Sunday, February 27, 2022

The Kuzari Principle: Not a Proof but Evidence of Plausibility

With our account of the nature of faith, the Kuzari principle doesn’t have to be strong enough to provide evidence sufficient for belief, but can still play a role in making your faith reasonable. The more pressing question is less to do with evidence, and more to do with values. Is it desirable that there should have been such a revelation, and that God should have chosen a certain people, and communicated that which He was said to have communicated to them? That seems to depend a great deal upon how you view the notion of the Jewish election (was it exclusive, and what end did it serve), and what you take the content of the revelation to be – how do you interpret the laws and their ethical significance?



  2. Evidence of plausibility? Don't need evidence. Plausibility is every possble option.

    Look at the content of the Torah, that is the strongest evidence. What other nation had neviim?

  3. Have you ever read the Torah?
    Hint name begins with B

  4. Bereishis is also another argument, for the Creator.
    But may I suggest deriving logic from the Torah itself _ and the Torah tells am yisrael that they witnessed everything. But it has a formal logic on how to test neviim, and shows the fallacy of the golden calf.

  5. The Kuzari "proof" is constantly misused. As a general proof, it's worthless. National revelations can be invented. And the excuse that you couldn't do that because (as Aish claims) people would say "How come we never heard of it before then?" is refuted by the book of Nechemiah where the people clearly have no idea that Sukkos exists or what to do on it.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.