tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post4930620099792226751..comments2023-06-14T10:33:15.008-04:00Comments on Shilton HaSechel שלטון השכל: The Kuzari Proof: Quote and LinksShilton HaSechelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-35076044326988553652022-12-01T00:51:12.688-05:002022-12-01T00:51:12.688-05:00VmemerZmen-i Carlos Ruiz program
Awesome
carnidom...VmemerZmen-i Carlos Ruiz <a href="https://lmdigroup.org/" rel="nofollow">program</a><br /><a href="https://lmdigroup.org/" rel="nofollow">Awesome</a><br /> carnidomaVmemerZmen-ihttps://lmdigroup.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-66977468004916217062022-08-26T07:49:48.854-04:002022-08-26T07:49:48.854-04:00cieplorPcont-zeDes Moines Megan Davis Cinema 4D
Af...cieplorPcont-zeDes Moines Megan Davis <a href="https://filesduck.com/category/for-phone/" rel="nofollow">Cinema 4D</a><br /><a href="https://filesduck.com/" rel="nofollow">Affinity Designer</a><br /><a href="https://filesduck.com/category/designing/" rel="nofollow">Avast Pro Antivirus</a><br /> giosmaretunVriama0granrehttps://filesduck.com/category/security/antivirus/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-39619118579707810202022-04-24T10:50:40.316-04:002022-04-24T10:50:40.316-04:00gilmyca_po-Lafayette Phillip Garrido https://wakel...gilmyca_po-Lafayette Phillip Garrido <a href="https://wakelet.com/wake/KzitojcB3FlC2I3o--kjx" rel="nofollow">https://wakelet.com/wake/KzitojcB3FlC2I3o--kjx</a><br /> drawvependnentgilmyca_po-Lafayettehttps://wakelet.com/wake/Xf1LPkeg69u3YlkVJoQbNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-78916166988294645832013-07-17T00:51:00.286-04:002013-07-17T00:51:00.286-04:00Prof David Levene refutes Kuzari at thiws link
htt...Prof David Levene refutes Kuzari at thiws link<br />http://ulag.net/archive/kuzari/levene1998-07-29.txtanonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-24427286971729114972013-07-17T00:38:21.894-04:002013-07-17T00:38:21.894-04:00Check out the 2 "one" reveiws at Amazon....Check out the 2 "one" reveiws at Amazon.com Permission to Receive bookanonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-5204616048763856772010-08-23T16:32:45.283-04:002010-08-23T16:32:45.283-04:00Lol well THAT was utter rubbish so I'm not exa...Lol well THAT was utter rubbish so I'm not exactly confident that he's got anything better up his sleeve.Shilton HaSechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-35304746483983553442010-08-23T16:04:27.789-04:002010-08-23T16:04:27.789-04:00Aaaaand, that's not it, so no I don't want...Aaaaand, that's not it, so no I don't want to go into detail.pierrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-39672630917079808652010-08-23T09:59:36.895-04:002010-08-23T09:59:36.895-04:00> Yes but creating certain myths are impossible...> Yes but creating certain myths are impossible. Imagine trying to create a myth that George Washington was Vice President or that the North broke away from the South in the Civl War or that the U.S. broke away from Spain rather than Britain. That was my point.<br /><br />Myths don’t happen that way. Myth development is almost never a deliberate process and is also almost never in direct contradiction to known facts. Take the story with Washington and the cherry tree. The general public was completely ignorant of Washington’s childhood, so the story with the cherry tree was free to take hold. The general public in ancient Judea was similarly ignorant of the origin of the Torah, so the Sinia myth was free to take hold. <br /><br />The Kuzari counterargument that they would never have accepted the story of Sinia if they hadn’t heard it from their parents and grandparents is a strawman. It assumes that someone invented the story from whole cloth and started trying to convince people it was true. It is far more likely that the story developed slowly. Perhaps it started as a story of a revelation to Moshe and a few trusted followers and then grew over the centuries until it had God speaking directly to the entire nation. Perhaps it even has a kernel of truth. Maybe there really was a leader named Moshe who invented a law code. In any case, by the time the story of universal revelation was widespread the story would have been part of Israelite culture for centuries, and the majority of the people hearing it would have heard it from their parents and grandparents.G*3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-34658235855353469922010-08-22T08:29:43.733-04:002010-08-22T08:29:43.733-04:00"> The point is the official history taugh..."> The point is the official history taught in school is not dependennt on their ignorance.<br /><br />You’d be shocked by how bad some high school history textbooks are. Even if there aren’t outright mistakes, everything is subject to a level of spin that you don’t see even in popular history books."<br /><br />I wouldn't be shocked but my overall point is that while levels of knowledge may vary there is a limit how much it will for a nation as a nation. If some individuals are more ignorant than others it can be greater for them but we do not call them the preservers of American history especially because they are hardly into reading or learning so much. By contrast the more they educate themselves the more they encounter the truth. If we are life learners we do not stay stuck at the same level of knowledge.<br /><br />"> That's not an example of an important enough piece of information to be preserved one way or another correctly.