In the beginning; some poor poetry to laugh at

[pood]

Yeah sure. Magic performed by individuals is a counterfeit to one who performs miracles (through God), as described in the bible.

What does this sentence even mean?

 

[DBT]

Some sort of distinction being made between miracle and magic, I guess.

 

[bilby]

Miracles are when impossible feats are ascribed to Gods; Magic is when impossible feats are ascribed to people.

Lots of religions get pissed off by the latter as it is treading on God's turf.

It's a bit like when the one and only God gets the shits with the other Gods for messing with His stuff.

 

[DBT]

Then comes the question: how do miracles work? Natural but unlikely events, or something that transcends physics?

 

[bilby]

Then comes the question: how do miracles work? Natural but unlikely events, or something that transcends physics?

Miracles don't work. Impossible things don't happen.

People mistake things that happen for impossible things, because people is dumb.

Faced with an impossible thing that happened, the smart bet is always that you were mistaken - it either didn't happen, or it wasn't as impossible as you believed it to be.

 

[Jarhyn]

A lot of the heaviest and most preposterous BS in Christian Doctrine seems to have been added later by theologian's metaphysical speculation. Including the all-everything nonsense. Enough of it to give metaphysics a bad name.

YES! Thank you.

Honestly, I think a lot of the conflict between atheists and Christianity in particular has little to do with what Jesus has to say or what his disciples had to remember of it, and more to do with 2000 years of subsequent attempts to interpret a language in ways that were more and more deaf to the euphemism, turns of phrase, and altogether autistic intents of the original language.

 

[DBT]

Be it order from chaos, a living man conjured from the dust of the earth is still magic.

As magic as when science says we're made from space dust.

Nothing at all magical about that. Basic chemistry.

Yeah sure. Magic performed by individuals is a counterfeit to one who performs miracles (through God), as described in the bible.

Magic and Miracles seen as the same thing confuses the discussion. We're talking from different angles (not that this is really of interest to you (plural)).

The distinction may lie between Magic, events that contradict physics, and Miracles as natural events, things that just don't happen often, an extraordinary event seen by some as being miraculous. Whereas a God creating a man out of the dust of the earth may be classed as Magic.

 

[steve_bank]

A priest transforms bread into the body of Christ by saying words. That is holy.

A witch casts a spell and that is evil.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Be it order from chaos, a living man conjured from the dust of the earth is still magic.

As magic as when science says we're made from space dust.

Nothing at all magical about that. Basic chemistry.

Yeah sure. Magic performed by individuals is a counterfeit to one who performs miracles (through God), as described in the bible.

Magic and Miracles seen as the same thing confuses the discussion. We're talking from different angles (not that this is really of interest to you (plural)).

So the miracle of life... which starts inside stars... but not the first ones as they were pure hydrogen/helium combos... but given enough time, future generations of stars would have more "heavier" elements. And more and more elements were being created. A few billion years later... have enough carbon, oxygen, hydrogen to start make organic molecules. Of which we can observe huge clouds of in outer space, just floating there.

How many billions of years is it until we don't consider it a miracle before these things get to Earth and hundreds of millions of years later, a self replicating process begins and takes form over a few more billion years?

 

[NoHolyCows]

Strangely in return, people that claim "magic" is biblical, are ignorant of the theological concept.

If you’re suggesting that calling biblical miracles “magic” shows ignorance of theology, that cuts both ways. You’re assuming “magic” is always a pejorative term or a misunderstanding, but that’s not the point. The critique is epistemological: invoking divine intervention to explain natural phenomena doesn’t explain them—it stops the inquiry. Calling something “miraculous” without mechanism or evidence is functionally identical to saying “magic did it.” Whether the label is “miracle” or “magic,” both are placeholders unless you can show how and why it happened. The theological concept doesn’t exempt it from scrutiny—it just shifts the burden to faith instead of evidence.

The bible was correct on the dust part then? Dust as being made up of very small things?

The bible is not against 'scientific names' for testing processes, so there's no argument being made here.

Saying the Bible was “right” because it mentions dust is like saying ancient myths were scientifically accurate because they mention the sky. The biblical reference to dust (“from dust you are, and to dust you shall return”) is symbolic, tied to mortality and humility—not atomic theory or stellar nucleosynthesis. When science says we’re made of stardust, it’s not a poetic flourish—it’s a specific, testable claim: elements like carbon, oxygen, and iron are forged in the cores of stars and spread through supernovae. We confirm this through spectroscopy, observing the same elemental fingerprints in star remnants and in our own bodies. That’s fundamentally different from saying “dust” in a general, ancient, and metaphorical way. One is grounded in empirical evidence, the other in literary theology.

