tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post2195702668944200463..comments2024-02-17T19:58:47.311-05:00Comments on Textuality: Definitively Refuting the Kuzari PrincipleLarry Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-21403046841684018522021-11-23T09:46:43.323-05:002021-11-23T09:46:43.323-05:00If I can write like you, then I would be very happ...If I can write like you, then I would be very happy, but where is my luck like this, really people like you are an example for the world. You have written this comment with great beauty, I am really glad I thank you from my heart.<br /><a href="https://www.callgirlingurugram.com/" rel="nofollow">college girls in gurugram</a><br /><a href="https://callgirlsserviceingurugram.blogspot.com/2020/03/you-joined-our-call-girl-agency-of.html" rel="nofollow">Butey girl agency</a><br /><a href="https://nightlifencr.in/" rel="nofollow">vip girl gurgaon</a><br /><a href="http://ncrgirl.com/u-block-DLF-phase-3-call-girls-susmita.html" rel="nofollow">Busty Girls in DLF Phase 3</a><br /><a href="http://callgirlsprice.com/gurugram-call-girl-services.html" rel="nofollow">Low Price girl gurugram</a><br /><a href="http://girls69.co.in/" rel="nofollow">cheap Girls In Gurugram</a><br /><a href="http://girls69.co.in/elite-call-girls-service-goa-baga-beach.html" rel="nofollow">Modal Girls in Baga Beach</a><br />Sonika Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12477571691174395150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-8603117072543496922021-05-20T03:32:09.749-04:002021-05-20T03:32:09.749-04:00Where the best escorts are paired with the best Aj...Where the best escorts are paired with the best <a href="https://www.taniasharma.in/ajmer.php" rel="nofollow">Ajmer Escorts Service Agency</a> service to provide you with an evening to remember.<a href="http://www.aerocityincall.com/escorts-service-mahipalpur-new-delhi.html" rel="nofollow">Hi Profile Escorts in Mahipalpur</a> By visiting us today,<a href="http://www.callgirlsbooking.com/call-girls-delhi/" rel="nofollow">Dating Call Girls in Delhi</a> you have shown that you are interested in only the best and the best is what we have to offer.<a href="http://www.callgirlsinindia.com/call-girls-delhi/" rel="nofollow">Dating Call Girls in Delhi</a> Our professional escorts will pair you with some of the Delhi’s most beautiful <a href="https://www.escortsbulletin.com/agra.html" rel="nofollow">Agra Escorts Service Agency</a> escorts who will enable you to forget about <a href="https://www.lailaescorts.com/agra-up.html" rel="nofollow">Agra Escorts Service Agency</a> everything else and just live for the moment at hand.<br />jonesggnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429152400734096633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-13809234933150558702018-09-17T06:17:45.146-04:002018-09-17T06:17:45.146-04:00Hussein Hurbanov, the kirillic name says and it is...Hussein Hurbanov, the kirillic name says and it is a .....<br />TROLLTerminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17082286864484626637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-92230872794498837202018-09-17T06:10:31.922-04:002018-09-17T06:10:31.922-04:00Let's talk about:
What everybody may agree are...Let's talk about:<br />What everybody may agree are "facts" ?<br />What everybody may agree about how "facts" are properly reached and expressed ? Can we agree on anything ? Don't be shy.Terminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17082286864484626637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-17822173459293610512018-09-17T05:59:54.457-04:002018-09-17T05:59:54.457-04:00I agree Kuzari Principle doesn't explain anyth...I agree Kuzari Principle doesn't explain anything because it assumes too much (too simplistic) about the people envolved. I also agree with Anonymous that the Sinai story is beneficial to a whole nation so there is no much incetive to research those past events. I want to say this:<br />A group of people were initially united by a fantastic story made by a very clever person, but they continued to thrive together through the history, on some very enlighted ideas (some ideas are progressive even by today's standarts)<br />By defining a people solely on a book is like saying the connection between wife and husband is sex or that children love their parents because they receive free food.<br />You give to little credit to the Human Kind. They are capable to make believable, beautiful and Moses was a very clever human. The only chance to find out what religion is based on what, we should build a time machine but I'm not sure this is a worth aim for that a time machine. <br />Anyway I liked the philosophical debate on this site and I wish you all Happy New Hebrew Year. <br />The important thing is to look for the answers NOT keep them!Terminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17082286864484626637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-47340957284443562322018-09-17T05:27:11.256-04:002018-09-17T05:27:11.256-04:00"because absence of evidence is surely no evi..."because absence of evidence is surely no evidence of absence"<br />No real judge will ever be bothered by absence of evidence so "evidence of absence" is ... non-sense; it is a literary fabrication for demagogs (I dare say). Please don't make speeches here. That's for the Parliament.Terminatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17082286864484626637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-33051238523361019592018-05-23T14:01:56.009-04:002018-05-23T14:01:56.009-04:00Cosmological concept which is complete from logica...Cosmological concept which is complete from logical point of view<br />Initial composition of boundless space from the point of view of element:<br />1.It is suffucient to declare existence of two elements, SIMPLE and COMPLEX, possesing closed systemic appearance in order to imagine different (homogenous) and completed one.