If a god didn't use magic to magic up the universe, what did it use?

Given how well humanity turned out, I think God must have delegated creation to a committee.

The Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. From this, we can logically conclude that the Universe has always been there.

But how does this make sense? By definition, the word "supernatural" means that it cannot be explained by natural laws. For the Big Bang to have occurred in accordance to the natural laws we already know, it would have to be an infinite pattern of expansions and contractions, which would mean there was never a beginning to it.

This is where theists make the mistake of arguing from ignorance; because the origin of the Big Bang cannot be explained, God must have done it. However, considering that there was "nothing" (I put quotation marks around it because that's not entirely true) before the Big Bang, whatever caused it to occur was not bound by the laws of the Universe, because it didn't exist yet. Perhaps, then, something could have come from "nothing."

God used science that is beyond your comprehension. We do not know it all, you know. This does not make it magic, though.

"Sciencism" is the way in which people tend to glorify science as though it were a god, even as they deny having any religion. It does not mean that real science is a religion, but that some people treat it that way. It is common on here to see atheists saying things like "science has the answers" and "science will save us" in a way that seems very familiar to a theist.

Both words have negative connotations. If man knew how God made the universe, don't you think the next step would be to attempt to make a universe? We only know that God created it.

The power of God to do something that does not comply with the usual laws of nature as we know them is called a miracle. It is acceptable to call it supernatural, but because of the way the word "magic" has been used and because of its association with the entertainment industry and deception, that word has taken on a negative connotation which is insulting.

Science itself is a religion. Religion is a person's understanding of the world/universe and how it works.

It is not unusual that one religion will oppose another. It is also not unusual that one religion will complement another. The Evolution religion can be used as a weapon in an attempt to oppose one interpretation of Genesis, but it can also be viewed as the way in which God created diverse life, using a more liberal interpretation of Genesis.

Again, the religious belief that all matter in the universe is expanding from a single "Big Bang" can be used to oppose a strict interpretation of Genesis, or it can be used as an explanation or a more detailed account of how God created the universe when using a more liberal reading of Genesis.

For the most part, Science is the observation of the natural. Scientific knowledge is growing and expanding, but the subject of that observation is presumed to be static, or unchanging.

The observations of the laws of gravity and momentum today should be the same 1000 years from now and should be the same 1000 years prior. Well, that is the assumption. Who can go back in time to test it? It is accepted as a truism for now.

Much of science is based on assumptions like that. Science is a faith in the observations of men. When science men attempt to deceive others because of their desires, then this throws a wrench in the works. Piltdown man is a great example of this. The archaeologist became famous and rich because of a fraud he perpetrated. The entire scientific community (church body) accepted this fraud even though many scientists within the community expressed doubts. This was because so many in the scientific community wanted to believe in Evolution. It was not until the archaeologist openly confessed to the fraud on his deathbed and his assistant verified his testimony that the scientific community was able to conclude that it was in fact fraud. Other scientific anomalies are much more swiftly dismissed because they go against the prevailing beliefs of the scientific community. Take for example a modern human skull found in strata dated millions of years older than the oldest of what is believed to be man and ape's common ancestor. Could this prove that modern man did not diverge from an ancient ape? Or does this suggest that time travel is possible? Perhaps the dating methods used are in fact not as reliable as assumed?

An old cereal box, blu tack, a washing up liquid bottle, a sharp pencil and some sticky back plastic.

Christians don't like to call their childish fantasies "magic" because the word magic makes their fantasies look childish. Of course everything they believe is magic no matter how many times they deny it. The Resurrection was magic, creationism is magic, and their god fairy has magical powers, just like Harry Potter.

By the way thanks for calling the god fairy an "IT". To many people call it a "HIM" as if the magical master of the universe has male sex organs.

According to your rather vague and questionable definition of "magic", "magic" would be a correct answer.

Defs. 1 and 2, here, are what people typically think of when the word "magic" us used:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/magic

and neither of those are applicable to God creating the Universe (in fact, none of those definitions are applicable).

Conclusion: your "dictionary" teaches that God used what can be called "magic;" mine teaches that God used something that cannot be properly called "magic."

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

Mind infinite and forever operating is what God is and knows and expresses.

Let me see.. You believe that all matter and energy in the universe suddenly appeared from a big explosion of pretty much nothing all on its own without an explanation of where the pretty much nothing came from that became everything. Also that life came from soup and a lighting bolt, and that the resulting pond scum became you.

And you call speaking something into existence magic? Hello Mr Pot.

I'm not sure your fellow atheists get your name or most of them Cause I know a lot of real atheist in real life would find it abhorrent that you would mock something like Clubbing baby seals. You are a piece of work.

Don't see the insult .. Did I get your basic beliefs wrong? Do you not think yourself that you are a piece of work. So typical you got spanked and just like the animal you claim to be you attacked.

according to some theories.,we are told that life originated from simple organic molecules. that turned complex as time passed and f8nally we arised

God used his omnipotent and omniscient powers