In Western Civilization, since 500 B. C., there has never existed a person who actually thought that the entire Universe was somehow intentionally made by some sort of conscious omnipotent entity, and there has never existed a person who thought there's ever existed a person who actually thought this. Everyone knows this, and everyone knows that everyone knows this. I mean, obviously.
If I can switch to a different subject, there exist subdivisions of society, small groups of people, where within each group, the traditions, social expectations and taboos, are very different from the entire population. Examples include nudists, vegetarians, the Flat Earth Society, the Tycho Brahe Society (who say the Earth revolves around the Sun), and religions. There is, for instance, a group of men who performed at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul. They shave their heads, cover their bodies with white powder, and hang upside-down nude from skyscrapers. If you do this, you're a member of their group. If not not. If you say the words, "The Earth is Flat", you're a member of the Flat Earth Society. If not not. The words recited by members of religions are far stranger, but it's irrelevant what words they choose to recite. Why would someone choose to be a member of a small group of people whose customs are very different from general society? There are people who aren't members of any group. They don't hang out with family, friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, or former classmates. At the same time, they very much want to be a member of a group of people. They feel lonely. They want to be accepted. They want to belong to a group. They want people to say, "We like you". Such individuals can always, if nothing else, become a member of one of these small groups with very unusual traditions. They'll accept anyone who follows their traditions. If all you have to do is recite certain words and you're in, such people would consider it worth it. This is why people joined the Branch Davidians or any religion. Also, people whose parents were members of such a group were raised to be a member, meaning follow their customs. Since they've always been a member of the group, they feel this is their group of people. If they weren't a member of this group, they wouldn't be a member of any group. If they want to be a member of a group of people, they wouldn't leave it, so they would continue with the customs such as reciting the words.
Some people say that religious people pretend to be unaware of what I said in the first paragraph. That's ridiculous. There's never existed a person who tried to make other people think that they were unaware of this. If hypothetically there were to exist such a person, they would have a 100% chance of failure, since no one could imagine such a person existing. Aside from that, no one's ever attempted that. There's never existed a person who tried to make other people think that they were unaware of what I said in the beginning. There's never existed a person who pretended to not know this. The fact they happen to recite the words they do merely defines their group, or determines who is in their group.
There are subdivisions of society which have different social expectations or taboos which define their group. For religions, if you recite certain sets of words, among other things, you're in and if not not. The words themselves just happen to be what they are. They could be anything for what difference it would make. It just happens that words recited by members of religions include an admission that they don't actually think that what they're saying is true. It's irrelevant whether or not their recitations did contain such an admission. For instance, the words recited by members of the Flat Earth Society do not contain such an admission. However, it just happens that the words recited by members of religions do contain this. They frequently make reference to the things they say originating within themselves. They say "look within yourself". They flat out admit that this stuff originates within yourself. This isn't me saying this. This is they themselves saying this. It just happens that the words they recite contain an admission that these ideas are derived entirely within yourself, or that they're just making it up. I repeat that the customs that define a group could be anything, and you could have a group whose members recite any pre-established set of words. It's irrelevant whether or not the words contain such an admission, but it just happens that for religions, it does contain this admission.
It's been 2500 years since there existed a person in the western world who actually thought gods were actual physical creatures that actually existed in real life. In Western Civilization since 500 B. C., there has never existed a person who actually thought that not just the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy, or the Local Group of galaxies, but actually the entire infinite expanse of the entire infinite Universe, was somehow intentionally deliberately made by some sort of giant omnipotent omniscient conscious entity that existed before and lives outside of the rest of the Universe. There has never existed a person who thought that there has ever existed a person who thought this. There is no one who could imagine a person actually thinking this. Everyone knows this, and everyone knows that everyone knows this. I mean, obviously.
If someone said that they thought aliens visited the Earth, they would be dismissed as insane. What if someone said that an alien not only visited the Earth, but actually made the Earth? What if they went on to say that the alien not only made the Earth, but made Mars, Jupiter, and all of the other planets in the Solar System? What if they went on to say that a single giant alien made not just this solar system, but the entire Milky Way, and not just this galaxy, but the Andromeda Galaxy and all the other galaxies? What if they went on to say that this giant creature somehow deliberately made the entire infinite Universe? There are people who say this. If someone who says merely that aliens visited the Earth is dismissed as a nut, then why are the people who say make this vastly more bizarre grandiose claim not dismissed as nuts? The reason is because someone could imagine someone actually thinking the first claim but no one could imagine a person actually thinking the second claim. It is universally understood that when someone says the second thing, of course they don't actually think it, and that's why they're not tossed in mental hospitals.
