I believe in magic.
Really.
Not the ‘pull a rabbit out of an empty hat’ kind of thing.
That’s ‘illusion’.
There’s always a gimmick that explains the illusion.
I believe in REAL magic.
The kind of magic that happens everywhere.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, I hold in my hand an ordinary seed.”
“I say the magic words, toss the seed from my hand…”
“PRESTO! … the seed drops to the floor!”
*bows*
“I now push that seed, upside down, into some dirt…”
“Pour a little water on the dirt…say the magic words…”
“PRESTO! …the plant magically grows RIGHT SIDE UP!”
*Bows*
“Ladies and Gentlemen, behold this hive full of bees.”
“I wave my hand over the bees, say the magic words…”
“PRESTO!… the bees build a honey comb!”
*Bows*
“Ladies and Gentlemen, behold this spider, hatched in isolation several months ago.”
“This spider has no formal engineering education.”
“I wave my hand over the spider, say the magic words…”
“PRESTO! …the spider constructs a web!
*bows*
“Ladies and Gentlemen, behold this single human cell.”
“I wave my hand over the cell, say the magic words…”
“PRESTO! …now there are two cells! Identical in every detail!”
*bows*
“Ladies and Gentlemen, look into this microscope.”
“Those are molecules.”
“I wave my hand over the molecules, say the magic words…”
“PRESTO! …the molecules arrange themselves into a double-helix DNA strand!”
*bows*
“For my last trick, I wave my hand over you, the audience….”
“You, a collection of molecules; an ordinary sack of inert chemicals…”
“I say a few magic words…”
“PRESTO! …you are self-aware! You are conscious!”
“Please, feel free to take that consciousness home with you.”
“It’s a souvenir from the greatest magic show of all time!”*
Anyone who says this ain’t magic…
…go ahead and explain the gimmick behind these ‘illusions’.
* This magic works independently of me. The waving hand gestures and magic word recitation was just for dramatic effect.
114 Responses
Great post. Check out my current and upcoming political and theological posts! Follow for follow. Share anything you like to increase the following and viewership. Thanks. I look forward to your future posts!
I’d like to play the other side of the coin and request that JZ please NOT answer any of the questions posed to him.
The longer he tries to control the dialog–asking about the Magician and never offering his own explanations–the better it gets…
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/55284444.jpg
You really think so?
I’m feeling a little guilty about this.
…like I’m teasing a blind kid.
I’ve worked with lots of blind kids. They’re never as pompous as JZ.
But, if they were, they’d deserve to be taken down a peg, too. 🙂
Agreed. It’s like watching a kitten chase a laser.
Did John and JZ switch personalities in this thread or something? John, I think you make a better atheist than JZ.
I would make a terrible atheist because I can think.
Touché. My apologies for that slur against your intelligence.
I didn’t take it personally!
Just using it to reaffirm our united front against atheism.
I just find it hilarious that JZ constantly tries to accuse people of “evading” different subjects, and yet that is ALL I have seen him do on these posts. Sure he may post really long and very boring replies (maybe that’s just because my feeble little mind can’t handle them), but even I can see that that is all he ever does (well, that and quote himself over and over)
It is wonderful for a laugh, and come on guys, it wouldn’t be as entertaining without Carmen, Tildeb, and himself trying to convert us over!
Hi chancerogers
Apologies, but I don’t recall evading anything. Can you let me know what I’ve evaded and I’ll answer it immediately.
JZ, pro tip: you still haven’t explained magic without a magician.
So John Zande, if you asked a Christian “Can you explain the method that you use to come to the conclusion that you came to? How do you decide what parts of the Bible to take (or what not to take) literally?” And they answered with “Hi John, In regards to this particular section of scripture, I’m afraid to say you’d just have to read the Bible including the often baffling sections so as to understand the complete picture. Regretfully, it’s not something that can be easily paraphrased in any meaningful or coherent manner. The theme, though, should be quite apparent.” Would you find that reply satisfactory or criticize them for dodging the question?
