If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Maybe 'time' should be defined, incuding what a state of timelessness might look like.

"Time" is just a word. We use the phrase "space time" because we're talking about space and time. Actually we're just talking about some kind of amorphous field that gets distorted by mass. Within that field everything has already happened, all of time is a moment, but we only experience things happening at a particular "time" from our perspective as an individual observer. GPS satellites run on a different clock than clocks on the Earth's surface, for example, because if they didn't the system wouldn't work.

Call it anything we want, the important thing is to understand what it is and how it seems to work. If my answer to everything is "Magic" I don't need to understand the workings of anything.

 

[ideologyhunter]

But what if Joe was Lord of the Town, which he built with the 1 mile road, in the middle of a desert? All those in his town use the road and life is ok even when the road is short. In THIS scenario Joe has a higher status than Sara because he also made the rules in his town that everyone can live by (it's sort of Adam and Eve in yours). He can also go beyond the barrier because being the only pilot, he flies a biplane. Sara always looks forward to seeing Joe when he's back in town ... because thats where those sort-after pineapples come from, 73 miles away.

More persuasively, what if Sara and Joe were characters in a dream that Ron was having? Sara and Joe in fact were his parents' names. Their strange, turbulent argument over mile 1 versus mile 73 goes on and on in his dream, producing a vague, sinister feeling in him, a keen sense of dread that started, perhaps, earlier in his week when a woman he'd been seeing informed him she had syphilis and he needed to check in with the local health department -- a department headed by a close friend who would now know Ron's condition. The syphilitic woman was no dream, she was all too real. The use of Ron's parents' names indicated the guilt he felt that they would find out and judge him as unworthy of the family name. Ron's visit to the health department results in a blood test, and the blood test turns out negative for syphilis. On a high note, Ron begins to analyze his dreams. Within a month, he is writing an influential book, Dianetics. And that's why you and I are rife with thetans. Completely apeshit with thetans. The paradox of time and infinity has nothing to do with it.

 

[skepticalbip]

I hope you can see why Sara is confused, and that you can relate her confusion to my own.

If time only goes back as far as time zero, how can it go back further?

If time zero is the first moment, how can god exist before that?

If there is no time before time zero, how can god exist at times before time zero?

Do you see why I'm confused?

Because you cannot live on mile 73 of a highway that stops at mile one.

But what if Joe was Lord of the Town, which he built with the 1 mile road, in the middle of a desert? All those in his town use the road and life is ok even when the road is short. In THIS scenarion Joe has a higher status than Sara because he also made the rules in his town that everyone can live by (it's sort of Adam and Eve in yours). He can also go beyond the barrier because being the only pilot, he flies a biplane. Sara always looks forward to seeing Joe when he's back in town ... because thats where those sort-after pineapples come from, 73 miles away.

Isn't it reassuring that people still can invent quirky stories just like the writers of Aesop's Fables and the books of the Bible?

 

[remez]

Yes



My claim has always been God did.

And that's a stumper. I don't know where to go from here.

Imagine this conversation:

=== begin conversation Joe and Sara's conversation ===

Joe: "County Road 7 runs just one mile. It starts at mile zero, and runs to mile one. The county ran out of money, so the road just stops.

Sara: "CR7 stops at mile one?"

Joe: "Yes, it does. I have always said it does."

Sara: "Then why do you say you came from mile 73?"

Joe: "I have always said I'm from mile 73."

Sara: "If the road stops at mile one, there is no mile 73."

Joe: "You're saying I don't exist. Don't dismiss my religion. My religion is the topic of discussion, so you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand."

Sara: No, I'm not dismissing your existence. I see you right here. You definitely exist. Please quit saying that I'm dismissing your existence. I just want to know how you square your claim to be from mile 73 when you yourself say that there is no mile 73."

Joe: "There is no mile 73 for hamburgers. What part of this are you not understanding? Why do you keep bringing pantheism into this?"

Sara: "What is pantheism? No, don't answer that; I don't want to change the subject. Our subject is this: How can there be a mile 73 if the road stops at mile one?"

Joe: "Now you are denying my existence again."

=== end Joe and Sara's conversation ===

I hope you can see why Sara is confused, and that you can relate her confusion to my own.

If time only goes back as far as time zero, how can it go back further?

