tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post4177700951628107526..comments2023-10-22T18:58:50.693-07:00Comments on Kefirah of the Week: The Modern Kuzari ArgumentA Kefirahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17474560089122987417noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-17491715430115095062015-11-22T13:53:55.620-08:002015-11-22T13:53:55.620-08:00Accident? It was min hashomayim! ;)Accident? It was min hashomayim! ;)Undercover Koferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00194328471722983693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-76981621286091308462015-11-16T12:07:17.579-08:002015-11-16T12:07:17.579-08:00Are Roster, or other readers may be interested in ...Are Roster, or other readers may be interested in my latest post on the Kuzari Argument. IMHO there is a major flaw Gottlieb's version that has only been hinted at in my prior posts. My latest post directly Kamakaze's Gottlieb's version. Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-26522547677018267562015-11-09T21:03:26.030-08:002015-11-09T21:03:26.030-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-67062085740468364582015-11-09T15:39:20.580-08:002015-11-09T15:39:20.580-08:001) First, I wanted to apologize for my claim that ...1) First, I wanted to apologize for my claim that your claims are obviously flawed. While I still believe that it's true, I shouldn't be making these claims if I'm not willing to continue our debate regarding Kuzari.<br /><br />In fact, while I think that you and kefirah are doing a tremendous sin promulgating atheism (which goes without saying, from the religious perspective), kefirah and you do deserve credit for subjecting your views to comments and replies. The Gemara says that when we die, we will be asked, "nasata vinata be-emunah?," which some translate (allegorically) as "did you discuss faith?" The question isn't whether you had faith, but rather whether you dialogued regarding faith. Sadly, there are thousands of OTDs out there who aren't willing to discuss these issues, so it's refreshing to find two who are willing to debate.<br /><br />2) Your rephrasing isn't an accurate presentation of my view (that was probably because of wasn't clear). My point, rather, is that there's a 50% chance that a national tradition regarding a nation changing event MUST be true, because there's a 50% chance that this evidence simply CAN'T be corrupted. Even the other side of the coin, that the evidence is fallible (which I agree there's a 50% chance that the evidence is fallible), there's still some evidence that the event took place. In short, there's a 50% chance that there's infallible evidence for the miracles and there's a 50% chance that there's fallible evidence for the miracles. Regarding the term "nation-changing," I would refine that term. It isn't nation-changing per se, because nations changes back and forth constantly. Rather the point is that it was immediately and perpetually commemorated (or at least the belief stated that). If I'm accused of moving the goal-posts, I stand convicted.Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-50015796488371853592015-11-09T15:37:10.417-08:002015-11-09T15:37:10.417-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-27660402285007392015-11-09T15:36:42.227-08:002015-11-09T15:36:42.227-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-6996686218478495252015-11-09T14:42:16.647-08:002015-11-09T14:42:16.647-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-86288457845807492382015-11-09T14:23:29.980-08:002015-11-09T14:23:29.980-08:00@Are Roster "I [Are Roster] claim that there...@Are Roster "I [Are Roster] claim that there is no evidence whatsoever that nationally commemorated history is a fallible form of evidence. I do admit - however - that there is no evidence that it's infallible. Thus, I claim that there is a 50% chance that the Sinai miracles "MUST" HAVE HAPPENED (although the odds that it did happen would be significantly higher than that, but we can discuss this point later).<br /><br />Can I rephrase your statement as follows: There is a 50% chance a 'national tradition involving a nation changing event' is true, and a 50% chance it is false. Is this capturing what your intending to say ?Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-53621033218534362322015-11-09T11:35:26.253-08:002015-11-09T11:35:26.253-08:004) There is a more basic flaw with your point. You...4) There is a more basic flaw with your point. You imply that, had God created the earth 6,000 years ago, he would have created an earth that also appeared to have been created 6,000 years ago. But why do you assume that arbitrary claim? Similarly, ACJA claims that had a flood occurred, God would have certainly made it appear that a flood had just occurred. I see no evidence for that claim. Rather, the opposite is more likely. God needs to remain the Hidden God. He can't provide open evidence for his miraculous creation and flood (just as He made the manna disappear). There are many reasons for this. The best, in my opinion, is that God wants to provide us with the duty and the privilege of perpetuating and commemorating His miracles. So the evidence which points that God didn't perform miracles might be something we should suspect all along.