Hi Matt
No one is talking about the bible, so I’m unsure what your point is.
Lol! Yes, you do know what his point is! hahaha!
And everybody reading already knows the answer to his question, too.
There’s NO WAY you’d accept a reply like the one you tried to give Matthew up thread.
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/65440567.jpg
Errrum, no I don’t.
Who mentioned the bible?
If he’d like to explain then great… Until then, sorry. I really have no idea what he’s talking about as it regards this post.
It’s not about the Bible. (Dolt.)
Pick ANY book, article, or series of blog posts–and if somebody tried to tell you, “Well, I can’t explain. Just go read what I’ve read, and you’ll agree with me” you’d accuse them of evading.
Apparently, even newbies can see how you operate. It’s fantastic.
JZ’s official position is, “NOT whatever you said”.
Yes.
…except for when he’s this guy:
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/59245429.jpg
I asked you an “A or B” question, I didn’t think you could “C” your way out of it. But I will explain my point, however.
There is a broader context here spanning a number of John’s recent posts and discussions taking place on those, especially over the last few days. This particular post is not here in isolation, but is rather a continuation of those other threads (all dealing with the teleology, the designer, the design) going back over the last three or four (or five?) posts.
And I believe, in those posts, the Bible is mentioned. Of course, I could be wrong. But if you go back even further to “Put the ‘Fun’ in Fundamentalism”, you and Tildeb criticized mrsmcmommy and John Branyan for taking parts of the Bible literally and figuratively, asking for a method to differentiate between the two truths.
So I was wondering if you figured out their method of differentiating the literal from the figurative, since there was no literal mention of a designer in this post.
Yes, you’re wrong. The bible was not mentioned. Not in any thread i was participating in. Maybe further back, but it’s not important to this context. As you say, this is about teleology. Teleology is not in the bible. It is natural theology.
To your last point, how can you have Magic without a Magician?
Does not one imply (demand) the other?
Tell him about how protozoa suffered billions of years ago!! That’ll answer his question!
If you want to disagree with neurologists from across the world, those who have signed the Cambridge Declaration on Consciouness, then by all means, John, prove them wrong.
I’m sure your career as an amateur comedian trumps their decades of neurological science and tenured academic careers.
I look forward to reading your published paper.
Curious, which journal will you be publishing in?
“Book of Romans suggests that you’re a nitwit without God.” The book of Romans is in the Bible-if I recall. I said that the Bible was mentioned in the posts, not the threads. You’re the one who mentioned the last three or four (or five?) posts. But how do you know that the previous posts aren’t important in this context? How do you decide what posts to choose or not to choose?
Oh, I didn’t see your last questions. No one talked about a Magician in this post, so I’m unsure what your point is.
I’ll thank you for educating myself?
True, no Magician is mentioned. Magic, though, is. Repeatedly.
So, can you explain how one can have Magic without a Magician?
Surely, if there is no Magician then what appears to be Magic is, despite initial appearances, natural.
I’d be interested to hear your explanation.
You’re so close! So very close!
But you’re stubborn materialism is blinding you. Ask God for a little wisdom and see if the light comes on!
I believe in the Magician and the Magic.
Curious, just how many times do you want me to say this?
Pwerhaps now you’ll address the question put to you?
One can only hope.
There must be a purpose, John.
I answered.
You haven’t.
Please do….
No…no….no. You’re moving in the wrong direction now. Cutting and pasting instead of thinking…
You didn’t ask God for help, did you? You should. These are not cut and paste concepts. The answer to your question is literally RIGHT IN FRONT of you but your atheism won’t let you see it.
I’m not talking about your god, John.
I have given my explanation for this universe.
You haven’t.
Please do.
I have answered, JZ.
You’re too blind to see it.
Atheism has sucked away all rationality.
Without wisdom, you’re doomed.
I’ll give you a hint.
You asked, “So, can you explain how one can have Magic without a Magician?”
It’s like a megaphone screaming in your face! Do you STILL not see it?
Nice deflection, John, but you haven’t answered what was put to you.