Oddly enough. There is an interesting thought of pondering I've heard that goes by the idea that if a god or God wanted to create life, he would make it able to adapt to it's surroundings and spread to other environments to adapt, flourish and survive.

Then perhaps a theistic view (by some) that takes to the idea...that if evolution was part of the plan then the 'evolved' bit wouldn't really be a difference because as quoted above. that would also be a conjured up magic.

My view as a modern day theist of today in the language of today. In a manner of speaking... God is the ultimate scientist,

That response is a retreat into poetic language once the facts are unavoidable. Saying “God is the ultimate scientist” is a feel-good metaphor, not an explanation. It doesn’t predict anything, test anything, or add to our understanding. It’s theology scrambling to stay relevant by piggybacking on discoveries it never made. Let’s be honest: the Bible never hinted at evolution, common ancestry, or the billions of years required for life to diversify. Evolution wasn’t inspired—it was resisted by religious institutions for over a century. So to now say “maybe evolution was God’s tool all along” is convenient, but hollow. It’s like showing up after the work is done and stamping your name on the blueprints. Science earned its credibility by explaining the world. Theism can’t claim that victory retroactively.

The point is mute if you're portraying a different concept to mine.

That’s not a “different concept”—it’s a clarification of what’s being claimed. If your concept is that God used natural processes like evolution and stellar formation, great—but then you’re not talking about the biblical “dust” story anymore. You’re borrowing from science while still wanting to frame it as divine. That’s fine theologically, but it’s not evidence—it’s reinterpretation. The moment you claim something is testable or explanatory, it’s fair game for scrutiny. If your view can’t be tested, then yes—the point stands: it’s not a competing explanation, just a belief. Calling the critique “mute” doesn’t erase the evasion; it just avoids the challenge.

NHC

 

[bilby]

A priest transforms bread into the body of Christ by saying words. That is holy.

A witch casts a spell and that is evil.

The point is that God is like a mob boss defending his monopoly. He isn't against the use of magic, he just insists that everyone must use His magic - the preist humbly begs God to transsubtantiate the bread, and God does the deed and takes his cut of the credit.

Some wiseguy doing magic without asking God, is disrespecting the big boss and that's just asking for it. God's followers have been told in no uncertain terms:

As Exodus 22:18 says: Thou shalt give a witch concrete overshoes and send her to sleep with the fishes. (New Bilby Version)

 

[bilby]

Saying “God is the ultimate scientist” is a feel-good metaphor, not an explanation. It doesn’t predict anything, test anything, or add to our understanding. It’s theology scrambling to stay relevant by piggybacking on discoveries it never made.

It also founders on the fact that not one Nobel Prize has ever been awarded to God.

 

[Learner]

Yeah sure. Magic performed by individuals is a counterfeit to one who performs miracles (through God), as described in the bible.

What does this sentence even mean?

It 'even' means that, when you the atheist make those arguments about "magic" i.e. the conjuring or demonic invocations to false gods and images, which is written and condemed by the God of the bible, it therefore means...

....that between ourselves, we are on different defining terms of biblical interpretational understanding, i.e. the atheists equivicational use of the word magic...as being in the "same" context to God granting miracles... is a flawed argument. Simply, because I see your (preferred) argumentative interpretation as conceptually foreign and different to mine. We're not on the same page. I say this also to NoHolyCows.

 

[DBT]

So how does a miracle work? How does God bypass or alter the course of natural events to make a miracle happen?

How is the dust of the earth turned into a living man? How is water transformed into wine? How does Jesus calm a storm or walk on water, raise the dead and feed the multitude through physics/natural processes?

 

[Learner]

Be it order from chaos, a living man conjured from the dust of the earth is still magic.

As magic as when science says we're made from space dust.

Nothing at all magical about that. Basic chemistry.

Yeah sure. Magic performed by individuals is a counterfeit to one who performs miracles (through God), as described in the bible.

Magic and Miracles seen as the same thing confuses the discussion. We're talking from different angles (not that this is really of interest to you (plural)).

The distinction may lie between Magic, events that contradict physics, and Miracles as natural events, things that just don't happen often, an extraordinary event seen by some as being miraculous. Whereas a God creating a man out of the dust of the earth may be classed as Magic.

That actually is a fair point of view. We would have to mutually agree on the particulars of defining terms of course.

 

[Learner]

Be it order from chaos, a living man conjured from the dust of the earth is still magic.

As magic as when science says we're made from space dust.

Nothing at all magical about that. Basic chemistry.

