Ben Masada said:
there are two modalities of belief. One is by faith and the other is on the base of probability.
i am afraid that this rather relies on you being able to base the assumptions in your numbers of matters of faith. i am familiar with all the arguments about, for example, conditions for life in the universe, but whatever you put into the assumptions affects the outcome and there is no way you're ever going to be able to prove it. in any case "proofs of faith" were last in fashion in the middle ages and they are, frankly, misconceived. maimonidean "principles" require faith-based belief, however you want to phrase that.
Those who believe by faith, aka, the fundamentalists, are sure 100% of things they do not know.
not all of us. some do our best to believe things that we are not absolutely sure of, but believe to be right and it is best to be honest about this; either way, other people cannot be induced to be convinced by such things.
These are no different from atheists who disbelieve by faith what they find hard to conceive.
what absolute rubbish. atheists do not believe at all. they go on the evidence. they also do not see why they should accept a priori something that seems unreasonable to them based on these assumptions - see russell's "jupiter-orbiting teapot" for your example; it cannot be disproved, but there is no reason to suppose it to be the case for them. now, for you and i, there may be very good reason for us to suppose the various articles of jewish faith to be the case, but this is not a communicable experience.
Even the great Albert Einstein, when asked if he believed in God, he said that all his life was to try to catch God at His work of creation.
oh, give over. einstein was *not* a theist in the traditional sense and no amount of selective quoting will construct this case. on the other hand:
It could very well be God at His work of creation. It could be, I mean, it is probable. But none is sure about anything. Probability goes with caution and prudence.
this is about as definite as one can really be about these matters, so at least you get that.
In a word, "controversy." That's how knowledge is developed.
perhaps, but not by insulting other religions as your jumping-off point - read our code of conduct. this is an interfaith dialogue site and your tone displays a sort of preachy arrogance i normally associate with saudi-influenced dawah merchants.
You do not know how Abraham, Isaac and Jacob got married?
no, because the detail isn't there.
You might want to brush up a little on your reading of the Torah.
well, instead of trying unsuccessfully to be patronising, why don't you quote me exactly where it says how the patriarchs dealt with things like the contract, the witnesses and so on, because it certainly isn't stated explicitly.
the method to get married is different today from that time, it is just a social development of the procedure. For better, which I enjoy the positive effects of fences around the Torah.
go on then - how did they get married at that time, according to the Torah? with verses, please.
Take it easy man, just get back on the mood of "b'shalom" or you can choose to ignore my posts.
i'm not going to ignore someone who seems to think the purpose of an interfaith dialogue site is to harangue christians about how misguided and wrong their faith is; i will ask you again to read the code of conduct rather than moderate you.
BTW, it is not appropriate for Gentiles to read us and laugh at two Jews in a controversial argument that will take us nowhere.
i can't believe you wrote this. are you seriously suggesting that this is an appropriate time or place for an appeal to tribal solidarity? if you're wrong about this stuff - and you are - it is quite appalling to suggest that i should give you a free pass. "not in front of the goyim?" arsebiscuits to that. in fact, how dare you? it's called an "argument for the sake of heaven". it's a qiddush haShem
. what you are suggesting is a hillul
- you should be ashamed of yourself.