There must be a purpose, John.
I answered.
I can go into greater detail if you like.
Ask me any question you like and I will answer it without hesitation.
I promise you this.
But first, could you please do me, and everyone reading this thread, the courtesy of answering the question put to you.
Why is this universe painted in impenetrable naturalism? What purpose does this serve the Magician, Yhwh?
It is only ‘impenetrable naturalism’ to you, JZ. Wisdom sees God everywhere.
Please, no more deflections John.
It’s childiesh, and people are reading.
Here, I’ll even start you off:
“The universe is painted in impenetrable naturalism because Yhwh…
“The universe is painted in impenetrable naturalism for those who refuse to acknowledge God.”
And to repeat, I believe in the Magic and the Magician.
We’ve established that.
I, however, have a different concept of that Magician and His disposition.
So, the problem exist. The universe is painted in impenetrable naturalism. The fundamental laws of interaction dictate all things without sentiment or bias. Chemical reactions occur the same way, every time. We see no super-natural…
But there is a Magician.
He exists.
The question is, why has the Creator purposefully shielded Himself behind this wall of APPARENT naturalism?
What purpose does this serve?
Why don’t chemists and physicist suspect His existence?
Why not make it clear to all who look?
So, again: why has the Creator purposefully shielded Himself behind this wall of APPARENT naturalism?
Surely there’s an answer.
I have given you my answer, my explanation… and I’ll happily go into greater detail. No problem.
Now, please John, answer the question put to you.
To start you off:
“I believe the universe is painted in impenetrable (apparent) naturalism because Yhwh….
These are all questions that are answered by religion, JZ. Unlike you, I don’t cut and paste stuff from my library of assumptions.
Moses asked God for his name and received the response, “I Am”. Figuring out what that means is part of the faith journey.
I have answered you.
The universe IS NOT veiled by ‘impenetrable materialism’ for millions and millions of people. You are an outdated, irrelevant noise pitting yourself against the symphony of God’s creation. The fact that you’re here, talking with me, is testimony that God has not forgotten you. He’s still calling your name.
If you ever surrender your impenetrable arrogance, you’ll be in a position to be overwhelmed by the Truth.
Actually, John, you sought me out, remember? I don’t search for Christian blogs. I don’t even know how to. You came to my blog first, that is how we met. Then you kept trolling blogs I frequent, which is what started this series of posts here.
And yes, the universe is cloaked in impenetrable naturalism. You have just ADMITTED that on another thread, on another post.
On that thread you, John, have placed the Magician way, way, way back to that moment when the fundamental laws of interaction were sealed in place… a natural thing to occur as the universe cooled from 100 nonillion Kelvin to 1 billion Kelvin.
That’s fine.
As I said, I accept that.
The Magician did this, consciously, deliberately, and then, it appears, he watched 13.82 billion of history unfold unassisted… unguided.
There was no plan.
No design.
Humans are a cosmic accident, according to you.
I accept that.
That is precisely what the history of this universe shows.
Given the Creator, the question, though, remains:
Why, John, after this DELIBERATE act of cooling the universe at a precise rate, did he, the Magician, Yhwh, leave everything to behave without a single super-natural hint?
Why did he, the Magician, Yhwh, make it so that chemists and biologists and physicists and geologists all saw only natural processes at work?
Why do this?
What PURPOSE, John, does this serve?
What PURPOSE, John, does this DELIBERATE ANONYMITY serve?
Again, I have answered.
You have not.
Please do.
If you have, in fact answered these questions, then what does that make you, JZ? Apply that infallible logic of yours. If you have correctly answered what purpose the deliberate anonymity serves…who must you be?
Ok, thanks for that, John.
I’d like to say I’ve been enlightened (and even educated) by your thoughts, but sadly, regretfully, I cannot.
If you ever think of an answer to the question put to you, then I’d be excited to read it.
John Zande, how were you able to figure out that John Branyan was positing a designer? I only read the word “magic”.
