? The 2-3 million Jews who were there, saw how many people there were and told their children.

Anyway, I may or may not get around to all the flaws in your posts, like the point about 613 mitzvos which had nothing to do with anything.

I'd like to ask you this question (and HindaRochel): Why do you believe in G-d and that He gave the Torah at Sinai?

Or put as the OP put it - what would you tell a teen who asked - how can we be sure that G-d exists?

TammyTammy

Wed, Aug 08 2007, 11:11 pm

Motek wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

It's most fatal flaw is that it assumes the very point it is trying to prove.

But how do you know that there were 2-3 million people there? The Torah. That's back to the original point.

Quote:

Anyway, I may or may not get around to all the flaws in your posts, like the point about 613 mitzvos which had nothing to do with anything.

Agreed. It's a side point.

Quote:

I'd like to ask you this question (and HindaRochel): Why do you believe in G-d and that He gave the Torah at Sinai?

Or put as the OP put it - what would you tell a teen who asked - how can we be sure that G-d exists?

I would tell them the truth -- that I don't *know* that God exists. I can only look at the wonders of creation and, to me, it's fairly apparent that it could only have been created by God. Is that a proof? Of course not -- but I wouldn't present it as one. I don't feel the need to have God or the Torah proven, nor do I think that it *needs* to be proven.

I think that presenting something as a "proof" which is later disproven is far more dangerous to a person's emunah than being honest and admitting that you don't always have all the answers.

Tammy

amother

Wed, Aug 08 2007, 11:46 pm

Returning to the original question on this post, If your child asks you about Hashem's existence or from where did he come from etc?
Chassidus gives this example, 1+1=2. It will always equal 2 till infinity or going back to infinity. Nothing will ever change 1+1=2 because it is the TRUTH. Truth never changes , it is the same throughout. Hashem is the Absolute Truth. Absolute truth cannot be created , nor can it come from anywhere. Absolute Truth by definition implies constant existence past present and future.

leomom

Thu, Aug 09 2007, 12:07 am

TammyTammy wrote:

My understanding is that when we say that the Torah she'b'al peh is from Sinai, we are talking about the contents - not the actual word-by-word text. So for example, halacha was passed down from generation to generation since Sinai... and the Mishnah/Gemora are a record of the discussion/debate that led to the halacha being codified in writing, in order to be preserved.

Someone else will likely know more about this and be able to explain it better than I can. But as least as far as I've learned, that's the general idea.

leomom

Thu, Aug 09 2007, 12:21 am

To address the OP's question...

Appreciating the miracle & beauty of nature and science (including math, by the way) is a good start. I think it has to be both emotional as well as logical -- aim for the heart as well as the mind. Possibly the heart most of all.... A person can love Hashem without necessarily having an intellectual understanding of Hashem's existence.

My son is not yet a teen but often challenges us in a similar way about Hashem's existence. What reaches him most as he grapples with the idea of Hashem and what that means is talking about Hashem being IN all of creation, creating everything and sustaining everything in amazingly complicated ways. We take walks that are something like nature walks, but their whole purpose is to talk about and appreciate how Hashem is at work right now all around us, making the whole world happen.

We talk about trees and how they take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen -- cleaning the air -- giving people and animals the oxygen they need to breathe -- etc. How it all works together.

We talk about the atmosphere, sunlight, clouds, and yes, rainbows! Squirrels, bugs, whatever we see -- how each contains incredible mechanical/biological systems, or follows certain physical laws, etc., and how each plays a role in an interconnected universe. Deep stuff!!!!!!! You have to be in awe yourself, and you have to show enthusiasm for the miraculousness of it all. Your child has to see that YOU are like a child looking at the world in amazement. Unbelievable! This could never have happened by chance!

We talk about the moshol of a complex (man-made) machine needing a designer to plan and construct it... the nuts and springs and bolts don't just jump from their shelves into a useful arrangement and assemble themselves.

I try to show how grateful I am to Hashem for the beautiful world we live in, and for the brachas in our lives, our family, etc. That ahavas Hashem is picked up on by kids even while they question and challenge -- and they can go back to that basic feeling of loving Hashem later, once they have started to sort through some of the more logical issues they need to explore.

And I agree with those who have said that the goal is not necessarily to PROVE that Hashem exists -- rather to show how compelling the evidence is and how much beauty and meaning there is in a life that is based on knowing that Hashem is in the world.

HindaRochel

Thu, Aug 09 2007, 3:28 am

Motek wrote:

I can't be "sure" in terms of logical thought, so I wouldn't trya nd prove G-d exists. I do believe...why? I just do...I wouldn't try and explain it anymore than I would try and explain why I loved white chocolate over milk chocolate or butterscotch candy more then lemon. After a bit of going over ones preference one comes down and says "because I like butterscotch flavor better than lemon..." there would be times of course that I could associate a taste with an emotional event, but not usually.

Why do I believe in Hashem? I do. It is an internal sensation that seems right... There seems a void in not believing in Hashem, I don't mean that I would feel "without G-d all is meaningless" but rather I can not see myself not believing in G-d. While I can conceive of a world, beautiful and complex, as YY explained, without G-d, it simply doesn't feel right without Hashem in charge.

I don't know if that makes sense. But my belief is quite strong. I don't need proof to keep it alive. I just need to feel my life, good or bad at the moment, and feel a need to connect.

Like today, when I'm feeling angrya nd out of sorts and hating my job, to me G-d is the one whom I can pray to and feel loved.

Ruchel

Thu, Aug 09 2007, 12:29 pm

yy wrote:

My dad says there's enough to prove the existence of G-d in nature, its strenght, its complicatedness (sp?), how it works... what you say basically