Below is a presentation, by a Kuzari critic (Second Son) of the various formulations of the Kuzari argument, broken down into premises and conclusions. While it might be an accurate display of what many believe is the Kuzari argument - and so I cannot blame the author for presenting it in his way - I personally have never understood the Kuzari argument as such. In fact, I actually disagree with every single premise that he presents, though I am (obviously) a staunch proponent of the Kuzari argument. This leads me to believe that some critics of the argument are not familiar with the Kuzari argument (as I understand it).
BELOW IS A PRESENTATION OF THE KUZARI ARGUMENT BY THE SECOND SON:
The Kuzari argument as a a series of syllogisms:
Premise 1: Either Matan Torah happened as recorded in the Torah, or someone made it up. As worded, I disagree with the premise.
Premise 2: Millions of people will not accept that they or millions of their ancestors witnessed something and that there was a continuous tradition about that event unless they had heard about the event from their parents (or other elder family members). They would have rejected the claim out of hand. I disagree with this premise.
Conclusion 1: Therefore it can't be that Matan Torah and the mesorah were made up, because no one would have accepted it. I disagree with this conclusion.
Premise 3: If it were possible for mass revelation events to be faked or to develop organically, we would expect more religions to use a mass revelation as their origin stories. Although it is an interesting observation, I disagree with this premise.
Premise 4: We don't see any other religions use a a story like matan Torah: a mass revelation to the entire nation that was passed on to the descendants of the original witnesses as their origin story. As worded, I disagree with this premise.
Conclusion 2: Therefore it must be that mass revelation stories can't be faked or develop organically, and the mass revelation at Har Sinia must be a real event. I disagree with this conclusion.
Premise 5: (From C1 and C2) We can be sure that matan Torah happened, just as we are sure that other historical events happened. As worded, I disagree with this premise.
Premise 6: If Hashem gave the Torah on Har Sinia, then Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I disagree with this premise, unless it is substantiated with additional arguments.
Conclusion 3: Therefore Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos. Although I agree with this conclusion, I disagree that this conclusion can be substantiated by the Kuzari argument.
The argument as a syllogism with all sub-premises:
Premise 1: Either Matan Torah happened as recorded in the Torah, or someone made it up. I disagree with this premise.
Sub-premise A: If it was made up, someone tried to convince everyone that it is true, like a guy standing on a soapbox in the street. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Premise 2: Millions of people will not accept that they or millions of their ancestors witnessed something and that there was a continuous tradition about that event unless they had heard about the event from their parents (or other elder family members). They would have rejected the claim out of hand. I disagree with this premise.
Sub-premise A: There were millions of witnesses at matan Torah. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise B: The millions of witnesses at matan Torah passed down their experiences to
their children through the generations, giving us millions of lines of faithful witness that matan Torah happened. Thought historically correct, the Kuzari argument is not based on and has no connection with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise C: Each link in the chain of the mesorah is equally reliable. I disagree with this Sub-premise.
Sub-premise D: There is an unbroken mesorah that proves matan torah was a real event, and the mesorah is valid. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise E: The first generation would have had to believe they experienced matan Torah for them to tell the story to their children as history. People are/were aware of history as such and valued it. Family and community elders wouldn't deliberately lie or distort the history they pass to their children in the service of what they regard as a greater religious good. And the first generation wasn't forced to accept the story and pass it on as truth to their kids. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise F: people in the distant past were skeptical in the same way that people are today, (thought the same way about things as people do today) and so would have rejected the Sinia story if it wasn't true. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise G: Large numbers of people can't become convinced they (or their ancestors) witnessed something if it didn't really happen. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise H: The people saw God give the Torah, not some sort of trick. While factually true, I disagree that the Kuzari argument is based upon this premise.
Sub-premise I: It is reasonable to accept other people's testimony that they have witnessed a miracle. I agree with this sub-premise, although I don't believe that the Kuzari argument is based upon this sub-premise.
Conclusion 1: Therefore it can't be that Matan Torah and the mesorah were made up, because no one would have accepted it. I disagree with this conclusion.
Premise 3: If it were possible for mass revelation events to be faked or to develop organically, we would expect more religions to use a mass revelation as their origin stories. I disagree with this premise.
Sub-premise A: Religions (except Judaism, which is the truth) are invented by charlatans who are looking to use the best justification, or religions will naturally develop the best justification. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise B: Mass revelation is the best, or at least a very good, justification for a religion, so we would expect more religions to use it. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Premise 4: We don't see any other religions use a a story like matan Torah: a mass revelation to the entire nation that was passed on to the descendants of the original witnesses as their origin story. ( R' Gottlieb's NET.) As worded, I disagree with this premise.
Sub-premise A: The uniqueness of the Sinai story is proof that it happened, because it shows that a story like matan Torah can't be made up or evolve through myth formation. I disagree with this sub-premise.
Sub-premise B: There are no mass revelations in other religious traditions comparable to matan Torah. As worded, I disagree with this sub-premise.
Conclusion 2: Therefore it must be that mass revelation stories can't be faked or develop organically, and the mass revelation at Har Sinia must be a real event. I disagree with this conclusion.
Premise 5: (From C1 and C2) We can be sure that matan Torah happened, just as we are sure that other historical events happened. As worded, I disagree with this conclusion.
Sub-premise A: The Kuzari Proof establishes the historicity of matan Torah in the same way and with the same or similar confidence as other events we consider historical (having actually happened). I disagree with this sub-premise.
Premise 6: If Hashem gave the Torah on Har Sinia, then Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos. As worded, I disagree with this premise.
Sub-premise A: There is a solid mesorah about what our ancestors witnessed at matan Torah. Although true, I disagree that this is a necessary premise of the Kuzari argument.
Sub-premise B: If matan Torah was a real event, then the Torah we have today is the Word of God and Judaism as it is now is obligatory. I disagree that this is a sub-premise of the Kuzari argument and I disagree that the Kuzari argument is sufficient to justify this sub-premise.
Sub-premise C: People will not accept new doctrines as binding unless it is attested to through mesorah. Jews have accepted the burdensome commandments in the Torah and subsequent halacha unless matan Torah really happened. I disagree with this premise.
Conclusion 3: Therefore Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos. I disagree with this conclusion. Although I agree with this conclusion, I disagree that this conclusion can be substantiated by the Kuzari argument alone.