Do you mean to say, through context, you were able to derive some sort of other message than what the text of the post said? Can you describe your method of interpereting how to read this? Because, I read this literally and came to the conclusion that Christians believe in magic. Nothing about a designer here.
Hi Matt
Taken in isolation, I can certainly see your point, but there is a broader context here spanning a number of John’s recent posts and discussions taking place on those, expecially over the last few days. This particular post is not here in isolation, but is rather a continutation of those other threads (all dealing with the teleology, the designer, the design) going back over the last three or four (or five?) posts. John has a habit, however, of leaving threads in which he’s become uncomfortable and penning a new post in the hope of diverting attention onto something else, something new… but not actually new.
Thank you for the reply, John Zande. Sorry for the delayed reply, but I had my undivided attention on my job, and I didn’t think that replying to comments on blogs took precedence over my employment- surely you could understand.
My point, however, was not questioning whether your inference of what John Branyan implied (or didn’t) was correct, but rather questioning the method in which your inference was made. I mentioned that there was a literal message being given, and a literal message that was not there. I was wondering how you knew not to interpret this literally- but rather- figuratively. Luckily, you gave me a clue in to how you interpret what you read (at least on occasion). Note, I am paraphrasing a bit, but I want to make sure I have this correct.
First, you pointed out that, in isolation, you can miss a broader scope of what is going on in the text- sometimes there is a broader context. Then, you hinted that the author could be writing for a particular audience. Thirdly, you pointed out the importance of the timing in which the text is written. Also, you pointed out that there can be connections between different texts over a period of time. Next, you pointed out that understanding the topics discussed by the author is also important to understanding what is going on in the text. Following that, you mentioned that the writing style of the author also lead you to interpreting the text a certain way. Finally, you mentioned the intention of the author was an important element of your inference.
So, I guess my question is: How would you explain to a new reader of The Comedy Sojourn what blogs-or statements therein- to take literally or figuratively? For apparently, I wasn’t completely right in my literal assessment. How could I know if a blog was independently sufficient or if I needed surrounding blogs to understand the context? Can you explain the method that you use to come to the conclusion that you came to? How do you decide what parts to take (or what not to take) literally?
Hi Matt
In regards to this particular post, I’m afraid to say you’d just have to read the preceding 3 or 4 or 5 posts, and the often baffling threads, so as to understand the complete picture. Regretfully, it’s not something that can be easily paraphrased in any meaningful or coherent manner. The theme, though, should be quite apparent.
JZ, Matthew replied below. Sometimes the threads get messed up, so I wanted to make sure you saw it…
I find it remarkable that when you describe those instances of magic, they must have been performed, while if you describe them as natural processes, then of course they just happened. It’s like the word itself is magic.
LOL at john zande’s (apparently copy-n-paste) reply. In the same breath, he says that nature, with all its microbes, disease, etc., is “uncensored, untwisted, uncorrupted”, and that the aforementioned corruption is an indictment of the Creator. In the next, he condemns the pain, suffering, and other “ethical horrors” found in the natural state; but, without a Lawgiver, without an external standard, whence comes his sense of outrage? Why are these not simply what *is*, along with life, in the naturalistic view? Why be disappointed that suffering, pain, and death exist?
You got a lot of nerve, Michael, expecting answers from an atheist.
JZ doesn’t need to lower himself to answer questions from the likes of you.
Now, go back and read about the struggle of bees…
We’ve covered that with our Atheist friends before, Michael. You’re spot on!
(Although. JZ will tell you that he’s allowed to criticize the Lawgiver if he temporarily puts on his “Christian Hat.”) 🙂
You only ASSUME we covered that before.
Where’s your empirical, peer-reviewed evidence?
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/60295255.jpg
Hi Michael, as the post is positing a “designer,” following the general teleological argument, articulated best by Paley, I’m using that as the “standard” from which to assess the claim.
You do posit a “good” designer, do you not?
Michael can certainly answer this if he chooses but I wanted to point out to you that this post has nothing to do with design. It’s about ‘magic’.