If time zero is the first moment, how can god exist before that?

If there is no time before time zero, how can god exist at times before time zero?

Do you see why I'm confused?

I've been discussing this on the internet for as long as the internet existed, and you are the first person I've run across to take the position that time began and that god existed before time began.

I can't make sense of that claim.

Could you make sense of the claim that I've been on the internet since before the internet existed?

I'm not arguing pantheism. I'm not denying that theists exist. I'm just asking you to make sense of your claim that god existed before time began.

It doesn't seem to make sense. It seems impossible on the face of it. I could just declare you to be obviously wrong, and then wash my hands of this discussion.

But what I'm trying to do, in as many ways as I can, is encourage you to explain what you're really thinking. Try to rephrase, or come at it from a different angle. Anything.

Because you cannot live on mile 73 of a highway that stops at mile one.

Cute try. Your scenario confuses the physical with the metaphysical. You’re trying to shoe horn a non-physical God into your physical “only” understanding of the world. Your scenario is replete with this theme. You’re trying to fit a supernatural God into your nature “only” understanding of the world. And you see contradictions. I get that. I would reach the same conclusion if I forced the universe to have a natural only explanation. It would be like trying to shoe horn the set of real numbers into the set of even numbers. It just doesn’t fit.

But I reason it the other way around. Even numbers are a subset of real numbers and I see no contradiction. I reason, based upon the science in hand, that this universe is not eternal in the past, and needs a cause……that nature itself needs a cause. Thus logically that cause cannot be natural but something from beyond nature. That is the reasoning of the KCA.

So you are left with….1) the universe is eternal in the past contrary to the overwhelming evidence that it is past finite. 2) The universe/nature magically caused itself from nothing. 3) the universe came from nothing by nothing….something from nothing.


Either nothing created something from nothing
Or
Something created something from nothing.
For me…..
I don’t have enough faith to believe that nothing created something from nothing. Or that the universe is eternal in the past. Or that the universe created itself out of nothing.

Thus I’m reasonably certain that something (God) created something (universe) from nothing. The alternatives are far less reasonable.

Help me to understand how your position is more reasonable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But I reason it the other way around. Even numbers are a subset of real numbers and I see no contradiction. I reason, based upon the science in hand, that this universe is not eternal in the past, and needs a cause……that nature itself needs a cause. Thus logically that cause cannot be natural but something from beyond nature. That is the reasoning of the KCA.

Cute... "reasoning"...

You see science says what I want it to say, so by that reasoning, science can't explain the cause of universe's origin. Luckily I can solve this by then saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural and is bounded by completely arbitrary set of rules that I don't allow the universe to abide by. That is the brilliant logic of KCA. Just look at it. It creates a premise that the universe can not abide by in order to prove the existence of something that also doesn't abide by the same premise, all the while using a straight face!

1) All things that exist must have a cause!
2) The universe is a thing, so it must have a cause (see 1).
3) God is that cause.
4) God itself doesn't need a cause to exist. (<--- see... I created a bullshit premise in 1 to create an arbitrary fault of the universe, but then I completely ignore that same premise in creating my super arbitrary solution)
5) This all works out very reasonably!

 

[skepticalbip]

That looks suspiciously like:
p1 The early universe is a mystery.
p2 God works in mysterious ways.
c Therefore god.

 

[James Brown]

Either nothing is causing the noises in my attic.
Or
Ghosts are causing the noises in my attic.
For me…..
I don’t have enough faith to believe that nothing causes noises in my attic. Or that some unknown non-supernatural event is causing the noises (I've checked.) Or that the noises cause themselves.

Thus I’m reasonably certain that something (ghosts) created something (noises in my attic) from nothing. The alternatives are far less reasonable.

 

[abaddon]

That looks suspiciously like:
p1 The early universe is a mystery.
p2 God works in mysterious ways.
c Therefore god.

Yes, the KCA is an extended "I don't know therefore God" argument from ignorance.

The elaboration to make the "therefore God" seem reasonable is a sophistic whittling away of options, done by insisting that the assertions are logically necessary. So it's contrived that there are only 3 options... the "so you are left with" nonsense.

