What's the difference between magic tricks and miracles?

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are things that should not reasonably happen, that do happen.
depending on context we call it either a miracle or magic.
There are two forms of each.
A miracle can happen spontaneously or as the result of a request or prayer. The first we may ascribe to extreme luck or chance, and the second to an act of God. Neither is explainable by reason, or by the application of present day science.
Magic is usually seen as an "impossibility" performed as a trick or by misdirection.
"Real" magic. like miracles, require "Faith" or misplaced belief, as there is no evidence that it exists.

It is unfortunate that Miracles in the bible are used as proof of the power of God or the Deity of Jesus, when "Miracles" are as yet unproven themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many theists believe in miracles but not in magic. Most atheists I've talked to dismiss both miracles and magic. It seems to be that there's a close relationship between the two. Magic is defined as "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." A miracle is said to be "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

To me, the difference is primarily in that, where magic is concerned, we recognize that the magician is performing a trick by sleight of hand or some such thing. We know that it's explainable, even if we can't figure out how he does it. When we describe something as a miracle, we simply say that there is no explanation for what happened. The theist will give credit to God and the atheist will say that there is a scientific reason behind it, even if we can't understand what it is.

In my opinion, magic is something certain humans can perform that appears to baffle other humans. Miracles are something God can perform that appears to baffle all humans. Other than that, there is really no difference. Neither one breaks any laws of nature, but both require us to recognize that there are events in life for which we have no explanations. This is not due to the fact that they cannot be explained. We just haven't found the answers to them yet.

I'll set stage illusions and sleight-of-hand tricks aside: I wouldn't consider them actual magic... they're more the illusion of magic.

I think both terms "magic" and "miracle" appeal to the idea of the supernatural. IOW, I think that most people would say that something isn't a miracle unless it breaks - or at least steps beyond - the limits of nature.

I think that many people use "magic" to denigrate supernatural claims they don't believe in and "miracle" to describe supernatural claims they do believe in.

Personally, I see "magic" as meaning "actions performed using supernatural means" and "miracle" as meaning "actions performed by God using supernatural means." By this formulation, miracles are a category of magic.

 

[chinu]

What's the difference between magic tricks and miracles?

Magic trick is an action performed by a magician in front of the people. (for the sake of earning).
Whereas, Miracle is an action performed by a magician to please his own kid, or kids. (Its a family matter)

Mad is the kid, who want his "FATHER" to perform a miracle, or a magic-trick in order to prove himself as real "FATHER"

If "FATHER" will not perform a magic-trick, or a miracle, then kid will not accept "Him" as "FATHER"

hahahaha..... poor kid

 

[EnjoyTheJourney]

A miracle to me, is something that happens against the odds, and often when all hope has been lost. It does not mean divine intervention, just that something happened to facilitate a positive result that was highly unexpected. A 'true' miracle would be something that shouldn't be able to happen but does, for example a person is trapped under a car and the car self levitates and releases the person. That to me would imply 'divine intervention'.
Magic can either imply stage magic (sleight of hand) or the use of the mind/ will to attempt to effect change in the subjective universe.
The placebo effect/ mind over matter would also be potentially a form of magic for example, which is scientifically proven but as yet not fully understood.

 

[oldbadger]

Then I guess that I do not know of any extreme atheists. By the way, a deist would also believe that miracles were at best misinterpretations of observed events.

So you do accept that the bible does contain plenty of true stories?

 

[Katzpur]

There are things that should not reasonably happen, that do happen.
depending on context we call it either a miracle or magic.
There are two forms of each.
A miracle can happen spontaneously or as the result of a request or prayer. The first we may ascribe to extreme luck or chance, and the second to an act of God. Neither is explainable by reason, or by the application of present day science.
Magic is usually seen as an "impossibility" performed as a trick or by misdirection.
"Real" magic. like miracles, require "Faith" or misplaced belief, as there is no evidence that it exists.

It is unfortunate that Miracles in the bible are used as proof of the power of God or the Deity of Jesus, when "Miracles" are as yet unproven themselves.

This is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in my OP. I don't think I stated my position very well, so if everyone will just pretend this is the OP, we can proceed.

 

[sooda]

So you do accept that the bible does contain plenty of true stories?

Which ones are true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you do accept that the bible does contain plenty of true stories?

Some true stories, some bad history, some clear myths. It is quite the mixture. I don't know if I would use the claim "plenty of true stories". For example finding the city of Jericho does not support the story about Joshua. When it come to what look to be mythical claims of how a defeat occurred strong evidence is needed and none is ever produced.

 

[blü 2]

Magic is defined as "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." A miracle is said to be "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency."

To me, the difference is primarily in that, where magic is concerned, we recognize that the magician is performing a trick by sleight of hand or some such thing. We know that it's explainable, even if we can't figure out how he does it. When we describe something as a miracle, we simply say that there is no explanation for what happened. The theist will give credit to God and the atheist will say that there is a scientific reason behind it, even if we can't understand what it is.

For purposes of this question, I don't think stage magic and special effects come into it. The important subject is magic as an aspect of reality.

Magic is altering reality independently of the rules of physics, often just by wishing. Examples of magic are Genesis 1.3 'Let there be light!', or Harry Potter, reinforcing his wish with a wand and special words: 'Accio broom!'

Notably, no one can tell you what exactly happened as a result of Yahweh's command that brought some or all of the EM spectrum into existence; or what exactly happened as a result of Harry's command, or the precise role of the wand or the special words.