Yeah sure. Magic performed by individuals is a counterfeit to one who performs miracles (through God), as described in the bible.

Magic and Miracles seen as the same thing confuses the discussion. We're talking from different angles (not that this is really of interest to you (plural)).

So the miracle of life... which starts inside stars... but not the first ones as they were pure hydrogen/helium combos... but given enough time, future generations of stars would have more "heavier" elements. And more and more elements were being created. A few billion years later... have enough carbon, oxygen, hydrogen to start make organic molecules. Of which we can observe huge clouds of in outer space, just floating there.

What's interesting with satements like this is: you say we can observe huge clouds in outer space just floating there. To bring up what should be a curiosity with the idea of a few bilion years etc. & etc.. The atheist has their own faith (not religion) taking from the observation of these mentioned clouds... knowing well the process of billions of years has never been observed, to sate-the-obvious.

How many billions of years is it until we don't consider it a miracle before these things get to Earth and hundreds of millions of years later, a self replicating process begins and takes form over a few more billion years?

What can one say when we can't witness such things?

 

[lostone]

OTOH, if the atheist can see a logical chain of events, supported by some facts, that would lead to a life populated universe, without intervention of any god(s), that atheist would prefer a godless solution, if one can be found, no matter how unlikely, to any god-induced solution. I must confess that my own inclinations are to prefer that godless solution. is the atheist solution the best solution, or even the most logical one? That I agree, I cannot say, but it is my personal preference. OTOH, we should also note that the god that may or may not exist based on that sort of logic, is a deist god, not any Christian god.

 

[DBT]

Be it order from chaos, a living man conjured from the dust of the earth is still magic.

As magic as when science says we're made from space dust.

Nothing at all magical about that. Basic chemistry.

Yeah sure. Magic performed by individuals is a counterfeit to one who performs miracles (through God), as described in the bible.

Magic and Miracles seen as the same thing confuses the discussion. We're talking from different angles (not that this is really of interest to you (plural)).

The distinction may lie between Magic, events that contradict physics, and Miracles as natural events, things that just don't happen often, an extraordinary event seen by some as being miraculous. Whereas a God creating a man out of the dust of the earth may be classed as Magic.

That actually is a fair point of view. We would have to mutually agree on the particulars of defining terms of course.

Rather than semantics, I'd say it's more about the describing the means and mechanisms of a miracle. A question of how can it happen, how does it work, what makes it possible.

 

[Learner]

Strangely in return, people that claim "magic" is biblical, are ignorant of the theological concept.

If you’re suggesting that calling biblical miracles “magic” shows ignorance of theology, that cuts both ways. You’re assuming “magic” is always a pejorative term or a misunderstanding, but that’s not the point. The critique is epistemological: invoking divine intervention to explain natural phenomena doesn’t explain them—it stops the inquiry. Calling something “miraculous” without mechanism or evidence is functionally identical to saying “magic did it.” Whether the label is “miracle” or “magic,” both are placeholders unless you can show how and why it happened. The theological concept doesn’t exempt it from scrutiny—it just shifts the burden to faith instead of evidence.

I was highlighting about you the atheists getting the context of the bible wrong - and as irony would have it - on the atheists part, by getting the concepts wrong, there does seem to be some exemptions to scrutinity just as you mention...

...the exemptions to scrutinity is by you atheists yourselves!

The bible was correct on the dust part then? Dust as being made up of very small things?

The bible is not against 'scientific names' for testing processes, so there's no argument being made here.

Saying the Bible was “right” because it mentions dust is like saying ancient myths were scientifically accurate because they mention the sky. The biblical reference to dust (“from dust you are, and to dust you shall return”) is symbolic, tied to mortality and humility—not atomic theory or stellar nucleosynthesis. When science says we’re made of stardust, it’s not a poetic flourish—it’s a specific, testable claim: elements like carbon, oxygen, and iron are forged in the cores of stars and spread through supernovae. We confirm this through spectroscopy, observing the same elemental fingerprints in star remnants and in our own bodies. That’s fundamentally different from saying “dust” in a general, ancient, and metaphorical way. One is grounded in empirical evidence, the other in literary theology.

EDIT:
I missed this section...

I apply the responses below, here. Scientists who were theists who contributed to science etc... and the bit about 'neither do all the books of antiquity do either'.

Oddly enough. There is an interesting thought of pondering I've heard that goes by the idea that if a god or God wanted to create life, he would make it able to adapt to it's surroundings and spread to other environments to adapt, flourish and survive.

Then perhaps a theistic view (by some) that takes to the idea...that if evolution was part of the plan then the 'evolved' bit wouldn't really be a difference because as quoted above. that would also be a conjured up magic.