The theist then forgoes mentioning any other options. He considers his preferred set of options to be the sum total of options because they "logically follow" from his manner of asserting shit and pretending it's logic. So people are left with picking the least unreasonable of a set of silly options.

Same goes with the concluding syllogism where you get another set of pea-brained options: pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism and atheism. Which of these "isms" is the reasonable answer to material existence? The theist has asserted only God has the qualities needed to be a universe-maker (easy to do, since he's "supernatural" and therefore described in whatever way the theist wants). So, it is asserted that it "logically follows" that monotheism (and specifically Jehovah) is the option you must "reasonably" pick.

So in effect: existence is a mystery, and God's "logically" a [pre-fab] answer for mysteries, therefore God.

 

[remez]

But I reason it the other way around. Even numbers are a subset of real numbers and I see no contradiction. I reason, based upon the science in hand, that this universe is not eternal in the past, and needs a cause……that nature itself needs a cause. Thus logically that cause cannot be natural but something from beyond nature. That is the reasoning of the KCA.

Cute... "reasoning"...

You see science says what I want it to say, so by that reasoning, science can't explain the cause of universe's origin. Luckily I can solve this by then saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural and is bounded by completely arbitrary set of rules that I don't allow the universe to abide by. That is the brilliant logic of KCA. Just look at it. It creates a premise that the universe can not abide by in order to prove the existence of something that also doesn't abide by the same premise, all the while using a straight face!

1) All things that exist must have a cause!
2) The universe is a thing, so it must have a cause (see 1).
3) God is that cause.
4) God itself doesn't need a cause to exist. (<--- see... I created a bullshit premise in 1 to create an arbitrary fault of the universe, but then I completely ignore that same premise in creating my super arbitrary solution)
5) This all works out very reasonably!

Quoted whole for context, parsed below.

You see science says what I want it to say, so by that reasoning, science can't explain the cause of universe's origin.

No. I claimed no absolute certainty here. I reason from the science that universe is past finite. You are free to make the case that science more reasonably infers that the universe is eternal into the past. Go for it.

Luckily I can solve this by then saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural and is bounded by completely arbitrary set of rules that I don't allow the universe to abide by.

1) “Luckily I can solve this by then saying …” Childishly ignores my case against the alternative reasoning. I was in no way being arbitrary….or simply “just saying”. You are the one being lazy with this simplistic imparting of my intent rather than actually engaging the reasoning I overtly provided.
And…………
2) “saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural” I reasoned that it can’t be natural. How is it reasonable to have faith that nature created itself? Again you were lazy to ignore that and just dogmatically assume my position is unreasonable. You don’t get to ignore my presented reasoning and present I’m being arbitrary or “just saying.” If you want to actually engage then do so. Address the reasoning I provided. Show me, make a case, where it is more reasonable to “believe” the nature created itself out of nothing…….. And ironically you would belittle my position as magical.
Further….
3) “and is bounded by completely arbitrary set of rules that I don't allow the universe to abide by.” The reasoning I presented was……

So you are left with….1) the universe is eternal in the past contrary to the overwhelming evidence that it is past finite. 2) The universe/nature magically caused itself from nothing. 3) the universe came from nothing by nothing….something from nothing.


Either nothing created something from nothing
Or
Something created something from nothing.
For me…..
I don’t have enough faith to believe that nothing created something from nothing. Or that the universe is eternal in the past. Or that the universe created itself out of nothing.

So…….
How was I being arbitrary?

I was attempting to be exhaustive with the possibilities. Is there one I left out? Quit being so lazy. Show me why your choice would be more reasonable. Emoting your shallow dogma doesn’t intimidate me in the least. Seriously you presented nothing against my reasoning, other than mislabel it arbitrary in the face of the overt evidence of the reasoning I provided. Which you never addressed.

…… That is the brilliant logic of KCA. Just look at it. It creates a premise that the universe can not abide by in order to prove the existence of something that also doesn't abide by the same premise, all the while using a straight face!
1) All things that exist must have a cause!
2) The universe is a thing, so it must have a cause (see 1).
3) God is that cause.
4) God itself doesn't need a cause to exist. (<--- see... I created a bullshit premise in 1 to create an arbitrary fault of the universe, but then I completely ignore that same premise in creating my super arbitrary solution)
5) This all works out very reasonably!

