• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Magic

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
How does life created by a certain organization of atoms differ from magic?

A cause and effect which can be verified/tested.

Magic assumes the reality of supernatural causes. Supernatural causes can't be falsified so basically you can imply any cause and effect relationship and not worry about it being shown to be wrong.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Magic is smoke and mirrors: "Pick a card. Any card." What you pick really isn't any card at all. Life created by a certain organization of atoms is actually life created by a certain organization of atoms.

.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
How does life created by a certain organization of atoms differ from magic?
1) Magic doesn't exist.

2) Life does.

3) Once there was no life.

Ergo, life came to be, by some non-magical process that we are only just beginning to understand.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I don't know... that chemistry works seems rather magical.
Aha, well, you see, you should have studied chemistry! ;)

Actually it helps a lot of you know a bit of thermodynamics. The big apparent puzzle about life is the way ordered systems apparently arise from a less highly ordered state. But it is all driven by the "running down" of heat, from the high temperature of the sun (i.e. where our light comes from)* to the low temperature of cold space. This increases entropy, so, overall, the level of disorder is increasing, just as you would expect.


*Some of it may have been driven by high temperature from other sources, such as the interior of the Earth.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
OMG!

It must be magic!

Structure-of-Water.jpg


Those hydrogen atoms just like to stick to oxygen atoms. And they all do it in the same way! It must be magic!
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
1) Magic doesn't exist.

I guess I’ll have to agree with you there.

2) Life does.

Ditto

3) Once there was no life.

Hmm.. Requires an agreement about time.

Ergo, life came to be, by some non-magical process that we are only just beginning to understand.

There’s that time thing again. Agreed that life is not magical and we’re only beginning to understand it.
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
Aha, well, you see, you should have studied chemistry! ;)

Actually it helps a lot of you know a bit of thermodynamics. The big apparent puzzle about life is the way ordered systems apparently arise from a less highly ordered state. But it is all driven by the "running down" of heat, from the high temperature of the sun (i.e. where our light comes from)* to the low temperature of cold space. This increases entropy, so, overall, the level of disorder is increasing, just as you would expect.


*Some of it may have been driven by high temperature from other sources, such as the interior of the Earth.

Absolutely amazing... and magical
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
A cause and effect which can be verified/tested.

Magic assumes the reality of supernatural causes. Supernatural causes can't be falsified so basically you can imply any cause and effect relationship and not worry about it being shown to be wrong.

Bull.

Sorry, but....bull.

I'm a firm follower of Clark's three laws, the third of which...and the most famous, is:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

"Magic" is the name given by the ignorant to things done by people who know how. Just because YOU don't think something is possible because YOU can't find and identify the precise cause....yet....doesn't mean it can't be done.

If you don't think so, try putting yourself in the shoes of some early student of, say, Ptolemy, and consider what HE would think of living in a home powered by solar panels.

Are you of the opinion that we, the human race and all the scientists in it, are at the peak of our knowledge and cannot learn to do more amazing stuff.....that WE could ascribe to magic?

The point is, that if any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, that is, you CAN'T TELL THEM APART, then (whisper this) They are the same thing.

Look you. Look at all the miracles related in the bible (well, except the stopping the earth thing at Jericho and perhaps the world wide flood, though modern climate change people seem to believe we are well on the way to duplicating THAT). There isn't a single one that OUR sufficiently advanced civilization can't replicate. With a great deal of expense, trouble and time, and generally to no purpose, but I can't think of one.

So when I hear someone say 'magic' what I REALLY hear is 'we haven't got a clue how to do that." I do NOT hear "only God or the devil can do that." For one thing, I've NEVER heard that 'magic' had to involve a deity.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How does life created by a certain organization of atoms differ from magic?
Magic is effect without natural cause. Abiogenesis seeks to explain the mechanisms of life using known, observable, testable chemistry and physics.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Bull.

Sorry, but....bull.