Why don’t you just cut and paste whatever you want us to read from your book? Or, better yet, post chapters of your book on your own blog!
Quit asking questions when you’re not interested in the answers.
Magic by the designer, right?
Listen, John, it all seems rather odd you posting this post then refusing to talk about it.
Are you regretting posting it?
Hey, look, JZ is wearing his Theist hat again!
It’s almost like coherent thought is impossible without it! Weird.
Don’t antagonize him!
He’ll start spewing about the viruses in bee’s skin and how much it sucked to be a protozoa billions of years ago…!
You appear to be looking for God under every rock, because He didn’t even get a mention in this blog post and still you reference His (lack of) existence. John was merely pointing out that he believes in magic. How bold, how assumptive, how accusing of you to make the presumption that John is talking about a Designer! You are doing the very thing you hate being done to you! But I guess you can be forgiven because the golden rule doesn’t apply to you.
Also, here’s a mind-blowing statement for you: the existence of God and the existence of suffering do not have to be mutually exclusive. *GASP!*
Hi Jasmine, as you have asked essentially whjat Matthew has I’ll just answer with what I wrote to him:
Michael, I am genuinely curious… What, in your mind, would the “correct” conclusion be?
Are you by chance related to Bill – Tides: you can’t explain that! – O’Reilly?
No relation.
John, this is GREAT. Thank you.
Most welcome.
Thanks for reading.
Still with the Watchmaker argument, huh? Okay, as William Paley wrote in a wild flight of blinded fantasy:
Nice stuff! Under the microscope, the bee’s outer body is however found to be infested with the ferocious varroa mite, their airways riddled with impatiently greedy acarine (tracheal) mites, their intestines ravaged by the veracious nosema apis, and their hives, where some degree of safety should at least be expected, is instead crowded with gluttonous bacillus larvae and the hideous Brood Disease.
These are the realities of the natural world: uncensored, untwisted, uncorrupted. As the uniquely qualified evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington, David Barash noted:
Also, as you’re talking about plants, did you know that although not cognitively aware of the sensation of pain, plants not only experience suffering (in the form of chemical panic felt by the entire organism via electrical impulses transmitted across the plasmodesmata), but it is now known that they live in fear of their peculiar understanding of pain . Located deep inside the plant genome, isolated within the first intron MPK4, lay three ancient genes (PR1, PR2, PR5) that have revealed to researchers that MPK4 is devoted to negative regulation of the PR gene expression. This gene expression is anticipatory. It is expectant. It is preparatory. It is fearful. If translated to the human experience, it is what human observer would identify with as a deep-rooted, physiologically hardwired paranoia; a most ancient anxiety.
To repeat David Barash’s observation: “that suffering is built into the nature of things.”
Quite the design, huh?
Wow. Way to put a damper on all positivity. Great prose and great use of logical progressions to the wrong conclusion: Life Sucks. Thanks, that adds so much value to our lives and gives us a much better purpose and reason for being here. Purpose: Kill or be killed. The end. Yay! I need to go find some Prozac after reading this.
My life doesn’t suck. Does yours?
And what would be the “correct” conclusion be? That the “designer” (Yhwh) is maximally good but thoroughly incompetent and has lost total control of his creation?
Thanks for the demonstrating the magical powers of consciousness, reason and intent.
However, your comment has nothing to do with my post.
You’re apparently very proud of this thought as you’ve used it all over the internet:
https://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/on-natural-theology/?iframe=true&preview=true
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/12/dying-the-way-that-nature-intended-appeal-to-nature-fallacies/
https://silenceofmind.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/the-omnimalevalent-god-or-how-the-atheist-ruthlessly-murders-his-own-argument/comment-page-1/
https://thenakedtruth2.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/wake-up-thou-that-sleepest/
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/the-trouble-with-atheists/
We have Google where I live too!
Are you even bothering to read the posts, or do you just cut and paste from a standard list of responses to theists?
Yes, it’s from my book.
Care to address the content, or is that too awkward?
I’m guessing too awkward, cue the diversion….
