Miracle vs Magic.

[mikkel_the_dane]

That science can't explain everything at the moment is a little unjust in my view, given we have only been using some of the relevant tools for less than a century, it is not so easy to find the continuous aspects of evolution, and we only have the Earth as our playground currently. But even so, science has made great strides as to what we do know now - as for DNA and genetics, for example, and as to astrophysics, with the numbers of planets found outside our system and as to being rather common in the universe.

But it doesn't follow that science can ever explain everything. We don't know that as far as I can't and there are at least some reasons to doubt that science ever get to the point where it can explain everything.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But it doesn't follow that science can ever explain everything. We don't know that as far as I can't and there are at least some reasons to doubt that science ever get to the point where it can explain everything.

Perhaps not, and did I say this? But it seems to me rather ungracious to expect all problems to be solved by science and NOW just because people can't suspend their beliefs until we do get the evidence that will enable beliefs to be formed correctly - just as we have done over so many other issues. Understanding that actually works for us even if such might not be the complete understanding of whatever.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps not, and did I say this? But it seems to me rather ungracious to expect all problems to be solved by science and NOW just because people can't suspend their beliefs until we do get the evidence that will enable beliefs to be formed correctly - just as we have done over so many other issues. Understanding that actually works for us even if such might not be the complete understanding of whatever.

That bold word is a word without evidence, but rather a cogntive norm about how we ought to think. And the same with some of the other words you use.
Now does science work? Yes, so far in a limited sense. Is science correct? Well, that is in a sense not sicence, but there are for all the different understandings no objective evidence for correct.

And yes, I can understand that you use cognition and I answer with another understanding based on cognition. That is that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That bold word is a word without evidence, but rather a cogntive norm about how we ought to think. And the same with some of the other words you use.
Now does science work? Yes, so far in a limited sense. Is science correct? Well, that is in a sense not sicence, but there are for all the different understandings no objective evidence for correct.

And yes, I can understand that you use cognition and I answer with another understanding based on cognition. That is that.

Well I'm sure you know why I used that word, even in the sense of such having rather wide meanings. As to how we know the Earth revolves around our particular sun rather than any other explanation, as to how birth defects are passed on via DNA (and perhaps other mechanisms), and much else that has driven our technological world - which just wouldn't exist without sufficient understanding of the necessary sciences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I'm sure you know why I used that word, even in the sense of such having rather wide meanings. As to how we know the Earth revolves around our particular sun rather than any other explanation, as to how birth defects are passed on via DNA (and perhaps other mechanisms), and much else that has driven our technological world - which just wouldn't exist without sufficient understanding of the necessary sciences.

Well, I believe differently as per science, because I were taught a version of Karl Popper's version for science, where there is no knowledge as you use it.
But never might that, because you are an universal we for the universally correct version of knowledge and just forget over 2000 years of history regarding knowledge or even this text by scientists:

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"... Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science! ..."

The same is the case for knowledge. So yes, I get you have an opinion about knowledge and I have another one. Yet we are both atheists.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, I believe differently as per science, because I were taught a version of Karl Popper's version for science, where there is no knowledge as you use it.
But never might that, because you are an universal we for the universally correct version of knowledge and just forget over 2000 years of history regarding knowledge or even this text by scientists:

The philosophy of science - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

"... Despite this diversity of opinion, philosophers of science can largely agree on one thing: there is no single, simple way to define science! ..."

The same is the case for knowledge. So yes, I get you have an opinion about knowledge and I have another one. Yet we are both atheists.

Fair enough, but results are what matters in my view, and if much of science brings enough understanding so as to be useful then it hardly matters if we are not even close to 100% knowledge of anything - and never might be - but that is the human condition.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

What do you think is the difference between:

God showing a miracle and a magician showing a magic ?

Magic can save your life, if you are skilled at healing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough, but results are what matters in my view, and if much of science brings enough understanding so as to be useful then it hardly matters if we are not even close to 100% knowledge of anything - and never might be - but that is the human condition.

As long as you understand that is a belief without evidence just like a belief in God is without evidence for the same understanding of evidence as objective and all that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

As long as you understand that is a belief without evidence just like a belief in God is without evidence for the same understanding of evidence as objective and all that.

You are communicating via the evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are communicating via the evidence.

No, not in the end with skepticism. I believe the universe is fair, orderly and knowable, but that is the belief behind how I understand evidence.
But there is no evidence that the universe is fair, orderly and knowable. That is a version of methodlogical naturalism in a sense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, not in the end with skepticism. I believe the universe is fair, orderly and knowable, but that is the belief behind how I understand evidence.
But there is no evidence that the universe is fair, orderly and knowable. That is a version of methodlogical naturalism in a sense.

As I said, the human condition - try shouting if you think it will be better than using the internet.

Most of us deal with what works for us, and do you think it bothers me as to what the universe is? We just tend to work with what we have and try to understand it - apart from many of the religious perhaps who seem to insist on knowing and/or believing that which will satisfy their minds, even if such is untrue. I am well able to live with doubts and unknowns.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Actual magic / miracles = the violation and / or suspension of natural law.

I would add: violation and / or suspension of (known) natural laws. Magus is supposed to apply esoteric/occult laws.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What do you think is the difference between:

God showing a miracle and a magician showing a magic ?

The difference is maybe this:
Miracles happen beyond man's control. Magic happens under magician's control/command.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you think is the difference between:

God showing a miracle and a magician showing a magic ?

Theoretically, God, being God, has the power to act against the laws of nature. A magician is only doing slight of hand, not really violating nature's laws. And people who believe that things like spells and amulets work are only deceiving themselves.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What do you think is the difference between:

God showing a miracle and a magician showing a magic ?

Depends on the miracle. God’s real miracles are the transformation of peoples character. A magician can’t do that but only create a visual deception.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

You should study the difference between Magic and Magick.

 

[chinu]

Theoretically, God, being God, has the power to act against the laws of nature. A magician is only doing slight of hand, not really violating nature's laws. And people who believe that things like spells and amulets work are only deceiving themselves.

Why will God act against own made laws ?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why will God act against own made laws ?

I personally don't think he does. After all, why go through all the trouble of designing the laws of nature, only to break them?

But that is an issue of what God WILL or WILL NOT do, and if I understand correct, the question is about what God CAN do.

 

[chinu]

I personally don't think he does. After all, why go through all the trouble of designing the laws of nature, only to break them?

But that is an issue of what God WILL or WILL NOT do, and if I understand correct, the question is about what God CAN do.

If the quoestion is... about what God CAN do, then isn,t the shining sun already a kinda miracle ? aren't the revolving planets around the sun already a kinda miracle ?

What's the difference between a normal and a miracle ? touch screen phone with a video calling was a kinda miracle 500 years ago which is very much normal these days, isn't ?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If the quoestion is... about what God CAN do, then isn,t the shining sun already a kinda miracle ? aren't the revolving planets around the sun already a kinda miracle ?

No, it's not quite the same thing. That God CREATED the universe with its natural laws, well I suppose you can consider that a kind of miracle. But when the sun and revolving (I think you meant orbiting) planets simply obey those law, then no, it is not miraculous, but completely natural.

What's the difference between a normal and a miracle ? touch screen phone with a video calling was a kinda miracle 500 years ago which is very much normal these days, isn't ?

The word miracle refers to those things that are astounding and rare, and for which we do not YET have a scientific explanation. When they happen, people tend to attribute a supernatural cause, rather than a natural cause that we simply don't know about yet.

Sometimes we use the word miracle in a more figurative way, to refer to deeply moving things such as the birth of a child.