<br /><br />Not the point. Generations of American schoolchildren have been taught that George Washington was a great and virtuous man who as a child was always honest, even when it might get him into trouble. The truth is that particular story is first seen in an unauthorized biography of Washington published shortly after his death which includes many fantastical anecdotes about him. The book was wildly popular with the general public and many of its stories, like the one with the cherry tree, entered American mythology despite not having any basis in reality. Creating myths is disturbingly easy."<br /><br />Yes but creating certain myths are impossible. Imagine trying to create a myth that George Washington was Vice President or that the North broke away from the South in the Civl War or that the U.S. broke away from Spain rather than Britain. That was my point. <br /><br />"It’s a shame, really. Washington is much more interesting as the idealistic Virginia aristocrat who botched his command as a colonel with the colonial militia at Fort Necessity and went on to win a war against the most powerful empire of the time than he is as a saint."<br /><br />I agree. Real history is irreplacable and much more fasinating.RabbanGamlielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-47543137432303404302010-08-22T07:37:51.252-04:002010-08-22T07:37:51.252-04:00> The point is the official history taught in s...> The point is the official history taught in school is not dependennt on their ignorance.<br /><br />You’d be shocked by how bad some high school history textbooks are. Even if there aren’t outright mistakes, everything is subject to a level of spin that you don’t see even in popular history books.<br /><br />> That's not an example of an important enough piece of information to be preserved one way or another correctly.<br /><br />Not the point. Generations of American schoolchildren have been taught that George Washington was a great and virtuous man who as a child was always honest, even when it might get him into trouble. The truth is that particular story is first seen in an unauthorized biography of Washington published shortly after his death which includes many fantastical anecdotes about him. The book was wildly popular with the general public and many of its stories, like the one with the cherry tree, entered American mythology despite not having any basis in reality. Creating myths is disturbingly easy.<br /><br />It’s a shame, really. Washington is much more interesting as the idealistic Virginia aristocrat who botched his command as a colonel with the colonial militia at Fort Necessity and went on to win a war against the most powerful empire of the time than he is as a saint.G*3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-32760693116277725142010-08-22T01:36:13.579-04:002010-08-22T01:36:13.579-04:00"Shilton HaSechel said:
"stop complai..."Shilton HaSechel said: <br /><br />"stop complaining and just write out your proofs.""<br /><br />Why don't you? Further you keep on avoiding answering my questions on whether you do have answers. Further you saying you wonder how "that guy" has a Phd in mathematical logic is beyond you, is silly. He didn't get it by accident and your nonmathematical logic is not something that would earn you a C in one logic course.RabbanGamlielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-75429095705613176762010-08-22T01:25:29.218-04:002010-08-22T01:25:29.218-04:00In reply to Jewish Gadfly
"Oh hush. Read the ...In reply to Jewish Gadfly<br />"Oh hush. Read the links. The Kuzari argument is apologetic and lame-brained. "I can prove X happened, because a Middle Eastern tribe a couple thousand years ago believed it happened, and it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE they would have believed it otherwise." This needs refutation?"<br /><br />Well if you would really present the argument it would.<br /><br />">You can fake certain things like obscure facts about the Presidents but not tell people that George Washington wasn't president but instead it was someone else or tell people that America <br /><br />Yes, but that would be because we have excellent documentation available to masses of people. If George Washington were a myth that had developed over the last eight hundred years, and we had poor recorded history, and we were totally dependent for information about him on a select group of storytellers and religious leaders, then yes, they could easily "discover" that he was president."<br /><br />You are mistaken. People do not live without some history being passed while they wait fdor someone to make up their history. What do they say about their history inh the meantime? We have history for more than 800 years with peoples in the thousands of years. The English Monarchy goes back over a thousand. Even if America would be around for a thousand years with little records left we would still know George Washington was President of the United States and not have someone who was never president of the United States being called one.<br /><br />"There are plenty of people who grew up in the US who have no idea what the Articles of Confederation were"<br /><br />Irrelevant. There are people who do not every president. The point is the official history taught in school is not dependennt on their ignorance. <br /><br />"and who think that George Washington really chopped down his father's cherry tree."<br /><br />That's not an example of an important enough piece of information to be preserved one way or another correctly. If you yet claim we are so filledRabbanGamlielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-30035429205039215242010-08-22T01:02:21.295-04:002010-08-22T01:02:21.295-04:00Again I accidentally pressed on the like button fo...Again I accidentally pressed on the like button for your comment since I thought it was a reply button.