<br />2.It is sufficient to declare existence of Lord and Almighty in other element, possesing non-closed systematic appearance in order to imagine it as different and incomplete as heterogenous (in other words: various type).<br />It is not difficult to presume that simple and complex compression is happened in possible minimal widening from permanent widening level, first, inclination to descending, from material component of God from non-material component of Divine Spirit/separation happened as maximum possible diversity (1H) on essence of God on minimum possible numeric homogeneity regarding with blockage of start of non-material components, permanently widening, inclined to their increase of essence/God widens minimal possible homogeneity as maximum possible numeric diversity (2H) to His essence on the basis of 1H material components. Closing process starts only from time, known to God, starting from completion of 2 H opening process. Closing process reopens according to initial opening level of Divine Spirit 1H-1H process of God to 2H process and conversion possibilities of 2H process to 1 H process! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05226907279878014827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-57390304854652896642018-05-22T15:21:50.168-04:002018-05-22T15:21:50.168-04:00http://www.aish.com/h/sh/se/Rational-Approach-To-D...http://www.aish.com/h/sh/se/Rational-Approach-To-Divine-Origin-of-Judaism.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-40024719166001224382017-11-08T05:36:36.443-05:002017-11-08T05:36:36.443-05:00The main point in the kuzari argument is that the ...The main point in the kuzari argument is that the events recorded in the Bible happened to those that received it. Had the events not happened, why would they accept the story as true? eliezerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08821767403142630344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-71325390698971831232013-07-01T08:53:06.379-04:002013-07-01T08:53:06.379-04:00"What is and is not a fact is open to interpr..."What is and is not a fact is open to interpretation"<br /><br />James, so what? All you're saying is that one way people shelter themselves from facts is to challenge factual status. And of course, you practice this same challenge - with little compelling reason - against the conclusions of the study. Your statements, in fact (ahem), demonstrate the study's point very well. Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-12492223028364456372013-06-20T22:41:55.181-04:002013-06-20T22:41:55.181-04:00"Facts don’t necessarily have the power to ch...<i>"Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."</i><br /><br />What is and is not a fact is open to interpretation. Rarely do we have a set of neutral facts before us requiring interpretation. The interpretation seems to generally be about whether what is placed before us is indeed factual or not. This study is clearly proceeding from the point of view that it has a set of absolute facts: meaning it is preceding from a biased position from the beginning and is worthless.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16372463300223880001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-28680393175653195842013-06-20T00:34:50.425-04:002013-06-20T00:34:50.425-04:00Where the Kuzari principle is very strong is in de...Where the Kuzari principle is very strong is in defending Judaism against Christianity. <i>"Our covenant was revealed to a whole nation of hundreds of thousands of people at once when God spoke with booming voice on Sinai; yours was revealed to 12 guys who saw visions of Jesus after the resurrection. So we win, you lose."</i> Its similar to when an Atheist says to me "Show me your God" and I say "Show me your subatomic particles." I haven't proven that God exists nor that subatomic particles do not; I've only proven that its not logically consistent to believe in subatomic particles you can't see while demanding that God been shown you before you can believe. So, by the Kuzari principle, the Jew proves it is not logically consistent to try and replace a public revelation (Sinai) by a private one (Jesus' resurrection).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16372463300223880001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-9142643502657107392012-12-25T10:05:52.088-05:002012-12-25T10:05:52.088-05:00You quoted from abbi Tzvi Freeman