My view as a modern day theist of today in the language of today. In a manner of speaking... God is the ultimate scientist,

That response is a retreat into poetic language once the facts are unavoidable. Saying “God is the ultimate scientist” is a feel-good metaphor, not an explanation.

Retreat into poetic language? Is that an indication that when saying 'God is the ultimate scientist' atheists are going to have to shift to a different approach from the "magic" & God rethoric angle which should now be redundant because now... 'God is the ultimate scientist'? The feel-good line is not a "counter argument" to my statement either, especially when my satement is a valid 21st century perspective!

It doesn’t predict anything, test anything, or add to our understanding. It’s theology scrambling to stay relevant by piggybacking on discoveries it never made. Let’s be honest: the Bible never hinted at evolution, common ancestry, or the billions of years required for life to diversify.

Erm well, neither do ALL the other books about 'historical' events from antiquity hint evolution either. This is a misleading argument.

In the science community, there are many theists. Science does not cause problems to the belief, however.. there can be disagreements of scientific-data interpretations between individuals in the scientific community - not neccessarily meaning one side claims there is scientific proof for God etc..

Evolution wasn’t inspired—it was resisted by religious institutions for over a century. So to now say “maybe evolution was God’s tool all along” is convenient, but hollow. It’s like showing up after the work is done and stamping your name on the blueprints. Science earned its credibility by explaining the world. Theism can’t claim that victory retroactively.

Similar to the above, perhaps you are unaware or forgotten that scientists who were also theists contributed massively to science. Evolution as it is now, i.e. the-best-we-know-so-far, is subject to change and to future updates (as theories often are).


(type into google for a list of theist contributions if your interested)

The point is mute if you're portraying a different concept to mine.

That’s not a “different concept”—it’s a clarification of what’s being claimed. If your concept is that God used natural processes like evolution and stellar formation, great—but then you’re not talking about the biblical “dust” story anymore. You’re borrowing from science while still wanting to frame it as divine. That’s fine theologically, but it’s not evidence—it’s reinterpretation. The moment you claim something is testable or explanatory, it’s fair game for scrutiny. If your view can’t be tested, then yes—the point stands: it’s not a competing explanation, just a belief. Calling the critique “mute” doesn’t erase the evasion; it just avoids the challenge.

NHC

Just See post #36 (apologies haven't got my glasses, too much squinting)

 

[NoHolyCows]

I was highlighting about you the atheists getting the context of the bible wrong - and as irony would have it - on the atheists part, by getting the concepts wrong, there does seem to be some exemptions to scrutinity just as you mention...

...the exemptions to scrutinity is by you atheists yourselves!

That’s a deflection, not a rebuttal. You accused atheists of getting the Bible “wrong,” but you haven’t shown what was misrepresented—only that using the term “magic” offends theological sensibilities. That’s not a factual correction; it’s emotional preference. If you want to argue the biblical miracles aren’t “magic,” then define the mechanism. Otherwise, invoking divine will as the causal agent is, by definition, indistinguishable from magic in epistemological terms—it appeals to a supernatural cause without offering testable or observable evidence.

As for the claim that atheists exempt themselves from scrutiny: that collapses the whole conversation. Science invites scrutiny. Every theory, every experiment, every conclusion is subject to revision, replication, or falsification. If you think an atheist makes an unfounded claim, great—challenge it with evidence. But don’t pretend the methods of science and the claims of divine intervention are held to equal standards. They aren’t, and for good reason: one evolves through correction; the other insists it’s right by default and demands belief.

If you want to discuss the Bible’s context, do so—quote it, analyze it, provide the linguistic or historical support. But don’t shift the burden by accusing atheists of hypocrisy while sidestepping your own claim’s lack of explanatory power. That’s not irony. It’s projection.

Retreat into poetic language? Is that an indication that when saying 'God is the ultimate scientist' atheists are going to have to shift to a different approach from the "magic" & God rethoric angle which should now be redundant because now... 'God is the ultimate scientist'? The feel-good line is not a "counter argument" to my statement either, especially when my satement is a valid 21st century perspective!

No, calling God “the ultimate scientist” doesn’t suddenly make prior criticism redundant—it just moves the goalposts without addressing the core issue. If you’re going to claim God is a “scientist,” then that comes with expectations: testable predictions, methodological rigor, and empirical results. But God, as traditionally defined, doesn’t formulate hypotheses, run experiments, or publish findings. That label is metaphorical at best, not functional. It adds no explanatory power—it just rebrands the same untestable supernatural claims under modern language to sound more credible.