No. I’m not addressing the content because it’s not on topic.
If I wanted to read your book, I would buy a copy.
Awkward is your apparent obliviousness to the reality that your cut and paste theology isn’t worth responding to.
Not on topic?
You are presenting the teleological argument, aren’t you? You are suggesting here the presence of a “designer,” right?
So, you don’t want to talk about the designer, or the design….
Why then publish this post?
What was the point of it if you didn’t want to talk about it… Or can’t you defend the design?
I’m not interested in rehashing your cut and paste book copy, JZ. You’re gonna talk about suffering bees and squiggly protozoa and chemical angst.
And then you’re going to say you don’t hold a teleological position so you don’t need to answer any of the questions that you pose to us.
Then you’re going to accuse us of ‘diverting’ or ‘running away’ from your devastating questions no matter how we answer (or don’t).
If you have a comment about how these magical feats I cited are accomplished via purely material means, then we’d love to hear it.
But I am granting you your Magic and your Magician.
Everything we see and feel and touch and smell and experience is the direct result of the Magician’s work, the Magician’s wisdom, the magician’s will, the Magician’s design.
The Magician is responsible for this world.
The Magician is responsible for history.
I accept that.
Let’s talk about it.
I never mentioned a Magician.
Only Magic.
Nice try though!
A ‘diversion’ (what you often accuse me of creating) would be to shift the topic from ‘magic’ to ‘magicians’.
The challenge on the table is for skeptics to reveal the gimmick that explains the magic.
The challenge on the table is for skeptics to reveal the gimmick that explains the magic.
No, that’s already been done. ‘Skeptics’ of your magic claims have an explanation that demonstrably works without any necessary ingredient called ‘magic’. That explanation is called the theory of evolution. Rather than label those who understand what Dawkins calls The Greatest Show on Earth ‘skeptics’ call them what they are: ‘educated’. Call those who don’t understand it what they are: ‘uneducated’. Now come back to the seed, the bee, the spider, and marvel at how local units obeying local rules can be expressed in so many divergent and awe-inspiring ways. Then marvel at just how much the uneducated are missing by accepting the poverty of their knowledge with a replacement explanation that explains nothing called ‘magic’. What a shame and a waste.
So you’d rather marvel at ‘local units obeying local rules’ than marvel at ‘magic’? Suit yourself. But your terminology sucks (my opinion).
I hope Disneyland doesn’t change its name to: ‘Local Units Obeying Local Rules Kingdom’…
You ought to go to every magic show you can. During the show, leap to your feet and yell toward the stage:
“I know exactly how that trick works! Evolution!”
Magic without a Magician?
How can you have “Magic” without a “Magician”?
If there is no “Magician” (capital “M” magician) then what we have is perfect and impenetrable material naturalism.
I don’t think this is what you’re positing, but do correct me if I’m wrong.
John, you seem tremendously keen to posit a Magician (a magician named, Yhwh, although you seem painfully reluctant to ever name it), but then preposterously shy, dare I say, embarrassed, to actually talk about the Magician’s magic… his work.
It’s strikingly odd, thoroughly baffling behaviour, John.
Are you embarrassed?
Is this why you don’t want to talk about it?
It’s strikingly odd, thoroughly baffling that you INSIST we introduce a Magician into the conversation.
Magic without a Magician is materialism, JZ. This ought to be right in your strike-zone! The door is WIDE OPEN !
You can’t make a single comment unless we ADD a Magician?
…you should be embarrassed.
Okay, so you’re saying there is no Magician.
What appears to be “magic” is, in fact, material naturalism.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
There is no conscious (magical) agency in nature.
There is no super-natural.
So, you’re denying the existence of your god, Yhwh.
That’s interesting…
Will your next post be on the truth of materialism?
Are you playing a game of “Post As Many Times As Possible Without Addressing The Topic”? If you are, I’ve lost track of your score.
“What appears to be “magic” is, in fact, material naturalism.”
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes!
Go on…!
“There is no conscious (magical) agency in nature.”
