Is God's power the same as magic?

[OnceConvinced]

Theists often get upset when people talk about God doing acts and referring to it as magic. But is there any real difference?

The first recorded act of God was creating light and what did he do? He made a verbal incantation: "Let there be light!"

Note: Abracadabra Hebrew meaning: “I will create as I speak,�
https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-wo ... a-1.466709

So we have a god supposedly conjuring up things with magic words. Then we also have people claiming to have magical powers (some even claim those powers come from God himself).

Is there really any difference?
What are those differences?

[Danmark]

Seems to me that if there's a God, then the Big Bang is an instance of god's power... galaxies are god's power at work... molecular reactions are god's power at work. Basically everything that is and happens, ultimately is so because god caused it to be so, at least under the most common theistic theories.

Is that all magic? Certainly the Big Bang does fit the definition Zzxyz quoted as influencing the course of events by means mysterious and above/beyond the natural laws we know...

If there is a God with the powers the Bible claims he has, then there is no supernatural or magic. The 'supernatural' would then be rendered natural.

[bluegreenearth]

The word "magic" is derived from the title "Magi" (plural for the singular "Magus") which referred to priests in the religion of Zoroastrianism that first entered recorded history in the 5th century BCE but with roots dating back to the second millennium BCE. Zoroastrianism is a faith centered on the concept of good and evil where evil will one day be completely defeated. The religious practices of the Magi later became known as magic.

The idea of a messiah, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and freewill are major Zoroastrian concepts that long predate Judaism and Christianity. Zoroastrianism's holy text is called the Avesta. The Avesta asserts that Ahura Mazda is the eternal, uncaused, transcendent, maximally wise, and all-good God who is the supreme creator and sustaining force of the universe through the use of divine entities. The spiritual force for truth and the cosmic order which comes from Ahura Mazda is known as Asha. Falsehood and disorder is the antithesis of Asha and is known as Druj. The pending conflict between order and chaos involves all of creation where humanity will have an active role to play. According to the Avesta, you are given the choice to support Ahura Mazda or not and are held responsible for your choice. After evil is defeated by the messiah at then end of time, reality will undergo a cosmic renovation where the souls of the dead will be resurrected to an eternal existence with Ahura Mazda in heaven. Any of this seem familiar to you?

Anyway, since the earliest concept of "magic" seems to be tied to the practices of Zoroastrian priests, it is not identical to God's power in that context.

Excellent historical summary; however, in the context of this discussion the point is not the source of the magic words, but the concept of supernatural intervention, interrupting the natural order; i.e., the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. And in that sense, I see no difference in the 'magic' (as we use the word today in English) and the magic of alchemists, fairies, genies, Christians, or Zoroastrians.

OTOH, as i write it occurs to me you may have been making a more subtle point; that 'magic' to the Z's may have been the antithesis of 'magic' as we use the term today in the sense that they wanted to restore the natural order and prevent the chaos that is evil.

Which raises the further argument that supernatural intervention by a god is evil since it introduces chaos to an otherwise stable system of universal laws.

Admittedly, the subtle point I was attempting to make isn't necessarily relevant to the OP. I used the topic to sneak-in a bit of religious education for people who may not realize where many of the underlying themes of Christian theology most likely originate.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 21 by Danmark]

If there were any 'supernatural' thing it would be natural; it's just a nonsense word, a way of either dismissing or hyping up reported things we don't understand, depending on one's agenda.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 21 by Danmark]

If there were any 'supernatural' thing it would be natural; it's just a nonsense word, a way of either dismissing or hyping up reported things we don't understand, depending on one's agenda.

I agree to a small extent, but you grossly over simplify. It certainly is not a "nonsense word." It has meaning. It refers to attributing an event to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature, thus a claim that relies on the 'supernatural' for explanation is by definition speculative and without evidence. I agree that it is quite literally 'nonsense' to attribute supernatural forces to events we cannot otherwise explain.

What we CAN do is point to a long list of natural events that were once attributed to 'the gods' or to other unnamed supernatural forces that we now understand as natural. Therefore the scope of history and science suggests these attributions to the mysterious 'supernatural,' were done in ignorance. This should inform us as to such attribution today.

However, this is NOT to say we "know" absolutely that all events must have a natural cause. But that is the way to bet.

What, if any phenomena today that we do not fully understand, would you suggest should be attributed to "the supernatural?" So far in the record of human discovery, 100% of the phenomena that were once relegated to 'the supernatural' or to 'the gods,' have either been found to have natural causes, or remain unknown.

If you can think of an exception, please enlighten me.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

Note on voodoo as (evil) magic and God's power as the natural, good magic.
Note also on the Devil as shapeshifter, taking on many forms.
Note more, thus, on these words and origins: druids, sorcerers, wizards, necromancers and mages. I think, therefore, that magic may imply both evil (of the Devil) and goodness (of God).

If you remember The Lord of the Rings and the good wizard/druid vs. the evil wizard, the classic tale of good vs. evil.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

Note on voodoo as (evil) magic and God's power as the natural, good magic.
Note also on the Devil as shapeshifter, taking on many forms.
Note more, thus, on these words and origins: druids, sorcerers, wizards, necromancers and mages. I think, therefore, that magic may imply both evil (of the Devil) and goodness (of God).

If you remember The Lord of the Rings and the good wizard/druid vs. the evil wizard, the classic tale of good vs. evil.

The reference to a piece of fiction, The Lord of the Rings, is appropriate for representing the use of magic in the Bible, another piece of fiction. But this post appears to miss the point of subtopic which is about whether 'God's power' is substantially the same as any other 'magic.' The point is not whether god's magic is good, and other magic is evil, but rather whether or not god's power is a different phenominon than other fictional magic. I've seen no argument supporting there is any difference other than the bald and unsubstantiated claim "it just is."

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 15 by bluegreenearth]

And where would the Zoroastrians be getting that magic power from? Do you believe this would be satanic?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 15 by bluegreenearth]

And where would the Zoroastrians be getting that magic power from? Do you believe this would be satanic?

I doubt there is a such thing as magic power, Satan, or God.

[brunumb]

What God does is not a sort of magic, it happens and this is all. God exists for those who believe, but those who not, believe in that human magic, or black magic.

What God does is exactly like magic. It is an illusion. It only happens in the mind of the believer.

[Swami]

Theists often get upset when people talk about God doing acts and referring to it as magic. But is there any real difference?

The first recorded act of God was creating light and what did he do? He made a verbal incantation: "Let there be light!"

Note: Abracadabra Hebrew meaning: “I will create as I speak,�
https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-wo ... a-1.466709

So we have a god supposedly conjuring up things with magic words. Then we also have people claiming to have magical powers (some even claim those powers come from God himself).

Is there really any difference?
What are those differences?

God's power is not magic but instead it is a natural consequence of the nature of the Universe. Think of the Universe as a dream. It then does not exist separately from God. The Universe is simply a manifestation of God just as our dreams are manifestations of our mind. In the dream world, anything is possible since it is a world made up by us. This is how the Universe is to God.

The ultimate realization is that we are also God. We can do everything that he has done or could do if you believe.