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?
National Story - Miracle of the Sun. see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13.html
ReplyDeleteACJA well researched the White Buffalo Calf Story. That story is a reasonable refute to the Kuzari argument. http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i.html
ReplyDeleteWhy many examples ? ACJA explains that many of the pieces behind the Sinai story can be found in other myths and stories. Mountains and gods, Fire and gods, divine partnerships, laws attributed to divine... Bottom line - we have no evidence for the Sinai story. A story in the Torah that came to be believed by a certain number is not evidence the story is true.
ReplyDeleteThe ACJA is conflating two arguments. One argument is to present counterexamples to disprove the Kuzari argument. The second is to argue that the Sinai story contains elements that are found in the myths. To me, it appears as if he's arguing the former, not the latter. If so, I wonder why he brings numerous counterexamples. But let me ask you: What single counterexample do you want to present? Is it the White Buffalo? Is it the miracle of the sun? Please present one, and one only. And we will determine whether it is even a relevant counterexample.
ReplyDeleteThanks for getting back to me. Lets begin with the Miracle of the Sun as in the ACJA link. Be sure to read ACJA part two of the the Sun miracle. Will try to respond after Shabbos. It is not that the story has all elements of Sinai, but rather the Kuzari Principle is not reliable.
DeletePER ACJA "Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: 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.
ReplyDeleteThis can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence.
RG means to say a mass of people. RG does not mean if a only a few people."
Do you Are Roster agree this is an important part of the "Kuzari" proof ?
I am not sure if having a LARGE mass of millions of people is a necessary element to the Kuzari argument, although it surely helps it.
ReplyDelete@Are Roster - I understand that The Kuzari principle requires a large number of people. The idea being that a small population is not as reliable. ACJA never said 'millions'. So Are Roster, are you now advocating that a small population example can be used ?
ReplyDeleteI am saying that I don't know if a smaller population can be used.
ReplyDelete