Congratulations you just flamed another straw man. CC would be proud. Did it feel good?
1) p1 of the KCA is everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. Not everything that exists must have a cause. Obviously eternal things do not begin to exist. Such a low rent objection.
2) How stupid. You really do make your straw men easy to beat up. p2 is actually……. the universe began to exist. I supported that with the prevailing science data on hand. I presented the reasonableness of alternatives. If you really wish to defeat the actual p2….you would have to present some better evidence then what I presented. And provide reasoning as to why your evidence and reasoning is better than mine. Simply whining that I’m being arbitrary does not hold up with what I presented. It is pure laziness.
3) That is the deductive conclusion supported by the evidence and reasoning. None of which you actually addressed. You just whined that I was being arbitrary.
4) Is a dilemma you created by misstating p1. Logically…..If the universe was eternal then it would not have a cause. And that was the prevailing thought for thousands of years. The universe was eternal and did not begin and thus did not have a cause. History bears out this fact. This reasoning predates the present scientific reasoning that the universe began. Thus there is no special pleading in regards to creating a p1 that reasons eternal things logically don’t begin to exist and thus don’t have a cause. How is that not pure logic? Actually p1 was created when it was still very reasonable to conclude the universe was eternal. Where was the special pleading then? It’s only your lack of historical knowledge that whines for special pleading.
5) It does…… if you can get past your dogmatic naturalism and actually engage the reasoning.

 

[remez]

That looks suspiciously like:
p1 The early universe is a mystery.
p2 God works in mysterious ways.
c Therefore god.

Only for someone wanting to unreasonably look at it that way.

 

[remez]

Either nothing is causing the noises in my attic.
Or
Ghosts are causing the noises in my attic.
For me…..
I don’t have enough faith to believe that nothing causes noises in my attic. Or that some unknown non-supernatural event is causing the noises (I've checked.) Or that the noises cause themselves.

Thus I’m reasonably certain that something (ghosts) created something (noises in my attic) from nothing. The alternatives are far less reasonable.

The noises in your attic came from nothing.

Why would you believe that?
and
What did it sound like?
and
What were the alternatives?

 

[James Brown]

Either nothing is causing the noises in my attic.
Or
Ghosts are causing the noises in my attic.
For me…..
I don’t have enough faith to believe that nothing causes noises in my attic. Or that some unknown non-supernatural event is causing the noises (I've checked.) Or that the noises cause themselves.

Thus I’m reasonably certain that something (ghosts) created something (noises in my attic) from nothing. The alternatives are far less reasonable.

The noises in your attic came from nothing.

Why would you believe that?

I don't believe that. See the part that I bolded above.

What did it sound like?

It sounds like supernatural ghosts.

What were the alternatives?

Birds, rodents, joist pops from temperature fluctuations, dinosaurs, stray horses, all sorts of alternatives. But since I can't find any evidence of those things, I can only conclude that there are ghosts in my attic making noises.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Luckily I can solve this by then saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural and is bounded by completely arbitrary set of rules that I don't allow the universe to abide by.

2) “saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural” I reasoned that it can’t be natural. How is it reasonable to have faith that nature created itself? Again you were lazy to ignore that and just dogmatically assume my position is unreasonable. You don’t get to ignore my presented reasoning and present I’m being arbitrary or “just saying.” If you want to actually engage then do so. Address the reasoning I provided. Show me, make a case, where it is more reasonable to “believe” the nature created itself out of nothing…….. And ironically you would belittle my position as magical.

There is no viable reason to justify that X needs a cause Y that is eternal if there is no immediate reason why X can't be eternal. If Y can be eternal, then X can be eternal. To suggest otherwise is just arbitrary nonsense.

 

[abaddon]

Show me, make a case, where it is more reasonable to “believe” the nature created itself out of nothing.

When have logicians ever contended that, to "defeat" an argument, one must propose an alternative?

Why is it not enough to show that an argument is invalid or that it is not known to be sound and that's why it fails to convince?

This assertion in itself is a problem because it leads to "if you disagree with me then you must believe <insert falsehood>" assertions - a central feature to your whole style of arguing. What are the logical grounds for this repeated challenge, that others cannot stop at calling the premises into doubt but must also have an alternative explanation for existence?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Luckily I can solve this by then saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural and is bounded by completely arbitrary set of rules that I don't allow the universe to abide by.

