The Kurzari Proof

[lucybeebee]

Yesterday, I was discussing the resurrection with my brother. I said that the resurrection really happened because there were hundreds of witnesses that testified within a very short period of time that they had seen Jesus after his supposed death. One rebuttal that my brother gave is that of the fallacy Kuzari proof, which although it relates to Judaism, is worth noting for our purposes. The Kurzai proof says that 3 million Jews witness the revelation at Mt. Sinai and told the story to each generation. Since it is impossible to fake a mass event like this, God must have really appeared on Mt. Sinai. One can use similar logic to prove Jesus’ miracles or his resurrection. However, my brother says that this sort of logic is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. First, the only evidence for the event at Mt. Sinai is the Torah and the inerrency of the Torah cannot be proved by using statements that require the Torah to be inerrent. There is no independent claim of the Mt. Sinai revelation outside of the Torah. There is also the possiblity of the “telephone effect,” that whatever really happend was probably garbled and exaggerated in subsequent generations. Bringing this back to Catholicism, my brother says that just because a large group of people claim that a certain event occurred does not mean that it actually happened (e.g., UFO sightings, Elvis sightings, the Loch Ness monster) and that when trying to prove that an extremely unusual event occured like a resurrection you need more proof than simply the Gospel or eyewitness testimony. What should I say?

 

[Onesimus]

… when trying to prove that an extremely unusual event occured like a resurrection you need more proof than simply the Gospel or eyewitness testimony. What should I say?

The first thing you need to do is force him to define what he would consider “sufficient” proof.

It makes no sense to attempt to satisfy someone who has defined “satisfaction” in a way that is for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve.

For me, knowing the eyewitnesses willingly went to their deaths bases on what they saw is “sufficient.”

 

[lucybeebee]

The first thing you need to do is force him to define what he would consider “sufficient” proof.

It makes no sense to attempt to satisfy someone who has defined “satisfaction” in a way that is for all intents and purposes impossible to achieve.

For me, knowing the eyewitnesses willingly went to their deaths bases on what they saw is “sufficient.”

I asked him for clarification as to what constituted sufficent proof, but he said that as a Catholic the burden was on me to provide the proof in question. I also mentioned the early Christian martyrs as an proof of the veracity of the resurrection, but he said that many well-meaning people will die or suffer for a fraud (e.g., Charles Manson, Jim Jones), so that doesn’t prove anything.

 

[thistle]

Yesterday, I was discussing the resurrection with my brother. I said that the resurrection really happened because there were hundreds of witnesses that testified within a very short period of time that they had seen Jesus after his supposed death. One rebuttal that my brother gave is that of the fallacy Kuzari proof, which although it relates to Judaism, is worth noting for our purposes. The Kurzai proof says that 3 million Jews witness the revelation at Mt. Sinai and told the story to each generation. Since it is impossible to fake a mass event like this, God must have really appeared on Mt. Sinai. One can use similar logic to prove Jesus’ miracles or his resurrection. However, my brother says that this sort of logic is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. First, the only evidence for the event at Mt. Sinai is the Torah and the inerrency of the Torah cannot be proved by using statements that require the Torah to be inerrent. There is no independent claim of the Mt. Sinai revelation outside of the Torah. There is also the possiblity of the “telephone effect,” that whatever really happend was probably garbled and exaggerated in subsequent generations. Bringing this back to Catholicism, my brother says that just because a large group of people claim that a certain event occurred does not mean that it actually happened (e.g., UFO sightings, Elvis sightings, the Loch Ness monster) and that when trying to prove that an extremely unusual event occured like a resurrection you need more proof than simply the Gospel or eyewitness testimony. What should I say?

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

 

[Liberian]

Lucy,

It’s not a question of who has to provide proof, it’s a question of deciding before you start what the criteria are going to be. If you don’t do that, then you might present him with the Second Coming happening in real time and he would respond “What a realistic optical illusion! But it’s still not sufficient proof.”

