Dawkins Admits that they are working on it.

AV1611VET · Jan 10, 2008

Naraoia said:
Thanks. So they are, by definition, magic.

In Webster's eyes --- yes.

Naraoia · Jan 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
If the words are so interchangeable, why don't you use "miracles"? God makes a distinction between magic and miracles, and so do I.

Let it be miracles, then, if you like that better. As an explanation they are no better than the synonym.

And by the way, can a magician perform an ex nihilo creation or walk on water? If not, I submit that magic and miracles are two different things.

Since there are no existing magicians (correct me if I'm wrong!) who can perform any kind of magic (apart from magic as in "illusions by a sleight of hand"), the question is completely void.

Naraoia · Jan 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
In Webster's eyes --- yes.

I think you should start your own dictionary Rebel against the accepted definition of words and bring about the new age of God's and AV's Dictionary!

AV1611VET · Jan 10, 2008

Naraoia said:
Let it be miracles, then, if you like that better. As an explanation they are no better than the synonym.

Baloney.

Naraoia said:
Since there are no existing magicians (correct me if I'm wrong!) who can perform any kind of magic (apart from magic as in "illusions by a sleight of hand"), the question is completely void.

Bingo.

Exodus 8:18a said:
18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not...

19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God...

Patashu · Jan 10, 2008

So, magicians could do magic in the past but now they can not?

1. Could people today turn water into blood, etc. if they were so inclined?
2. How was the knowledge of magic lost or is it still known and out there?

Psudopod · Jan 10, 2008

Please explain how "and then a mirical happened" is a better explanation than "it happned by magic"?

Naraoia · Jan 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Baloney.

Tell me, then, how do magic/miracles explain anything?

Bingo.

Shot yourself in the foot, didn't ya? Or did the "bingo" exclude the "question is completely void" part of my reply?

See, I don't accept the Bible as an accurate historical document so you should either show me why I should or give me some other evidence that the events you refer to really happened.

Provided that you wish to convince me, of course.

atomweaver · Jan 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
If the words are so interchangeable, why don't you use "miracles"? God makes a distinction between magic and miracles, and so do I.

Well, lets take a look;

Main Entry: mir·a·cle

Pronunciation: \ˈmir-i-kəl\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin miraculum, from Latin, a wonder, marvel, from mirari to wonder at Date: 12th century 1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
3Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

By def 1, I'd say that the Creation event as described doesn't fit, as there is as of yet no human affairs to interfere with. 2 is unnecessarily vague, and 3 again invokes human experience as a key factor. By this, the miracles attributed to Jesus are just that, miracles which manifest divine intervention. The Creation event describes an act of magic by God.

What would your four-year-old say if it was his birthday and you told him you were going to have a magician at his birthday party to perform miracles?

#1 I wouldn't say that (but you knew that)
#2 Only if I expected the magician to manifest divine intervention in human affairs.

I think society as a whole makes a clear distinction between "magic" and "miracles."

And by the way, can a magician perform an ex nihilo creation or walk on water? If not, I submit that magic and miracles are two different things.

If said magician were Jesus or God, would you submit that He couldn't perform an ex nihilo creation, or walk on water..?

TheBear · Jan 10, 2008

I'd like to make an observation here and say that whenever scientists contradict the Bible, they are no longer scientists. Instead, they become "scientists".

Carry on....

AV1611VET · Jan 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
And by the way, can a magician perform an ex nihilo creation or walk on water? If not, I submit that magic and miracles are two different things.

atomweaver said:
If said magician were Jesus or God, would you submit that He couldn't perform an ex nihilo creation, or walk on water..?

I see you don't want to answer my question, except with a question, so you Webster-worshipping "linguistic experts" have a nice day. I'm not going to play your games.

AV1611VET · Jan 10, 2008

TheBear said:
I'd like to make an observation here and say that whenever scientists contradict the Bible, they are no longer scientists. Instead, they become "scientists".

Absolutely! I'll make a Baptist out of you yet, Bear!

(I know --- "whoosh!")

speakout · Jan 10, 2008

Patashu said:
But but but but -- I thought the big bang was atheistic!