If someone said an alien made the Face on Mars, you'd think they were crazy. What if someone said an alien made not just the Face on Mars but actually constructed the entire planet Mars itself? What if they went on to say that this being not only single-handly made the planet Mars, but made the Earth, the Horsehead Nebula, the Andromeda Galaxy, and in fact the entire infinite expanse of the entire infinite Universe? Lots of people actually do say this bizarre thing but they are not thought of as crazy, unlike people who make a far less outrageous claim, and the reason is because everyone knows they don't actually think that. No one could imagine a person actually thinking that. Everyone knows this. This is universally understood.
Do you watch Star Trek? What if on Star Trek, it was revealed that Q had made the Earth? What if they said that Q not only made the Earth, he made Earth's Solar System, he made Vulcan's solar system, he made the Alpha Quadrant, he made the entire Galaxy, and not only that, but he made the entire Universe itself? The fans of the show would be furious because it would be so ludicrous, and so far-fetched by even Star Trek standards, that it would ruin the show.
Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that everyone knows this. No one could imagine a person not knowing this. It was universally understood. It is so universally understood, it's never stated. Why would you state something that everyone knows, and everyone knows that everyone knows? To state it would be to imply that there might exist a person who didn't know it. Therefore, it's never stated. I'm stating it anyway. Therefore I'm doing something unusual. Therefore some people might react to me saying this the way they would react to anyone doing something unusual. However, of course the people knew it before they read it. I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know. You don't need for me to tell you this. You know this.
People do admit that no one actually thinks this by using the word "believe". If you actually thought something existed, you would not refer to it by using the words "believe in", "belief", "magic", "supernatural", "paranormal", "metaphysical", "spiritual", or "miracle". These are code words to signal that you are referring to something fictional, that doesn't exist. For instance, someone might say they "believe in" ESP because it's fiction. It doesn't exist. No one would say they "believe in" X-rays because they actually exist. Even if something doesn't exist, if you thought it existed, you wouldn't use these code words. In reality, there is no such thing as cold fusion. However, the two chemists in Utah who claimed that they discovered it, sincerely genuinely thought, erroneously, that it was real. Therefore they would not have described it as a "miracle", or "spiritual". They would not have said they "believe in" cold fusion, because they thought it was real. Of course, today someone might say they "believe in" cold fusion because it's been proven to be not real.
This raises the question, why do people say these words? They are not pretending to think this, because they are not trying to make other people think that they think this, because no one could imagine a person actually thinking this. Why do they say these words? All social groups have social expectations and taboos. In general society, there is a taboo against public nudity. Among nudists, there is a taboo against wearing clothes. The Flat Earth Society has a social expectation to say the Earth is flat. Obviously, no one could imagine a person actually thinking the Earth really was flat in real life. Saying these words is simply a custom of their group. If they don't say them, they are violating a social taboo of their social group. Other groups of people, such as Christians, have a social expectation to say words far more bizarre than the words recited by members of the Flat Earth Society. Reciting these words is one of the customs that defines their group. They have a social expectation to say these words, and a social taboo against not saying these words. Therefore they say the words they say. That's all there is to it.
It would be possible for an ignorant person to read "A Tale of Two Cities" and think it was nonfiction. It would be possible for an ignorant person to read "War and Peace", and think it was nonfiction. Obviously, it would not be possible for an ignorant person to read "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, and think it was nonfiction, since there is magic in the story. It would not be possible for someone to read "Lord of the Rings", and think it was nonfiction, since it contains magic. It would not be possible for a person to read the Bible, and think it was nonfiction since it contains magic.
Magic is defined as the impossible, and obviously if a work of fiction admits that it contains the impossible, then it would not be possible for a person to think it was nonfiction. If a work of fiction did not contain the impossible, then it would be possible for an ignorant person to think it was true. If a work of fiction contained the impossible but did not admit that it contained the impossible, then it might be possible for a gullible person to think that it was true. However, if a work of fiction not only contained the impossible, but also contained the self-admission that it contained the impossible, meaning it openly admitted that the story contained magic, then it would not be possible for a person, no matter how ignorant or gullible, to think that the work of fiction, including it’s own self-admission that it contained the impossible, was true.
