IT would be the only means by which God would work…

As opposed to “I would be…”

Occam’s Razor eliminates the need for God.

It’s the same as with Psalm 139. To describe something like pregnancy as “God’s work” adds extraneous information to a proposition that works completely on its own, without God.

You could say the same thing about the C++ programming language. Is it “God’s work?” All it needs is a compiler and God? Logically, the argument is no different.

All pregnancy needs is a man, woman and God?

When Laplace showed Napoleon his model of the solar system, and the Emperor asked where God was in his model, Laplace responded thus:

It works well enough without that hypothesis, Your Majesty.

As far as what I mean by magic, I’m implying “supernatural powers.” I would be the only means by which God would work. Otherwise, it’s just normal, natural processes with no need of input from God.

Yes. Science can’t prove or disprove God’s existence.

Meaning is, like beauty, a personal interpretation or opinion.

I’m not sure. Using a previous example, I can ask John where is he going. I can get information from him personally. It wound not be scientific knowledge – but still knowledge.

You’d still have to make the leap that God is using magic.

I’m not sure what you call “magic” here. I believe, that God is using natural processes; for example, In Psalm 139 natural process, pregnancy, described as God’s work.

I think it would be much more reasonable to admit lack of knowledge than to say that you know that God used magic to create the Universe.

May be I don’t understand, what you mean by “magic”

That’s part of the reason I’ve taken to calling myself a “radical agnostic.”

Meaning is, like beauty, a personal interpretation or opinion. It doesn’t give a truth value. It’s completely possible for one person to find “beauty” in one thing, while another person feels completely different about it.

You’d still have to make the leap that God is using magic. In the naturalistic sense, I say that we don’t understand yet.

I think it would be much more reasonable to admit lack of knowledge than to say that you know that God used magic to create the Universe.

1.There is a difference between magic and God – magic is a sort of pseudo-technology, mag pretend to control some supernatural powers and use it for his own ends.
God – biblical God at least – is a Person, who nobody can control.

2.When we speaking about “understanding” we can speak about two different things, about answers for a two different questions – question about method and question about purpose.
For instance, we can give two answers for a question “Why car is moving?”
We can say, a)car is moving because of some chemical reaction in it’s engine. b)car is moving, because John decided to take his family to the seaside.

We don’t need John to eхplain chemical process in the engine – and we don’t need God to explain natural process in nature. Moreover, we don’t need Bill Gates to explain processes in Windows:)
But it doesn’t proof non-existence of John, or Bill Gates, or even God:)

I just don’t understand how magical thinking can be anything more than an excuse. It seems to me that God is merely a placeholder for what we don’t know yet.

The only use for magic (God) is to try to explain away that which we don’t understand – such as the origins of the Universe. It seems only logical because the magic (God) hypothesis doesn’t explain anything that we do understand.