There is no real difference between Magic and Divinity.

 Both are described as transcendental, having the ability to move past the laws of science. The only difference is in the details, magic relying on some supposed type of energy, and divinity relying on some type of deity. Neither are conclusively proven, explicitly observable, or even convincing to every single person. The only difference between these two is that one has social prestige, being more convoluted in order to provide answers and have some type of philosophy, while the other is more focused on the magic system and larping. The truth values of the ideas are the same.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Imaginative Conservative imagines its own versions of Christianity, freedom, and logic.

 https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/03/libertarians-and-religion.html Does God underwrite our freedom, or undermine it? Look at Leviticus where there's numerous victimless laws being classified as sins. Look at the New Testament where Jesus defends Mosaic law while being a cult leader. There are thousands of self-styled “libertarians” who would argue the latter. They actively oppose the religious commitments of most social conservatives, many of them convinced that materialism is the best metaphysical home for what we might call “libertarian values”—individual rights, freedom and personal responsibility, reason, and moral realism. Yeah, because physicalism entails looking at the world as it is and noticing that much of the laws that people espouse are based on some type of incongruety. Ignoring that people are individuals with no real debt to each other and no real hive mind linking them, trying to say that people are responsible for the actions of others, be it gun contro...
Read more

Creationist alleges religion and science mix, for five articles, here's number four.

 https://shenviapologetics.com/science-and-religion-part-iv/ In general, attempts to "combine religion and science" are basically just looking at alleged holes in science, and then asserting that, instead of using philosophy, we just regurgitate religion and shoehorn it. Shenvi might try to make a point here on in his other articles, but I doubt he succeeds. First, let’s consider the mathematical structure of the universe itself. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner wrote a very famous paper entitled “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” [Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I (1960)] in which he observes that the remarkable success of mathematics in describing the physical world is actually very surprising. Mathematics He repeatedly uses the words miracle and miraculous to describe this phenomenon. After all, it is not metaphysically necessary that the universe is the way it is. We could conceive of a universe that was wholly...
Read more

"Gravity isn't a force" (and a new view).

 I have long maintained that the Argument from First Cause is satisfied by something more analogous to a force like gravity and electromagnetism. In my ignorance, I thought these forces were solid entities rather than interactions, the warping and curvature of space-time (Gravity), or the result of electromagnetic fields (electromagnetism).  However, when you are given to false ideas (my view of the first cause being a force, and the theistic view of it being a force with divinity [which it would have to distinctly be unless they want to broaden the definition of God to "anything considered weird through an anthropocentric lens"], let alone a vaguely human one), it would be best to not choose one of the two but discard both. And I shall. My new explanation is an x-substance that can be called Formation. Credit to the theists, this is also speculative, however, it is not convoluted, and as such doesn't stretch the need for an answer into a free reign "anything goes...
Read more