<br /><br />5) You allude to the archaeological evidence for the Exodus. I am not aware of any direct evidence for the exodus. What I am aware of, however, is the archaeological evidence for the surrounding reality. This has three effects: a) It counters the "absence of evidence" argument (since we do find some evidence); b) it adds additional credence to the rest of the story and MOST IMPORTANTLY c) it shows that the Jews were capable of keeping a proper records of the most minor and inconsequential historical data, and that takes the Kuzari argument and puts it on steroids (the following facts are mentioned in Kithen and Hoffemeir's works). If the Jews were historically-astute enough to know the price at which slaves were sold (twenty shekels), and the gifts that one would receive from a Pharaoh (a gold chain and silk), and the duration of the mummification process (forty days), and where the Patriarchs lived (Southern Israel), and how Egyptian women gave birth (on birthstones), and the names of cities during the patriarchal era (Nachor and Laish), and the marital customs during the patriarchal era (using a subordinate wife), and the name of the city during the Exodus (Rameses) and many other facts, how could they have had their nationally-experienced, nationally-commemorated, relatively-recent Sinai history become so horribly corrupted?Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-17486177072100202532015-11-09T11:21:52.908-08:002015-11-09T11:21:52.908-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-12814075612835398832015-11-09T11:21:39.382-08:002015-11-09T11:21:39.382-08:00I am not responding to ACJA's Kuzari points no...I am not responding to ACJA's Kuzari points not because they aren't worth exploring, and certainly not because I can't answer them, but because I realize that these attempts are futile. If ACJA can't find the flaws that (at least I think) abound in his points, he certainly won't accept them if I point them out. <br /><br />Mr. (Mrs.?) Weinberger, <br /><br />1) I claim that there is no evidence whatsoever that nationally commemorated history is a fallible form of evidence. I do admit - however - that there is no evidence that it's infallible. Thus, I claim that there is a 50% chance that the Sinai miracles "MUST" HAVE HAPPENED (although the odds that it did happen would be significantly higher than that, but we can discuss this point later). Those who claim that they have a counterexample will argue that national history is surely a fallible form of evidence and thus there's a ZERO percent chance that it MUST have happened. You claim that you can see both sides of the argument -- you can see the argument of I who claim that there's no evidence that national history is curroptable, but you can also see the argument the myths are proper counterexamples. If so, applying basic mathematics, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST ADMIT THAT THERE IS A 25% CHANCE THAT THE SINAI MIRACLES MUST HAVE HAPPENED.<br /><br />2) Kefirah and ACJA are very aware of this point. They, unlike you, are experienced atheism-pushers. They realize that if they even give in an inch, if they "see both sides of the argument," if they admit that there might be something uniquely unique about the Sinai miracles, there would be some significant chance that the Sinai miracles MUST have happened. Thus, they are never willing to give in an inch.<br /><br />3) Regarding the events recorded in Genesis, we didn't experience them as a nation. Thus, we need to take God's word regarding these events. We can extrapolate, however, that since God told us the truth regarding events that He told us (e.g., that we would get the Torah in three days hence), we ASSUME that He told the truth regarding prehistoric events. If the evidence shows that this PRESUMPTION is false, that in no way proves that the Bible wasn't written by God, and nor does it prove that the Kuzari proof is bunk. All the Kuzari proves is the following two public events: a) Public miracles took place; b) Moses and Joshua (on large stones) wrote and read from the Torah in the presence of the entire nation of Israel (Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 4:8, 44, 31:9, 22, 24, 26, Joshua 8:32, 8:31, 32, 34; 22:5; 23:6, 24:26). <br />Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-91045584979472647722015-11-08T20:45:27.945-08:002015-11-08T20:45:27.945-08:00@ s weinberger
Don't forget the flood myth in...@ s weinberger<br /><br />Don't forget the flood myth in the Torah. A wonderful story but it never happened. Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-62092071979863357412015-11-08T20:38:16.545-08:002015-11-08T20:38:16.545-08:00@ s weinberger