Your “21st century perspective” is still grounded in an ancient premise: a being who intervenes in the world in ways that cannot be tested or verified. That’s not science—that’s faith in scientific clothing. The critique of “magic” still applies, because without evidence or mechanism, calling it divine intervention—whether poetic or dressed up as “scientific”—doesn’t change the epistemological problem. You’re not offering a new model; you’re offering old theology wrapped in modern packaging. It might feel more sophisticated, but it’s no closer to being an explanation.

Erm well, neither do ALL the other books about 'historical' events from antiquity hint evolution either. This is a misleading argument.

In the science community, there are many theists. Science does not cause problems to the belief, however.. there can be disagreements of scientific-data interpretations between individuals in the scientific community - not neccessarily meaning one side claims there is scientific proof for God etc..

You’re missing the point. No one expects ancient texts to contain modern science. The issue isn’t that the Bible lacks a reference to evolution—it’s that some people claim it somehow aligns with or predicts it. That’s the misleading part. When believers retroactively map scientific discoveries onto ancient scripture, they are making a claim of compatibility that demands scrutiny. I’m not holding the Bible to a modern scientific standard—you are, by insisting it speaks to truths only revealed millennia later through empirical methods.

As for theists in the scientific community—yes, they exist. But their scientific work stands on its own merit, independent of their personal beliefs. Francis Collins believes in God, but he doesn’t publish peer-reviewed research under “divine guidance.” The key difference is this: belief is personal; science is public, testable, and falsifiable. Science doesn’t care what you believe—it only cares what you can demonstrate. So no, science doesn’t “cause problems” for belief unless belief makes claims about reality that contradict the evidence. And when that happens, it’s not a disagreement between equals—it’s evidence versus assertion.

If your theology shifts with each new discovery, then it’s not predicting—it’s adapting. And that’s exactly the point: theology didn’t lead the way on evolution, genetics, or cosmology. It followed, reinterpreted, and reframed—after the fact. That’s not insight. That’s revision.

Similar to the above, perhaps you are unaware or forgotten that scientists who were also theists contributed massively to science. Evolution as it is now, i.e. the-best-we-know-so-far, is subject to change and to future updates (as theories often are).


(type into google for a list of theist contributions if your interested)

No one is denying that some theists have contributed significantly to science. That’s not the issue. The point isn’t that belief in God disqualifies someone from doing good science—clearly, it doesn’t. The point is that science itself doesn’t proceed by appealing to God or scripture. It moves forward by observation, evidence, falsifiability, and peer review—regardless of the beliefs of the person doing the work. Newton believed in God; Darwin didn’t. What matters is not their theology, but the testability and predictive power of their ideas.

Yes, evolutionary theory—like all scientific theories—is open to revision. That’s a feature of science, not a flaw. But let’s be clear: it has withstood over 160 years of scrutiny, mountains of fossil evidence, genetic confirmation, and direct observation. No theological doctrine comes close to that standard of self-correction or empirical validation. Saying “evolution might change someday” doesn’t bolster theology—it just reaffirms that science admits when it’s wrong. Theism, by contrast, starts with its conclusion and works backward to reinterpret anything that contradicts it.

So no, retroactively claiming that evolution was God’s tool all along isn’t a meaningful contribution. It’s an after-the-fact rebranding. It didn’t come from divine revelation—it came from Darwin, Wallace, and thousands of scientists who followed the evidence, not the scriptures. Typing into Google won’t change that.

Just See post #36 (apologies haven't got my glasses, too much squinting)

What one can say is simple: there’s a fundamental difference between faith without evidence and inference from evidence over time. No, we haven’t sat around for billions of years watching stars form—but we don’t need to. Just like forensic scientists don’t need to witness a murder to reconstruct what happened, cosmologists don’t need to personally observe each stage of stellar evolution to understand the process. We have snapshots across space and time—redshift data, background radiation, elemental spectra, and stellar life cycle modeling—that all independently converge on the same timeline. That’s not blind faith; it’s reasoned inference from measurable data.

Atheism isn’t about making up a competing mythology. It’s about withholding belief in a claim until the evidence justifies it. You’re trying to flatten the distinction between “we can’t observe everything” and “therefore all explanations are equal.” That’s false equivalence. Science acknowledges what it can’t observe directly, but it builds models that explain, predict, and are open to correction. Theistic claims like “God did it” explain nothing, predict nothing, and are immune to correction. One is a method. The other is a belief.

So when you ask, “What can one say when we can’t witness such things?” the answer is: we gather evidence, we build testable models, and we let the data speak. That’s what separates science from speculation—and evidence from wishful thinking.

NHC