Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[Angrboda]

2. 2000 years ago was the age of woo. That was then, this is now. Now we live in a natural universe. Explain in detail. Is God taking a thousand year nap? Did Jesus sign a peace treaty with Satan? Has the dragon blood that once ran strong among sorcerers thinned out over the generations?

Before, I challenged your argument on the basis that it was a weak demonstration based on inductive inference, which you explicitly denied, as follows:

It is weak induction at best, a sort of "No black swans" argument that because it impinges on your subjective sense of the credibility of the text you want to raise it to the level of an objective criticism. Please cite the law or rule which allows you to deduce - not infer, but deduce - that the absence of a class of events in the present implies a lack of events of that class in the past. (And no, there is no uniformitarianism which holds for all classes of events, even if you could demonstrate that it is a law.)

That wasn't my point, that if it's not happening today it could never have happened. My point was we live in a natural universe.

And here you are asserting it again. I welcome you to demonstrate, by some other method than inductive inference, that we live in a naturalistic universe. I was initially astounded by your claim, though now less so as I suspect you simply do not understand the term "induction". Get yourself over to Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or wherever and make yourself a five minute expert on inductive inference, and then come back here and demonstrate that we live in a naturalistic universe by some other method than inductive inference.

(ETA: The term "naturalistic universe" is not well defined, in my experience; I doubt our ideas of what this refers to differ in any substantial way, but I will request that you be explicit in your use of this term. Generally, what people mean by this is that the observable universe is described by the current consensus of scientific hypothesis about the world. Unfortunately, this definition has a tendency toward circularity, but more importantly for your argument, the scientific understanding of the world is one that rests on the back of inductive inference.)