Regarding Are Roster. He would cla...@ s weinberger<br /><br />Regarding Are Roster. He would claim that even if the Torah contained false information and that information was intentionally put in there by G-d he would still conclude the Torah could have been written by G-d. I told him it it was very unlikely it was written by G-d; and who wants to worship such a trickster ? for more see the discussion here http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-population-problem-of-torah.html Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-40805202193036645912015-11-08T20:33:45.531-08:002015-11-08T20:33:45.531-08:00@Are Roster
I already responded to some key erro...@Are Roster <br /><br />I already responded to some key errors of your statements.<br /><br />But will add a few more comments.<br /><br />U write “Many ancient and contemporary societies are superstitious, so one would assume—based on your logic—that we’d be inundated by false nation-changing events. So please provide one.”<br /><br />Maybe you are not reading what I have written or more likely inventing straw men to knock down.. I never implied we would be inundated by national tradition of nation-changing events whether false or true. However, there are some pertinent ones: WBCW, Pygmy, Castor and Pallux, Temple of Perseus, Aztec (see BOTH baruchpelta links) , and other related ANE myths. Please read my Kuzari posts where I provide reasons why we may not have reference to all legends similar to Sinai and why such an argument is not convincing. Nevertheless - almost all the pieces of Sinai are found in legends. <br /><br /><br />U write “How do you [ACJA} know that [the ancient Israelites] were superstitious enough to believe in a false national history?”<br /><br />They were very superstitious and unscientific. They were not unbiased and they were under duress. That is enough to cast doubt for them being valid witnesses and moreover casting doubt if later generations would question what their father tells them. These sort of witnesses do not make for a strong case for the Sinai stories legitimacy. Nor does it inspire confidence that the progeny of the ancient Israelites would provide adequate skepticism to prevent myth evolution. Perhaps for a less fanciful tale we may be inclined to hear, but not necessarily accept the tale of ancient biased, under stress, superstitious unscientific people may provide. Even then historians would likely need more than just the tale to fully accept it.<br /><br />U Write “Thus, they [the ancient Israelites] are the last ANCIENT nation that would be duped into believing a false national history.”<br /><br />Why do you keep repeating this tripe and straw man. We don’t have to invoke duping to explain how the Sinai legends may have come about. Myth formation accounts for it well. However, as written in my biog. posts, according to some Scholars the Sinai revelation may have involved a staged event. This is supported by the Torah text and I have analyzed the text in some detail to show why. And if the manna legends have a kernel of truth they could be accounted for by natural substances. The ancient Israelites like some other ancient cultures would ascribe events (including natural occurrences) as being directed by the God(s).Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-33262435957829516502015-11-08T20:30:19.868-08:002015-11-08T20:30:19.868-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-31547052813445233572015-11-08T18:00:20.505-08:002015-11-08T18:00:20.505-08:00Mr. Roster,
I can understand where you are comin...Mr. Roster, <br /><br />I can understand where you are coming from. I, too, was once a believer, and I understand the mental gymnastics that you undertake in order to sustain your belief. The Kuzari argument once allowed me to maintain my belief. However, once I looked at ancient myths I noticed that there isn't necessarily too much that is unique about the Revelation at Sinai. Now, I do admit, I can see your side as well. There is definitely something special regarding the Revelation. The number of people and the number of commemorations isn't found in other myths, as far as I'm aware. Thus, I do see your side. There may be something unique about the Sinai history. But I can also see the other side of the coin as well--the may be nothing particularly unique about the revelation to force me to accept your claims.<br /><br />This alone, however, didn't lead me to become an "apikorus." It wasn't the biblical criticism or the archaeological arguments (there are good arguments, I will admit, for and against the historic events recorded in the Torah). The Jewish nation probably left Egypt, and then went to Israel. I surely can't disprove that claim. But what I can disprove is the absurd claims made by the Torah that the earth is 6,000 years old, and other events recorded in Genesis. If those events have been *conclusively* shown to be false, I am entitled to question the rest as well. The delight and inspiration I once found in the Kuzari argument, and the archaeological arguments for the Exodus, no longer carry sufficient weight. I'm sorry, Are Roster, for being so frank, and I know it must be difficult reading my response, but I think you need to see the truth.s weinbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505982957901439355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-32646906890879403072015-11-06T13:38:08.280-08:002015-11-06T13:38:08.280-08:00@Are Roster I will try to respond next week - but ...