(May 29, 2012 at 3:38 am)Undeceived Wrote: 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.
So, first you admit to using outdated and not contemporary knowledge. Second, even in case of Zoroastrianism, god is involved. They had a god, his name was Ahura Mazda - who was considered the spiritual force of good. Therefore, by that standard, option number 1 is correct. Magic is supernatural from spiritual forces of good as well. None of this involves either my subjective interpretation or any personal agenda. It is your church that uses propoganda to attach negative connotation to magic and, according to contemporary dictionary, failed miserably.
(May 29, 2012 at 3:38 am)Undeceived Wrote: 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?
Is there an argument somewhere in all this blather. Wait, I think I see it. Your question about "before material". Can you in fact show that there was something "before material". And I'm not even going to comment on the abysmal stupidity you are spouting here.
