Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cayne-Abel · 12-12-2006, 07:17 PM

If you guys get a chance, I'd like you to check out this debate I'm having with a Hassidic Jew...I am trying to refute the Kuzari argument....I'm not sure if I am just imagining things and actually losing the argument, or if he is just using sophistry to keep dodging my points....

http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/show...?t=5422&page=6

it starts on page 6, post #129....be sure to read his latest rebuttals on the next page as well.

Perhaps someone can help me out and tell me what arguments I haven't used yet, or what I'm doing wrong.

Peter Kirby · 12-12-2006, 07:18 PM

Since I didn't click on the link, do you mind summarizing for everyone reading on at IIDB? What is this Kuzari Principle?

--
Peter Kirby

Cayne-Abel · 12-12-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Since I didn't click on the link, do you mind summarizing for everyone reading on at IIDB? What is this Kuzari Principle?

--
Peter Kirby

You've never heard of it? Oh man...its one of the most difficults arguments for Theism I've ever had to go up against. Basically it is a proof for the mass, national revelation at Sinai:

Quote:

The Kuzari has given its name to a "principle" of reasoning which is derived from the book. This principle claims to logically prove the historicity of major events recorded in the Bible from the nature of the belief in them. More specifically, it is argued that one can prove that some three million Israelites personally were led out of Egypt in an Exodus, and witnessed God's revelation to them at Mount Sinai, thus establishing the proof of the events discussed in the Torah, the five books of Moses.

A modern statement of the Kuzari Principle is as follows: 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. (Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, Living up to the Truth, Chapter 6.)

Gottlieb then goes on to argue that events such as the revelation at Sinai fit the requirements of the Kuzari Principle and so their truth can be deduced merely from the fact that the Jewish people believed they were true. He also argues that other mass beliefs, such as those of other religions, do not fit the requirements.

The basic logic of the Kuzari argument is that a story such as that of the Sinai revelation must have originated with a real event or have been introduced at some later moment. In the latter case, the population will have been able to infer its falsehood merely from their lack of prior knowledge of the claim. Therefore, according to this logic, the story can only have been introduced at a time when the population knew it to be true from their own observation.

Toto · 12-12-2006, 07:37 PM

The link does not work.

Here's the wiki entry on

Kuzari

Quote:

The Kuzari has given its name to a "principle" of reasoning which is derived from the book. This principle claims to logically prove the historicity of major events recorded in the Bible from the nature of the belief in them. More specifically, it is argued that one can prove that some three million Israelites personally were led out of Egypt in an Exodus, and witnessed God's revelation to them at Mount Sinai, thus establishing the proof of the events discussed in the Torah, the five books of Moses.

A modern statement of the Kuzari Principle is as follows: 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. (Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb, Living up to the Truth, Chapter 6.)

Gottlieb then goes on to argue that events such as the revelation at Sinai fit the requirements of the Kuzari Principle and so their truth can be deduced merely from the fact that the Jewish people believed they were true. He also argues that other mass beliefs, such as those of other religions, do not fit the requirements.

You can read the problems with this principle at the link, if you need to.

Toto · 12-12-2006, 07:40 PM

I see we cross posted.

If you think that this is a difficult argument, you need to hang around here more.

In the first place, we don't know when the stories about the Exodus arose. We don't know how skeptical the people were back then, or if anyone had a chance to check out the evidence, or if anyone cared.

And as an easy counter, if the Exodus had happened, we should have archeological evidence of it - which we don't.

Cayne-Abel · 12-12-2006, 08:05 PM

It should work now....

...http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/show...?t=5422&page=6...

Toto, I urge you to read the debate that I linked (remember, it starts at page 6, post#129). All the points you just made were countered by him.

Amaleq13 · 12-12-2006, 11:03 PM

Contrary to the assertion of your interlocutor, history is not tradition.

That these are not the same is precisely why certain Alaskan natives are opposing efforts to study their DNA:

"Geographic origin stories told by DNA can clash with long-held beliefs, threatening a world view some indigenous leaders see as vital to preserving their culture."

Cayne-Abel · 12-12-2006, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Contrary to the assertion of your interlocutor, history is not tradition.

Why do you say that? Care to elaborate?

Toto · 12-13-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

It should work now....

...http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/show...?t=5422&page=6...

Toto, I urge you to read the debate that I linked (remember, it starts at page 6, post#129). All the points you just made were countered by him.

Could you give me a more specific pointer? post 129 is yours. Who are you debating and where did he counter any of these points?

I have trouble taking a board seriously where this is posted as argument:

Quote:

When a person eats non-kosher food, he can affect his soul in such a way that he will have trouble having simple faith in the Creator. This is because eating non-kosher food can contain transmigrated sparks of the soul of a base person and can have a negative effect on a person and cause him to sink spiritually and doubt his faith.

post tenebras lux · 12-13-2006, 01:45 AM

Hey, there's a science experiment just waiting to be performed there.

Get a bunch of them to self-rate their spirituality and faith/doubt. Feed half of them kosher food for a week and the other half non-kosher food (in a double blind way) and then get them to re-rate their spirituality and faith/doubt.

Then we'd have scientific evidence for whether 'transmigrated sparks of the soul of a base person can have a negative effect on a person and cause him to sink spiritually and doubt his faith'.

Now, whom do we approach for the funding?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2006, 07:17 PM	#1
Cayne-Abel Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 179	Trouble with the Kuzari Principle If you guys get a chance, I'd like you to check out this debate I'm having with a Hassidic Jew...I am trying to refute the Kuzari argument....I'm not sure if I am just imagining things and actually losing the argument, or if he is just using sophistry to keep dodging my points.... http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/show...?t=5422&page=6 it starts on page 6, post #129....be sure to read his latest rebuttals on the next page as well. Perhaps someone can help me out and tell me what arguments I haven't used yet, or what I'm doing wrong.

12-12-2006, 07:18 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Since I didn't click on the link, do you mind summarizing for everyone reading on at IIDB? What is this Kuzari Principle? -- Peter Kirby

12-12-2006, 07:40 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I see we cross posted. If you think that this is a difficult argument, you need to hang around here more. In the first place, we don't know when the stories about the Exodus arose. We don't know how skeptical the people were back then, or if anyone had a chance to check out the evidence, or if anyone cared. And as an easy counter, if the Exodus had happened, we should have archeological evidence of it - which we don't.

12-12-2006, 08:05 PM	#6
Cayne-Abel Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 179	It should work now.... ...http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/show...?t=5422&page=6... Toto, I urge you to read the debate that I linked (remember, it starts at page 6, post#129). All the points you just made were countered by him.

12-12-2006, 11:03 PM	#7
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Contrary to the assertion of your interlocutor, history is not tradition. That these are not the same is precisely why certain Alaskan natives are opposing efforts to study their DNA: "Geographic origin stories told by DNA can clash with long-held beliefs, threatening a world view some indigenous leaders see as vital to preserving their culture."

12-13-2006, 01:45 AM	#10
post tenebras lux Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva Posts: 5,756	Hey, there's a science experiment just waiting to be performed there. Get a bunch of them to self-rate their spirituality and faith/doubt. Feed half of them kosher food for a week and the other half non-kosher food (in a double blind way) and then get them to re-rate their spirituality and faith/doubt. Then we'd have scientific evidence for whether 'transmigrated sparks of the soul of a base person can have a negative effect on a person and cause him to sink spiritually and doubt his faith'. Now, whom do we approach for the funding?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.