2) “saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural” I reasoned that it can’t be natural. How is it reasonable to have faith that nature created itself? Again you were lazy to ignore that and just dogmatically assume my position is unreasonable. You don’t get to ignore my presented reasoning and present I’m being arbitrary or “just saying.” If you want to actually engage then do so. Address the reasoning I provided. Show me, make a case, where it is more reasonable to “believe” the nature created itself out of nothing…….. And ironically you would belittle my position as magical.

There is no viable reason to justify that X needs a cause Y that is eternal if there is no immediate reason why X can't be eternal. If Y can be eternal, then X can be eternal. To suggest otherwise is just arbitrary nonsense.

Nature can't invent itself but a magic space person can invent itself because it's magic. It's the magic that's real, the magic comes first, then gods, then the cosmos. Magic explains everything, even gods. If I don't have magic I can never have gods. Magic stands alone. Discussing natural processes and science with a person who's mental frame is magic isn't going to yield anything substantive, as Wiploc discovered.

 

[remez]

I don't believe that. See the part that I bolded above.

Good. Neither did I.

What did it sound like?

It sounds like supernatural ghosts.

What does a supernatural ghost sound like and how are you reasoning that undescribed sound matches a supernatural ghost?
Because…….

What were the alternatives?

Birds, rodents, joist pops from temperature fluctuations, dinosaurs, stray horses, all sorts of alternatives. But since I can't find any evidence of those things, I can only conclude that there are ghosts in my attic making noises.

Without knowing what the sound ….sounds like. I can’t determine if your conclusion is reasonable. What evidence and reasoning do you have that it was a supernatural ghost?

Your analogy falls well short of challenging the reasoning I presented…..
Either something created something from nothing
Or
Nothing created something from nothing.

Because……
The “something” is in question here. You have provided no reasoning other than you found no evidence therefore ghost. I have provided reasoning as to why God is the cause of the universe and thus it was not based upon the absence of evidence therefore wild guess.
As well…..
Your attic is not nothing. Thus there is strong reason to reason a natural cause. Which is what I would do with the noises in your attic.

 

[remez]

Yes, the KCA is an extended "I don't know therefore God" argument from ignorance.

The elaboration to make the "therefore God" seem reasonable is a sophistic whittling away of options, done by insisting that the assertions are logically necessary. So it's contrived that there are only 3 options... the "so you are left with" nonsense.

It called deductive reasoning. What's wrong with it?

The theist then forgoes mentioning any other options. He considers his preferred set of options to be the sum total of options because they "logically follow" from his manner of asserting shit and pretending it's logic. So people are left with picking the least unreasonable of a set of silly options.

An argument does not MENTION other options. But the presenter of the argument absolutely has the burden to defend the argument against objections brought against it. And that I have always done. You just don’t like it, when I fight back. Because you feel that simply MENTIONING your lame options renders the KCA unsound. Think about it ….you are the one guilty of your complaint.

Same goes with the concluding syllogism where you get another set of pea-brained options: pantheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism and atheism. Which of these "isms" is the reasonable answer to material existence? The theist has asserted only God has the qualities needed to be a universe-maker (easy to do, since he's "supernatural" and therefore described in whatever way the theist wants).

…” therefore described in whatever way the theist wants).”……
That is not the case at all. That is what you want the case to be so that you can cry about it. The theistic attributes have been reasoned, defended and established for thousands of years. Your ignorance of such proceedings does not render your want true.

So in effect: existence is a mystery, and God's "logically" a [pre-fab] answer for mysteries, therefore God.

So in effect: existence is a mystery, and mysteries can’t be reasoned with absolute certainty, thus the [pre-fab] desire is to denounce those that make a case to address the mystery. Essentially …..Pleading ignorance to reason ignorance.

Further to your next post……………..

Show me, make a case, where it is more reasonable to “believe” the nature created itself out of nothing.

When have logicians ever contended that, to "defeat" an argument, one must propose an alternative?

If the argument is valid. Then you must challenge the reasonable certainty of the premises to defeat the argument. Standard reasoning 101.

