I guess the difference I see is that the former (God's unearthly powers) is direct action, whereas the latter ("occult") is effected by an agent, presumably a human being or some other spirit being. Granted, there are times in the biblical narrative when miracles are effected by a human agent, but there are still differences between those actions and what I call "occult" actions. The difference I speak of is that which has its source and direction in truth (God) and that which is built on deceit and misleading ("occult"). I hope we're getting closer to understanding each other, rather than talking past each other, but you'll have to let me know.

For instance, when God makes a prophecy, it is grounded in truth and directs people toward the truth. When someone reads astrological signs, those signs are only partially true, at best, being faulty, and can easily lead people into a direction contrary to the truth. Both are "mysterious knowledge," in a sense, but one is to reveal (God) and the other turns out to mislead (astrology), and actually in the process often distorts knowledge of what is true (including God). Does that help, or no?

As an example, there is one time, out of pure curiosity, I decided to follow my horoscope for 3 months. Just seeing what horoscopy was all about. It was never right even once. Not even once. "So much for that," I pretty easily concluded. What a bunch of nonsense. But when I read the Bible and tells me that the human heart can be deceptively wicked, and that we should be careful whom we trust, and that honesty leads to a more just and civil society than false testimony, now I have something to hang my hat on.

I could have been clearer. By ‘occult’, I meant hidden. From my a-religious perspective, the miracles/‘supernatural’ events you describe are what I think of when I say ‘magic’. I think we agree that you are not describing trickery/illusion, and are referring to events that actually occurred.

That said, what is the difference between what you describe as God’s “mysterious unearthly powers to effect some cause” and your first definition of ‘occult’: “....system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies."?

> We disagree fundamentally about the existence of a ‘supernatural’ realm

That doesn't surprise me, and I assumed that you were not a subscriber.

> surely you would agree that all supernatural activity is ‘occult’, as evidenced by the fact that no one ever witnesses it.

Actually, I don't agree with this at all.

So, I looked up the online dictionary to get a feel for how you might be using "occult," and to make sure I wasn't just making improper assumptions.

definition 1: "of or relating to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies."

This doesn't sound like what I'm claiming for legitimate supernatural activity. It sounds like somebody is tapping into mysterious unearthly powers to effect some cause. Instead, what I'm talking about is God Himself acting in history. There's no magic, trick, or secret mystery going on; God is simply acting in people's real lives.

definition 2: "beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding; mysterious."

This doesn't sound like what I'm talking about, either. God uses supernatural events to make Himself less mysterious, authentically real, and to confirm who He is and what can be known about Him.

> as evidenced by the fact that no one ever witnesses it.

Millions of people have witnessed it. Thousands upon thousands were eyewitnesses to Jesus's various miracles, multiple hundreds saw Jesus in the flesh after the resurrection, many tens of thousands witnessed the miracles of God in the wilderness, millions of people witnessed the miracles of God in the great plagues in Egypt. It's just that non of their miracles leave any material remains, so there is no direct evidence for cold-case investigators to examine. But there were plenty of bona fide witnesses, material evidence at the time (like in the feeding of the 5000), and credible historic reports of these phenomena for us to examine millennia later.

I’m only making a distinction between ‘illusion’ or stage magic, and any phenomenon that isn’t the result of natural processes. That said, I don’t think magic exists. It has never been demonstrated, despite the million dollar prize that has been offered for many years- and probably more fame and fortune and possibly a Nobel.

We disagree fundamentally about the existence of a ‘supernatural’ realm. I’m sure that’s why we’re talking past each other. Speaking of semantics though, surely you would agree that all supernatural activity is ‘occult’, as evidenced by the fact that no one ever witnesses it.

As we all know, semantics is what matters. it's why lawyers, scientists, and philosophers spend so much time defining their terms.

Magic is based on fooling the senses. Supernatural activity expects full engagement of the senses to discern truth. They are in diametric contradistinction to each other.

> I'm pretty sure you know I wasn't referring to professional magicians tricks when I asked the question.

No, I didn't realize that. So are you speaking of occult magic, then?

If that's the case, the difference is still between truth and deceit. Divine supernatural activity is designed to help people and to give evidence to the truth about reality. Occult magic is designed to give a false path to knowledge and to distract from the truth by giving an alternate and false reality.

It's all semantics I guess. What you describe as "supernatural activity" sounds like 'magic' as it is commonly understood.

I'm pretty sure you know I wasn't referring to professional magicians tricks when I asked the question.

Magic is sleight of hand, intentional misdirection to effect a "deceit," and a trick to fool the senses. It is lenses, shrouds, doubles, fake floors, fake doors, fake props, lighting tricks, and fooling the eye.

Supernatural activity, however, is real. The God who made the world and knows better how it works than we even do is able to effect phenomena that is not within the normal cause-and-effect continuum, manipulating matter and energy to bring about an honest out-of-the-ordinary reality.

For "magic" resurrection, see Sherlock Holmes (2009, Robert Downey Jr.). For real resurrection, see Jesus of Nazareth (AD 30).

What is the difference between supernatural and magic?

> Are any of those miracles actually proven?

It depends what you mean by "proven." If you mean objectively observed by sane people who have a grasp on reality, who know what the situation was and who saw what it became, then yes, those miracles are actually proven.

> After all, many Muslims also claim miracles.

Anybody can claim anything they want. But it's possible those miracles are just as valid. The Bible is quite solid on the idea that God is not the only being who does miracles.

> Are those also true because they're claimed to be true, or is it just the miracles you like that get a free pass?

There's no reason to be insulting.

> Your "miracle" falls under a very simple logical fallacy. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Oh, I'm not guilty of that fallacy at all. Effects do follow causes, and sometimes identifying which causes prompted which effects is the motivation for much research, science, and speculation. But that doesn't mean that assigning an effect to a cause is irresponsible. Tell me this: if (rhetorical) prayer and God's subsequent action *was* the cause, then am I guilty of the fallacy? And if not, then how do you know I'm guilty of the fallacy?

Perhaps you are guilty of bias: "Miracles are impossible (circular reasoning based on assuming the conclusion before the case), and therefore any attribution of miracle is a simple logical fallacy (blatant bias)."

Are any of those miracles actually proven? After all, many Muslims also claim miracles. Are those also true because they're claimed to be true, or is it just the miracles you like that get a free pass?

Your "miracle" falls under a very simple logical fallacy. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.