• Liberian

 

[Baraq]

Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

 

[dafalax]

This isn’t just one or two people going to their deaths for a fake resurrection. This was 11 men who suffered and died to spread the message of the Gospel. What rational reason could 11 men have for being run out of town, threatened, imprisoned, and eventually executed?
Also, why would St. Paul have given up his cushy Christian persecuting job? I guarantee you his Christian life didn’t provide him with any fly honies.
There are pretty good historical records, Christian and non, about the early Church and the spread of Christianity. If your brother would like to argue those, tell him to start reading.
Also, your brother’s argument proves nothing. Yes, it’s POSSIBLE that the telephone effect happened with the Torah. Does that mean it did happen? The burden of proof is on your brother. He has also provided insufficient proof. All he has done is shown doubt.
It sounds like he is hearing too many secular arguments. If they can’t see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, and pass it through their lower intestines, they don’t believe it. It is far more reasonable to believe that 11 people would go to their deaths because of the miracle of Christ’s resurrection than for a lie. Since reason is on your side, i might try to persuade him this way.

 

[tequilamac]

Yesterday, I was discussing the resurrection with my brother. I said that the resurrection really happened because there were hundreds of witnesses that testified within a very short period of time that they had seen Jesus after his supposed death. One rebuttal that my brother gave is that of the fallacy Kuzari proof, which although it relates to Judaism, is worth noting for our purposes. The Kurzai proof says that 3 million Jews witness the revelation at Mt. Sinai and told the story to each generation. Since it is impossible to fake a mass event like this, God must have really appeared on Mt. Sinai. One can use similar logic to prove Jesus’ miracles or his resurrection. However, my brother says that this sort of logic is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. First, the only evidence for the event at Mt. Sinai is the Torah and the inerrency of the Torah cannot be proved by using statements that require the Torah to be inerrent. There is no independent claim of the Mt. Sinai revelation outside of the Torah. There is also the possiblity of the “telephone effect,” that whatever really happend was probably garbled and exaggerated in subsequent generations. Bringing this back to Catholicism, my brother says that just because a large group of people claim that a certain event occurred does not mean that it actually happened (e.g., UFO sightings, Elvis sightings, the Loch Ness monster) and that when trying to prove that an extremely unusual event occured like a resurrection you need more proof than simply the Gospel or eyewitness testimony. What should I say?

Eyewitness testimony didn’t do it for Thomas either. He had to stick his own hands into the wounds because he could not accept the testimony of others. Your brother will be fine just as thomas was fine. It is just that “more blessed are those who believe without seeing” but the those who must see to believe are still blessed you know, just later rather than sooner.

 

[Nan_S]

I asked him for clarification as to what constituted sufficent proof, but he said that as a Catholic the burden was on me to provide the proof in question. I also mentioned the early Christian martyrs as an proof of the veracity of the resurrection, but he said that many well-meaning people will die or suffer for a fraud (e.g., Charles Manson, Jim Jones), so that doesn’t prove anything.

Don’t get caught in the atheist trap. If he doesn’t want to believe, no level of evidence will be sufficient to convince him.

– He’s comfortable in his unbelief. Until something happens that makes him uncomfortable, he’s unlikely to change.
– His non-belief is personal and exclusive to him. He doesn’t care whether you believe or not.
– If believing makes you a nicer person towards him - or a sap for his misfortunes - that’s all the better for him.
– Trying to convince him to change, while he is comfortable where he is, will produce one of two results. It will either amuse him, especially if he can make you squirm, or it will annoy him.

By telling you that the burden of proof is on you, he’s making you squirm. To him that’s amusing, and hopefully it will eventually make you go away.

Try Pascal’s wager:*** Suppose you die an atheist, then wake up in the sight of God and find out that you were wrong? Then what?***

Since he can not prove that God does not exist, he’s taking a pretty big risk.

Eternal damnation vs. eternal life. Given a choice, I know which side I bet on.

Nan

 

[ribozyme]

Try Pascal’s wager:*** Suppose you die an atheist, then wake up in the sight of God and find out that you were wrong? Then what?***

Since he can not prove that God does not exist, he’s taking a pretty big risk.

Eternal damnation vs. eternal life. Given a choice, I know which side I bet on.

Nan

Hmm… threats? Does that ever work to convert an atheist? Well, I will say you are indeed correct: one cannot disprove the existence of God beyond all possible doubt. However, I do think one can assign a probability to such a deity’s existence.

 

[dafalax]

Hmm… threats? Does that ever work to convert an atheist? Well, I will say you are indeed correct: one cannot disprove the existence of God beyond all possible doubt. However, I do think one can assign a probability to such a deity’s existence.

This isn’t a threat. He is going to die one day. She’s not threatening to do it to him. And if he goes to hell, it’s by his own choosing. She’s just notifying him there’s a chance his little gamble will not pay off. I believe you can assign a probability to that, too (see Pascal’s wager).