You could have a work of nonfiction, such as a history book. You could have a work of fiction that did not contain magic, such as "A Tale of Two Cities" or "War and Peace". In that case, it would be possible for an ignorant person to think they were nonfiction. You could have a work of fiction that contains magic, meaning the impossible, but does not admit that it contains magic. This is like science-fiction or UFO belief. In reality, they contain magic, since they contain utterly impossible things, but they don’t admit that it’s magic. For instance, in Star Trek, when they transport from the ship to a planet’s surface, or in typical UFO stories, where the aliens presumably travel faster than light in order to travel from their planet to our planet over time scales shorter than millennia, that’s as utterly impossible as the magic in "A Christmas Carol", "Lord of the Rings", or Christianity. However, they don’t admit that it’s magic. In Star Trek, the transporter isn’t supposed to be magic. UFO enthusiasts become indignant if you point out that it’s magic. In other words, if the work of fiction contains magic but does not admit that it contains magic, then a person who is profoundly ignorant of science could think it was true.
However, if a work of fiction not only contains magic, but also openly admits that it contains magic, then the work of fiction contains within it the self-admission that it contains the impossible. In that case, no person, no matter how ignorant, could think that the fiction, including its own self-admission that it’s impossible, was true. Therefore, it would be physically impossible for there to exist a person who thought that the work of fantasy was true. This is the case for any work of fantasy that admits that it contains magic, such as Greek Mythology, Christianity, King Arthur, Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, Harry Potter, Santa Claus, etc.
Let me illustrate this difference with a few examples. Bigfoot enthusiasts fall into two camps. The first says that Bigfoot is an actual physical biological creature, some undiscovered living species of hominid, perhaps Australopithecus africanus, that somehow managed to avoid detection. These people are actually suggesting that it’s a physical creature that actually exists in real life. They’re dead wrong, of course, but nonetheless, the point being that they are actually suggesting it’s real. In contrast, you have second camp of Bigfoot fans, who focus on the Yeti of the Himalayas, and describe it as a supernatural creature with magic powers. It can change its shape. It can read your mind. It can turn invisible. It can instantly teleport from one location to another location. In other words, they are NOT suggesting it’s an actual creature that exists, but rather they are describing a supernatural creature, that you might "believe in" as a religion.
With hypnosis or meditation, you can describe it as a spiritual thing, admitting it’s not real, or you could alternatively claim it has scientific basis, which is a lie of course, thereby pretending it’s real. Someone could recite the Biblical story of Noah’s Ark, where the magic Ark magically held two of every single species of animal on Earth, while the entire Earth was magically flooded for 40 days to punish humanity. Alternatively, some crackpot could search the mountains of Turkey for the remains of an actual physical boat which he claims held the private royal zoo of a Babylonian king trying to save it from the flooding of the Euphrates River. Of course, that’s total nonsense, but do you see how the second guy is making a claim of something real?
You can take some works of fiction that traditionally admit they contain magic, and try to come up with a version that does not admit this. With ghosts, it’s normally admitted that they are magic. However, you could come up with some crackpot pseudoscience explanation, saying the electrochemical impulses in the neurons leave some sort of imprint on the ether that pervades all of space, and this pattern of impulses, which is your consciousness, somehow continues to exist without the body. I’ve never heard a paranormal researcher claim that but you could come up with such a thing. However, there are some works of fantasy in which the admission that it contains magic is so intrinsic to the thing itself, that you can’t come up with a version that doesn’t admit it contains magic. You can’t come up with a version of witchcraft that doesn’t admit that it contains magic, because the whole idea is that they cast spells and have magic powers. Similarly, faeries are supposed to be supernatural creatures, and that is so intrinsic to the idea of faeries, that you can’t come up with a version where they are supposed to be an undiscovered species of minuscule humanoid. In these cases, it would not be possible to come up with any version for which it would be possible for any person, no matter how ignorant, to think was true.