For an intelligent and very readable sidling up to the problem, but not a solution, you might or might not enjoy Eliezer Yudkowsky's >Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality<. There's a Wikipedia outline of the book >here<. One of the reasons why it's relevant is that by contrast, theology has never taken a rational, analytical approach to miracles. If I thought miracles were real, I'd be voting for an extremely thorough enquiry, for their enormous potential commercially, militarily and for medicine and human wellbeing generally.

 

[sooda]

So you do accept that the bible does contain plenty of true stories?

Which ones are true?

 

[Katzpur]

If I thought miracles were real, I'd be voting for an extremely thorough enquiry, for their enormous potential commercially, militarily and for medicine and human wellbeing generally.

So if they aren't "real," what are they?

 

[blü 2]

So if they aren't "real," what are they?

If they're not false reports, or errors, or incomplete information, then they're unexplained phenomena.

Why would an unexplained phenomenon imply that 'supernatural being' is a meaningful term and that one or more of them in fact has objective existence?

And that brings us back to another well-known unexplained phenomenon, which everyone tries to laugh off: Why can't God heal amputees?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If they're not false reports, or errors, or incomplete information, then they're unexplained phenomena.

Why would an unexplained phenomenon imply that 'supernatural being' is a meaningful term and that one or more of them in fact has objective existence?

And that brings us back to another well-known unexplained phenomenon, which everyone tries to laugh off: Why can't God heal amputees?

It is alost certain that one day medical science with find a way for the human body to bud missing limbs and parts, In the way some animals can do so naturally. That will not be a miracle, but applied science. It is reasonable to suppose that God can do anything that can be done by science.
That he does not always choose to do so, does not invalidate that supposition.
It would appear that the author and veracity of a miracles is always left in doubt and the subject of Faith. The miraculous regrowing of a limb would leave no doubt, and would not be suject to Faith. So perhaps that is why we see no examples of it happening.

 

[blü 2]

It is alost certain that one day medical science with find a way for the human body to bud missing limbs and parts, In the way some animals can do so naturally. That will not be a miracle, but applied science. It is reasonable to suppose that God can do anything that can be done by science.

That depends on a number of factors, such as whether God is real or imaginary, a being with objective existence or a human conceptual construct.

But if God is real and if God is as described in [his] billing, then [he] can do anything whether human science can do it or not, such is the nature of omnipotence. But only when [he] does it independently of the rules of physics is it magic, no?

It would appear that the author and veracity of a miracles is always left in doubt and the subject of Faith. The miraculous regrowing of a limb would leave no doubt, and would not be suject to Faith. So perhaps that is why we see no examples of it happening.

If God's absence from the scene of healing amputees is evidence of [his] disinclination to act in any but ambiguous situations, it's vastly more potent evidence for [his] non-existence, surely?

 

[oldbadger]

Which ones are true?

The ones that I believe did happen, some way or other.

Which ones from G-Mark don't you like?

 

[oldbadger]

Some true stories, some bad history, some clear myths. It is quite the mixture. I don't know if I would use the claim "plenty of true stories". For example finding the city of Jericho does not support the story about Joshua. When it come to what look to be mythical claims of how a defeat occurred strong evidence is needed and none is ever produced.

OK...... so you don't like the story about the defeat of Jericho.

But then, just 25 miles up the road from where I live is Rochester Castle. You should see it's immense walls, and a whole corner of that enormous Keep was brought crashing down against high odds.

I don't know what happened to Jericho, but Joshua could have caused it's defeat. The embellished story should be seen to be propaganda rather than myth, I expect.

When I think of the real whoppers in the bible I think of some of the apostle John's ideas about truth.

 

[oldbadger]

Which ones are true?

Again, I reply that the ones I believe in are true.

Which don't you like? We might be in accord?

 

[sooda]

OK...... so you don't like the story about the defeat of Jericho.

But then, just 25 miles up the road from where I live is Rochester Castle. You should see it's immense walls, and a whole corner of that enormous Keep was brought crashing down against high odds.

I don't know what happened to Jericho, but Joshua could have caused it's defeat. The embellished story should be seen to be propaganda rather than myth, I expect.

When I think of the real whoppers in the bible I think of some of the apostle John's ideas about truth.

There were 9 layers of Jericho dating back to the Natufians. but at the time of the Exodus it had been abandoned.

The Exodus is myth as is Genesis and Numbers. Solomon's "empire" wasn't grand or glorious.. He had no copper mines.. those belonged to Egypt and then to the Canaanites...

Which stories do you believe?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That depends on a number of factors, such as whether God is real or imaginary, a being with objective existence or a human conceptual construct.

But if God is real and if God is as described in [his] billing, then [he] can do anything whether human science can do it or not, such is the nature of omnipotence. But only when [he] does it independently of the rules of physics is it magic, no?
If God's absence from the scene of healing amputees is evidence of [his] disinclination to act in any but ambiguous situations, it's vastly more potent evidence for [his] non-existence, surely?

I would be more inclined to say it is proof neutral, and contributes no preferential proof either way.
Both believers and unbelievers would say that it supports their view.
but then they would wouldn't they.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK...... so you don't like the story about the defeat of Jericho.

But then, just 25 miles up the road from where I live is Rochester Castle. You should see it's immense walls, and a whole corner of that enormous Keep was brought crashing down against high odds.

I don't know what happened to Jericho, but Joshua could have caused it's defeat. The embellished story should be seen to be propaganda rather than myth, I expect.

When I think of the real whoppers in the bible I think of some of the apostle John's ideas about truth.

Yes, Joshua could have defeated Jericho. That part would be history. That simply marching around caused the crash would be myth. When magic becomes part of a story it is myth and not propaganda.