Every atom is magic. The "God" particle is magic. The big bang is magic, which makes everything that exists magic.
could you define magic in the context you are using it, because the above statement is so vague and nebulous as to render it nonsense.
Since you're already convinced it's nonsense, there's nothing I could say to change that. It's like trying to convert a Muslim to Christianity, or visa versa.
It makes sense to me but I agree it is of little use in a conversation where we talk about the specific properties of what magic is. On the other hand, how useful is it to always focus on the scientific proof in a thread about our opinions/beliefs of what God would be (not talking about this thread particularly just a thought about an opposite situation that I see often happening and causes people to render other people's opinions on God as nonsense because of it)
I never said what I do or don't believe to be nonsense, merely that your statement is so vague that it is meaningless. Magic can and does have different definitions and is thought of differently by different people. In order to have a better understanding of what you are trying to convey it would greatly help if you were more specific in your usage of the term "magic" and how that usage relates to the scientific principle/theories to which your have assigned your definition of "magic".
Simple, because all observable/experiential phenomena MUST ultimately fit together into a cohesive whole. I'm always baffled by people who have problems reconciling religion/spirituality with science.
Actually you said "nonsense" not meaningless. But here is something for your to check out....but please read at least ten pages before you dismiss it....and be careful, this stuff can be very dangerous.... http://www.yankeeclassic.com/miskatonic/library/stacks/magic/solomon/Solomon_-_The_Testament_Key_and_Legematon_of_Solomon_(unabridged).pdf
and I always find it amusing whenever someone makes assumptions concerning what I do or do not believe when I have provided no clear indication of my beliefs. it is most often used as a tactic to redirect attention away from my initial question and try to put me in a defensive posture in a hope that my question(s) will fall by the wayside. So rj, answer the friggin' question and define what you actually mean when you use the term magic.
Yawn..... Uhmmm, ok, old news to me, but really doesn't answer or address my question at all, does it. so how about telling us what YOU mean when you use the term in the manner and context that you did in the post in question and explain how that relates to the phenomena you mentioned. Is that too hard of a task for you?
Thanks for confirming that you already have your convictions, and can't be enlightened, no matter what is shown to you. You didn't even read one page, let alone ten. Magic is magic....whether it's on the atomic level or spiritual level. But I knew you couldn't be shown anything. It's like trying to tell christians that the world is more than 6,000 years old...you can show them Puma Punku which is 10,000 years old, and they'll say it's a devil deception, like the dinosaurs. Please don't waste my time any more.
rjhangover, you pretty much demand that he reads at least 10 pages on something You can advise someone to but I wouldn't act like this if someone happens to refuse that... He asks you to put it into your own words, so it seems he is still open to what you have to say Personally I don't know many christians who believe that the world is merely that old (young).
So, you got nothin' then? pretty much what I figured. oh and when I said "old news to me" that means that I have seen that and similar materials well over 30-40 years ago, so it is old news to me. Nor do a ancient texts relating the names and dispositions of various demons really say much at all concerning your position that the scientific phenomena you listed as being all "magic". It really is funny how I am constantly accused of being closed minded and similar bullshit when in reality I'm probably much more accepting and open to any and all ideas I am presented with, then are most people, yourself included. Then I start sorting it out, but I never completely disregard anything because when all is said and done I DON"T KNOW and neither do you. still waiting for your specific definition of "magic" in the context of the post in question. it really isn't that hard of a request that you have to rely on Solomon to answer for you.
I don't find it that baffling, particularly in regards to reconciling science and religion. They require (at least) two different approaches to the world, which I don't think is easy for everyone to balance. Plus the variations in interpretation, use of allegory and metaphorical concepts in the main Western Religions probably make it difficult to tease out what can be treated as allegory or not to be taken literally and what to be treated as historical accounts and proto case-studies. Spirituality, even though it may draw upon faith and religion is a bit more accessible as it is usually involves practices which are immediately pertinent to an individual. There's not the same great divide in time, interpretation and culture to evaluate in relation to science.
Plus, you need to take into account that even if there are hidden gems of truth such as in the Bible, for example, there were still people who did use those teachings, modified them, changed their interpretation, and then used it as a form of control. This still doesn't mean that there isn't the original essence of truth, however. Something biblical that i resonate with are the Gnostic Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. These are gospels that were deliberately left out of the Bible, since they point towards what you speak of regarding Spirituality, which severs the divide between man and God. There was no use of allowing these documents to make it to the "official" Bible because there's no reason for a priest or religious institution to exist if you follow these teachings, which point towards finding your own Gnosis and Self-Realization on your own. Whether Science can study this or not is still up for debate, but the Christian Apocrypha are a lot more "hands-on" than Canon.
people ague about things that are not known, when what is not known, is far more likely to resemble nothing anyone has ever imagined, then anything anyone ever has. sure, gods, hug em, squeeze em and call them george, but seriously, this is like arguing over the color of a unicorns horn. and if publishing something in a book, made it "truth" with a capital "T", all i can say is humans invented bullshit a long time before they invented writing. you want there to be a god, fine. you want there to not be a god, fine. but if a god wanted to exist or not it exit, would it matter whether or not we wanted it to? what we don't know we don't know, and knowledge is not the limit of existence. it isn't what there can or can't be, its the argument itself that is pointless.
No demands....Just asking him to at least check out what was conveyed before passing judgement. Did you check out ten pages before passing judgement on me? I attempted to show him the magic as he asked. But he dismissed it as "you got nothing" without consideration. If he was open to what I have to say, he would have read it before condemning it as "nothing". He had no intention of considering the possibility of magic, his mind was already made up against it. Like an atheist that wouldn't believe in the existence of God, because they're already convinced there is no such thing. God IS magic.
i'm not saying your god can't or don't exist. i'm saying you don't know jack about it. no one ever has, and no one ever will.