The Big Bang is a nightmare for atheists because it claims that there was a time of beginning.

We are still asking what happened in the begining.

Please let us not defend Miracles, or whatever side issues they come up with let uk to the False Prophets admission that their theories are half baked.

TheBear · Jan 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Absolutely! I'll make a Baptist out of you yet, Bear!

(I know --- "whoosh!")

Tell you what. I'll make an atheist out of you.

(I guess we both have our work cut out for us.)

Morcova · Jan 10, 2008

speakout said:
Look guys, These guys are trying to get away with murder and the more we discuss side issues with them they cannot face their sins.

The Master cannot give us even a clear concept of what happened but he wants us to stop telling our kids about how God says he createdthe world.

Some of you seem to thrive on ignorance, Dawkins has claimed that teaching your kids about God is child abuse.

You guys are a joke.

Translation: GUYS.....GUYS...... I WANT DA ANSAS NOOOOWWWWWW *STOMPS FEET* Wut u meen dat dey science guis don have da ansas wite now? *STOPS FEETS*

guis itz not fare, u shoud na point out that my myths have no reel explanationz unless u no all duh answrs!

GUYS!!! *STOMPS FEET*

*End Translation*

This whole thread has been a tantrum by a child who would rather
belief myths, rather than live with "We don't know yet".

Patashu · Jan 10, 2008

speakout said:
The Big Bang is a nightmare for atheists because it claims that there was a time of beginning.

We are still asking what happened in the begining.

Please let us not defend Miracles, or whatever side issues they come up with let uk to the False Prophets admission that their theories are half baked.

Ah, but a catholic came up with the big bang theory. Can't trust those catholics.

Keep in mind that the big bang theory only postulates a beginning of this universe; the visible universe, the universe we can interact with. There may well have been something before that and some people even think there is good reason to do so.

Heck, even if the big bang is the beginning of everything I fail to see how it's undeniable proof of, not just God, but the Judeo-Christian God specifically. There's nothing inherently engineered or tuned about it; sure, it made Earth, but it also made 10^20 other stars in a more-or-less random fashion, and it took billions apon billions of years for anything to actually form.

Morcova · Jan 10, 2008

speakout said:
The Big Bang is a nightmare for atheists because it claims that there was a time of beginning.

Actually it doesn't.

But don't let reality stop your temper tantrum.

TheBear · Jan 10, 2008

speakout said:
The Big Bang is a nightmare for atheists because it claims that there was a time of beginning.

The Big Bang is not a nightmare for me. I also find it ironic that the Big Bang was rejected by Christianity until recently, and only now, after years of hand waving and rejection, has Christianity come around to accept the Big Bang theory.

We are still asking what happened in the begining.

Well that would depend on two things - who the "we" is, and who you are asking. There are many creation stories out there. Many of them have been around long before the Bible and Christianity came along.

But if you're asking science, the answer is - we don't know what came before singularity, yet.

The Big Bang, Continental Drift, Black Holes, and more, all were rejected out of hand by most Christians until recently. Progress is slow, but at least they're making a little bit of headway. Baby steps.

TheOutsider · Jan 10, 2008

TheBear said:
The Big Bang, Continental Drift, Black Holes, and more, all were rejected out of hand by most Christians until recently. Progress is slow, but at least they're making a little bit of headway. Baby steps.

Who knows, in another couple hundred of years they might all accept evolution.
I bet our ancestor will read through this archive and just laugh and laugh and laugh...

speakout · Jan 10, 2008

What are talking about, which christians are rejecting and accepting stuff?

Was there a beginning?

I think you are still working on your explanation.

atomweaver · Jan 10, 2008

AV1611VET said:
I see you don't want to answer my question, except with a question, so you Webster-worshipping "linguistic experts" have a nice day. I'm not going to play your games.

you forgot the "HMPF! *stamp foot*"

Fixed that for you...

You want a real answer, I get that. Sadly, the only correct answer is a Discordian "mu"...

Dawkins Admits that they are working on it.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Apprentice Biologist

Apprentice Biologist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Veteran

Godspeed, Spacebat

Apprentice Biologist

Senior Member

NON-WOKED

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

NON-WOKED

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency