The Kurzari Proof

[valkotukka]

Oh, and also, a “logical threat” like this probably won’t foster any kind of true faith…

 

[Nan_S]

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.

I disagree. Pascal’s wager is simply about whether some kind of undefined deity could exist, and whether you want to bet the whole applecart on the possibility that you are wrong by denying that existence.

The next step is completely independent of the wager:
Having allowed for the possibility that a deity could exist, it is then imperative for the person to search further. If a deity could exist, what would that deity want of us, and shouldn’t we conform our behaviour to the deity’s expectations? Is there any evidence for the truth of the claims of various competing deities?

As Christians we tend to jump to the end of the equation. We know that in all of history only one God has proven himself to be true. Therefore, we ignore the counter-claims and expectations of other supposed deities.

Our beliefs don’t invalidate Pascal’s wager. They simply gloss over the “which god should I follow?” step.

 

[zachh]

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.

I’m surprised that he didn’t mention something along the lines of the Muslim terrorists in 9/11. That’s more of the typical response that you should expect.

The difference between the early Christian martyrs and the Muslim terrorists of 9/11 is that the early Christian martyrs, especially the Apostles, were in the best position to know whether or not their messiah was the true messiah. The Apostles saw Christ after his death, they saw Christ preform miracles, etc. The Muslim Terrorists that were in the 9/11 attacks didn’t do any of those things.

The argument usually goes in this form:

Premise 1: People don’t normally die for things that they know to be a lie.
Premise 2: The Apostles were in the best position to know whether or not to know if Christ was the true messiah.
Premise 3: The Apostles died for their belief that Christ was the messiah.

The conclusion pretty much follows from that.

The main trouble with the Wager as it assumes the probability of God’s existence to be 50%.

Kinda. Pascal’s Wager assumes that the receiver of the wager is torn between either Christianity and Atheism. In other words, Christianity has a 50% chance of being correct, and so so Atheism.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Indeed, people die for lies all the time. The Branch Davidians are the biggest modern example. David Kuresh died for his “Divinity.” So what of Christ?

Here’s the key: People die for lies when they’ve been duped, much like Kuresh and his followers. However, one does not die for something they know is a lie, unless they are under duress. Skeptics claim that the Apostles, especially Paul, invented the Resurrection. However, their Martyrdom would be insane. The written documents show clearly that the Apostles were convinced that the Resurrection was real, they sacrificed themeselves for the Truth. Had they invented the Resurrection, it is doubtful they would have allowed themselves to be tortured without recanting, as we saw during the Spanish Inqusition and the Salem Witch Trials. One may keep their skepticism, but the validity of the doubt is less tenable that Skeptics boast.

This issue is addressed repeatedly and indepth in the following works:

1. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
2. The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection by William Lane Craig
3. The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
4. Cross Examined by Michael Licona

I also recommend reading several important published debates on the subject as well:

1. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan Edited by Paul Copan
2. Jesus’ Resurection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann Edited by Paul Copan and Fr. Ronald Tacelli
3. Resurrected? An Atheist and Theist in Dialogue Edited by John Ankerberg
4. The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue Edited by Robert Stewart

I hope this clears up some confusion.

 

[Mersenne]

Skeptics claim that the Apostles, especially Paul, invented the Resurrection.

Paul never claimed to have witnessed the resurrection or even met Jesus except “spiritually”. He did not have to be lying, just deluded, certainly many cult leaders parallel such behavior. There is also a consideration that admitting the truth may not have saved their lives. Many of them were executed as scapegoats for crimes, though their religion was the ultimate cause of their execution, changing religions or admitting it was a hoax wouldn’t have helped in a lot of cases.

Most skeptics, as far as I understand, do not see this as a bunch of people sitting at a table scheming. It’s more likely that it built up the same way as every myth ever, slowly over a few decades based on unverifiable anecdotes. All the evidence seems to fit with that idea.

 

[ribozyme]

Most skeptics, as far as I understand, do not see this as a bunch of people sitting at a table scheming. It’s more likely that it built up the same way as every myth ever, slowly over a few decades based on unverifiable anecdotes. All the evidence seems to fit with that idea.

