Magic vs Science and Explaining the Origin of All Things

kentgladden

Newbie
Nov 25, 2013
17
1
✟7,628.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause. That the origin of all things has arisen from essentially "dead" Nothingness.

Magic presents the exact opposite claim. That all universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, as an act of conscious will and volition by an all-encompassing intelligent cause that chose to create them.

Science claims that universal forces and matter exist in a state that cannot be influenced or altered by conscious will or emotion (absent physical equipment/machines). Magic holds the exact opposite view, stating that emotion and conscious will are able to manipulate matter and energy fields without need of external machinery or instrumentation.

What Science and Magic share is the inescapable need, for the sake of their legitimacy, to explain the origin of their existence. The origin of Existence itself. The eternal Chicken or the Egg dilemma. For which the ultimate answer must be… something simply existed.

It is at this moment, one must choose to embrace one of two beliefs. Either that which first existed was inherently "lifeless" and lacked any consciousness and will, or it was conscious and self directing. There are no other options.

Applying Occham's Razor, the simpler answer is that Existence itself is inherently conscious. Self aware. The alternative belief requires an immense series of ideological constructs just to get to a point where it is no longer patently absurd to argue a "dead" existence would even be capable of eventually generating anything "alive".

This is the part no atheist ever has, or will be able to, answered. WHERE did the proto-matter of the Big Bang come from? The compressional force? Atheistic/scientific argument eventually runs out of cause-effect lineage when you force the explanation back far enough. Their ultimate answer is... "we don't know that part yet".
 

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Seriously? Nobody has any thoughts on the origin of Existence and God?

Please tell me this isn't one of those places where people say "Because Benny Hinn said so on the TV".

Patience, patience.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause. That the origin of all things has arisen from essentially "dead" Nothingness.
Science doesn't claim that.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause. That the origin of all things has arisen from essentially "dead" Nothingness.


You seem to be confusing science with atheism.

This is misleading and dangerous as it implies that Christian faith and science are incompatible.

Please do not contribute to false dichotomies.
 
Upvote 0
Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause. That the origin of all things has arisen from essentially "dead" Nothingness.

Magic presents the exact opposite claim. That all universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, as an act of conscious will and volition by an all-encompassing intelligent cause that chose to create them.

Science claims that universal forces and matter exist in a state that cannot be influenced or altered by conscious will or emotion (absent physical equipment/machines). Magic holds the exact opposite view, stating that emotion and conscious will are able to manipulate matter and energy fields without need of external machinery or instrumentation.

What Science and Magic share is the inescapable need, for the sake of their legitimacy, to explain the origin of their existence. The origin of Existence itself. The eternal Chicken or the Egg dilemma. For which the ultimate answer must be… something simply existed.

It is at this moment, one must choose to embrace one of two beliefs. Either that which first existed was inherently "lifeless" and lacked any consciousness and will, or it was conscious and self directing. There are no other options.

Applying Occham's Razor, the simpler answer is that Existence itself is inherently conscious. Self aware. The alternative belief requires an immense series of ideological constructs just to get to a point where it is no longer patently absurd to argue a "dead" existence would even be capable of eventually generating anything "alive".

This is the part no atheist ever has, or will be able to, answered. WHERE did the proto-matter of the Big Bang come from? The compressional force? Atheistic/scientific argument eventually runs out of cause-effect lineage when you force the explanation back far enough. Their ultimate answer is... "we don't know that part yet".

Well, if you narrow it down to 'two' choices of belief, I wouldn't and couldn't choose either of these how you have depicted them. Magic is misunderstood as well as truth; the devil will not reveal even the truth behind his decoys, mirrors and smoke screens. The magician conceals his secrets, doesn't he?

I can only say that this thread is really misleading people, and not to criticize but only to disagree with this idea. Thanks :)
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
gluadys "You seem to be confusing science with atheism.

This is misleading and dangerous as it implies that Christian faith and science are incompatible.

Please do not contribute to false dichotomies."

You can take any activity and render it as "science." If you're walking down the street you can say that you hypothesize that taking another step will propel you closer to your target. You test by taking another step. You make the discovery that taking another step took you closer. You conclude that taking another step moved you closer. You then repeat the experiment. There is also, however, the motive behind why you are walking, be it materialistic or spiritual, and your lifestyle dictates your perception and definition of things.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
gluadys "You seem to be confusing science with atheism.

This is misleading and dangerous as it implies that Christian faith and science are incompatible.

Please do not contribute to false dichotomies."

