Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[DeistPaladin]

(a bunch of stuff that dodges the question)

So your answer to my question is...?

I haven't finished reading the Book of Acts and your answer to my question is.

I cited some examples rather than reprint the whole book.

So are you ever going to answer my question?

[Minimalist]

I haven't finished reading the Book of Acts and your answer to my question is.

It isn't going to get any better, G-C.

Shit is shit, all the way through.

[Angrboda]

If this was your point, then you've lost round one. The Christian can simply assert that we do not live in a naturalistic universe (perhaps cosmos would be a better term), and you're left proving a negative to prosecute your case. Good luck with that.

Well either it looks like a natural universe because it is
...or...
there's really all this sorcery, angelic activity faith healing and other such going on under the radar and somehow it's all been kept under wraps thanks to a monomaniacal god who likes to remain hidden.

Occam's Razor. I win.

See below.

If you can't demonstrate that God has no possible reason for the change in affairs, you're left with nothing but a silly look on your face.

Or I can say, "Burden of proof. I win."

You can, but doing so will just make you look like an idiot. I realize that many atheists have internalized the notion that the burden of proof is always on the theist, because that's what they always hear, but that's not the case. The burden of proof rests on the positive assertion, regardless of whether that person is a theist or an atheist. You're asserting something about the disparity between the miracles in Acts and the lack of miracles today - that makes you the one making the assertion, and thus you are volunteering to accept the burden of proof.

Anything else, imho, is either sophistry or stupidity.

"God is mysterious." QED. Cue the fat lady.

The Occam's Razor card trumps the "Mysterious and stuff" card.

Occam's razor doesn't trump jack shit. It's a heuristic, not a deductive or inductive principle. Occam's razor cannot bail you out of a jam, and if you think it can, then you don't understand the razor.

[Cyberman]

I apologise for any incoherence in what follows, I am technically refraining as much as possible from contributing due to being in the midst of a depressive episode. In practise this means that my thoughts are distracted and disjointed as well as my being overly-sensitive and thus more likely to lash out unexpectedly. I am trying to reign it in as much as Im able and can only beg your indulgence. Please don't think that I'm trying to forestall criticism here, if my comments are indeed total bollocks then I hope someone will point it out. Right, minirant over:

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.

If this was your point, then you've lost round one. The Christian can simply assert that we do not live in a naturalistic universe (perhaps cosmos would be a better term), and you're left proving a negative to prosecute your case. Good luck with that.

All I want to throw in here to back up DP's point is the observation that not only do we live in a natural universe, but we all of us accept that by default. Whenever we open our front doors, we expect without thinking to find the same view that we saw the last time we checked instead of, say, the surface of Mars. In a non-natural universe there would be no reason to expect things to remain the same and probably every reason to expect that they won't. The keyboard on my desk here looks the same as it did last time I saw it, feels the same, sounds the same. Each key I press produces the effect I expect it to; the key labelled x types a letter x each time: xxxxxx. I have never experienced the x key leaping into the air and flying away; the whole keyboard has never suddenly become a duck or a bacon sandwich. Now - is it a natural keyboard that can never behave like that, or a non-natural one that has only behaved naturally up to now (or perhaps only when someone's watching it)?

I admit that I once saw a car turn into a sidestreet though.

[Whateverist]

I suspect we would all agree that we live in a natural world. The only thing at issue is what belongs in that natural world. Apparently gravity is a part of the natural world even though we don't understand how exactly it works. If there is a higher intelligence or cosmic consciousness or mysterious other out there capable of acting in ways we don't understand (like gravity), they would be part of a more adequate account of the natural world. We simply lack objective knowledge of such things, or at least I lack it.

I'm not sure there is anything one can say to conclusively counter anyone's claims in this area however. If you want to preach to the choir I'll give you a couple of amens. But when it comes to persuading someone who thinks they have eye-witnessed something of this sort, I think you will fail. Of course you can call them gullible or stupid but that almost never persuades and only rarely coerces. I prefer to save the trash talk for when these folks show up trying to coerce me into believing their magic book or personal revelation.

The point about Occam's razor is a good one. As a rule of thumb for folks looking for what it is they think about new topics, it is pretty good. But it isn't an immutable principle and it is easy to misapply it. Researchers used to warn against anthropomorphizing the behavior of animals but which is the correct application of the razor? That every animal including ourselves has the same base emotions, feelings and drives .. or that every creature is a world unto itself, a black box about which we cannot intuit anything with our powers of empathy?

[DeistPaladin]

You can, but doing so will just make you look like an idiot. I realize that many atheists have internalized the notion that the burden of proof is always on the theist, because that's what they always hear, but that's not the case.

You've just declared that "argument from ignorance" isn't really a logical fallacy.

To defend the worldview that there's all kinds of sorcery, divine communication and other woo all going on but all of it has somehow stealthily escaped the notice of modern society and to defend this view with the charge that I must prove it impossible is to unabashedly use the argument from ignorance. No offense but you're running dangerously close to earning a spot on my signature quote list below.