This is essentially the same argument that I presented here:

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=126620

 

[JonathanKinsman]

This is essentially the same argument that I presented here:

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=126620

And an inane, quasi-scientific argument it was, R-man.

Your assertions are always based upon presumptions (you fix the field for your observation, buddy) which you never state but we readers do notice. An example: you presume that these ‘unverifiable anecdotes’ are 1)unverifiable and 2)anecdotal.

You present no proof for either presumption (I will not deign to raise these to premises for you, as I have seen your kooky string theory hooey on other threads, a theory only HS physics teachers take seriously anymore).

 

[Apocalypse]

Smack him upside the head :whacky:

and when he gets mad, tell him that it didn’t happen

Apocalypse

 

[Valke2]

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

Pascal’s wager seems equally applicable to a number of beliefs. It makes no sense to ask someone to adopt a set of beliefs because those beliefs may be right.

 

[Nan_S]

Pascal’s wager seems equally applicable to a number of beliefs. It makes no sense to ask someone to adopt a set of beliefs because those beliefs may be right.

See my answer in post #22 above. Pascal’s Wager doesn’t specify any set of beliefs. The wager simply challenges the assertion that absolutely denying the existence of any deity makes sense. “Which god should I believe in?” is a separate follow-on question.

As to your second statement, you seem to suggest that Christian beliefs may not be right. Yet, only one person in all of history ever claimed to be God and provided the evidence to prove this claim beyond any doubt. Jesus Christ. Being, therefore, a Christian, I believe this to be right with absolute certainty.

Furthermore, I also believe that anyone who takes seriously the search for a deity will eventually wind up being a Christian himself. Obviously, I’m biased. As a Christian, I have to be.

 

[Mersenne]

See my answer in post #22 above. Pascal’s Wager doesn’t specify any set of beliefs. The wager simply challenges the assertion that absolutely denying the existence of any deity makes sense. “Which god should I believe in?” is a separate follow-on question.

As to your second statement, you seem to suggest that Christian beliefs may not be right. Yet, only one person in all of history ever claimed to be God and provided the evidence to prove this claim beyond any doubt. Jesus Christ. Being, therefore, a Christian, I believe this to be right with absolute certainty.

Furthermore, I also believe that anyone who takes seriously the search for a deity will eventually wind up being a Christian himself. Obviously, I’m biased. As a Christian, I have to be.

You didn’t really spell out your version of pascal’s wager. I don’t know of any version that doesn’t run into the problems already laid out in this thread.

 

[Valke2]

See my answer in post #22 above. Pascal’s Wager doesn’t specify any set of beliefs. The wager simply challenges the assertion that absolutely denying the existence of any deity makes sense. “Which god should I believe in?” is a separate follow-on question.

As to your second statement, you seem to suggest that Christian beliefs may not be right. Yet, only one person in all of history ever claimed to be God and provided the evidence to prove this claim beyond any doubt. Jesus Christ. Being, therefore, a Christian, I believe this to be right with absolute certainty.

Furthermore, I also believe that anyone who takes seriously the search for a deity will eventually wind up being a Christian himself. Obviously, I’m biased. As a Christian, I have to be.

Someone had made a similar comment in another thread. BUt if anyone who seriously searches for God will end up Christian, that means that no one who has died in any other faith ever seriously pursued a relationship with God.

Maybe Jesus provided enough evidence to you and others to prove his claim beyond any doubt. Obviously, to much of the world such evidence did or does not suffice.

 

[Nan_S]

You didn’t really spell out your version of pascal’s wager. I don’t know of any version that doesn’t run into the problems already laid out in this thread.

There is no “version.” The wager is what it is. Can you be certain that a deity does not exist? If a deity does exist what is the cost of following the deity? What is the cost of denying the deity?

Pay now, or pay later. Or take your chances on an assertion that you can not prove, a denial that can cost you a very great deal in the end.

To refuse to consider the wager with the excuse of “which god?” is a classic dodge, and not a good enough one for me to waste more time posting.