"The eviden...You quoted from abbi Tzvi Freeman<br />"The evidence [for Sinai] is as follows: Universally, there is a single account of how the Jewish people received the Torah. It states that on the sixth day of the third month of the year 2448 from Creation"<br /><br />The fact is that there is a dispute in the Talmud on what day the revelation at Sinai took place, the 6th or the 7th.<br /><br />Shabbos 86b:<br />"Our Rabbis taught: On the sixth day of the month [Siwan] were the Ten Commandments given to Israel. R. Jose maintained: On the seventh thereof. Said Raba: All agree that they arrived in the Wilderness of Sinai on the first of the month. [For] here it is written, on this day they came into the wilderness of Sinai;15 whilst elsewhere it is written, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months:16 just as there the first of the month,17 so here [too] the first of the month [is meant]. "<br /><br />What is even more interesting is that the talmud goes on arguing about this for a while with each side bringing textual proofs. You would think that the most momentous event in Jewish History would have a clear date! But nobody knows for sure. We all know 9/11, but the date of the revelation at Sinai? Not sure! Nobody (here or elsewhere) ever says he has a Mesorah on it from his father? Why not? Isn't that the biggest proof?<br />A Jew with a Spiritual Crisishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13283408290347946810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-65015732638615215482012-08-07T21:45:11.786-04:002012-08-07T21:45:11.786-04:00I've never seen people talk about this point, ...I've never seen people talk about this point, so it may be worth pointing out. I've always known that in story details, numbers, and names, there are many contradictions between the various books of Tanach that make religious people look so cute when they try to come up with clever answers for what are obviously contradictions. But I recently found a contradiction that blew my mind with regards to the Kuzari argument. In general, it shows that the refutation to Kuzari lies not in focusing on the number 600,000 that were leaving Egypt in particular, but that ALL the numbers in the Bible that sound unreasonable and unreliable should be treated with the skepticism that they deserve. (something that has occured to me over time). Well, without further ado, here is the contradiction. Comparing the same story in Chronicles and Kings regarding David sending Joab to take a census of Israel (where Yahweh gets angry and smites 70,000), we come across what is the largest discrepancy in the Hebrew Bible that I am aware of. The census of the Israelites in I Chronicles 21:5 is 1.1 Million. In II Samuel 24:9 there were 800,000. Now of course you don't have to hold your breath long before the floodgates of apologetics come swinging open from the mouths of the practitioners of Rabbinic Talmudism. But the obvious truth is plain as day for all to see in the text: a discrepancy valued at a full 50% of the Kuzari proof of 600,000. When you couple this fact with 120,000 soldiers of Ahaz slain in one day by Pekah you begin to see how absurd Bible numbers are in general, not just the Kuzari proof figure of 600,000. 120,000 soldiers slain in one day with swords and shields and chariots! Amazing isn't it? That's something that even Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn't accomplish (60-80K in one day)! Bravo to those statistics! When you really begin to meditate and internalize the magnitude of the discrepancy I just cited, the whole Kuzari argument falls to dust. Anyone can argue anything of course - 1000 rationalizations can be thought up, just like there are many arguments on the homepage of the Flat Earth Society. But argue all you like, AIN MIKRA YOTZEI MIDAY PSHUTO!benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08789952034602009286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-20912939938365200822011-10-23T09:40:16.669-04:002011-10-23T09:40:16.669-04:00Cheeze,
I am well aware that Jewish identity invol...Cheeze,<br />I am well aware that Jewish identity involves more than only religion. This is true for other faiths as well, and the fact is not obviated by appealing to Jewish nationhood.<br /><br />I'm also aware that the historical veracity may or may not have been so important to Jews in all times and places.<br /><br />You have missed the point, however, and that is that Kuzari addresses belief specifically and explicitly. That's what Kuzari is for, to justify belief in the historical veracity of particular "miracles." <br /><br />Kuzari proponents have defined the issue in terms of belief in historical veracity. Therefore, your points are best directed to them.<br /><br />Let me know how it goes.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-47655218802345259962011-10-22T15:40:48.185-04:002011-10-22T15:40:48.185-04:00So I don't know if anyone is still picking up ...So I don't know if anyone is still picking up the post or blog, but all ill say is this. The reason you are having a difficult timr arguing outside of kuzari is you are not attacking your own fundamental assumption. Why must the torah/religion/god be the only unifying factor of the jewish people? Viewed from that lens, it is even entirely plausible that a group, perhaps even a majority of the recemtly freedmen, saw something miraculous at sinai, and were convinced it was god. It happens everyday here when people see mother mary in their french toast. The underlying issue that no one addresses is that jews have a reason to be a nation other than religion. And, the fact that religion may unify a people doesn't mean that all, some, or most jews have historically cared about the veracity of ancestral claims. In this context, we rationally negate the principle that a "people believed". Hogwash! When have 600000a ever agreed on anything?Cheezehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09908170180882382419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-36954444468780073692011-06-16T08:28:38.927-04:002011-06-16T08:28:38.927-04:00Anonymous,
