Levels of EvC belief

[FredVB]

Creationists never realize that their scenarios have real world consequences and that we’d see the evidence of those consequences on the earth and in the genes of living organisms. This is why scientists say that these biblical stories are little more than fantasies.

I believe, which is what is asked in this topic, that there are evidences of consequences on the earth, as well as in organisms, while these are really interpreted in different ways depending on worldview and perspective. The layers of rock, for an obvious instance, might have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years from gradual processes that are ongoing, as understood in one worldview and perspective, or occurred as a result of great global catastrophe, as understood in another worldview and perspective, rather like all the formation which quickly formed from the volcanic explosion of Mount Saint Helen. The patterns in living organisms could result from gradual random processes that are ongoing over many hundreds of millions of years, in one worldview and perspective, or from planned design at any time, in another worldview and perspective.

It may seem like one is with a stronger case, but this is yet with that worldview and perspective with this bias in that.

Still my views are not crystallized, and change a bit as I consider more and more as I grow and age. But I don't presume either I or others really know truth so fully about most things, while I see some arrogantly speak with apparent claim that they do.

If the Earth is young as taking the Bible as literal fact says, then what we measure about Earth is a lie created by God. Every scientific measurement that shows that Earth is older must be measuring a lie. For example there are ice cores that have visual layers depositing annually. You could count them for yourself and get to ~55,000 years. Thus those ices cores are lies.

I am not so sure about how old the earth is, but at this point, as it changes a bit with more consideration, I think it could have been an unformed planetary body for a very great long time, that even the Bible could allow for, while special creation from God happened as described more recently. Still how long ago that was I am not so sure about.

If Earth has lies created by God then whatever anyone says about the early Earth cannot be verified with trustworthy evidence. Evidence is the foundation of science. We may as well guess that God put up a big umbrella to shield the Earth and stop any runaway greenhouse gas. Or we can guess that God changed the properties of CO2 to reduce the greenhouse effect. etc.

There is no trustworthy evidence to distinguish between these guesses and your story.

And if we take the Bible as literal fact then your story is not needed! On day 1, light with evening and morning and thus 24 hours (a proto-Sun?). On day 2, oceans and sky. On day 3, land and vegetation. On day 4, Sun, Moon and stars.
That is 24 hours for vegetation to survive.

What story is not needed, and why? I really do not know what this is meaning. If there is already light enough for vegetation (any photosynthesizing organisms), which is what the account says, twenty-four hours to survive is no issue. The account says there was light, though why ask what it would be, I wouldn't know and could just guess, too.

If the world was created as a viable place for life, and living beings were put in it, any observer coming in then or any time afterwards, weeks or hundreds of thousands of years after, with not seeing God would do that would conclude there is age seen there. It is stretching it, which the said observer might do, to say if God made this it is with deceptive lie in the design, while the arrangement in the design would have been necessary for having a viable place for life and living beings put in it, which is presumed so to be with this deceptive lie in it. Without the presumed deceptive lie in it, the viable place life with living beings put in it would not be possible.

Indeed, with the worldview and perspective you come with, what evidences you consider and bring up do not verify conclusions to many others, including me. I still can respect you with your conclusions though they do not convince me.

 

[VirOptimus]

I believe, which is what is asked in this topic, that there are evidences of consequences on the earth, as well as in organisms, while these are really interpreted in different ways depending on worldview and perspective. The layers of rock, for an obvious instance, might have accumulated for hundreds of millions of years from gradual processes that are ongoing, as understood in one worldview and perspective, or occurred as a result of great global catastrophe, as understood in another worldview and perspective, rather like all the formation which quickly formed from the volcanic explosion of Mount Saint Helen. The patterns in living organisms could result from gradual random processes that are ongoing over many hundreds of millions of years, in one worldview and perspective, or from planned design at any time, in another worldview and perspective.

It may seem like one is with a stronger case, but this is yet with that worldview and perspective with this bias in that.

Still my views are not crystallized, and change a bit as I consider more and more as I grow and age. But I don't presume either I or others really know truth so fully about most things, while I see some arrogantly speak with apparent claim that they do.



I am not so sure about how old the earth is, but at this point, as it changes a bit with more consideration, I think it could have been an unformed planetary body for a very great long time, that even the Bible could allow for, while special creation from God happened as described more recently. Still how long ago that was I am not so sure about.