You can take any activity and render it as "science." If you're walking down the street you can say that you hypothesize that taking another step will propel you closer to your target. You test by taking another step. You make the discovery that taking another step took you closer. You conclude that taking another step moved you closer. You then repeat the experiment. There is also, however, the motive behind why you are walking, be it materialistic or spiritual, and your lifestyle dictates your perception and definition of things.

Exactly.

My point is that science does not engage in theology. Had the OP said "Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist." that would be correct.

When the OP adds "Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence." it says more than science currently claims.
There is no scientific consensus on whether the universal forces and matter came into existence or have essentially eternal existence. The hypothesis of a multi-universe is based on a possible eternal existence of forces and matter, beyond the particular space-time that we inhabit.

Finally, when the OP adds "Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause." it not only goes beyond established science, but introduces a theological premise which is not part of science at all. Nothing in science positively asserts that the universal forces and matter are independent of any conscious or intelligent cause.

What science asserts is that it has no means to validate such claims as there is no empirical evidence which speaks either for or against it.

So science can describe the steps, but not the motive.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
It is the Devil's tactic to tell us that we are divided against the world and the odds are against us, particularly in the area of science.

The most coherent assault that can be mounted against this attack is simply to walk together with the bretheren, performing most of the good works that faith in God allows.

The fallout from this approach is that reason is slurred in the thoughts of men, when apart from the example we are able to set and doubt is redoubled in the hearts of men, that fear the example we set is encroaching on their freedom.

There is nothing about the choice before life between the way and the truth that will ever resolve the debate between faith and doubt once and for all, if it did there would be no reward in Heaven for those that get their with a clear conscience.

What remains is to debate the conditions of our departure from the world in a way that at least tacitly asserts that there is a difference between where we are headed and where the world would like to say it chose to head (to its peril).

What is frustrating is so called "Christians" joining the ranks of the unbelievers as a permanent fixture, when they know before Almighty God that no belief ever affords you that luxury - and you shall know the truth and the truth shall refuse to keep you prisoner.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Applying Occham's Razor, the simpler answer is that Existence itself is inherently conscious.

Occham never invented or wrote about any razor. There is no such thing.

He DID say that when fabricating a theory, that the more complicated theory is more likely to contain errors. Not that the simpler theory would always be right.........just that more complicated theories, having more unknown factors, are more likely to have errors.
We can't use his idea backwards to find the right theory for anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause. That the origin of all things has arisen from essentially "dead" Nothingness.

Science also stipulates that no event is without at least an equal or greater cause.
So Science requires a supernatural Creator.
You can't get something from nothing.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause. That the origin of all things has arisen from essentially "dead" Nothingness.

Define Science

Natural science is incapable of making such a claim no matter how much atheists would like you to think so but lets' see where you go with this.

Magic presents the exact opposite claim. That all universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, as an act of conscious will and volition by an all-encompassing intelligent cause that chose to create them.

Define Magic

God's power exercised at creation and throughout human history isn't magic, it's God doing what only God can do. We think its' supernatural but for God is perfectly normal.

Science claims that universal forces and matter exist in a state that cannot be influenced or altered by conscious will or emotion (absent physical equipment/machines). Magic holds the exact opposite view, stating that emotion and conscious will are able to manipulate matter and energy fields without need of external machinery or instrumentation.

See what happens when you fail to define core terms, the discussion goes all over the road. Science is involved in the investigation of natural phenomenon, it does not make those grandiose sweeping generalities.

What Science and Magic share is the inescapable need, for the sake of their legitimacy, to explain the origin of their existence. The origin of Existence itself. The eternal Chicken or the Egg dilemma. For which the ultimate answer must be… something simply existed.

The real question is how do I know, that I know, what I know.

It is at this moment, one must choose to embrace one of two beliefs. Either that which first existed was inherently "lifeless" and lacked any consciousness and will, or it was conscious and self directing. There are no other options.

I don't bother with pagan magic, I think it's most likely demonic or some kind of mystical hype most of the time.

Applying Occham's Razor, the simpler answer is that Existence itself is inherently conscious. Self aware. The alternative belief requires an immense series of ideological constructs just to get to a point where it is no longer patently absurd to argue a "dead" existence would even be capable of eventually generating anything "alive".

That gets us in the ball park of modern science, even a little glimmer of theology in there. This could turn out to be worthwhile after all.

This is the part no atheist ever has, or will be able to, answered. WHERE did the proto-matter of the Big Bang come from? The compressional force? Atheistic/scientific argument eventually runs out of cause-effect lineage when you force the explanation back far enough. Their ultimate answer is... "we don't know that part yet".

