Christian Scientists of the past

[Radrook]

Yes. It's about as meaningful a distinction as the difference between assassination and murder.

When a famous person gets murdered, it's an 'assassination'.

When a god performs magic, it's a 'miracle'.

In other words, not meaningful at all.

The biblical God condemns magic.

Acts 19:19 ESV
And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver.

Deuteronomy 18:10 ESV

There shall not be found among you anyone...who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer

Exodus 22:1 ESV
“You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

 

[Radrook]

So you hyperbolically accused science of something that creationism is literally guilty of.

How is that better, exactly?

I am not arguing from a creationist standpoint-I am arguing from an ID standpoint. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the fine difference between the twain in order to avoid straw-man.

Also, the use of hyperbole is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable way of emphasizing certain things. That you choose to misrepresent it being literal doesn't change that fact.

BTW
You are also misrepresenting creationism as an appeal to magic. I suggest a more honest approach to argumentation if you expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The biblical God condemns magic.

Cool.

There's still no meaningful distinction.

I am not arguing from a creationist standpoint-I am arguing from an ID standpoint. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the fine difference between the twain in order to avoid straw-man.

It's about as meaningful a distinction as the difference between magic and miracles.

Also, the use of hyperbole is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable way of emphasizing certain things. That you choose to misrepresent it being literal doesn't change that fact.

Yes, hyperbole is acceptable in everyday logical discourse.

Your problem is, the word you used hyperbolically is a word that applies to creationism literally. So again, how is that a good look?

You are also misrepresenting creationism as an appeal to magic.

No, I don't think so. I know creationists don't like that word, because of its association with fantasy literature and fairy tales. But I see no reason not to use it, as there is no meaningful distinction between it and any other term for nebulous, 'supernatural' power.

 

[Radrook]

Cool.

There's still no meaningful distinction.



It's about as meaningful a distinction as the difference between magic and miracles.



Yes, hyperbole is acceptable in everyday logical discourse.

Your problem is, the word you used hyperbolically is a word that applies to creationism literally. So again, how is that a good look?



No, I don't think so. I know creationists don't like that word, because of its association with fantasy literature and fairy tales. But I see no reason not to use it, as there is no meaningful distinction between it and any other term for nebulous, 'supernatural' power.

Umm, well, have you considered that your inability to understand what is happening is due to your limited science? After all, it isn't uncommon for people who are technologically undeveloped or who lag far behind other civilizations to tag everything they see initially as magic. The Aztecs considered the Spaniards as gods because of their cannon and small firearms which resounded like thunder. So if indeed things happened which an intelligent designer brought about perhaps via the usage of superior technology or by some other means which your limited science can't explain-then of course you are expected to ignorantly classify it as magic-which obviously you do. Doesn't make it magic though. Only means that you can't understand how it wuz done.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Umm, well, have you considered that your inability to understand what is happening is due to your limited science? After all, it isn't uncommon for people who are technologically undeveloped or who lag far behind other civilizations to tag everything they see initially as magic. The Aztecs considered the Spaniards as gods because of their cannon and small firearms which resounded like thunder. So if indeed things happened which an intelligent designer brought about perhaps via the usage of superior technology or by some other means which your limited science can't explain-then of course you are expected to ignorantly classify it as magic-which obviously you do. Doesn't make it magic though. Only means that you can't understand how it wuz done.

I don't believe in magic, so I'm not sure who you think you're addressing here.

 

[Radrook]

I don't believe in magic, so I'm not sure who you think you're addressing here.

So when you say that the things being described as having occurred are magic, what do you mean?

 

[Mike Lane]

Only means that you can't understand how it wuz done.

And you do?

 

[AV1611VET]

There's still no meaningful distinction.

Actually there is.

QV please:

'A major difference between magic and miracles is that magic draws upon power that is not directly from God, and miracles are the result of God’s power intervening in the world. Magic is an attempt to circumvent God in the acquisition of knowledge or power. The city of Ephesus was a battleground between magic and miracles. The pagan population of Ephesus was steeped in idolatry and involved in magic, but then Paul brought the gospel to that city, and with the gospel came true power through the apostle: “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul” (Acts 19:11). Seeing what Paul did, some exorcists (the seven sons of Sceva) attempted to duplicate his miracles, but they failed miserably and publicly (verses 13–16). When a large number of Ephesians were saved through the preaching of Paul and Silas, the new believers destroyed their books of witchcraft: “A number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver” (Acts 19:19, ESV). So, in Ephesus, there was a clear contrast between the miracles of God and the magic of the devil, which is sorcery.'