 

[Riley259]

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?

There are many books that adequately address all of these concerns. Two that come to mind are: “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel and “Who Moved the Stone” by Frank Morison.

 

[Mersenne]

If a deity does exist what is the cost of following the deity? What is the cost of denying the deity?.

We have no way to know. That was the point. You never addressed this problem.

To refuse to consider the wager with the excuse of “which god?” is a classic dodge, and not a good enough one for me to waste more time posting.

Far more then “which god” was posted, you ignored 90% of the arguement made, focused on one small part, didn’t really clearly address that even, and then you call their arguemetns a dodge? Give me a break.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Mersenne, I appreciate your comments. Let’s examine them a little:

1. Paul actually claimed to have seen the “Risen” Jesus, which indicates he saw, at least, a vision of Jesus in his Resurrected state. That is different than seeing some sort of etheral “Spiritual Jesus” as some claim. Now, could he have been hallucinating? That is a valid objection. But let’s look at the vision in context. Paul was a Pharasie who actively persecuted the first Christians as “heretics.” As we see in modern times, fanatics have no qualms of conscience when persecuting those who they disdain, i.e. PLO suicide bombers and the Israelies. He was not predisposed to have a metanoya experience. However, he did, he had a vision that triggered his conversion. He met St. James and St. Peter, Bishops of Jerusalem and Rome respectively, they accepted Paul and he became the supreme evangelist of the entire Apostolic age. Paul indeed saw something that changed his hardended position, and was considered authoritative enough that Paul became one of the three leaders of the early Church. So Paul role carries more weight than Skeptics assume.
2. Certainly the Jesus Seminar holds the “Fisherman’s Tale” view of Christ which you brought up. Though, there are skeptics which hold the conspiracy view. Don’t believe me? May I introduce Ms. Archrya S (D. Murdock) author of the lengthy The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, a book praised by supreme Christ-Myther Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?.

Again, there are considerable works, which I’ve already mentioned, that those with doubts should look into.

 

[Mersenne]

Paul actually claimed to have seen the “Risen” Jesus, which indicates he saw, at least, a vision of Jesus in his Resurrected state. That is different than seeing some sort of etheral “Spiritual Jesus” as some claim.

Well, okay, semantics aside, the only time he “saw” Jesus was after his death. He didn’t need to be lying, just deluded.

Now, could he have been hallucinating? That is a valid objection. But let’s look at the vision in context. Paul was a Pharasie who actively persecuted the first Christians as “heretics.” As we see in modern times, fanatics have no qualms of conscience when persecuting those who they disdain, i.e. PLO suicide bombers and the Israelies. He was not predisposed to have a metanoya experience. However, he did, he had a vision that triggered his conversion. He met St. James and St. Peter, Bishops of Jerusalem and Rome respectively, they accepted Paul and he became the supreme evangelist of the entire Apostolic age. Paul indeed saw something that changed his hardended position, and was considered authoritative enough that Paul became one of the three leaders of the early Church. So Paul role carries more weight than Skeptics assume.

His role was important but that does nothing to lend evidence to the existence of a real resurection.

Certainly the Jesus Seminar holds the “Fisherman’s Tale” view of Christ which you brought up. Though, there are skeptics which hold the conspiracy view. Don’t believe me? May I introduce Ms. Archrya S (D. Murdock) author of the lengthy The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, a book praised by supreme Christ-Myther Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?.

Only one of those really sounds like a conspiracy book, and let’s be frank, conspiracy isn’t totally out of the quesiton either. Unlikely, but hardly impossible.

 

[Nullasalus]

Of course it lends evidence to the resurrection. Is it decisive evidence? No. But it’s still evidence - to me, rather strong for the reasons stated. Others’ mileage may vary, but it doesn’t become ‘non-evidence’ just because someone prefers another explanation.

 

[Mersenne]

Of course it lends evidence to the resurrection. Is it decisive evidence? No. But it’s still evidence - to me, rather strong for the reasons stated. .

What reasons did you state?

 

[Nullasalus]

What reasons did you state?

Stated by Riksangel.