I, for one, am terrified that if Jewish fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists, Scientologists, Pagans, cargo cultists and/or fanatical Buddhists insist on doctrinal points without providing any proof and while ignoring basic logic and epistemology, I might just be wrong.
My only viable option is to become a Jewish, Chrisian, Muslim, Scientologist, Pagan, cargo cultist Buddhist.
If anybody is aware of any other religions please let me know as this version of Pascal’s Wager is persuasive in ways that the standard version isn’t.
Abe has shown me the light, and behold my fear is gone! However I do think he’s onto something and other than me, he’s probably not going to convince anybody. Insha’Allah.
Unfortunately, this sort of expression is rather common among posters who wish to assert that their unsupported/unsupportable beliefs should be given some magical weight. They often turn to the “you are just afraid of my truth” argument.
You might want to reconsider this approach in future discussions, because, in the past, it has come to be a recognized feature of totally baseless arguments associated with loons–whether of religious fringe zealots, paranormal fringe zealots, Truthers, or others. (Belief in a religion or the paranormal, of course, does not make one a fringe zealot. Providing the “fear” argument it once might simply be a misunderstanding on your point; if you persist in this approach you will brand yourself a dismissable loon.)
I also had nothing to do with it, but I used to be a Wiki editor and looked into it at the time. The “Kuzari Principle” wasn’t considered a notable enough argument by the Wiki moderators, not being talked about in enough places and its most notable defense (Gottlieb’s) being published in a lulu.com book. My old editing colleague IZAK worked hard to keep the article up – and trust me, that guy knows how to pull out the stops – but failed.
Bpelta: Please read the citation that you provided. Not a single account of the event says that the entire army saw the miracle. Indeed, “the common and prevailing tradition” regarding the “fiery cross” was that ONLY CONSTANTINE SAW THE CROSS. The author of the book you cited is merely suggesting that it is likely that Constantine told Eusebius that the whole army saw the vision of the cross (the author is not proving it; it is merely his guess).
The author is quick to point out the that Eusebius himself didn’t believe the story in the first place.
So what, even according to your citation, do you have? 1) The common tradition was that only constantine saw the cross; 2) Constantine might have told one person that the entire army saw the cross; 3) That one person didn’t believe Constantine.
Constaine’s testimony is still direct testimony by at least one person, and contemporary documentation for it. That’s more than you have for Sinai, where you have zero eyewitness testimony and no proof that any such claims even existed until 500-800 years after the event supposedly happened (and that’s without even mentioning all the archaeological and historical evidence against the historicity of the entire Exodus story).
Yes, there is some evidence that Constantine saw a miracle: his own testimony. However, that form of evidence - one eyewitness, or even a few eyewitnesses - has shown itself to be fallible. Therefore, I don’t feel the need to take it seriously.
My form of evidence - what a nation believes happened to millions of their ancestors, and which they believed was commemorated from the day of the miracles and forward, has never shown itself to be fallible. Therefore, I don’t know whether it is fallible or not. It may be fallible. It may be infallible. I don’t know. Apparently, you do.
I"ll give you an example. Let’s say we invent a time-machine. We don’t know whether it is accurate or not. So, we try it out. We go back in time and we see that it accurately shows that there was a Temple in Jerusalem, that there was the black death, and that there was a Second World War.
Then, we take it back to Sinai, circa 1,300 b.c. Amazingly, we see millions of Jews leaving the split sea. I would say, “since this type of evidence - the time machine - has never been shown to be wrong I don’t feel the need to distrust it, despite the fact that the lovely Egyptians didn’t record the fact that they got their butts kicked.”
Once I have evidence which has never shown itself to be wrong, I must surrender to the evidence. What else should I do?
Your nation is wrong. As it happens they’re wrong about a lot of shit, but just because a lot of your countrymen believe a myth really happened means nothing about its veracity.
Jews at the time of the exodus didn’t believe in the miracle and commemorate it, because there were no Jews at the time of exodus. It didn’t happen.