Why is it not enough to show that an argument is invalid or that it is not known to be sound and that's why it fails to convince?

Three different issues there. Validity, soundness and compelling.
1) validity…..You did not show the argument was invalid. If you did I would then the argument would be defeated. And I would need to abandon the argument or fix the reasoning of the argument. You have made no attempt to do so.

2) soundness….To challenge the soundness of an argument you must challenge the reasonable certainty of the premises. Show me why your reasoning against the premise is more reasonable than mine to support it. If you can than the argument would be defeated.

3) compelling….Now the issue of an argument being compelling is one that is yours. But your decision to label an argument uncompelling does not render the argument defeated. It just means you don’t find the argument compelling even though you can’t find it invalid or unsound. Which usually indicates that your judgement is volitional or emotional and not intellectual. But that again would not render the argument defeated.

You seem to keep mixing up those three different issues.

This assertion in itself is a problem because it leads to "if you disagree with me then you must believe <insert falsehood>" assertions - a central feature to your whole style of arguing.

Again that is reasoning 101. In this context……If you don’t reason that the universe began to exist then you are left with it is eternal or somehow created itself out of nothing. Each of those positions is less reasonable than the premise. If you can present a more reasonable case that it is eternal or created itself from nothing then you would defeat the argument. You don’t just get to cry about it.

What are the logical grounds for this repeated challenge, that others cannot stop at calling the premises into doubt but must also have an alternative explanation for existence?

That is epistemology 101.

Why should I buy into reasoning that is less reasonable than the reasoning for the argument?

You have provided no reason for me to abandon an argument that is yet to be defeated.

Now you may not like it but that is how epistemology and reasoning work. Crying about it does not defeat the argument.

 

[remez]

Luckily I can solve this by then saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural and is bounded by completely arbitrary set of rules that I don't allow the universe to abide by.

2) “saying my cause of the universe itself doesn't need to be natural” I reasoned that it can’t be natural. How is it reasonable to have faith that nature created itself? Again you were lazy to ignore that and just dogmatically assume my position is unreasonable. You don’t get to ignore my presented reasoning and present I’m being arbitrary or “just saying.” If you want to actually engage then do so. Address the reasoning I provided. Show me, make a case, where it is more reasonable to “believe” the nature created itself out of nothing…….. And ironically you would belittle my position as magical.

There is no viable reason to justify that X needs a cause Y that is eternal if there is no immediate reason why X can't be eternal. If Y can be eternal, then X can be eternal. To suggest otherwise is just arbitrary nonsense.

That ignores p2 and the evidence and reasoning I provided to support it. Why is my evidence and reasoning for p2 not viable other than your lazy assertion that it is?

 

[remez]

There is no viable reason to justify that X needs a cause Y that is eternal if there is no immediate reason why X can't be eternal. If Y can be eternal, then X can be eternal. To suggest otherwise is just arbitrary nonsense.

Nature can't invent itself but a magic space person can invent itself because it's magic. It's the magic that's real, the magic comes first, then gods, then the cosmos. Magic explains everything, even gods. If I don't have magic I can never have gods. Magic stands alone. Discussing natural processes and science with a person who's mental frame is magic isn't going to yield anything substantive, as Wiploc discovered.

That which is eternal ....logically did not begin to exist...thus does not have a cause.

If the universe were eternal in the past ....it logically would not begin to exist....logically it would not have a cause.

That which begins to exist has a cause.
So.....
Where is the magic?

Was it magic a hundred years ago when to prevailing view was that the universe was eternal?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That which is eternal ....logically did not begin to exist...thus does not have a cause.

If the universe were eternal in the past ....it logically would not begin to exist....logically it would not have a cause.

That which begins to exist has a cause.
So.....
Where is the magic?

Was it magic a hundred years ago when to prevailing view was that the universe was eternal?

"Begin to exist" is scientifically meaningless, has communicative value, however. To Learner is means to be assembled as such. I can dig that.

"Magic" is also scientifically meaningless and also has communicative value. It's the mental frame that your religion operates in, magic events, magic beings, magic powers. So yes, to someone like yourself the universe and anything unknown is always something of magic.

But your religious magic is literal, something real. For me, magic is just a communicative word, the magic of a sunset or the magic of a child's question. No spooky beings or spooky powers.