Right! Cells duplicating themselves has a NATURAL explanation. What is it? What’s the gimmick? (Is it mirrors…?)
“So, you’re denying the existence of your god, Yhwh.”
…huh?
I’ve not denied anything.
You’re trying to steer this back into your comfort zone, you rascal…
“Will your next post be on the truth of materialism?”
No, dolt.
YOU’RE supposed to be posting on the truth of materialism! You’re supposed to pull away the curtain and show us how the magic ACTUALLY works.
This is the part where you explain why I shouldn’t believe in magic.
Well, now I’m confused.
According to your post, is there, or is there not, a Magician behind the Magic?
It’s a simple question, John.
Yes or no.
Please answer it.
You certainly are confused.
…and you can add 1 to your game score.
You claim there is nothing supernatural. Explain how my magic works. Demolish my mysticism with your Science!
John, to repeat an earlier comment: I am granting you your Magic and your Magician.
I believe you.
I’m on-board, 100%.
Everything we see and feel and touch and smell and experience is the direct result of the Magician’s work, the Magician’s wisdom, the magician’s will, the Magician’s design.
The Magician is responsible for this world.
The Magician is responsible for history.
Let’s talk about it.
I’d like to talk about the magic, but for one peculiar reason or another, it seems you’re preposterously shy, dare I say, embarrassed, to actually talk about the Magician’s magic… his work.
Why is that?
Are you embarrassed?
…and that’s 1 more game point! Geez, you’ve got to be getting close to your personal high score.
Okay, so you are, in fact, saying there is No Magician, and no magic.
There is no Yhwh, no super-natural agency, and what appears to be magic is just a blunder in causal relations.
Have I got that right?
You’re denying the existence of the Magician?
…and that’s 1 more to your game score…
I’ll deny whatever YOU say needs to be denied. No limits! There is nothing supernatural. I’m denying whatever your explanation requires me to deny.
OK then, you’re clear: the Magician (Yhwh) doesn’t exist.
Why write this post, then?
That’s all rather odd, don’t you think?
…and plus 1 to the game score…
There’s nothing in your book? Nothing at all?
Where’s that towering intellect? Humiliate me, JZ! Expose the folly of my superstitious faith!
Or be a grown-up and admit that you’ve lost this round. Your choice (free will y’know).
Lost this round?
That’s an odd thing to say when I am the one trying to talk about the magic, but you keep refusing to do so.
From your behaviour (your continued evasion) anyone reading this can only assume one of two things:
1. You don’t believe there is a Magician and materialism explains this world (which would be a false assumption, as the existence of the Creator is intuitively obvious)
or
2. You do, in fact, believe there’s a Magician, but are too embarrassed (for some reason) to talk about his work.
Which one is it, John?
…and there’s another point! You’re positively unconscious!!
“… I am the one trying to talk about the magic, but you keep refusing to do so.”
So talk about it JZ.
Talk! Talk! Talk! Talk!
I’ve denied everything you require me to deny.
I believe whatever you require me to believe.
The floor is yours!
Explain the magic.
So, is that a:
Yes, the Magician exists
Or
No, there is no Magician and no magic?
Could we clear this up, please…
I’d love to talk about the magic. Isn’t that what I’ve been trying to do?
I’m just thoroughly confused as to whether or not I’m talking to a fellow believer…
Do you believe, John, in the existence of the Magician?
If so, let’s talk about his work.
If not, just say so.
…Fellow believer?
Do you think I’ve suffered a stroke?
Are you not the same chap who stated that the super-natural does not exist?
…oh, and don’t forget to give yourself another game point…
So, is that a:
Yes, the Magician exists
Or
No, there is no Magician and no magic?
Could we clear this up, please…
You tell me.
What’s your position?
We’ll see if we are, in fact, “fellow believers”.
Well, let me just say this has to be one of the most baffling exchanges I’ve ever had with anyone.
You write a post, John, about the certain existence of Magic, to which I agree, but then can’t seem to bring yourself to say that The Magician exists.