Out of all the works of fantasy ever invented by humans, the single most magic supernatural thing ever invented was the Judeo-Christian God. This is the most supernatural magical thing ever invented, meaning the most admittedly utterly impossible thing ever imagined, and where it admits this more than any other work of fantasy, going so far as to claim supernatural omnipotence. In other words, it is more utterly impossible for a person to think the Judeo-Christian God was real than any other magic thing in any other work of fantasy ever invented in the history of the world.
There are several ways of enjoying a work of fantasy. You could read a fantasy novel. You could watch a fantasy movie or TV show. If you want to get more into it then that, you could read a pick-your-own adventure book, or play a computer game. If you want to get even more into it then that, you could play a role-playing game like Dungeons and Dragons. This is where you enjoy imagining that you are in a fantasy world. If you want to get even more into it then that, the final step is to “believe in” it as a form of occult or religion. This is the same as playing a role-playing game except you do it 24 hours a day. Dungeons and Dragons players imagine themselves in a fantasy world for a few hours each day. If you “believe in” the work of fantasy, as the occult or a religion, then you are imagining yourself in a fantasy world 24 hours a day. Christianity falls into this category. Of course, Christians know it’s fiction in the same way that Dungeons and Dragons players or Lord of the Rings fans know it’s fiction.
In April 2012, I posted on the website http://www.happyatheistforum.com. I was only able to post three posts before I was banned from the site for "posting rubbish", even though everything I said were universally known self-evident facts intrinsically known by humans on Earth. The problem is that the outspoken members of the atheist community want to falsely accuse religious people of actually thinking the crazy stuff they pretend to believe, for the purpose of making religious people seem stupid. So, anyway, here are the three posts I was able to post on http://www.happyatheistforum.com.
First Post -
I also heard about this website when Elanor Cliff mentioned it on The McLaughlin Group. I encourage everyone to visit my website.
(Link removed: see response below. -- Recusant)
Of course, what you people know full well, but don't want to admit, is that everyone is an atheist, if by "atheist", you mean someone who knows that God is fiction. The words "magic", "supernatural", "metaphysical", "paranormal", "spiritual", "miracle", etc., and are simply synonyms for "impossible". If something was possible, it wouldn't be magic. The word "impossible", and thus all of the synonyms I listed, is defined as "can only exist within fiction". If you admit something is magic, you are admitting it's impossible, so you are admitting it's fiction. The Christians say their god is supernatural being, so they are saying it's impossible, so they are saying it's fiction. The word "god" intrinsically refers to a supernatural being. If something wasn't a supernatural being, you wouldn't call it a "god". Just by using the word "god", you are admitting you are talking about a supernatural being, and thus the impossible, and thus fiction. Therefore, anyone who uses the word "god" is simultaneously admitting there is no god. Therefore everyone is an atheist.
Someone could read "A Tale of Two Cities" or "War and Peace" and mistake it for non-fiction. The reason is because they don't contain magic, which means they don't contain anything impossible. It would not be possible for someone to read "A Christmas Carol" or "The Lord of the Rings" and mistake it for non-fiction. The reason is because they contain they contain magic, meaning the impossible, and must therefore be fiction. Therefore, it would not be possible for someone to read the Bible and mistake it for non-fiction.
Let's say a devout Christian went to a magic show in Las Vegas, and watched a magician on stage perform a trick, and they had no idea how they performed it. They are trying to guess how the magician may have performed the trick. They do not consider, not even for a fraction of a second, that the magician might actually have magic powers, since they know, of course, that that would be impossible.
Magic, supernatural, etc. is a synonym for "impossible". The most magic thing anyone ever made up is the Judeo-Christian God, which is supposed to be an omnipotent being with infinite magic powers, that single-handedly deliberately made the entire infinite universe using only its infinite magic powers. That's the most magic thing, in other words, the most impossible thing, that anyone ever made up. That's what the Christians themselves say it is, so they say it's impossible, so they say it's fiction.
So everyone is an atheist, but the problem is there is a community of outspoken atheists, like Christopher Hitchens, who enjoy falsely accusing religious people of actually thinking their works of fiction are true, to try to make them seem stupid. That appears to be the purpose of this website.
Second Post -
I'm posting here because I can't respond to my own post. There doesn't seem to be a reply button. Furthermore, the "Religion" section doesn't have a "New Topic" button.
