In one paragraph, can you tell us how this relates to Pascal’s Wager?
-
No. I claim that the authors of the story may have been familiar with some elements of Egyptian society. At the time the earliest version story was originally composed, it may not even have been “history”.
-
I provided an example: The Baal Teshuva movement. There are huge numbers of Jews who believe in a “national history” simply because other people told them it was true. This fact doesn’t mean the “national history” is false, but it proves that people can be convinced that something happened to all of their ancestors in the distant past despite having no direct tradition of it.
-
:rolleyes: “Increasing the amount of times a miracle took place” is precisely the process of myth formation which I am talking about. You just need to start with an extremely small “miracle”, as it were, and greatly increase it over a long period of time. In any case, if you happen to be hung up on quantitative vs qualitative differences, examples abound. Some Orthodox Jews believe that God LITERALLY held Mount Sinai in the air over the assembled people to convince them to accept the Torah. Some believe that Rabbinic account to be a mere figure of speech. According to the so-called Kuzari proof, if that didn’t happen, how could anyone possibly believe it? Examples abound; consult your copy of “The Midrash Says”* or perhaps in your case “The Little Midrash says”**.
- An English anthology of traditional Rabbinic interpretations of Biblical stories
** The large print vividly illustrated children’s edition
The obvious drawback to Pascal’s wager is that you have no way to know which religion to follow, so there’s no way to actually play it safe. However, the Kuzari proof shows that Judaism is true, so all other religions must be false, so follow Judaism. Oops, I guess you don’t really need Pascal’s wager then… foiled again.
I did not mean to use the phrase “examples abound” twice in one paragraph, but rest assured that examples do, in fact, abound.
Someone gets it.
The so-called “Kuzari Proof”, if it were actually logically sound, would be evidence against Pascal’s Wager for the reason you just stated. Instead of saying, “You can’t know, so you might as well follow God, just to be safe”, this “proof” makes the claim that we already do know, so Judaism is the only path to follow.
I live my life as if I am, at any moment, going to be eaten by a shambling, eldritch horror from beyond space, to have my reason and sanity stripped from me by a mere glimpse of his horrific visage, and my soul seared upon his foul chymicals past the rationality of time, being cast infinitely upon entire universes of abject fear and loathing.
That way, if I do wind up in hell, it won’t really seem all that bad.
I like to call this “Lovecraft’s Wager”.
I’m sure they didn’t know what was true and what was not. Valid stories are commingled with fanciful tales. It’s called confabulation.
Dad tells you a story about the Egyptians and another about the Israelites. How do you know which is true or false, or a mixture of both? So you write them both down. 2500 years later, we find out that some are true and some not.
Very briefly, I will respond. The baalie teshuva movements gets people to believe, despite the fact that their own parents were secular, because the baalie teshuva all agree - and all secular people agree - that their great-grandparents in europe believed in the events. And, they reason, since our grandparents form a chain back to sinai, we might as well trust our grandparents.
However, those who don’t accept Kuzari are claiming an entirely different point. They claim that people would not have verified what their great-grandparents believed, that the Jews accepted the prophet’s version of history, despite the fact that their great-grandparents didn’t believe. Therefore, in order to show you are right, that people will ignore the history of their own great-grandpartents, you will have to show me a false nationally-experienced, nationally-commemorated event.
Second, all (religious people) agree that whatever happened at mount sinai was an amazing event. It might have been a hurricane, and it might have been God’s uttering two-sentences, or ten sentences, or raising a mountain over the heads of the entire Jewish people. Sudden, overwhelming experiences of short duration tend to confuse people – and for that very reason I hold that Giving of the Torah is not a useful proof for Kuzari. As you pointed out, there are mythological hurricanes and events of the sort.
I am focusing on the 14,600 days of manna which sustained the Jewish people. The fact that there is disagreement regarding what happened at mount sinai – an even which might have taken as short as five seconds – does not imply that you can get people to believe in 14,600 days of continuous, sustained miracles.
Now, you claim, maybe the 14,600 days – hallucination proof history – evolved. Show me, then, one case where such an extended display of miracles, which was heavily commemorated, evolved. Until then, you got nothing.