I'm a firm follower of Clark's three laws, the third of which...and the most famous, is:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

"Magic" is the name given by the ignorant to things done by people who know how. Just because YOU don't think something is possible because YOU can't find and identify the precise cause....yet....doesn't mean it can't be done.

If you don't think so, try putting yourself in the shoes of some early student of, say, Ptolemy, and consider what HE would think of living in a home powered by solar panels.

Are you of the opinion that we, the human race and all the scientists in it, are at the peak of our knowledge and cannot learn to do more amazing stuff.....that WE could ascribe to magic?

The point is, that if any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, that is, you CAN'T TELL THEM APART, then (whisper this) They are the same thing.

Look you. Look at all the miracles related in the bible (well, except the stopping the earth thing at Jericho and perhaps the world wide flood, though modern climate change people seem to believe we are well on the way to duplicating THAT). There isn't a single one that OUR sufficiently advanced civilization can't replicate. With a great deal of expense, trouble and time, and generally to no purpose, but I can't think of one.

So when I hear someone say 'magic' what I REALLY hear is 'we haven't got a clue how to do that." I do NOT hear "only God or the devil can do that." For one thing, I've NEVER heard that 'magic' had to involve a deity.

These are ideas for fictional writing. :shrug:

Like Asimov's robotic laws or the Prime Directive from Star Trek.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
These are ideas for fictional writing. :shrug:

Like Asimov's robotic laws or the Prime Directive from Star Trek.

No, Azimovs laws are part of his fiction. So is the 'Prime Directive."

Clark's laws are observations by someone who also writes fiction. He ALSO had degrees....well, here:

Clarke's Laws are a series of three rules attributed to science fiction legend Arthur C. Clarke, intended to help define ways to consider claims about the future of scientific developments. These laws do not contain much in the way of predictive power, so scientists rarely have any reason to explicitly include them in their scientific work.
Despite this, the sentiments that they express generally resonate with scientists, which is understandable since Clarke held degrees in physics and mathematics, so was of a scientific way of thinking himself. Clarke is often credited with having developed the idea of using satellites with geostationary orbits as a telecommunications relay system, based on a paper he wrote in 1945. (Andrew Zimmerman)

As a matter of fact, those three laws were NOT written as part of his science fiction oeuvre...they were published as part of essays written for his scientific peers.

You COULD address the observations themselves rather than dismiss them because Clark wrote science fiction. I mean, really....that's more than a little arrogant of you, don't you think?

....unless you think that someone with degrees in Physics and Mathematics, and who invented the idea of communications satellites, isn't scientific enough to observe, and comment upon, certain perceived truths of life and science that can be codified into 'laws?"
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
No, Azimovs laws are part of his fiction. So is the 'Prime Directive."

Clark's laws are observations by someone who also writes fiction. He ALSO had degrees....well, here:

Clarke's Laws are a series of three rules attributed to science fiction legend Arthur C. Clarke, intended to help define ways to consider claims about the future of scientific developments. These laws do not contain much in the way of predictive power, so scientists rarely have any reason to explicitly include them in their scientific work.
Despite this, the sentiments that they express generally resonate with scientists, which is understandable since Clarke held degrees in physics and mathematics, so was of a scientific way of thinking himself. Clarke is often credited with having developed the idea of using satellites with geostationary orbits as a telecommunications relay system, based on a paper he wrote in 1945. (Andrew Zimmerman)

As a matter of fact, those three laws were NOT written as part of his science fiction oeuvre...they were published as part of essays written for his scientific peers.

You COULD address the observations themselves rather than dismiss them because Clark wrote science fiction. I mean, really....that's more than a little arrogant of you, don't you think?

....unless you think that someone with degrees in Physics and Mathematics, and who invented the idea of communications satellites, isn't scientific enough to observe, and comment upon, certain perceived truths of life and science that can be codified into 'laws?"

Ok, sure. Tell me, what is the scientific definition of magic? Or at least in the context of Clarke's essay, in his use of the term, what do you think he meant?
 
Top