Monday, September 7, 2015
NOTE TO ALTER COCKER: I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU, MY POST ARE FOR YOUR READERS WHO ARE ON THE FENCE. AS CHAZAL SAY, DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE A JEWISH APIKORIS:
We don't have to show that there are no false national events. The burden is on you. We are presenting a form of evidence -- a nationally experienced event which would change the face of the nation perpetually -- and we say that until we find a false event, we have no right to assume that our evidence is fallible. Why do you assume that it it fallible?
The fact that there are no miraculous national events doesn't imply that our evidence is fallible. If you were standing at Sinai, and you'd experience the miracles, would you doubt your experience of eating the manna for 40 years because other examples of people experiencing miracles aren't recorded? The point is that if we are presenting evidence that may be infallible, it is only your wishful thinking that allows you to ignore it.
I mean, think about it. The Beis Hamikdash, specifically the Second one. Its existence changed our nation forever. Its existence is seared in our collective memory. It left at least two yearly commemorations -- Tisha B'av and Chanukah -- in its wake. Arguing against Sinai is like arguing against the existence of the Temple: utter nonsense.
I pinned a chapter to my twitter account which you may be interested in. NOTE: IT IS ONLY A VERY SMALL SLICE OF THE ARGUMENT.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Kuzari Contenders
If you google the "Kuzari proof," you will find a list of sites presenting "contenders" to the Sinai events.
I am not going to point out, at least for now, how these myths aren't relevant to the Kuzari argument, though I believe that they are completely irrelevant. They aren't even close to refuting the Kuzari principle.
Rather, I'd like to point out two important pieces of info:
1) They will, without exception, present NUMEROUS counterexamples. This is odd! Why would they spend so much time researching in order to find numerous myths, when even finding one contender would be sufficient to disprove Kuzari? The answer is obvious. They realize that each one of their "myths," individually, aren't relevant to Kuzari. Thus, they hope that by conglomerating many non-national myths, they can disprove Kuzari (there is strength in numbers, they reason). If you are caught in a debate with one of these folks, the first thing you should demand is that they present ONE counterexample, and only one counterexample. This will allow you to laser in, and it will allow you to expose the patent flaws of the counterexample. When forced to pick one -- and I've used this technique many times -- they often abruptly refuse to continue debating. Their strategy has been exposed.
2) Another amazing phenomenon that I've noticed is how, without any circumspection, they will present a "counterexample." In other words, when they find a "myth," do they take the time to establish whether this myth was actually believed to have happened to the population? Do they take the time to contact and expert in the field? They do not. Rather, it is me -- who isn't obligated to research the counterexample -- who is forced to contact the expert, and then to forward the results to my adversary.
Why do they rush to their conclusions, tripping over their own feel in the process? It appears that they are desperate, desperately in need of finding that elusive counterexample. But isn't atheism about the truth?
I am not going to point out, at least for now, how these myths aren't relevant to the Kuzari argument, though I believe that they are completely irrelevant. They aren't even close to refuting the Kuzari principle.
Rather, I'd like to point out two important pieces of info:
1) They will, without exception, present NUMEROUS counterexamples. This is odd! Why would they spend so much time researching in order to find numerous myths, when even finding one contender would be sufficient to disprove Kuzari? The answer is obvious. They realize that each one of their "myths," individually, aren't relevant to Kuzari. Thus, they hope that by conglomerating many non-national myths, they can disprove Kuzari (there is strength in numbers, they reason). If you are caught in a debate with one of these folks, the first thing you should demand is that they present ONE counterexample, and only one counterexample. This will allow you to laser in, and it will allow you to expose the patent flaws of the counterexample. When forced to pick one -- and I've used this technique many times -- they often abruptly refuse to continue debating. Their strategy has been exposed.
2) Another amazing phenomenon that I've noticed is how, without any circumspection, they will present a "counterexample." In other words, when they find a "myth," do they take the time to establish whether this myth was actually believed to have happened to the population? Do they take the time to contact and expert in the field? They do not. Rather, it is me -- who isn't obligated to research the counterexample -- who is forced to contact the expert, and then to forward the results to my adversary.
Why do they rush to their conclusions, tripping over their own feel in the process? It appears that they are desperate, desperately in need of finding that elusive counterexample. But isn't atheism about the truth?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)