First of all, I did not post spam. I posted a link to my own homepage. Spam is when a con artist sends you unsolicited email because they are trying to swindle you out of their money.
Second of all, Religious people do NOT say there is god is real!!!! Religious people say God is Fiction!!! Let's say a religion person makes the following statement.
"I believe in God".
That single four word sentence contains two separate statements by the speaker that there is no such thing as God. Let's take these in turn.
"believe in"
Just by using the phrase "believe in", they are admitting they are talking about magic. In the English language, the phrase "believe in" intrinsically refers to magic. No one would use the word "believe in" unless they were talking about magic. No one would say they "believe in" Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, QED, QCD, the Higgs mechanism, the Standard Model, grand unification, supersymmetry, string theory, or M-theory. On the other hand, someone might say they believe in psychics, astrology, ghosts, ESP, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, crop circles, crystal skulls, witchcraft, unicorns, faeries, vampires, or Santa Claus. The phrase "believe in" means you are talking about magic. Therefore, when a Christian uses the phrase "believe in", they are admitting they are talking about magic, so they are admitting they are talking about fiction.
"God"
The word "god" intrinsically refers to a supernatural being. Just by using the word "god", you are admitting that you are referring to a supernatural being. Let's say you went to a book store, and you browsed through the fantasy section. You picked up a novel set in a Dungeons and Dragons world. You flipped through it, and saw the name "The Great God Zandar, the High God of the Frost Giants". Is there any doubt in your mind that the author intended for that character to be a supernatural being? If the author did not intend for the character to be a supernatural being, he would not have called it a"god". The word "god" intrinsically refers to a supernatural being. Therefore, when a Christian uses the word "god", they are admitting they are referring to a supernatural being, so they are admitting they are talking about fiction.
Therefore, if you hear a religious person use the phrase "I believe in God", that single four word sentence contains two separate admissions by the speaker that there is no such thing as God. In addition to that, the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to be not only magic, that's an understatement, they say it's omnipotent. They say it has infinite magic powers. That's the most magic thing anyone ever made up, in other words, the most impossible thing anyone ever made up. That's what the Christians themselves say.
Everyone who posted a response to my original post admitted that what I said was true. One person said they take religious people at their word. Well, since all religious people say there is no such thing as god, since they admit it's a supernatural being, the poster therefore takes them at their word when they say there is no such thing as god. Another poster used the word "belief" which he was using to mean "belief in the supernatural", so he was also admitting that this is fiction, and the religious people themselves say it's fiction. Then another person misunderstood the quote by Arthur C. Clarke. When he said that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, he meant that you might mistake advanced technology for magic, but of course, the advanced technology is not magic. Magic is a synonym for "impossible", and that has nothing to do with technology. Something could be far beyond current technology but still possible and therefore not magic. However, some things are actually impossible, regardless of technology, such as traveling faster than light, and that's magic. If something is beyond our current technology, but could be done with more advanced technology, that's not magic. Someone could mistake something that's not magic for magic, but actual magic can only exist inside fiction. Christians admit that their stories contain actual magic, so they admit it's fiction.
Now let's address whether it's possible for someone to mistake different types of fiction for non-fiction.
1. Non-fiction - In this case, it actually is non-fiction so you are not mistaking it for non-fiction but are recognizing that it is non-fiction.
2. Fiction that does not contain magic - In this case, the work of fiction does not contain magic, meaning it doesn't contain anything impossible, meaning it COULD happen, even though it did not actually happen. In this case, it would be possible for someone to mistake it for non-fiction. Examples include "A Tale of Two Cities", "War and Peace", "Pride and Prejudice", Sherlock Holmes, or "Black Beauty".
3. Fiction that contains magic but does not admit that it contains magic - In this case, the work contains the impossible, meaning it could not actually happen, but it does not admit that it contains the impossible. Most people would not mistake for non-fiction, but an ignorant person might not realize the story actually contains magic, and thus could mistake it for non-fiction. If you knew the work of fiction contained magic, then it would not be possible for you to mistake it for non-fiction. If you did not realize that the work of fiction contained magic, then you could mistake it for non-fiction. In other words, an ignorant person could mistake it for non-fiction. Examples include "Frankenstein", Isaac Asimov, Star Trek, almost all of science fiction, as well as UFO belief.