<br /><br />">It also makes you more vulnerable to challenge of your ideas if we are really controlled in what we can think.<br /><br />Oh no! I'm vulnerable! - I don't care how "vulnerable" I am. What a terrible reason to hold or reject an idea because it might make you more or less "vulnerable"."<br /><br />Don't you know anything or are you just good at making strawmen. I wasn't arguing that. I was saying you are more vulnerable and if I need to spell it out for you I will now. The point is if we are controlled in what we can think how you can you believe you are being reasonable?RabbanGamlielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-73911937405729363592010-08-22T00:06:10.036-04:002010-08-22T00:06:10.036-04:00stop complaining and just write out your proofs.stop complaining and just write out your proofs.Shilton HaSechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-13343131313009286982010-08-22T00:05:51.699-04:002010-08-22T00:05:51.699-04:00"As for contradictions - I haven't decide..."As for contradictions - I haven't decided if the contradictions only become apparent after disbelief or not so I'm not bothering to address them until I think about it a little more."<br /><br />Oh so before disbelief your mind is controlled so that you can't notice them. So your mind after disbelief could also be controlled and so you can think things that are false or perhaps we are living in a multileveled reality. It certianly flows from that comment of yours.RabbanGamlielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-75246427360572106512010-08-21T23:56:56.979-04:002010-08-21T23:56:56.979-04:00I have a proofs and I also have things I will thin...I have a proofs and I also have things I will think about just like a thinking human being. You however keep claiming you have all the answers for your side of arguments and yet you do not give them and yet you say I am holding back.I gave you answers so far to all but two of your supposed contradictions in the Torah and the last two will be next. Over and over again you do not even answer me on my asking you to answer my question why you don't answer. I even answered you on your challenges to religion by email and you still have not replied despite weeks having passed, supposedly because you lack time. If you keep talking this way I will post my answers that I have emailed you on for others to review. It's already put in words so I can post it in a moment despite my busy schedual. I have given you no reason to tell me I may be lying (which is cynical and dumb of you) but you have given me plenty. I feel like Yaakov reasoning with Lavan.RabbanGamlielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-37330834317659576642010-08-21T23:38:57.666-04:002010-08-21T23:38:57.666-04:00It is indeed true that people thought differently ...It is indeed true that people thought differently in the past about many things and will in the future. My point was that empirical study was done in the past. Astronomy was studied a lot empirically as was math and medicine. Empirical study was combined with philosophy. Science was not made at the time to flow out purely or even primarily from experiment as is the ideal in modern science. While Shilton HaSechel perhaps feels a need for his side of the argument to argue that people thought cognitively differently in those days it is actually a two edged sword to argue as he does. If we are not able to rise above limitations imposed by our time then there is no way to know if we are using proper logic because we are then also controlled. Further while Shilton HaSechel quotes the statement in terms of time he fails to note that it is also referring to space. People in different places according to this will think differently so then there would no reason for Shilton HaSechel to think he is also not controlled to whatever extent by arbitrary limitations.RabbanGamlielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-18594394517000447272010-08-20T18:20:00.076-04:002010-08-20T18:20:00.076-04:00This was not meant as a response to your comment, ...This was not meant as a response to your comment, but as a general comment on the Kuzari proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-47233505664320302332010-08-20T18:14:23.732-04:002010-08-20T18:14:23.732-04:00We find large groups of people believing in easily...We find large groups of people believing in easily disprovable facts all the time. For example, most of the Arab world today believes with certainty that all Jews working in the Twin Towers on 9/11 were informed about the expected attack and didn't show up to work that day. Bahai people believe that as recently as 160 years ago, the Bab, forerunner of the Bahai faith, escaped execution under miraculous circumstances witnessed by hundreds of onlookers.<br /><br />Whether or not the Jewish tradition of mass revelation is exactly the same set of facts as other examples of groups of people believing in publicly witnessed events that didn’t occur is beside the point. <br /><br />The important thing to remember is that Kuzari proof is arguing that the facts behind the national torah-misinai tradition must be true because otherwise the tradition could not have arisen. But we can come up with very reasonable and plausible sets of facts under which the tradition could have arisen without the facts having occurred. Therefore the existence of the tradition does not prove the veracity of the facts. And, indeed, we do find people believing in supposedly publicly witnessed events which in fact never occurred. Whether or not those public events are very similar or somewhat similar or not so similar to the Jewish tradition, whether they involve similar or not so similar miraculous revelations, is beside the point.