Did I mention we're talking about MERE MORTALS using magical powers? Not even necessarily with the assistance of gods, as heretics like BarJesus could also work "signs and wonders" on their own? We're way past theism-vs.-atheism here. We're talking about the capabilities of human beings like ourselves. Acts makes claims about the nature of the universe that go way beyond asserting the existence of a personal god, claims that run contrary to the way the universe is observed to work in our modern day.

All I've asked is for believers like Godschild to put up or shut up. Either say it's all true (and be laughed out of the room) or walk away from defending it (and thereby admit the Bible has erred).

Anything else, imho, is either sophistry or stupidity.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think we're really at the point where we need to agree to disagree. You've made your point and I've made mine. I'll let the readers decide whether or not my position is stupid.

---

I apologise for any incoherence in what follows, I am technically refraining as much as possible from contributing due to being in the midst of a depressive episode.

I feel for you as I'm going through something similar myself. These are depressing times we're living in.

[Angrboda]

You can, but doing so will just make you look like an idiot. I realize that many atheists have internalized the notion that the burden of proof is always on the theist, because that's what they always hear, but that's not the case.

You've just declared that "argument from ignorance" isn't really a logical fallacy.

No, I most assuredly have not. However it's becoming clear to me that you don't understand your own argument or even the words coming out of your own mouth.


A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.

Groucho Marx

[DeistPaladin]

No, I most assuredly have not. However it's becoming clear to me that you don't understand your own argument or even the words coming out of your own mouth.

Sorry to hear that you feel that way. Let's agree to disagree and be done with it.

[Godscreated]

Continuing the "Historical Documents! No, Really!" series, we now come to the Book of Acts.

One of the things that lept out at me when I read the Bible cover to cover was how chock full it was of overt supernatural activity, where Yahweh apparently felt neither shyness nor concern for "free will" as he demonstrated his power in ways that could not be confused with natural coincidence. Rivers turned to blood, columns of fire killed blasphemers and Yahweh once gave a speech to the entire nation of Judea (Judges, chapter 1). When I put the Bible down and looked about, the universe couldn't offer a more dramatic contrast with the alternate reality depicted in the Bible. The world we know today is one dominated by natural law, where the most Yahweh can ever seem to accomplish is to appear on a piece of toast.

(Maybe he's just gotten old and feeble or perhaps finally getting laid 2000 years ago caused him to seriously mellow out). Sorry, I digress. Ignore this paragraph.

The Book of Acts takes similar flights of fancy. It goes beyond asserting that Yahweh, Jesus, angels and demons can perform miracles or work magic. Mere mortals can do the same with just enough faith. Such acts of magic include:

1. Speaking in tongues (Acts 2:1-14, 19:6-9)
2. Cause earthquakes (4:31)
3. Cast out demons (5:16, 8:7)
4. See God (7:55)
5. Heal Palsy (9:33-34)
6. Raise the dead (9:36-end)
7. Cause blindness (13:11)
8. Heal a crippled person (14:8-10)
9. Heal the sick (19:11-12. 28:8-9)
10. Survive poisonous snake bite (28:4-5)

You have mistaken freewill for, you can do anything in life that you please, your complete freewill only applies to deciding to accept Christ or not to accept. God will never interfere in that decision. Outside of that decision God may or may not use you to complete His ultimate will. God being creator is not bound to the natural rules of this world, in creating the universe I would think that the supernatural took place then, God put natural forces to work in maintaining the creation. You should read and study the creation account and find out how many times God created in six days.

1. Acts 2:1-14 In this account the Holy Spirit was the person responsible for the disciples to speak in several different languages, they were not speaking some supernatural language.
2. Acts 4:31 In this account the disciples did not cause an earthquake or shaking, the previous verses show that through prayer God did the shaking.
3. Acts 5:16, 8:7 vv.15&16 states the people believed God was doing great things through Peter and the others, if the shadow of Peter touched someone sick they would be healed and demons cast out. v.7 says it was the Word of God that was driving out the unclean spirits, this could every well mean that their evil hearts were being changed by God's Word. This verse is a companion verse to Mk.16:17 where Jesus says these things will be done by my name.
5. Acts 9:33-34 Peter tells Aeneas, Jesus Christ healed him, Peter took no credit.
6. Acts 9:36-42 Peter prayed for her life to be restored and God did just that.
I haven't gotten any further than chapter 12 so I can't as of yet address the other verses but, I do believe I will find them to be the same, that is, that God was doing the work through Peter and the other disciples.
I will have other comments later, it could be Monday or Tuesday, I'm go out of town tomorrow.

[Minimalist]

Even by your low standards, G-C the above is an amazing pile of horseshit.

Really, how can you function if you are so easily deluded? Do we know for certain that you are not locked up in an asylum?