These arguments are straight from Gott...Anonymous,<br /><br />These arguments are straight from Gottlieb's playbook. I'm not inclined to deal with old stuff again. I'll make just a few points and then ask that something new be brought to the table; otherwise, I can't be bothered.<br /><br />You say: "if myth formation causes myths such as Sinai, we would see more examples in history."<br /><br />First of all, there is no logical requirement for myths exactly like Sinai. There are several examples of stories that share similar features to Sinai, and I have talked about them in various posts. If you are looking for a Sinai duplicate, well that's unreasonable. In any case, a perceived lack of "more examples" tells us nothing about the origins and development of the Sinai story (or stories, I should say: see below).<br /><br />Second of all, as I've been showing, the Sinai account in the J, E, and D sources are (1) multiple and (2) more like the semi-private revelations that Gottlieb-ites like to wave away as irrelevant to Sinai. What this shows is that the Kuzari interpretation of Sinai is post-hoc and revisionist.<br /><br />Finally, you say: "What it [Kuzari] simply aims to prove is that the tradition of a national event at mount Sinai is more likely to be rooted in a real, historical event than myth formation."<br /><br />And what I have shown is that Kuzari is unable to <b>prove</b> anything. That's a critical point that ought to be acknowledged but seldom is. I have also shown that myth formation is not incompatible or inconsistent with some "real" historical event serving as an originating point for the story--there could have been something like a real Sinai moment between 1313 BCE and 2200 BCE, but there also needn't have been. Even at best, Kuzari does not give us a solid reason to think whether there might have been any real Sinai event or not.<br /><br />If one is so biased, one can use the Kuzari Principle to rationalize acceptance of Judaism. Indeed, given the fantastical nature of so many tales in the Torah and in the traditional Jewish library (which makes the tales fun and interesting, by the way), one needs whatever arguments are available to justify giving oneself over to traditional authorities. <br /><br />Without such bias, however, Kuzari appears as what it is: an interesting yet problematic stretch. When we leave idle philosophizing and start to collect and consider material artifacts, Kuzari's wish-world offers too little and too faintly.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-3196851102591562222011-06-15T21:31:11.169-04:002011-06-15T21:31:11.169-04:00Gottlieb is saying exactly what I addressed in my ...Gottlieb is saying exactly what I addressed in my blog posts, Larry- His point and mine is that one cannot successfully create a myth of such major significance and magnitude. It’s simply a ludicrous suggestion.<br />My point to all of your rebuttals is that the examples of Maimonides, Aztecs and Catholics are irrelevant to the argument, and that simply claiming that `myth formation`could have been an answer leaves a big question mark as to why, if this is such a naturalistic human development- myth formation, why are other examples of central, formative events seared into a group`s collective consciousness (that we know to be false) so hard to come by. If myth formation created Sinai, it would seem to be the only time in history (as far as every kuzari rebuttal I have ever read, I have not seen any legitimate parallels)<br />Surely if myth formation causes myths such as Sinai, we would see more examples in history, and people wouldn`t have to rely on weak Aztec parallels to try and refute Gottlieb`s argument.<br />But just to confirm, Larry- I do not think the kuzari aims to prove that what happened at Sinai was specifically Divine, etc. What it simply aims to prove is that the tradition of a national event at mount Sinai is more likely to be rooted in a real, historical event than myth formation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-37676227663942743222011-06-15T21:30:54.213-04:002011-06-15T21:30:54.213-04:00That is, if myth formation can create such a natio...That is, if myth formation can create such a national tradition, why are real-world (even rough) examples fitting these criteria so hard to come by? <br />Now, at this point you would tell me that is a weak argument, because absence of evidence is surely no evidence of absence.<br />But surely you do not believe that, because many of your arguments you use on this blog to claim the exodus never happened is based on the premise that there is no evidence (a terrible oversimplification at the very least, in my humble opinion). But that sounds like special pleading to me- to say my argument here for kuzari is illogical or weak, while you use the same argument against the historicity of the exodus.<br />I appreciate the quotation from Gottlieb, and yes, I am addressing his major point also. He and I are talking about the same point, and I most certainly did not miss anything major of his.<br />To clarify what he meant by that sentence you quoted, let me quote the following paragraphs he provides to put it in context: <br />``Let's try to put it in simpler terms. Someone is trying to convince me that a fictitious war, or an earthquake, or something like that happened. If he is right that it (the war, earthquake, etc.) really happened, I should know about it already. I shouldn't need him to tell me. Then the principle tells me that I will not be convinced by him. The problem of the missing evidence will prevent me from believing him. <br />Of course, when I say that "people will not believe," I don't mean that no one will believe. After all, there are people who believe in flying saucers, or that they are Napoleon, or that the earth is flat! What I mean is that you will not be able to get the vast majority of a nation to accept such a view about their own ancestors when no one in fact remembers it. ``Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-2493603232498658242011-06-15T21:30:38.441-04:002011-06-15T21:30:38.441-04:00Larry, I am trying to engage you in discussion- de...Larry, I am trying to engage you in discussion- deflecting my post by being "insulted" is not appropriate.