Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[brotherlylove]

The problem is that we're supposed to take these things at face value, because there is usually no corroborating evidence. If I told you I walked down the street and found a snake which started talking to me, you'd think I was either lying, delusional, or both. But someone writes it in a book a few thousand years ago, and it becomes undeniable truth. Not only that, but there is the fact that even eyewitnesses get things wrong. It's not that they're deliberately lying, but they just don't remember things exactly as they happened. Take the biblical stories of Jesus which as pointed out above, are nothing more than hearsay about hearsay from oral reports which weren't recorded until 40-70 years after all the events supposedly took place.

Well, the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan. Whether he appeared in the form of a snake, spoke through a snake, or was simply identified as a serpent, I do not know. So, if you're hearing a snake speak to you, I would probably chop it up to demonic intervention.

As far as dates and what not, what you said isn't entirely accurate. You have the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of John which were written by direct eyewitnesses. The gospel of Luke was written by a historian, and both Luke and Mark knew the apostles and Paul. Paul himself was a direct witness of the resurrected Jesus. The generally agreed dates for both the Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Matthew places them within 20 years of the crucifixion. The founders of the early church all knew eachother and knew what they saw; I don't think it's plausible to say these were simply legends, especially when you consider that the apostles nearly all went to their death attesting Jesus as God as the absolute truth.

True, but applying Occam's Razor, which is more likely? That an unknowable, all-powerful deity produced events which contradict the known laws of science, or that they are simply stories which were made up? The fact that such events aren't occurring today points to the latter.

I think the existence of absolute laws are evidence for a Creator, not against one. How are there absolute laws in a material Universe that is constantly changing? How do you explain the uniformity in nature? It doesn't make sense except from a theistic worldview in my opinion.

I also don't think that is good evidence, that because miracles aren't happening (at least that the average person is not aware of them), that they didn't happen in the past, Occams razor or not. It certainly isn't something you could use to evaluate the claim of Gods existence. You obviously aren't going to believe in miracles if you don't believe in God,but I think you also have to admit that if God exists miracles are certainly possible. So this is really tertiary to the question.

I think the evaluate the claim from a naturalistic standpoint you have to look at origins. Where Universe come from? Did something come from nothing? Or is there something eternal which caused it? Which is more plausible?

Yeah, because the world is in perfect shape now and nobody ever argues or kills someone else over religion.

According to the bible, and secular history, the world has always been like this. The bible says this is a fallen world and we have a fallen, corrupt nature due to sin. That is the reason Christ came, to rescue us from this.

---

Well, first of all, there are many reports all over the world and throughout history of miracles occuring

Such reports usually spread by blithering idiots who believe in fucking miracles in the first place.

Sorry, all you have there is a self-fulfilling fantasy.

I've seen many reports from skeptics and (now) ex-atheists. How do you explain them? Almost everyone in the world believes in God..do you believe they're all delusional and that you are the one who is right?