 

[ribozyme]

This isn’t a threat. He is going to die one day. She’s not threatening to do it to him. And if he goes to hell, it’s by his own choosing. She’s just notifying him there’s a chance his little gamble will not pay off. I believe you can assign a probability to that, too (see Pascal’s wager).

The main trouble with the Wager as it assumes the probability of God’s existence to be 50%. Let’s use an analogy: suppose there is a 50% percent chance to win the lottery (I mean the jackpot and you get all of it), the jackpot is 100 million dollars and it costs one dollar to play. If you lose, you only loose one dollar, if you win you get, $ 99,999,999. So, for a 50% chance of winning that much money for a dollar investment, it is indeed worth it. But, what if the probability is like 1 in 70 million (or something like that as in real life)? If you win, you still get $ 99,999,999 if you only buy one ticket, but with those odds, one should not expect that payoff with only a dollar invested. The odds of such an event occuring to a specific person is insignificant, but, indeed, it is not impossible.

 

[kleary]

Yesterday, I was discussing the resurrection with my brother. I said that the resurrection really happened because there were hundreds of witnesses that testified within a very short period of time that they had seen Jesus after his supposed death. One rebuttal that my brother gave is that of the fallacy Kuzari proof, which although it relates to Judaism, is worth noting for our purposes. The Kurzai proof says that 3 million Jews witness the revelation at Mt. Sinai and told the story to each generation. Since it is impossible to fake a mass event like this, God must have really appeared on Mt. Sinai. One can use similar logic to prove Jesus’ miracles or his resurrection. However, my brother says that this sort of logic is unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. First, the only evidence for the event at Mt. Sinai is the Torah and the inerrency of the Torah cannot be proved by using statements that require the Torah to be inerrent. There is no independent claim of the Mt. Sinai revelation outside of the Torah. There is also the possiblity of the “telephone effect,” that whatever really happend was probably garbled and exaggerated in subsequent generations. Bringing this back to Catholicism, my brother says that just because a large group of people claim that a certain event occurred does not mean that it actually happened (e.g., UFO sightings, Elvis sightings, the Loch Ness monster) and that when trying to prove that an extremely unusual event occured like a resurrection you need more proof than simply the Gospel or eyewitness testimony. What should I say?

Well, Jesus did not appear to non-believers, namely those who condemned him and accepted Caesar as their king instead of Him.

To those who He appeared to- well they ALL paid the ultimate price for it now didn’t they.

Even one who never even met Him- was basically the best evangelist for the Catholic Church- was beheaded. And I mean this guy, St. Paul- just look at the hassidic Jews- and you can see what St. Paul was like- very strict and orthodox Jew— then a complete turn around to show the truth of Judaism Fulfilled to the world for what? Death for what?

You try having a gun to your head and told to either renounce the Catholic Faith or die…Paul and the Apostles would rather have been killed than save their own lives…

Ken

 

[scylla]

I want to reiterate what others have said, do not discuss this until you can come to an agreement of what is sufficient proof. Or else you are just wasting your time.

If I want to prove that the United States is north of Mexico I have to have an agreement first of what is sufficient proof.

Would it be showing maps? If yes then show a map but if this isn’t agreed upon then he can just deny the reliability of the map. Would it be by traveling with a compass, if this isn’t agreed upon you would waste hours or days doing this while he just dismisses the compass as reliable.

This is a trap of a person who doesn’t care about truth or proof but just wants to be right. You cannot win unless he actually is honest and will discuss something with some ground rules.

If you are going to play basketball you agree on rules before you play or else the opponent can make up rules as they go along to win.

Not wanting to agree to rules shows a basic dishonesty and lack of character that proves that it is a waste of time to discuss this with him. Just be charitable and explain this politely.

I cannot prove that I was born on a certain date if you don’t accept my Birth Certificate and witness of my mother.

God Bless
Scylla


Ribozyme is correct in that you really cannot prove God anymore than you can prove anything else that requires faith such as my love for my wife, most everything takes some faith, and eventually some trust in something other than yourself.
(my “love”" for my wife could just be an interest in her life insurance)

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

The objection in question is not anything new. The objection makes sense, but the available evidence runs contrary. Remember, contrary to the nonsense of individuals like Earl Doherty and Robert Price, Paul clearly believes in the bodily Resurrection of Christ. His Epistles were written early, by a former persecutor of Christianity. Therefore the historicity of the event has credibility. Now, there were several people who saw Christ alive after the Crucifixtion, many reported it, and died for it. People don’t die for a lie, and, contrary to skeptics, mass halucinations do not happen. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona address this problem in depth in their book THE CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. I hope it helps.