<br /><br />It is entirely possible that a national tradition of publicly-witnessed miraculous events are indeed unlikely to arise for the very reasons cited by the Kuzari proof, and therefore it is rare for such traditions to exist. However, it is not impossible for them to arise (again, it is easy to come with plausible scenarios in which they could arise) and therefore they sometimes exist. Judaism is a (perhaps uncommon) example of a tradition of publicly-witnessed miraculous events. The tradition could have arisen either due to the truth of the underlying facts or due to other circumstances. Therefore, the tradition’s existence does not prove its underlying facts. ~QEDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-64140231416894663492010-08-20T14:38:48.047-04:002010-08-20T14:38:48.047-04:00There are plenty of people who grew up in the US w...There are plenty of people who grew up in the US who have no idea what the Articles of Confederation were and who think that George Washington really chopped down his father's cherry tree.G*3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-74427356084135450582010-08-20T12:23:00.901-04:002010-08-20T12:23:00.901-04:00>Glad you have a PhD to share that with us
Lol...>Glad you have a PhD to share that with us<br /><br />Lol. How that guy got a Phd in mathematical logic is completely beyond me.Shilton HaSechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-10267979031144426522010-08-20T12:05:18.367-04:002010-08-20T12:05:18.367-04:00That series of replies is NUTS. He spends three-fo...That series of replies is NUTS. He spends three-fourths of the page detailing "principles of evidence" without EVER relating them to anything having to do with the Kuzari argument. (Yes, Rabbi Gottlieb, in theory something can be possible but implausible. Glad you have a PhD to share that with us.) <br /><br />And when he finally gets to it in the last two paragraphs, he says, "a myth formation process would have to produce false beliefs, but Sinai is a 'National Experiential Tradition,' so it has no false beliefs, so it couldn't be created by myth formation processes."<br /><br />Huh?? I'm sorry, could you repeat that, because it sure sounded like you said, "Question begging question begging, therefore question begging." ("It can't be that Sinai was created by gradual myth development and is thus false, because I already ascertained that Sinai must be true when I assumed no myth development, and if it were a myth it would be false." Yeah, no kidding.) Why any religious person would ever rely on anything he says is beyond me.JewishGadflyhttp://praxyproject.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-25103852386011807112010-08-20T11:47:44.450-04:002010-08-20T11:47:44.450-04:00Another fun one: http://www.secondexodus.com/html/...Another fun one: http://www.secondexodus.com/html/jewishcatholicdialogue/nationalrevelation.htm<br /><br />>Well I'd like to see one so far that doesn't look strainly apologetic and lame brained.<br /><br />Oh hush. Read the links. The Kuzari argument is apologetic and lame-brained. "I can prove X happened, because a Middle Eastern tribe a couple thousand years ago believed it happened, and it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE they would have believed it otherwise." This needs refutation? As I have posted elsewhere, the ridiculous and unprecedented beliefs held by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb is the only refutation needed for this kind of thing. <br /><br />>You can fake certain things like obscure facts about the Presidents but not tell people that George Washington wasn't president but instead it was someone else or tell people that America <br /><br />Yes, but that would be because we have excellent documentation available to masses of people. If George Washington were a myth that had developed over the last eight hundred years, and we had poor recorded history, and we were totally dependent for information about him on a select group of storytellers and religious leaders, then yes, they could easily "discover" that he was president.JewishGadflyhttp://praxyproject.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-87211407315867797082010-08-20T11:38:56.851-04:002010-08-20T11:38:56.851-04:00RG, see my comment below--Shilton is correct about...RG, see my comment below--Shilton is correct about things being done differently in the past. It may not be indicative of basic cognitive abilities, but it is indicative of which ways of thinking were accessible to people or not. Until new ideas and new ways of doing things can spread, people are stuck with old ways. For a lot of philosophers, 20th century analytic philosophy did to many metaphysical problems what empiricism did to Aristotelian science: suddenly, a long-venerated way of thinking about the world seemed totally wrong. So it goes.JewishGadflyhttp://praxyproject.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-38177753714265055452010-08-20T11:27:54.256-04:002010-08-20T11:27:54.256-04:00Hello Shilton,
I wrote about it on my own blog. ...Hello Shilton, <br /><br />I wrote about it on my own blog. You can go here ( http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/02/main-argument-for-judaism-refuted.html ). It has several other links in it that connect to the main argument but those are all my arguments against this popular but faulty Jewish argument.Baruch Spinozanoreply@blogger.com