How can you deny the existence of the Magician if you so strongly believe in His Magic?
It’s not coherent.
It’s contradictory.
I can’t help but be reminded of Peter denying Jesus (Luke 22:54-62).
I believe in the Magic and the Magician.
Do you?
I doubt your first statement. Any exchange with you will be baffling.
(…that’s another point for you by the way…)
“I believe in the Magic and the Magician.”
YES! Me too!
Go on…!
Finally!
May I ask, why did you deny this for so long?
What made you feel so insecure?
OK! Let’s talk about the disposition of the Magician, revealed as it must be through His design.
William Paley, who we both admire, so accurately said:
A question then to get going.
What is the predominant tendency of the contrivance, John, and what does that tendency reveal of the disposition of the Designer?
And a second question:
As we both believe in the Magician, can you explain why He has painted His Creation in impenetrable naturalism?
This, of course, is an uncontroversial statement. It’s a historical fact, the universe APPEARS material, we can’t actually see or experience anything super-natural, and this historical fact begs an explanation. Why has the Creator purposefully shielded Himself behind this wall of apparent naturalism?
What possible purpose does this serve?
I say it’s because He wishes to remain anonymous, and this is quite on purpose. The Magician, the Creator, does not seek to be known to, or worshipped by, that which He has created, or has allowed to be created. He has given His Creation but one instruction, a command written into the deepest recesses of His Creation, and therefore indistinguishable from Creation itself: to persist and grow more complex. And for 13.82 billion years, that is precisely what matter has done. It has self-embellished and grown more complex.
What do you say, John: Why has the Creator purposefully shielded Himself behind this wall of apparent naturalism?
And, as Paley asked, what does this reveal of His disposition?
In your understanding of the magician, how do you answer these questions?
I’ve already said.
So, how do you?
Sorry, I must have missed those answers.
Please copy and paste them below to refresh my memory.
It’s right above you. It starts with: “I say it’s because…”
Please don’t start your game of evasion, John.
But, to elaborate: Remaining anonymous (hidden behind a seemingly perfect curtain of naturalism) obviates the threat of existential despair. If there is nothing to blame, nothing to accuse of injustice, then there is nothing to rebel against. Revolutionary suicide is not in the Creator’s interest.
So, would you please now answer, or are you just going to evade doing so… Again, and again, and again…
I’m serious, though. If you want to organise your answer/s under a new post, that would be fine. I’d probably even recommend it.
I’m in no rush.
I’ll keep an eye out for the post, and we can go from there.
Oh.
Ditto what you said.
Back to the tired old song and dance evasion, huh?
I see.
Let me know when you want to act like someone who’s in command of their faculties, and not like some petulant Grade Three brat, OK…
… And scene…
Agreement with your answers is evasion?
Boom! You lose, JZ!
Ditch your worthless materialism. Get a worldview that says something.
And John, I’d be happy if you want to frame your answers in an entirely new post.
We can go from there, with a better, clearer, more coherent focus…
That could be wise.
There’s nothing on Wikipedia you can cut and paste?
Have you tried Google?
Maybe your own book! Surely you’ve thoroughly debunked this magic in your book.
Are you starting to lose faith in materialism?
My book is a soaring testimony to the existence of the Creator!
He exists. I prove that beyond a shadow of doubt.
Yet you remain an atheist.
Impressive logic, dolt.
Hey, where are all your friends, JZ? Why are they letting you twist in the wind all by yourself? Shouldn’t you guys be circling the wagons?
You oughta shoot Club an email, invite her to join you in the dismemberment of mystical nonsense. I bet the leopard is hungry!
And where’s Carmen? Shouldn’t she be here cheering you on? You’re about to deliver an epic take-down. Be a shame if she missed it.
No, you’re not “granting” anything…you’re trying to wear Christianity to attack Christianity again.
Put down the hat (used to glorify yourself) and ask the Magician for a Christian heart to glorify Him. THEN we’ll talk.
(Or, better yet. We’ll let the Universe talk, and all of us will listen in awe…)