@Are Roster I will try to respond next week - but regarding the Persian example did we not discuss this someplace earlier. I gave reasons why it may be a poor analogy. But you never responded. <br /><br />U say "Though we found other nations who—in rare cases—believed false national events, I refuse to therefore assume that our ancestors, who were righteous and devoted, would lie to us in such an egregious fashion.”<br /><br />I think this goes to the heart of the matter. This argument preceded the more modern versions of the Kuzari. Would my father lie to me ? The problem is it can be used to justify almost any religion or mythology. Also, people can potentially lie to their children if it is for the 'greater good'. Nor are we required to say lying is involved. People can be mistaken. People can be misled. People can come to want to believe in mythology. <br /><br />That is one crucial problem with the Kuzari argument - it assumes people acting as cool questioning individuals. But we know that is not how people or tribes or nations behave.<br /><br />Good Shabbas<br /><br />P.S. Give some thought to arrange the Kuzari into premises and conclusions. I find this very helpful to understand arguments better. I tried this in Kuzari Part 6 and even started doing this as early as Kuzari part 1 first paragraph.Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-73561732818127883142015-11-06T13:36:08.935-08:002015-11-06T13:36:08.935-08:00"Briefly: Since I'm not claiming that the..."Briefly: Since I'm not claiming that the kuzari is fallible or not I have no burden."<br /><br />It is hard to imagine a denser statement from an individual. You are essentially declaring something true by fiat.A Kefirahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17474560089122987417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-46795407422779372332015-11-06T13:34:54.798-08:002015-11-06T13:34:54.798-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-21495613684613827532015-11-06T13:21:10.010-08:002015-11-06T13:21:10.010-08:00Briefly: Since I'm not claiming that the kuzar...Briefly: Since I'm not claiming that the kuzari is fallible or not I have no burden. You are claiming that the evidence is fallible so you need to bring evidence for that claim. Regarding the one religious historian (dever, as I said before considers miracles to be impossible, he distrusts the Torah BECAUSE it contains mirackes. Hoffemeir relies on Finkelstein and company regarding Israel 3) I explained above that even if we accept the archeological claim regarding the small numbers, kuzari still stands. I won't rehash the arguments. Either take it or leave it. Check wikipedia regarding the Persian wars and the frendo book I linked elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-35656158307232963912015-11-06T11:28:31.093-08:002015-11-06T11:28:31.093-08:00So you refuse to provide any supporting evidence f...So you refuse to provide any supporting evidence for why you think the Kuzari argument is good. Ok.<br /><br />1) Maybe it's because historians think the argument is so bad it's beneath consideration? <br /><br />2) The Documentary hypothesis has literally nothing to do with the topic. Anyway, we are not talking about layman misunderstanding what should leave evidence and what shouldn't. We are talking about experts in the field who have spent their entire life excavating and analyzing evidence, who come to this conclusion. This is not an "argument from authority" fallacy any more than you would take medical advice from a doctor or legal advice from a lawyer. Your comments about the Persian wars are silly. Perhaps if you had something from a historian devoted to that region and that period in history who found the lack of evidence of the campaign odd, then I would listen. And, do you know what, I bet that historian would probably come to the conclusion that the estimates of 1 million or whatever are way too high, just like they do with the Exodus.<br /><br />3) This is perhaps the silliest thing you've written so far, which is saying quite a bit. The idea that Finkelstein reaches his conclusion because of an unwillingness to deal with Pascal's Wager is so far beyond a reasonable argument I'm not sure you've even spent two seconds thinking about it. What does it say about individuals who do believe in God like Hoffmeier and Dever who come to the same conclusion? <br /><br />The people who are qualified to deal with Pascal's Wager arguments are not archaeologists, they are philosophers. And the agreement is universal, even among theist philosophers, that Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument. I've already given you some articles on why (I think) but I'm guessing you either didn't understand them, or I dunno.