<br />Yes, I have read all your posts on this topic, which is why I wrote such a lengthy comment.<br />And yes, I do not hesitate to say that if you used the Maimonides, Catholic and Aztec examples to bolster your case, then yes, clearly a central part of Gottlieb’s argument has not been understood, for those examples you cited are not relevant to the subject, for the reasons I outlined. I have read so many internet atheists try to debunk kuzari based on the fatima miracles, and thinking they have come across something amazing. I have to shake my head because it simply does not address the argument at all.<br />Sinai is not a prehistory story, primarily because the claim does not speak of a group of some ancient or extinct group of people, but rather all ancestors of a current, existing group. It was eminently verifiable for those descendants who would have been hearing such a tale. We don't know the span of the origin of the tradition to the earliest known believers of it, but probably 500 years or so. I don't think it's so easy to say people simply accepted this legend- I think on the contrary, it is laughable to suggest that anyone could have ever successfully concocted such a tale. And if someone did actually manage to do that successfully, it appears they are the only ones in history who managed to pull it off.<br />Now, I think few people would accept that this legend developed out of thin air, but rather is the result of legendary development, as you say.<br />The issue I have with that is if naturalistic causes (myth formation) create legends such as this - memorable, central events etched into the national consciousness of a people - then it goes without saying that other examples should be readily available. If not, than we cannot simply assume that myth formation creates results such as this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-41525487725140440452011-06-15T14:27:22.749-04:002011-06-15T14:27:22.749-04:00Anon,
Thanks for the series of comments.
You ha...Anon,<br /><br />Thanks for the series of comments. <br /><br />You have left out a critical element of Gottlieb's claim and so have re-directed it.<br /><br />Look at what Gottlieb says particularly about the importance of evidence: "in modern language the principle that the Kuzari uses is as follows. I beg you to look at it, hear it, and pay close attention to all of its details. <b>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.</b> [Emphasis in original]"<br /><br />This is the claim I have analyzed, and I have addressed it as head-on as possible. I have shown the claim's formal weakness, its logical weakness, and factual/historical weakness.<br /><br />The claim of Sinai's exceptional-ness doesn't pass the laugh test. Sinai is one of many "way in the past" stories about the origins of a people/nation/religion. It's completely in the interest of present-day believers to accept such a story, regardless of its truth and the availability of quality evidence. It gives people identity, a sense of privilege and pride, and psychic validation.<br /><br />So, you say I've misunderstood Gottlieb, which is insulting enough, but my posts show otherwise. I rather think it is you who are not actually engaging my arguments.<br /><br />I've recently been talking about the origins and development of the Sinai story from its different sources and then assembled in the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. Please check out these posts.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-74334566571144428652011-06-15T12:41:27.351-04:002011-06-15T12:41:27.351-04:00Maimonides did not say Sinai never happened, or th...Maimonides did not say Sinai never happened, or that Israel never experienced anything remarkable at the revelation. That is the major event in question.<br /><br />Larry, this is my understanding of the argument, and I believe that you have misunderstood Gottlieb a couple times:<br /><br />1/ In his work, he repeatedly and explicitly mentions myth formation<br /><br />2/ The argument is not that no group can ever *make* such a claim (which, other than a handful of blog posts, I believe that is the truth, but a sidepoint), but rather than never in history (and certainly not in any of the examples I have ever read, including Aztecs, etc) has a claim of a national, formational event, told to a people about their direct and identifiable ancestors, which was nationally accepted.<br />In short, if the Sinai claim is indeed the product of some sort of myth formation, it would be the only known case in history where a myth of a formative national event (which we know to be false) was successfully sold to an entire nation of people.<br /><br />I have attempted to clarify the Kuzari argument (at least as Gottlieb presents it), and I believe that your usage of the Catholic and Maimonides examples show that a major part of the argument was not made clear to you.