4. Fiction that not contains magic and does admit that it contains magic - In this case, the work of fiction not only contains magic, but in addition also contains the self-admission that it contains magic. So the work of fiction not only contains the impossible but also contains the self-admission that it contains the impossible. Therefore, the work of fiction is actually saying that it is a work of fiction. Inside the work of fiction itself, it contains its own self-admission that it is a work of fiction. In this case, it would not be possible for any person, regardless of how ignorant, to mistake the work of fiction, including its own self-contained self-admission that it is a work of fiction, for a work of non-fiction. Examples include The Epic of Gilgamesh, Egyptian Mythology, Greek Mythology, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Norse Mythology, Beowulf, King Arthur, "A Midsummer's Night's Dream", Wagner's operas, "A Christmas Carol", "Lord of the Rings", Dungeons and Dragons, Star Wars, Frank Hurbert' s "Dune", Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time", Harry Potter and Santa Claus.
To make this clear, consider the following examples. In each case, I initially give a version that could be mistaken for non-fiction, and then a version that could not be.
1. BigFoot
A - Bigfoot, as described in North America, is described as a biological creature, an undiscovered species of ape.
B - The Asian Yeti, is described as having magic powers, it can teleport, turn invisible, or read people's minds.
2. The Ark of the Covenant
A - Someone suggested that it might have been a chemical battery, similar to the Baghdad battery, and gave people electric shocks.
B - It contains the wrath of God.
3. Atlantis
A - The island of Santorini in the Aegean was destroyed by a volcano.
B - The Gods destroyed the continent of Atlantis because humans were becoming two powerful.
Do you see that if you say it's magic, you are saying it's fiction. Magic or supernatural are synonyms for "impossible" which defined as something that can only exist in fiction. If you're saying it's fiction. Christians say it's magic, so Christians say it's fiction. The Christians don't just say God is magic. They say it's omnipotent, that it has infinite magic powers. That's the most magic thing anyone ever made up, in other words, the most impossible thing anyone ever made up. That's what the Christians themselves say. The religious people say there is no such thing as God. They say it's supernatural, so they say it's fiction. Believe the religious people when they say it's fiction.
Third Post -
If you were talking about any other work of fiction containing magic to have ever existed in human history, not one person on this forum would be disputing that the definition of magic is the impossible. Let’s choose the example of the TV show “Once Upon a Time” on ABC. Let’s say an example of a non-magic thing happening on the show is Emma walking into the diner and ordering a cup of coffee. Let’s say an example of magic thing happening on the show is Mr. Gold turning a man into a snail. Now ask yourself this. What is the difference between ordering a cup of a coffee, and turning a man into a snail? What makes one magic and the other not? What do you believe is the difference between something on the show that’s magic, and something on the show that is not magic? The difference is when Mr. Gold turned a man into a snail, that was impossible. When Emma ordered a cup of coffee, that was possible. That’s the difference between “magic” and “not magic“. “Not magic” is possible, and “magic” is impossible. Let’s say you were talking about the tv show “Merlin” on the SyFy network? What’s the difference between Merlin polishing Arthur’s armor, and Merlin’s eyes glowing, and then one of the bad guys is thrown backwards? The first is “not magic“, and thus possible, and the second is “magic“, and thus impossible. If you were talking about any work of fiction containing magic other than Judeo-Christianity, nobody would dispute that the definition of magic is the impossible.
If you were talking about any work of fiction containing magic to have ever existed, except Judeo-Christianity, not one person on this forum would have any objection to me saying that magic is defined to be the impossible. Ask yourself this. What is your definition of magic in the context of Greek Mythology? What is your definition of magic in the context of King Arthur? What is your definition of magic in the context of “Lord of the Rings”? What is your definition of magic in the context of Dungeons and Dragons? What is your definition of magic in the context of Harry Potter? If any of these cases, if someone defined magic to be when characters did impossible things, would you object to that definition? If so, what would be your definition? Of course, if we were talking about any of the above examples, and I defined magic to be the impossible, not one single person in this forum would have any dispute with that definition. Why then, do you react differently when the work of fiction containing magic is Judeo-Christianity, as opposed to any other examples I listed? Why treat Judeo-Christianity differently than any other example of a work of fiction containing magic? Everyone uses the words “magic” and “supernatural” to mean “impossible”. If that’s not your definition, then what is your definition?