What story is not needed, and why? I really do not know what this is meaning. If there is already light enough for vegetation (any photosynthesizing organisms), which is what the account says, twenty-four hours to survive is no issue. The account says there was light, though why ask what it would be, I wouldn't know and could just guess, too.

If the world was created as a viable place for life, and living beings were put in it, any observer coming in then or any time afterwards, weeks or hundreds of thousands of years after, with not seeing God would do that would conclude there is age seen there. It is stretching it, which the said observer might do, to say if God made this it is with deceptive lie in the design, while the arrangement in the design would have been necessary for having a viable place for life and living beings put in it, which is presumed so to be with this deceptive lie in it. Without the presumed deceptive lie in it, the viable place life with living beings put in it would not be possible.

Indeed, with the worldview and perspective you come with, what evidences you consider and bring up do not verify conclusions to many others, including me. I still can respect you with your conclusions though they do not convince me.

All ”views” are not equal.

Science explains data and evidence and is a description of physical reality.

Creationism is a religious belief with no power of explanation. (Magic explains everything and therefore nothing.)

 

[ruthiesea]

I believe in G-d. I do not believe in evolution because it is not a belief system. I accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory that meets all of the criteria of a valid theory. However, I see no conflict between belief in G-d and the acceptance of evolution as valid.

Where would that go in the survey?

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh really? My belief acknowledges there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence, so it is labeled as believing a magic that explains everything and therefore nothing, and an atheist approach would have existence without any knowable explanation but everything is just here, though it didn't have to be, that I certainly see is just like believing a magic to explain everything and really explains nothing.
View attachment 270733

you just reinforce my point.

 

[Shemjaza]

Oh really? My belief acknowledges there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence, so it is labeled as believing a magic that explains everything and therefore nothing, and an atheist approach would have existence without any knowable explanation but everything is just here, though it didn't have to be, that I certainly see is just like believing a magic to explain everything and really explains nothing.
View attachment 270733

No, it's a belief that asserts "there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence".

Reality exists, I don't know how it got here, maybe I'll never know. But asserting that it needs an explanation... but that said explanation itself doesn't is just being inconsistent.

(In addition please remove the insulting and false meme, the equivalent kind of meme in response would never be tolerated.)

 

[PloverWing]

I believe in G-d. I do not believe in evolution because it is not a belief system. I accept that evolution is a valid scientific theory that meets all of the criteria of a valid theory. However, I see no conflict between belief in G-d and the acceptance of evolution as valid.

Where would that go in the survey?

That sounds to me like it would be consistent with answers #2-6, depending on how you see the Creator interacting with the world, and what exactly "intervene" means. (If creation is an ongoing act of the Creator -- rather than just a one-time act way back when -- then "intervene" becomes a funny word.)

 

[pitabread]

(In addition please remove the insulting and false meme, the equivalent kind of meme in response would never be tolerated.)

I dunno, I think leaving it up as an advertisement of his ignorance has its merits.

 

[FredVB]

you just reinforce my point.

You don't show at all how. That is not convincing.

No, it's a belief that asserts "there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence".

Reality exists, I don't know how it got here, maybe I'll never know. But asserting that it needs an explanation... but that said explanation itself doesn't is just being inconsistent.

(In addition please remove the insulting and false meme, the equivalent kind of meme in response would never be tolerated.)

So you report the post to have it removed, before I come back to deal with the image, though it was a response to "VirOptimus" saying the exact same thing about what I believe, and my post stating what I believe was right on topic. That way you avoid really responding to what I actually said with the post now removed, and it does not get an answer, while I remain sure you really cannot properly answer it. But I am sure there is a double standard, that what can be said about what I believe will still remain while it said about what any among you believe is not permitted.

All ”views” are not equal.

Science explains data and evidence and is a description of physical reality.

Creationism is a religious belief with no power of explanation. (Magic explains everything and therefore nothing.)

Again there is a double standard. You may say things categorically like that, but what I bring up is just avoided.

I have not argued against science and data, that is the position of a straw man argument.

My belief acknowledges there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence, so it is labeled as believing a magic that explains everything and therefore nothing, and an atheist approach would have existence without any knowable explanation but everything is just here, though it didn't have to be, that I certainly see is just like believing a magic to explain everything and really explains nothing.

I dunno, I think leaving it up as an advertisement of his ignorance has its merits.