ONE person made up a wild story {snicker}. He told it to 10 others {snicker, snicker, nudge}, and they told it to 100 more {snicker, snicker, snicker, nudge, nudge, wink}. Sounded like fun to some gullible, unnamed scribe, so he wrote it down. :rolleyes:
Result: One gullible “Abele derer” thinks it is the truth. Everybody else laughs (snicker, snicker, nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
It doesn’t relate to pascal’s wager. It came in by way of tangent. I disagree with shmendrik that the kuzari proof is a proof for judaism. That is utterly false. All Christians, Muslims, and many buddhists and hindus, agree that the sinai miracles took place. So, no, I am not trying to prove that judaism is the true religion (which shmendrik implied).
So why am I here? Because I want to prove to you guys that God exists. Why? 1) I am bored; 2) because, I think it is comforting to know that God exists. I want to provide you guys with that comfort.
Can you show me one false heavily-commemorated, nationally-experienced event? Or did an angle tell you that snicker, snicker, nudge etc. will allow people to believe such a false event of this nature?
People believe a lot of nonsensical shit. People make up a lot of ridiculous shit. People believe a lot of crazy shit, especially if they don’t know any better. Is this really, really in doubt?
One false, heavily-commemorated, “nationally-experienced event” that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker, is the fanciful, outrageous, unsupported, unsubstantiated, mythical story in the bible.
And an “angle” told me, so it must be true. If you doubt it, the Devil must have gotten to you first.
Angles vs. Devils, 6-5, highlights reel at 11.
Does your “a lot of ridiculous shit” include a false nationally-commemorated event? If not, why do you assume that the evidence that I am presenting is fallible? Or are you one of those people who has bought into the ridiculously shitty belief that miracles are inherently impossible?
You’re the only person here who believes in this category.
Miracles are impossible by definition. To most skeptics, that means miraculous stories are for shit. Miracles are required for your “nationally commemorated event” - you’re assuming many of them. Do you see yet why you’re not convincing anyone?
If you define miracles as impossible events, then I agree with you. But that’s not how anyone defines miracles. A miracles is when nature appears to be acting intelligently. When one sees nature acting intelligently, it creates a rebuttable presumption (depending on how intelligently nature is acting) that God exists.
Nature doesn’t act intelligently often, and there are some gray areas. Manna falling for 14,600 days isn’t a gray area, so if we have good evidence that manna fell, we can accept the existence of God.
No, this is another definition you’ve made up that does not match its given meaning. From dictionary.com:
- Means it is something doesn’t comport with to our understanding of human capabilities and nature. “Impossible” is a little reductionist, maybe, but it’s something that defies our understanding of the world. This includes just about every element of your story.
Some unknown, nameless, probably underpaid and underloved scribe writing about something he made up while under the influence of fermented grapes is not good evidence that anything happened, no matter how many days he invented or zeros he wrote. So far, although we might agree that the event was written down, that’s 100% of all we’ve got. Everything else is in your mind. “National” event? Puhleeze.
This may be the lease coherent thing you’ve posted so far, which is impressive. Nature “acting intelligently”? What does that mean? Why on earth would that create any sort of presumption about God, other than the venerable Goddidit arguement?
Rain has been falling, on and off, for far more than 14,600 days. We’d all die of thirst and hunger without it. Does that create a “rebuttable presumption that God exists”? WTF?
Can you us a reasonable number of heavily-commemorated, nationally-experienced events that occurred at least 100 years ago so we have something for comparison?
No, you’re wrong. Baalei Teshuva believe because they turn to religion to fill certain gaps in their life, to provide a sense of community, etc. Ask your average BT, especially one not affiliated with Aish HaTorah or Ohr Somayach - a Chabad BT would be great for this - and they’ll have never even vaguely thought about this Kuzari stuff, and yet they accept the historicity of the exodus and revelation without a second thought, simply because that’s what their Rabbi taught them.
Sorry, that’s rather glib but unconvincing. If people can believe that all of their ancestors had a mountain raised over their head when that didn’t happen, they can believe anything.
What a terrible example. The manna myth could very easily have evolved: A small group of people were in an inhospitable environment, and “miraculously” found food available - there are many scholarly guesses as to what it might have been. Over time the story evolved into an entire nation eating heavenly bread from the skies. Big deal.
Incidentally, I’m not sure why I should be compelled to bring a counterexample to prove my point, although Kuzari proof-niks often insist on it. The Kuzari proof is disproved if I can show that it is plausible for the stories to have evolved from a naturalistic origin and become widely accepted.