There are a group of people who claim that the “Iliad” is based on real events. In reality, that’s not true. There’s no evidence to support that claim. However, there is a group of people claiming that the “Iliad” was based on real events. Those people do not claim that the “Iliad”, exactly as written, is true. Instead, they take the “Iliad”, remove all the magic from the story, and claim that what you have left, after the magic has been removed, is true. Why do they feel the need to remove the magic from the story? The reason they do it is because, there is an assumption, that you would need to remove the magic from the story in order to be able to claim it was true, and that you would not be able to claim it was true unless you removed the magic from the story. If you deny that’s the reason, then what are you claiming is the reason?
You have a similar thing with King Arthur. There is a group of people who claim that the stories of King Arthur are based on real events. That’s not true either, but they are claiming it’s true. Those people also remove the magic from the story, before claiming that what’s left is true. Why do they do that? Why do they feel the need to remove the magic from the story before claiming it’s true. The reason is because everyone assumes that you would not be able to claim a story was true if there was magic in it. If you are denying that’s the reason, then what you claiming is the reason?
There is a group of people claiming there is such a thing as cold fusion. They are wrong. In reality, there is no such thing as cold fusion. However, they are claiming that there is. Because they are actually claiming that it actually exists, even though it doesn’t, they are claiming it exists, and so they would never say it was magic, they would never say it was supernatural, they would never say the words, “I believe in cold fusion”, and they would be deeply offended if they ever heard anyone else describe it in that way. Why is that? It’s because everyone assumes that if you are actually claiming that something exists, that means you are saying it’s not magic.
Be honest about the following question. Let’s say you heard someone say they thought the so-called “Face on Mars” was made by aliens. What’s your initial response? Most people’s initial response would be one of bemusement. In other words, you think the other person is crazy for believing it. Why then do you not have the same initial reaction of bemusement when you hear someone make what, by any objective measure, would be a vastly more outrageous ludicrous grandiose claim that, not merely the “Face on Mars”, but instead the entire infinite Universe, including the observable Universe, containing 100 billion galaxies, was all deliberately single-handedly made by one single person? Most people think the first person is crazy, when they said a far less crazy thing. The same people don’t suspect the second person of being crazy, despite the fact they said what by any objective measure would be a far more crazy thing. The reason for the different reaction is because in the first case, you think the person thinks it, but in the second case, you don’t think the person actually thinks it. Nobody thinks the second person actually thinks what they said. If you are denying that’s the reason, then what are you claiming is the reason for the different public reaction?
The assumption that everyone has is if you are claiming that something exists, then you are saying it’s not magic. If you are saying something is magic, then you are not claiming it exists. Physicists claim that there are 11 spacetime dimensions, and all but 4 are compactified. That may not be true, but since they are claiming it’s true, they are saying it’s not magic. On the other hand, if someone said there was a spiritual plane of existence, they are saying it is magic, which means they are not claiming it exists.
In the real world, there is always a logical explanation for everything, even if we don’t know what it is. We don’t have a final theory of quantum gravity. However, we know there must exist a logical explanation of how quantum gravity works, although the explanation is currently unknown to us, we know it’s not magic. We know there must exist a logical explanation for how iron-based superconductors work, even though we don’t yet know what it is, we know it’s not magic.
With magic, there is no explanation as to how it works, not even an explanation unknown to us. In “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, when the Green Knight’s head was cut off, and still alive, he put his head back on, there was no explanation as to how he did that. It was magic. In “Lord of the Rings”, when the ring turned Frodo invisible, there was no explanation as to how it worked. It was magic. If you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and you are playing a magic-user, and you cast a spell, there is no explanation as to how it works. It’s magic. In Judeo-Christianity, if God magically creates the entire infinite Universe, there is no explanation as to how he did it, It’s just magic. Well, that proves that magic can only exist in fiction, since in the real world, there always has to be a logical explanation as to how something works, or why something works, even if we don’t currently know what it is, we could in the future discover what it is. Therefore magic can only exist within fiction. To say that something does not have any explanation as to how or why it works, is another way of saying it's impossible. Therefore the words "magic" and "supernatural" are synonyms for "impossible".
Jeffery Winkler
http//jefferywinkler.com
Logged This user has been banned as a spammer, posting rubbish and paying no attention to the rules. - Tank