Creationism = Pure Freaking Magic

[Undeceived]

'Magic' is associated with demons. It has to do with harnessing power from or moving materials from elsewhere in nature. 'Miracles' are done with no natural power at all, but power from a higher being. I think the word you're looking for is 'Supernatural'.

mag·ic/ˈmajik/
Noun:
The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Nope, no demons mentioned anywhere. But supernatural is included in its definition. Therefore, demons are magic, miracles are magic and your god is magic.

I use the definition of the root and history of the word, not contemporary dictionary.com's. "Magic" came from "Magi", or followers of Zoroaster. Zoroaster led a short-lived religion of sorts. Since no God is involved, it has been the long-standing view of the church (and therefore society) that demons were involved. If demons were involved, that would indeed mean supernatural. Without the help of spirits, however, all forms of magic have, in thought, relied on shifting powers in the natural world. There are three options: supernatural from spiritual forces of good; supernatural from spiritual forces of evil; and natural manipulation. Magic has never been used to describe God because it has always been associated with demons by society. If you want to bend definitions for your own purposes, okay. But it is obvious you are using a word with bad stigma solely to defame God. That people like me are upset by the use only shows the true connotation of the word.

Anything before the universe is not natural and therefore supernatural. In nature, all things have a catalyst. Therefore either the Big Bang had a supernatural catalyst or had no cause at all... which has no empirical support. Pick your poison. Either you believe in the supernatural or you have faith in some principle you do not yet know about.

Your argument refutes itself. Your definition of nature assumes "all things have a catalyst". Therefore, it is not limited to Big-Bang and nature can extend prior to it.

If everything before the universe is not natural, then by definition it does not have a cause. If it is natural, then it has a natural cause and there is no need to invoke supernatural.

My definition of nature assumes "all things have a catalyst" because every observed action in nature has had a catalyst. If all evidence points to action-reaction, we would be fools to suppose there is just one thing that originated spontaneously. That is rejection of the scientific method.

The "Big Bang" theory is itself a response to scientific need. The theory of Evolution requires a beginning, we see that entropy is running down, and we see the universe expanding, so therefore we produce a "Big Bang" in our heads to fit this criteria. There is no other evidence for the Big Bang. You might notice that creation fits these same criteria. Therefore you cannot assume the Big Bang in order to say all is natural and always has been. "Natural", by the usual definition, means material. In our natural observed world, all material actions have material energy as the cause. Before material, what caused material if there was no material?