That you cannot actually answer what I bring up does not show my ignorance. I would like seeing you even try to answer it. I see personal remarks here. Is that to be tolerated?

I see yet double standards.

 

[VirOptimus]

You don't show at all how. That is not convincing.



So you report the post to have it removed, before I come back to deal with the image, though it was a response to "VirOptimus" saying the exact same thing about what I believe, and my post stating what I believe was right on topic. That way you avoid really responding to what I actually said with the post now removed, and it does not get an answer, while I remain sure you really cannot properly answer it. But I am sure there is a double standard, that what can be said about what I believe will still remain while it said about what any among you believe is not permitted.



Again there is a double standard. You may say things categorically like that, but what I bring up is just avoided.

I have not argued against science and data, that is the position of a straw man argument.

My belief acknowledges there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence, so it is labeled as believing a magic that explains everything and therefore nothing, and an atheist approach would have existence without any knowable explanation but everything is just here, though it didn't have to be, that I certainly see is just like believing a magic to explain everything and really explains nothing.



That you cannot actually answer what I bring up does not show my ignorance. I would like seeing you even try to answer it. I see personal remarks here. Is that to be tolerated?

I see yet double standards.

Still reinforcing my points.

I suggest a science 101 and a theology 101.

 

[Shemjaza]

So you report the post to have it removed, before I come back to deal with the image, though it was a response to "VirOptimus" saying the exact same thing about what I believe, and my post stating what I believe was right on topic. That way you avoid really responding to what I actually said with the post now removed, and it does not get an answer, while I remain sure you really cannot properly answer it. But I am sure there is a double standard, that what can be said about what I believe will still remain while it said about what any among you believe is not permitted.

Personally I think using the term magic in a discussion with Creationists is needlessly antagonistic and not helpful to the discussion.

However the comments were on the explanatory power of the assertion of a necessary creator.

Your insulting meme however was simply a generalised and false in many instances attack on what atheists believe. (Could you imagine a meme attacking Christianity in general in response to a combative Flat Earther being tolerated?)

It's a false statement because I didn't propose a solution to the origin to the universe.

I don't have one. But not having an alternate atheist explanation for the universe does not validate a theistic one that doesn't actually explain anything except to shift the unknowns to a separate entity.

Again there is a double standard. You may say things categorically like that, but what I bring up is just avoided.

I have not argued against science and data, that is the position of a straw man argument.

My belief acknowledges there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence, so it is labeled as believing a magic that explains everything and therefore nothing, and an atheist approach would have existence without any knowable explanation but everything is just here, though it didn't have to be, that I certainly see is just like believing a magic to explain everything and really explains nothing.

Again "acknowledges there is necessary existence" is an assertion without justification.
Also "everything is just here, though it didn't have to be" is not the position I've seen presented.

You accuse others of straw-manning you, but are inventing motivations and beliefs without any justification.

 

[Ophiolite]

So you report the post to have it removed, before I come back to deal with the image, though it was a response to "VirOptimus" saying the exact same thing about what I believe, and my post stating what I believe was right on topic. That way you avoid really responding to what I actually said with the post now removed, and it does not get an answer, while I remain sure you really cannot properly answer it. But I am sure there is a double standard, that what can be said about what I believe will still remain while it said about what any among you believe is not permitted.

I reported the graphic in the post, not the post itself. When no action was taken I reported it a second time. I saw nothing in the thread that led me to believe you would deal with the image. That may have been inattention on my part. I don't know.

I have criticised similar attacks made by atheists against Christianity. I have not done it often. And I have not done it as often as I probably should have. (I have been wary of running afoul of a forum rule that prohibits non-Christians from defending Christianity in posts, though perhaps that only refers to the Apologetics sub-forum.) However, I note that reprehensible behaviour on the part of atheists is not good justification for reprehensible behaviour by Christians.

Finally, am I reading you correctly? While the graphic is gone and you had intended to remove it, you still - broadly - agree with its sentiment? Or not?

 

[FredVB]

You may say things categorically, but what I bring up is just avoided.

I have not argued against science and data, that is the position of a straw man argument.

My belief acknowledges there is necessary existence that explains the rest of existence, so it is labeled as believing a magic that explains everything and therefore nothing, and an atheist approach would have existence without any knowable explanation but everything is just here, though it didn't have to be, that I certainly see is just like believing a magic to explain everything and really explains nothing.