<br /><br />Dever and Hoffmeier are not atheists. Hoffmeier is evangelical. You can't pin all the contradictory evidence on an "atheist conspiracy."A Kefirahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17474560089122987417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-25741851342742485012015-11-06T11:04:15.285-08:002015-11-06T11:04:15.285-08:00I will respond to your points that aren't rela...I will respond to your points that aren't related to Kuzari, but rather to the argument from authority:<br /><br />1) The scholars might very well not be aware of the Kuzari argument, or they might not fully appreciate the logic behind it. They can, and they must, before I need to take them seriously. <br /><br />2) I was referring to the documentary hypothesis when I said the 1800s. Regarding archaeology, I believe the issue is the following. Most people, both believers and otherwise, assume that there MUST be archaeological evidence for gigantic historic events. When they go into the field, they are then disappointed by finding very little, and then begin to question their faith. This questioning then gets reinforced when they find remains of relatively minor events. Voila--the major events never happened. You see this logic clearly. Interestingly, I was perusing a travel blog and a woman asked where she might find a museum on the Persian Wars, a historic event she found fascinating (we spoke about this before, the war that had somewhere between 500,000 and a few million Persian soldiers). A local Greek responded that there's no such museum. The Persian Wars left no archaeological remains, so the museum would have to be an empty building. We are biased to assuming that there would be so many remains since we live in an information age (the library of congress has over 50,000 books on the civil war). <br /><br />3) There is no doubt that I am biased. But I think that atheists are more biased than I am. Why? I would have no problem admitting that our evidence isn't absolute. There is some possibility that despite the overwhelming evidence (not just Kuzari, there are other pieces of evidence, as I'm sure you know), the Sinai narrative was made up. But I can live with that possibility. An atheist scholar like Finkelstein is FORCED to ignore (and hide) any and all evidence that contradicts his worldview, since once he admits "There's a 5% chance that the Sinai miracles took place," he is logically required become religious (Pascal's Wager). So, in fact, if we are claiming that people are biased it's the atheist researchers, not the religious ones. Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-53307363409969947232015-11-06T07:42:27.792-08:002015-11-06T07:42:27.792-08:00"If I have evidence which may be infallible, ..."If I have evidence which may be infallible, why are you asking for more?"<br /><br />How are you determining that your evidence is trustworthy.<br /><br />"Until then, all you have is a blog full of the speculation and guesswork of “scholars,” based on an archaic methodology founded in the 1800s, who aren’t willing to accept evidence that is smacking them over their heads. "<br /><br />This is humorous, especially since the first people to look into this (in the 20th century mind you) were very much under the impression that the Torah was mostly accurate. It is only the *evidence itself* that convinced most academics today otherwise.<br /><br />3) At this point you are suspecting motives of individuals that are contradictory to what they actually state. It's a defense mechanism so that you can continue believing that your preconceived ideas are correct. Instead of allowing new information to influence your views, you find ways to discount or discredit anything that contradicts the conclusions you already have arrived at. This is just one more example of this textbook case of confirmation bias. It's also why you will never be able to determine truth from fiction.A Kefirahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17474560089122987417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-7168970464934633552015-11-06T07:14:06.069-08:002015-11-06T07:14:06.069-08:00@Alter
I won’t reply to all your points. I would l...@Alter<br />I won’t reply to all your points. I would like to respond to one of your points, however. You claim that the Jews were superstitious. But that’s not enough to disprove my claim. How do you know that were superstitious enough to believe in a false national history? Many ancient and contemporary societies are superstitious, so one would assume—based on your logic—that we’d be inundated by false nation-changing events. So please provide one.