<br /><br />Finally, I do not believe that Gottlieb or the argument itself claims to prove that whatever happened at Sinai was really Divine, etc- merely that a formative national event happened to Israel, where they stood at a mountain and had a major experience, and that this belief is unlikely to have arisen through either outright fabrication or through myth-formation.<br /><br />Best<br />TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-82097034960827116182011-06-15T12:41:09.510-04:002011-06-15T12:41:09.510-04:001/ The source cited by Orthoprax never says the go...1/ The source cited by Orthoprax never says the god was revealed/communicated to all the people- it could just as easily be interpreted as a single group. In other words, perhaps they never actually had this belief that Orthoprax says they did.<br /><br />2/ Every single other Aztec source I researched over a year ago) has the god speaking to the priests, who then relay the message to the people. So if that is representative at all of Aztec belief, it is yet another reason to believe this is what they believed.<br /><br />3/ This overall Aztec migration story is widely available in scholarly books, but this detail about god speaking to everyone is noticeably absent. This indicates that far from being part of the collective consciousness of the Aztecs, this detail was simply not part of it. More evidence that this was not the Aztec belief.<br /><br />As for Maimonides, the post from Anonymous also tragically misses the point entirely. This argument says that one (ie. The Torah) cannot successfully make a claim to a nation of people that all of their ancestors- a large and identifiable group – all witnessed something memorable and remarkable, if it were false. <br /><br />Differing views over the specific details of the event is a red herring; it does nothing to refute the argument. The argument is that one cannot successfully fabricate such a tradition- this tradition being that the entire nation of Israel had a divine revelation. Maimonides did not dispute this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-28924876784550392932011-06-15T12:40:51.430-04:002011-06-15T12:40:51.430-04:00Unless we have examples where we can see that myth...Unless we have examples where we can see that myth formation created a tradition which we know to be false we cannot make the leap and say myth formation explains every tradition.<br /><br />The Catholic example you bring misses the point- anyone can *make* a claim of a national tradition- this is not the argument- the question is whether it was accepted by the people as a real event which happened to all of their ancestors if we know that it did not. That is central, thus making the rest of the Catholic example irrelevant.<br /><br />Also, that Catholic website says the Jewish people saw Jesus nationally. Even if Christians throughout history had believed this (which is not what Christians have believed), this Jesus revelation event was not claimed to have happened to THEIR ancestors, but the ancestors of another group- the Jews.<br /><br />The Aztec example I read about after seeing people cite it from the blog you cited- there are a multiple reasons to believe that the Aztecs never claimed such a thing:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-86635486817184769722011-06-15T12:40:07.255-04:002011-06-15T12:40:07.255-04:00I want to comment here, because my understanding o...I want to comment here, because my understanding of the Kuzari, larry, is quite different than what you have attempted to refute, and I think a number of the examples you use to refute Kuzari are not relevant.<br /><br />As I understand it, the claim of Sinai(as presented by Gottlieb) is that one cannot *successfully* fabricate a claim of a national event to a people, making the claim that all of their ancestors, a large and identifiable group, witnessed something remarkable and unusual, if it did not happen.<br /><br />Now, the fact that the Torah is a single source of this is wholly irrelevant. The Torah (or another tradition) is the source of this Sinai claim, but the argument is that there is a limit to human belief, and people will not accept a tradition or story based on these parameters (national, memorable) if it did not happen.<br /><br />Ie. One cannot sucessfully fabricate a claim of national nature featuring one's own ancestors if it were false- it would be far too verifiable- the Torah would be making a claim about all of Israel's ancestors, about something that never occurred.<br /> <br />The argument behind this, I think, is that, as Gottlieb says, and even with all the counter-arguments I’ve seen, no, I cannot see any parallel in history where a nation of people were all successfully convinced that all of their ancestors experienced something remarkable and memorable (not necessarily religious), if we know it to be false. Example- a mass migration, a huge war, famine, etc.<br /><br />Now- This is where the myth formation rebuttal comes in- well, it may not have been made up in a moment, but surely Sinai started as a myth and grew over time.<br /><br />The problem with that rebuttal is that it if it were true, we would have a multiplicity of similar examples in history of myth formation creating an event (with a large, identifiable group, etc.) which we know to be false. Many peoples have many traditions meeting these criteria (traditions about their ancestors with a war, or migration, etc), but do we know any of these traditions to be false?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com