That you cannot actually answer what I bring up does not show my ignorance. I would like seeing you even try to answer it. I see personal remarks here. Is that to be tolerated? I see yet double standards.

Still reinforcing my points. I suggest a science 101 and a theology 101.

Not at all, you show nothing for points in all your responses. And what you show are still personal remarks. I don't use education I have as authority, it should not be relevant to discussion of what facts show, but you do not know what education I have and it is not appropriate to suggest I do not have the basics for science, and I am not showing lack of knowledge about anything of theology, though we were never discussing that here. Though you can like each other's posts here in this forum you can use, a response you show as this is completely irrelevant, and you claim what you say is reinforced with nothing at all for that, and with you never having addressed me with showing anything to me.

Personally I think using the term magic in a discussion with Creationists is needlessly antagonistic and not helpful to the discussion.

It did not need to be brought up. But I did not bring it up. It is still showing above who said it first, against me, just as inappropriately though my response is criticized and not the first post using that. This is a double standard.

However the comments were on the explanatory power of the assertion of a necessary creator.

Your insulting meme however was simply a generalised and false in many instances attack on what atheists believe. (Could you imagine a meme attacking Christianity in general in response to a combative Flat Earther being tolerated?)

Then it is not appropriate to use it against belief such as is understood that I have, or of my discussion of necessary existence.

It's a false statement because I didn't propose a solution to the origin to the universe.

I don't have one. But not having an alternate atheist explanation for the universe does not validate a theistic one that doesn't actually explain anything except to shift the unknowns to a separate entity.

Again "acknowledges there is necessary existence" is an assertion without justification.

Also "everything is just here, though it didn't have to be" is not the position I've seen presented.

You accuse others of straw-manning you, but are inventing motivations and beliefs without any justification.

Saying I am contrary to science and data is a straw-man argument, I never have spoken against science and data in this discussion, and I am not in the habit of doing so. It is just avoiding real logic to say we don't have an explanation. I did not go so far as the theistic explanation, with having just brought up this logic, either there was always something that was enough for having all the universe, or there was not always something that was enough for having all the universe, which means we have it from nothing. There are no other alternatives in this logic, and it is avoiding this to just say, we don't have an explanation. Science won't show it, but you don't need science for the logic, you need logic for the science. It is not about necessary existence having explanation, or not being able to give explanation for it. Something necessarily exists, since there is existence, and therefore the necessary existence always exists, and would not be limited. The universe, which began, is not that.

I note that reprehensible behaviour on the part of atheists is not good justification for reprehensible behaviour by Christians.
Finally, am I reading you correctly? While the graphic is gone and you had intended to remove it, you still - broadly - agree with its sentiment? Or not?

It is quite strong a statement to refer to my response to another using "magic" in reference to what I believe with the same for him, or her, as reprehensible. Yes, I would have removed the meme from the post, I just did not hurry back to do that.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not at all, you show nothing for points in all your responses. And what you show are still personal remarks. I don't use education I have as authority, it should not be relevant to discussion of what facts show, but you do not know what education I have and it is not appropriate to suggest I do not have the basics for science, and I am not showing lack of knowledge about anything of theology, though we were never discussing that here. Though you can like each other's posts here in this forum you can use, a response you show as this is completely irrelevant, and you claim what you say is reinforced with nothing at all for that, and with you never having addressed me with showing anything to me.



It did not need to be brought up. But I did not bring it up. It is still showing above who said it first, against me, just as inappropriately though my response is criticized and not the first post using that. This is a double standard.



Then it is not appropriate to use it against belief such as is understood that I have, or of my discussion of necessary existence.



Saying I am contrary to science and data is a straw-man argument, I never have spoken against science and data in this discussion, and I am not in the habit of doing so. It is just avoiding real logic to say we don't have an explanation. I did not go so far as the theistic explanation, with having just brought up this logic, either there was always something that was enough for having all the universe, or there was not always something that was enough for having all the universe, which means we have it from nothing. There are no other alternatives in this logic, and it is avoiding this to just say, we don't have an explanation. Science won't show it, but you don't need science for the logic, you need logic for the science. It is not about necessary existence having explanation, or not being able to give explanation for it. Something necessarily exists, since there is existence, and therefore the necessary existence always exists, and would not be limited. The universe, which began, is not that.



