Well, Rythm has been saying more or less what I would have said, but in his much more experienced way! 
OK, Court change! Consider that there's no such thing as gods (it's the same exercise as "there's no such thing as ghosts"). However, some people claimed or came up with the story that a deity interacted with them.... And the descendants of those people believed these stories to be relatively accurate accounts of real events.
It would make sense that these interactions would be absent from the world for quite a while..... until some other people decided to add something new to the original account.... Episode II, a new chapter.
In this case, it makes perfect sense that there would be large periods of time when no divine interaction is noticeable...
So I claimed there has been no divine interaction for quite a long time.
I can tell you that a lot of people claim to have such interactions, but end up in loony-ville, or simply under some psych medication... hmmm I wonder why? Could it be that those people, way back when the first account was told, would require the same sort of medication? What do you think? (Remember, this is 'no god land'). Provide a tentative naturalistic explanation for early divine interactions... hopefully, you'll discover it is a possibility... and considering all the evidence available to you, me and Rythm (at least, but I guess we could easily add a billion people in there... and then some!), how is this explanation any less likely than the one you may provide in your 'there is a god land'?
Anyway, people in the way back times had the basic senses we have, right? At least, I always assumed they did. The human species, Homo Sapiens, seems to have been around for some 100k years with basically the same configuration, so I think my assumption is valid for people from 10k years or less ago.
Why do you think they would describe things differently from the way we describe them?
Imaginary beings appearing and talking to a person was probably as common then as it is now. Today, we simply catalog a number of mental illnesses which they didn't and some of these can yield the impression of such interactions... we've learned to dismiss them as loonies. Why can't we apply the same judgement to the loonies from way back? Why rely on their accounts?
One more quote to continue the reasoning:
It's the pink flying unicorn story all over again.
Someone should build a wiki only to keep a record of all religious arguments and counter-arguments... hmmmm
Like Shiva must have appeared to some indian people.... like Thor appeared to some scandinavian people.... like Iris appeared to some Egyptian people.... like.... like... fill in any deity and respective people.
So, which one DID appear to whom?
(November 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:Damn, you drew me into a stupid discussion that starts with "if god exists". I hate these, as I'm clearly playing in your home field, and there's no way to get out of your circular reasoning.... as is attested by you long discussion with Rythm and neither getting anywhere.(November 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If he didn't, then where's the evidence that he does interact?
As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence, hence no interaction.
You haven't supported your claim. If you're going to claim that God has stopped interacting, you have to support it. The burden isn't on me to disprove you; the burden is on you to prove your truth-claims.
OK, Court change! Consider that there's no such thing as gods (it's the same exercise as "there's no such thing as ghosts"). However, some people claimed or came up with the story that a deity interacted with them.... And the descendants of those people believed these stories to be relatively accurate accounts of real events.
It would make sense that these interactions would be absent from the world for quite a while..... until some other people decided to add something new to the original account.... Episode II, a new chapter.
In this case, it makes perfect sense that there would be large periods of time when no divine interaction is noticeable...
So I claimed there has been no divine interaction for quite a long time.
I can tell you that a lot of people claim to have such interactions, but end up in loony-ville, or simply under some psych medication... hmmm I wonder why? Could it be that those people, way back when the first account was told, would require the same sort of medication? What do you think? (Remember, this is 'no god land'). Provide a tentative naturalistic explanation for early divine interactions... hopefully, you'll discover it is a possibility... and considering all the evidence available to you, me and Rythm (at least, but I guess we could easily add a billion people in there... and then some!), how is this explanation any less likely than the one you may provide in your 'there is a god land'?
(November 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:You're right.... why did I reply like that? damn me.... that's what happens at the end of a long day... You should have seen me snapping at some lady driver who was stupid enough to try to do a U turn in a place where her car couldn't make it.... while if she had just went ahead another 3 feet, she would have made the turn in one go...Quote:bah... 10th century, 5th century...Somewhere in between, I don't care exactly when... I just know it was too long ago. The 10th century was just a ballpark figure... why nitpick details and completely miss the point of the post?
...uh, what? I wasn't nitpicking whichever century you mentioned...
Anyway, people in the way back times had the basic senses we have, right? At least, I always assumed they did. The human species, Homo Sapiens, seems to have been around for some 100k years with basically the same configuration, so I think my assumption is valid for people from 10k years or less ago.
Why do you think they would describe things differently from the way we describe them?
Imaginary beings appearing and talking to a person was probably as common then as it is now. Today, we simply catalog a number of mental illnesses which they didn't and some of these can yield the impression of such interactions... we've learned to dismiss them as loonies. Why can't we apply the same judgement to the loonies from way back? Why rely on their accounts?
(November 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:My claim that there's no interaction with any god? Well, when I can prove a negative, I'll back it up with that, but philosophers are yet to come across such a process.Quote:To all 3 questions, I don't know.
Do you?
If you do, then you may provide some way to actually measure that interaction.... or is it just the usual babel: feelings this and that, wishful thinking, etc, etc, etc?... all capable of being described by psychological constructs within the human brain.
Again, as far as I'm aware, there's no god-people interaction. But there are people who are convinced they actually had such interaction... this is probably what you called "anecdotal evidence".
Please, provide any non-anecdotal evidence of god-human interaction. I'll wait.
Do you retract your claim, then, since you're refusing to support it?
One more quote to continue the reasoning:
(November 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:However (in this quote), it appears we have established there's a markedly lack of evidence of any such interaction. Of course, no proof of P is not proof of ~P, but it's a hint that the most likely outcome is ~P.(November 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: As I've already mentioned, our inability to establish that such an interaction occurs leads me to this conclusion. If there's evidence, then just show me the waistband Bob.
This is horrible, horrible logic. "We haven't been able to establish p, so we can conclude ~p!" The fact that you haven't been able to prove something isn't persuasive in the least.
It's the pink flying unicorn story all over again.
Someone should build a wiki only to keep a record of all religious arguments and counter-arguments... hmmmm
(November 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:I didn't ask you to provide this proof. I asked your god directly (damn, I'm back in your 'god exists land'). He's the one that should present himself like he apparently did to those people way back then... at least, that's what they seem to have claimed, and some other people wrote.Quote:But beware that the only one that would probably convince me would be the one where this god actually behaves like in the myth: direct, visible, audible interaction and displays of super-natural power (Instantaneous transport across galaxies would make a first good impression, but wouldn't rule out "aliens").
It is not incumbent on me to disprove a claim that you have offered without evidence.
Like Shiva must have appeared to some indian people.... like Thor appeared to some scandinavian people.... like Iris appeared to some Egyptian people.... like.... like... fill in any deity and respective people.
So, which one DID appear to whom?