<br /><br />But I think your point is an important one. Not only are we presenting evidence we may be infallible, the bearers of that evidence—the Jews—are the one of, if not the, most reliable of ancient nations. All other nations believed in a plethora of idols, while many Jews were pure monotheists (though not all)—as numerous verses, from many biblical authors, indicate. All other nations believed in astrology, while many Jews mocked the idea (Isaiah 47:13; Jeremiah 10:2). Agreed, relative to today’s know-it-alls they are less skeptical (they are also less skeptical than people who still doubt the moon-landing). But RELATIVE to other ancient nations, they appear to be MORE skeptical. Thus, they are the last ANCIENT nation that would be duped into believing a false national history. To quote the last two paragraphs of the linked chapter:<br /><br />The Psalmist praises God for the miracles that “our fathers have related to us” (78:3). Ibn Ezra, the great medieval biblical commentator, explains the relevance of the fact that we have heard those miracles from our fathers: “We heard about these national miracles from many [of our ancestors], people who we know were exceedingly righteous . . . they loved us, they are our fathers, and they would never wish to trick us.” <br /><br />As mentioned in this chapter, the ancient Jews were exceedingly righteous, literate, moral, intelligent, skeptical, unbiased, genealogically-astute, historically-proficient, and they wouldn’t have any reason to be tricked into believing in a false history, or to trick their descendants into believing a false history. They are the most reliable source of history. They were not barbarians. It is we who are the barbarians, if we irrationally evade evidence whenever it happens to point to the existence of God. <br />Alter, someone once asked me, “If I would present a clear counterexample, would you throw away your yarmulke?” I said no, for three reasons (one of which I will present here). Even if our evidence is a fallible form of evidence, I trust our devoted ancestry. True, the objective and cold logic of the Kuzari argument would lose its force, but on a subjective level we can still say, “Though we found other nations who—in rare cases—believed false national events, I refuse to therefore assume that our ancestors, who were righteous and devoted, would lie to us in such an egregious fashion.”<br /><br /> In fact, I often wonder: The evidence of Kuzari is so compelling, that it’s too compelling. Where is the free will NOT to believe in God? How is God the Hidden God when He provides such overwhelming evidence? Thus, I suspect that a day will come when we will find the “unholy grail,” when we will find a counterexample that shows that another nation can believe in a false national, nation-changing event. Then, and only then, would be able to use our free will to accept the subjective kuzari argument. Until then, we have no choice but to accept the objective kuzari argument.”<br />Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6902046896560188094.post-43086349397380631402015-11-06T07:13:11.778-08:002015-11-06T07:13:11.778-08:00This is my last reply regarding the Kuzari argumen...This is my last reply regarding the Kuzari argument, so you guys can dice my response to little cubes. I see that this isn't getting anywhere, perhaps because I lack the skills necessary to persuade you, perhaps because kuzari is a weak argument, or perhaps because you've invested so much into your atheism that you simply can't see through the forest.<br /><br />@Kefirah <br />1) Why would I need to relate the Sinai event to another event? Please be specific. Why would you need to see a similar event in order to know that the Sinai event happened? If, for example, you witnessed the Sinai events, would feel compelled to scurry to the historical encyclopedia in order to confirm that you weren’t hallucinating? If I have evidence which may be infallible, why are you asking for more?<br /><br />2) Kuzari focuses on all the miracles (R’ Gottlieb, indeed, focuses specifically on the manna). Thus, for example, we have possibly-infallible evidence that manna—edible food that fell from the sky six days a week—sustained the Jews. The only way for you to avoid this event is to REWRITE the clear narrative stated in the bible. And even then we can focus on ALL THE OTHER MIRACLES AS WELL. <br /><br />Why do I have to prove that there were 600,000 people in the desert? It is you, dear kefirah, that needs to prove that my evidence is fallible. Until then, all you have is a blog full of the speculation and guesswork of “scholars,” based on an archaic methodology founded in the 1800s, who aren’t willing to accept evidence that is smacking them over their heads. <br /><br />3) Regarding your earlier point that the scholars are willing to accept divine authorship, when I read their arguments, all their arguments presuppose a human (usually, sinister) motivation for the composition of a particular text. Indeed, most, if not all, of their arguments—doublets, contradictions, commandments that wouldn’t apply until future generations—presuppose a human author (we duked this out elsewhere on this blog). Friedman’s claim that he has nothing against divine authorship is a claim that doesn’t jive with his arguments. I suspect that he made this claim because in the 90s it was deemed rude to push atheism on the unlettered masses (Dawkins’ God Delusion remained unpublished for a long time for this reason—it was considered coarse to dash the masses’ belief in a heavenly father and an afterlife).<br />Are Rosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13903350960895472267noreply@blogger.com