It is quite strong a statement to refer to my response to another using "magic" in reference to what I believe with the same for him, or her, as reprehensible. Yes, I would have removed the meme from the post, I just did not hurry back to do that.

tl, dr.

Brevity is a virtue.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is quite strong a statement to refer to my response to another using "magic" in reference to what I believe with the same for him, or her, as reprehensible. Yes, I would have removed the meme from the post, I just did not hurry back to do that.

Fine. Now would you like to answer the question I asked, repeated here for your convenience. Do you still broadly agree with the claim of the graphic?

 

[FredVB]

It is quite strong a statement to refer to my response to another using "magic" in reference to what I believe with the same for him, or her, as reprehensible. Yes, I would have removed the meme

Fine. Now would you like to answer the question I asked, repeated here for your convenience. Do you still broadly agree with the claim of the graphic?

I posted the response originally asked for in this thread on the topic willingly showing what I think, as it is asking for that. And my post was attacked, and when I respond with an image saying a similar statement which I had happened to see in social media, the response was reported and it was removed. Now you want to question me on what personal thoughts I have. Why not ask the one who first brought up the accusation that what was posted before is a not thought out belief in magic? Because their position agrees with yours? I am not the one that would first accuse another of that.

You and others here still do not answer the logic, while still arguing with those who think diffently in the forum. What do you do with this, if you do not just dismiss it with ignoring it? Either there is something that is enough for all the universe to exist, so there is what is existing necessarily even if we cannot explain it, or else as may be believed there is not something always existing that is enough for all the universe to exist, with all the forces and parameters just right for this universe to come from a big bang in the form that we and other life can exist in any world that would be right for the life, and it all came from nothing at all existing. There logically are no other possibilities, it is an either or question.

 

[Shemjaza]

I posted the response originally asked for in this thread on the topic willingly showing what I think, as it is asking for that. And my post was attacked, and when I respond with an image saying a similar statement which I had happened to see in social media, the response was reported and it was removed. Now you want to question me on what personal thoughts I have. Why not ask the one who first brought up the accusation that what was posted before is a not thought out belief in magic? Because their position agrees with yours? I am not the one that would first accuse another of that.

Don't play the victim about your post being removed. The meme was intolerably rude, broad in target and false.

You and others here still do not answer the logic, while still arguing with those who think diffently in the forum. What do you do with this, if you do not just dismiss it with ignoring it? Either there is something that is enough for all the universe to exist, so there is what is existing necessarily even if we cannot explain it, or else as may be believed there is not something always existing that is enough for all the universe to exist, with all the forces and parameters just right for this universe to come from a big bang in the form that we and other life can exist in any world that would be right for the life, and it all came from nothing at all existing. There logically are no other possibilities, it is an either or question.

Tell me if I am not following you here.

While it is true that either the universe has an external cause or it does not, the statement that it needs one is an unjustified assertion.

The universe's beginning is a mystery, but adding another even more mysterious layer of reality to make the universe less mysterious has not been justified.

To paraphrase an unconvincing argument argument against atheism I've seen presented: "A God who wanted to create us and our universe can't just have happened to exist conveniently to create us... he must have been created by a god-god."

 

[Ophiolite]

I posted the response originally asked for in this thread on the topic willingly showing what I think, as it is asking for that. And my post was attacked, and when I respond with an image saying a similar statement which I had happened to see in social media, the response was reported and it was removed. Now you want to question me on what personal thoughts I have. Why not ask the one who first brought up the accusation that what was posted before is a not thought out belief in magic? Because their position agrees with yours? I am not the one that would first accuse another of that.

You and others here still do not answer the logic, while still arguing with those who think diffently in the forum. What do you do with this, if you do not just dismiss it with ignoring it? Either there is something that is enough for all the universe to exist, so there is what is existing necessarily even if we cannot explain it, or else as may be believed there is not something always existing that is enough for all the universe to exist, with all the forces and parameters just right for this universe to come from a big bang in the form that we and other life can exist in any world that would be right for the life, and it all came from nothing at all existing. There logically are no other possibilities, it is an either or question.

Nowhere in the rambling incoherence of your post could I find a straightforward answer to my question. You know, the one that went "Do you broadly agree with the claim of the graphic?" A simple yes, or no would have sufficed. I deliberately put the "broadly" in there to ensure that option was feasible. It's a pity, because if you had answered it I might have been able to make sense of the various points in your post. I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s).