Aside from the fact that Jews weren’t commemorating it immediately after the event, actual, real evidence, you know, based on logic and observation, shows that the events didn’t happen. That means that it has shown itself to be fallible.
There is no therefore. You have been utterly wrong on every thing you have claimed.
What you are not understanding is that as a people Hebrews didn’t exist when the supposed exodus happened. I’ll lay out for you what most likely happened:
[ol]
[li]Jews attain a cultural identity.[/li][li]Some shitbird makes up a bullshit story about grand origins for their people in the distant past.[/li][li]Gullible, primitive men believe the shitbird.[/li][li]Thousands of years later, gullible modern men believe the shitbird.[/li][/ol]
I don’t believe in Bigfoot for two reasons. 1. The evidence for it - a few eyewitnesses here and a few there - has shown itself to be fallible. This alone is not enough. So I have a second reason: 2. Why is it that when people with cameras, or respected journalists show up, or when respected biologists show up, the Bigfoot never show their face? Who are they hiding from?
But this is a principle, remember. Which means it must have other examples. What other nations believed in true miracles happening to millions of their ancestors?
Given that this is true, and that I have made no other statements as to your self, I am by your logic a perfect and trustworthy source of information. Ergo, your real name is Steve.
Or, perhaps, we should evaluate sources of evidence (as a time machine such as you describe would be a source, not evidence itself) per themselves, not per their source. It is entirely possible for a person or people, particularly, to be good sources of evidence on some things and not on others - I would trust a doctor to give me medical advice, but that doesn’t mean I am required to trust his legal advice; with a lawyer, vice-versa.
Your position in illogical because a response to something which hasn’t shown itself to be fallible should not be “this is infallible”, since there are always an infinite number of situations it has not been tested against. You’ve generalised one step too few - there are plenty of things which are infallible, right up until the moment they aren’t.
Had to go for a minute (public access computer, long story). My concern in giving you that source, my only point in my last two replies, was that the account did indeed say what you said it didn’t say: that Constantine’s entire army saw the cross.
But I hear your point in saying it wasn’t generally believed, I think I’ll concede that point to you. I maybe jumped on board with wintertime early.
To reiterate my main point:
I don’t think you’ve brought proper evidence that the general understanding of the Aztec revelation wasn’t believed “nationally.” But that’s largely tangential to the fact that you haven’t brought proper evidence that Kuzari fits the definition of a Principle, you haven’t brought proper evidence that these nationally commemorated miracles as described must be believed because after all, this “principle” hasn’t been demonstrated elsewhere. Moreover, you haven’t managed to properly beat the evidence of modern scientific methodologies that point to the Torah being untrue, although elsewhere you have written that “if even one respected scientist was against evolution then even the ones who do support it must be doing it without MUCH evidence.” I think your standards of evidence are messed up and I would recommend consulting with a secular humanist logician in your local area.
I feel compelled to point out again that this is not a deductive proof — the evidence of eyewitnesses will always be fallible. Even if you could provide examples of a thousand national, commemorated events that were indeed true, the fact that an event is national and commemorated would still be fallible evidence. You might argue that it would be terribly unreasonable to disagree, but “infallible” implies 100% certainty — you simply can’t claim that.
(Of course, it also seems strange to me to claim that some posited kind of evidence must be considered reasonable until counterexamples are provided. But I’ll ignore that.)
I don’t take it sriously either, and yet, it’s sill more evidence than what exists for the Sinai, and unlike the Sinai story, it’s not hampered by mountains of contrary eviedence.
This is not a “form of evidence.”
I absolutely do. The story is proveably ahistorical, but you have the burden of proof wrong in any case. You are the one who has to prove it did happen. No one else has to proove it did not. Prove the story even existed before the 8th Century BCE. Prove that one person ever clamed to have witnessed the Sinai events.
Let’s not forget – thousand, national, commemorated, miraculous events. In which case I for one would be more inclined to hear this argument. But I don’t know of one proven instant of the (imaginary) supernatural deity doing anything.