Sounds like you dealing with a metaphysical question that science cannot address and God never really explained. I'll be watching the thread and see how it goes.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Seriously? Nobody has any thoughts on the origin of Existence and God?

Please tell me this isn't one of those places where people say "Because Benny Hinn said so on the TV".

Hi KG,

I would propose that the reason your thread is having such a difficult time getting off the ground is that you seem to be attributing the work of God to 'magic'. God called His work 'miraculous' not 'magical'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Science would claim that universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, by means independent of any conscious or intelligent cause.
Real science doesn't claim this. Science is the study of the physical world. it can't study origins. People can speculate as to origins. They can even make theories that are in some case testable. However, they can't make conclusive declarations because the past cannot be studied. We can only examine present evidence and make conjecture.

Magic presents the exact opposite claim. That all universal forces and matter exist, and came into existence, as an act of conscious will and volition by an all-encompassing intelligent cause that chose to create them.
What magician proposes such a thing?
The creation had to do with God's omnipotent power, not magic.
Science claims that universal forces and matter exist in a state that cannot be influenced or altered by conscious will or emotion (absent physical equipment/machines).
That may be true, but internet scientists all agree that natural law is not absolute. Why? Because if natural law is absolute then origination by any means other than an eternal God is impossible. So they make up things like "quantum theory" which proposes that the universe may have just popped into existence like it does (not do) in the quantum world.
What Science and Magic share is the inescapable need, for the sake of their legitimacy, to explain the origin of their existence.
Science doesn't need to explain its existence. It is the study of what is, not what was. Science can study what is and make guesses about what was, but until they invent a time machine that's all it can do.

I don't believe in magic, so I won't address that portion.

It is at this moment, one must choose to embrace one of two beliefs.
Noooo, there are many who don't believe in anything.
This is the part no atheist ever has, or will be able to, answered. WHERE did the proto-matter of the Big Bang come from? The (compressing) force?
Oh, they have theories.
I like the one where they say this universe was pooped out of the black hole of a parallel universe (despite he fact that no evidence exists to support this). They also talk about a multiverse, eternity of matter, cycling entropy, dark matter theory, quantum theory etc. Each new theory is more idiotic then the last, but at least they don't have to admit there's a God; AND they can pretend their nonsense is SCIENCE!!
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Real science doesn't claim this. Science is the study of the physical world. it can't study origins. People can speculate as to origins. They can even make theories that are in some case testable. However, they can't make conclusive declarations because the past cannot be studied. We can only examine present evidence and make conjecture.


What magician proposes such a thing?
The creation had to do with God's omnipotent power, not magic.

That may be true, but internet scientists all agree that natural law is not absolute. Why? Because if natural law is absolute then origination by any means other than an eternal God is impossible. So they make up things like "quantum theory" which proposes that the universe may have just popped into existence like it does (not do) in the quantum world.

Science doesn't need to explain its existence. It is the study of what is, not what was. Science can study what is and make guesses about what was, but until they invent a time machine that's all it can do.

I don't believe in magic, so I won't address that portion.


Noooo, there are many who don't believe in anything.

Oh, they have theories.
I like the one where they say this universe was pooped out of the black hole of a parallel universe (despite he fact that no evidence exists to support this). They also talk about a multiverse, eternity of matter, cycling entropy, dark matter theory, quantum theory etc. Each new theory is more idiotic then the last, but at least they don't have to admit there's a God; AND they can pretend their nonsense is SCIENCE!


On track. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
This is the part no atheist ever has, or will be able to, answered. WHERE did the proto-matter of the Big Bang come from? The compressional force? Atheistic/scientific argument eventually runs out of cause-effect lineage when you force the explanation back far enough. Their ultimate answer is... "we don't know that part yet".

The atheist cannot explain/demonstrate/test/study how rocks and gas supposedly 'evolve DNA' or the systems that translate and generate it.

The atheist cannot explain/demonstrate/test/study how rocks and gas eventually and supposedly evolve intelligence and self-aware reason.

The atheist cannot explain explain/demonstrate/test/study how space-time supposedly pops-out-of nothing.

The evolutionist cannot explain explain/demonstrate/test/study how prokaryotes supposedly become eukaryotes.

So they rely on by-faith-alone suppositions at those points.

In the mean time - creationists will argue that nobody is going to witness a bacteria turning into a horse no matter the billion-billion stories about loads of time and chance that go with it.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0