If you decide you actually want to discuss things then just answer the question, then I'll play. Otherwise I am done.

 

[FredVB]

Nowhere in the rambling incoherence of your post could I find a straightforward answer to my question. You know, the one that went "Do you broadly agree with the claim of the graphic?" A simple yes, or no would have sufficed. I deliberately put the "broadly" in there to ensure that option was feasible. It's a pity, because if you had answered it I might have been able to make sense of the various points in your post. I could also have taken a stab at trying to answer your question(s).

Neither you nor I have pestered the other poster who first brought up the accusation of belief in magic, VirOptimus, what he or she personally thinks is actually true. If personally thinking is so important for others among us to probe into and address, it must then be that thought police in our society would be justified, right?

For the sake of you thinking you could then actually answer, and would, from knowing, I will just say, as I kind of did, that I would never have brought up the accusation of belief in magic about another myself, but I did post the image I had seen in response to that accusation against me, which was just as much unjustified. I don't actually think any atheist already inherently believes in magic, but I see that taking what is believed about the beginning of physical existence to its logical conclusion would imply a magic event.

 

[Ophiolite]

Neither you nor I have pestered the other poster who first brought up the accusation of belief in magic, VirOptimus, what he or she personally thinks is actually true. If personally thinking is so important for others among us to probe into and address, it must then be that thought police in our society would be justified, right?

For the sake of you thinking you could then actually answer, and would, from knowing, I will just say, as I kind of did, that I would never have brought up the accusation of belief in magic about another myself, but I did post the image I had seen in response to that accusation against me, which was just as much unjustified. I don't actually think any atheist already inherently believes in magic, but I see that taking what is believed about the beginning of physical existence to its logical conclusion would imply a magic event.

And still no simple answer. A suite of equivocations, irrelevancies, strawmen, imagined motives and the like is not a simple answer. That said, here is a detailed response. Perhaps, when you have considered it, you will do me the courtesy of answering my question with a yes, or a no.

Neither you nor I have pestered the other poster who first brought up the accusation of belief in magic, VirOptimus, what he or she personally thinks is actually true.

I saw no need to. I was not especially interested in his comment. I feel I have a adequately accurate understanding of his meaning. I think he may have, whether by accident or design, equivocated different meanings of magic, but that did not interest me enough to comment on it (till these circumstances arose).

If personally thinking is so important for others among us to probe into and address, it must then be that thought police in our society would be justified, right?

One of the primary functions of a discussion forum is to explore personal thinking. Why you would then link this functionality to "thought police" is beyond me.

For the sake of you thinking you could then actually answer, and would, from knowing, I will just say, as I kind of did, that I would never have brought up the accusation of belief in magic about another myself, but I did post the image I had seen in response to that accusation against me, which was just as much unjustified. I don't actually think any atheist already inherently believes in magic, but I see that taking what is believed about the beginning of physical existence to its logical conclusion would imply a magic event.

The concatenation of subordinated and parenthetic clauses made this near impossible to decipher. As near as I could make out it read "Since you want to know what I meant, and might favour me with an answer if I do, I note that the original post was unjustified, as was my response. Nevertheless, it seems to me the origin of the universe, as understood by atheists, does look uncommonly like magic".

 

[FredVB]

While it is true that either the universe has an external cause or it does not, the statement that it needs one is an unjustified assertion.
The universe's beginning is a mystery, but adding another even more mysterious layer of reality to make the universe less mysterious has not been justified.
To paraphrase an unconvincing argument argument against atheism I've seen presented: "A God who wanted to create us and our universe can't just have happened to exist conveniently to create us... he must have been created by a god-god."

And still no simple answer. A suite of equivocations, irrelevancies, strawmen, imagined motives and the like is not a simple answer. That said, here is a detailed response. Perhaps, when you have considered it, you will do me the courtesy of answering my question with a yes, or a no.
I saw no need to. I was not especially interested in his comment. I feel I have a adequately accurate understanding of his meaning. I think he may have, whether by accident or design, equivocated different meanings of magic, but that did not interest me enough to comment on it (till these circumstances arose).
The concatenation of subordinated and parenthetic clauses made this near impossible to decipher. As near as I could make out it read "Since you want to know what I meant, and might favour me with an answer if I do, I note that the original post was unjustified, as was my response. Nevertheless, it seems to me the origin of the universe, as understood by atheists, does look uncommonly like magic".

No