SOURCE

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually there is.

QV please:

'A major difference between magic and miracles is that magic draws upon power that is not directly from God, and miracles are the result of God’s power intervening in the world. Magic is an attempt to circumvent God in the acquisition of knowledge or power. The city of Ephesus was a battleground between magic and miracles. The pagan population of Ephesus was steeped in idolatry and involved in magic, but then Paul brought the gospel to that city, and with the gospel came true power through the apostle: “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul” (Acts 19:11). Seeing what Paul did, some exorcists (the seven sons of Sceva) attempted to duplicate his miracles, but they failed miserably and publicly (verses 13–16). When a large number of Ephesians were saved through the preaching of Paul and Silas, the new believers destroyed their books of witchcraft: “A number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver” (Acts 19:19, ESV). So, in Ephesus, there was a clear contrast between the miracles of God and the magic of the devil, which is sorcery.'

SOURCE

Not from where I am standing. Its all magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not from where I am standing. Its all magic.

Are you telling me there are supernatural forces at work?

If not, what is your perception of magic?

 

[Mike Lane]

Are you telling me there are supernatural forces at work?
If not, what is your perception of magic?

What is a supernatural force?
No one has any perception of magic because there is no such thing as magic.

 

[VirOptimus]

Are you telling me there are supernatural forces at work?

If not, what is your perception of magic?

I dont belive in the existance of metaphysics.

 

[Speedwell]

Doesn't make it magic though. Only means that you can't understand how it wuz done.

That's part of it. Magic consists of phenomena which allegedly or apparently violate the known laws of nature, but don't in reality do so, being only contrived to do so for purposes of entertainment or deception.

 

[Radrook]

Are you telling me there are supernatural forces at work?

If not, what is your perception of magic?

 

[Radrook]

It isn't an appeal to magic. It is an appeal to use reasoning ability to infer what is obligatory to infer in order to stay within the parameters of sanity.

 

[sfs]

It isn't an appeal to magic. It is an appeal to use reasoning ability to infer what is obligatory to infer in order to stay within the parameters of sanity.

But when I've asked you to explain your inferences, you've declined to provide any reasoning. You just say it's obvious.

 

[Radrook]

But when I've asked you to explain your inferences, you've declined to provide any reasoning. You just say it's obvious.

Well, each time I provide my reasons the same people I explain them to pop up on other threads demanding I repeat. Multiply that by about twenty-five people and it becomes a barrage of demands that I repeat myself and always with the same response that they can't see. Umm, that can become a bit annoying-you know?

BTW My inference is that intelligent design is obvious in nature.

 

[Radrook]

I dont belive in the existance of metaphysics.

It is a branch of philosophy which deals with the following:


Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy investigating the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it.[1] Metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions:[2]

1. Ultimately, what is there?
2. What is it like?

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to one another. Another central branch is metaphysical cosmology: which seeks to understand the origin and meaning of the universe by thought alone.

There are two broad conceptions about what "world" is studied by metaphysics. The strong, classical view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist independently of any observer, so that the subject is the most fundamental of all sciences. The weaker, more modern view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of an observer, so the subject becomes a form of introspection and conceptual analysis. Some philosophers, notably Kant, discuss both of these "worlds" and what can be inferred about each one.

Some philosophers and scientists, such as the logical positivists, reject the entire subject of metaphysics as meaningless, while others disagree and think that it is legitimate.
Metaphysics - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

Well, each time I provide my reasons the same people I explain them to pop up on other threads demanding I repeat. Multiply that by about twenty-five people and it becomes a barrage of demands that I repeat myself and always with the same response that they can't see. Umm, that can become a bit annoying-you know?

There is still the possibility that you haven't communicated your views clearly.
You appear to be concluding intelligent design from the observation of functional organization. But that conclusion appears to be based on your prior assumption that functional organization can only come from intelligent design. Your reasoning thus appears to be circular to those of us who don't make the same assumption. Perhaps you have left something out which you take for granted but that we don't know about.

 

[Speedwell]

Some philosophers and scientists, such as the logical positivists, reject the entire subject of metaphysics as meaningless...

Do you? Your ideas about causality certainly to not reflect much familiarity with the subject.