 

[Nan_S]

The main trouble with the Wager as it assumes the probability of God’s existence to be 50%. Let’s use an analogy: suppose there is a 50% percent chance to win the lottery (I mean the jackpot and you get all of it), the jackpot is 100 million dollars and it costs one dollar to play. If you lose, you only loose one dollar, if you win you get, $ 99,999,999. So, for a 50% chance of winning that much money for a dollar investment, it is indeed worth it. But, what if the probability is like 1 in 70 million (or something like that as in real life)? If you win, you still get $ 99,999,999 if you only buy one ticket, but with those odds, one should not expect that payoff with only a dollar invested. The odds of such an event occuring to a specific person is insignificant, but, indeed, it is not impossible.

Eternal life in Heaven is a pretty big jackpot.

Eternal damnation in hell is a pretty big price.

What does it cost you, right now, to buy a ticket in the “God exists” lottery?

If I don’t buy a ticket, I get to live by my own rules. Past experience, both my own experience and others, has shown that to be foolish.

If I buy a ticket I have to abide by certain rules, rules that were established by someone else. That’s my cost. They’re not bad rules. In fact, they make a lot of sense.

If I buy a ticket and I win this lottery, I get an unimaginably big reward.

If I buy a ticket and lose this lottery, my up-front investment was small and my ultimate cost is zero (I die and nothing else happens).

Think about it.

Nan

 

[tequilamac]

Hello All,

The objection in question is not anything new. The objection makes sense, but the available evidence runs contrary. Remember, contrary to the nonsense of individuals like Earl Doherty and Robert Price, Paul clearly believes in the bodily Resurrection of Christ. His Epistles were written early, by a former persecutor of Christianity. Therefore the historicity of the event has credibility. Now, there were several people who saw Christ alive after the Crucifixtion, many reported it, and died for it. People don’t die for a lie, and, contrary to skeptics, mass halucinations do not happen. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona address this problem in depth in their book THE CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. I hope it helps.

Actually I do agree with you in the most part, but I must take exception to the idea that people do not die for a lie. Obviously they do. We executed Hussein yesterday and bin Laden is poised to be next. Sorry. People die for lies all the time. The Nazi’s, Hitler, Mussolini, etc. etc. etc.

 

[jbuck919]

We cannot prove anything that contradicts what is given to us to know through the wonderful intellectual instrument God gave us. We cannot even prove what is in a shadowy status until better evidence comes along. That is why we separate realms of faith and science.

As early a believer as St. Paul himself, hardly a scientist in the modern sense but if anything a Hellenistic platonist who believed that the person who made the most gripping argument must have the truth on his side, already did not believe, or teach to others, that resurrection was a “simple” corporeal re-animation. They had already discovered in those days that when you die, you die for good. It is clear both from his own conversion story, his interpretation of that as a continuation of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, and the way he writes about our own resurrection in 1 Corinthians that we are talking about a glorified continued existence in which the concept of body is not exactly irrelevant, but is transcended.

 

[Nan_S]

But, what if the probability is like 1 in 70 million (or something like that as in real life)? If you win, you still get $ 99,999,999 if you only buy one ticket, but with those odds, one should not expect that payoff with only a dollar invested.

Anytime the payoff is greater than the odds of winning, it’s worth buying a ticket. It’s worth buying lots of tickets.

When the prize is a hundred million, the ticket costs a dollar, and the odds of winning are one in 70 million, it would be worth buying ALL the tickets. You would be the guaranteed winner, your cost would be only 70 million, you would make a profit of 30 million.

The “prize” of Eternal Life in Heaven is so infinitely great that it can not be expressed in dollars.

So, tell me. What is so horrible about being a believer, that would make you walk away from this potential reward?

What is so great about being a non-believer, that is worth you taking the risk of Eternal Damnation?

Nan

 

[valkotukka]

Pascal’s wager is a pretty bad argument. It assumes that the God in question is indeed the Christian God and will act accordingly.

Things that would totally mess up your argument
-God is real but doesn’t care if people believe or not, or isn’t active in the world
-God is real and will send everyone to hell anyway
-God is real and will randomly send you to hell or heaven

See, Pascal’s wager is meaningless unless you are talking about Christianity- and if you’re arguing with an atheist, you are arguing about mere theism.