An Argument for Sinai

Recently, I heard an argument given by Rabbi Gottlieb for the historicity of the biblical events of the book of Exodus, i.e. the Exodus from Egypt, the Revelation at Mt. Sinai, etc.  I listened to this argument because I have been trying to complete a goal that I have, namely to figure out if we can know anything about God other than that God exists (and created the known universe, perhaps).

Anyway, I have some thoughts on the argument.

The Argument

The argument is the following:

1. The story of the Revelation at Sinai falls under category X.
2. Category X is comprised of stories of influential experiences of whole nations. 
3. Some stories from category X have been shown to be true.
4. No stories from category X have been shown to be false.
5. Therefore, stories from category X are probably true.
6. Therefore, the story of the Revelation at Sinai is probably true.

The conclusion of this argument is a non-sequitur, i.e. an illogical statement.  This is because there is no logical link between the conclusion and the premises.  I will show why this is the case in my analysis below.  As in my analysis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the premises need further clarification.

Definitions

First of all, consider premise three.  It says that certain stories about influential experiences of entire nations have been shown to be true.  Presumably, this would include stories about famines and wars.  Famines and wars affect entire nations, and famines and wars are influential, because they cause everyone to eat less and flee, fight, etc.  It's probably true that some stories about famines and wars have been shown to be true.  However, it should be noted that these are stories about natural events.  This important distinction should be noted in the premise.  Therefore, premise three should read like the following:

     3. Some stories about natural events from category X have been shown to be true.

What this implies is that only natural (and no supernatural) experiences from category X have been shown to be true.  This does not mean that stories about supernatural experiences are false, but rather only that they have not been shown to be true.

Furthermore, premise one could be updated to read like the following:

     1. The story of the supernatural Revelation at Sinai falls under category X.

Perhaps that seems a bit nit-picky.  However, I think it is crucial in this argument to make the distinction between natural events and supernatural events.

In order to make this distinction even more clear, premise two could be updated to read like the following:

     2. Category X is comprised of stories of both natural (X₁) and supernatural (X₂) influential experiences of whole nations. 

Lastly, I'll concede that premise four is true.  Not only will I concede that premise four is true for natural events (X₁), but also for supernatural events (X₂).   More on this below.

The Conclusion

Point 5, i.e. the conclusion, of the argument is a non-sequitur.  The correct conclusion should be the following:

     5. Therefore, the story of the supernatural Revelation at Sinai has not been shown to be false.

The Argument Clarified

Therefore, my updated version of the argument should read like the following:

1. The story of the supernatural Revelation at Sinai falls under category X.
2. Category X is comprised of both natural (X₁) and supernatural (X₂) stories of influential experiences of whole nations. 
3. Some stories from category X₁ have been shown to be true.
4. No stories from either category X₁ or X₂ have been shown to be false.
5. Therefore, the story of the supernatural Revelation at Sinai has not been shown to be false.

There, that's better.

So What?

This updated argument shows that the story of the Revelation at Sinai has not been shown to be false.  So what?  Even if I concede this argument, it is not significant to the truth value of the story of the Revelation at Sinai.  There are literally millions of supernatural stories that we could insert into the very same argument, and we would end up with the very same conclusion, i.e. that the story has not been shown to be false.

For example, we could insert a story about when Zeus revealed himself to the people of Greece.  Or, we could insert a story about when the Flying Spaghetti Monster revealed itself to the people of the Great Meatball.  These stories, too, have not been shown to be false.  So what?

To show that a story has not been shown to be false says almost nothing about whether or not the story is actually true.  Therefore, to show that the story of the Revelation at Sinai has not been shown to be false says almost nothing about whether or not the story is actually true.

Thus, the updated argument, just like the original argument, fails to do what it set out to do, i.e. show that the story about the Revelation at Sinai is probably true.