So, Libertarian, did this guy do anything that couldn’t be accomplished with a trick cigarette and a friend howling like a dog on the back porch?
Degrance, if you read the thread first, you must know what variation of “magic” I am looking for here. I specifically asked for people NOT to give me examples of internal prayer-like chants called “magick”. I asked for people who claim that they can influence, to a point where others can perceive it, the outside material world using the power of their minds and/or chanting and/or the waving of hands etc.
Instead, you brought up yet again the pecular definition of “magick” used by pagans that is the exact opposite of what we’re looking for.
I don’t care what your religion is, and this is not a thread for discussing how misunderstood your religion is. As far as I can see, the only misunderstanding here is yours.
If Pagan Magic is subjective in result…how do you know you accomplished it?
Answer that, win a prize.
Sorry, but that’s untrue. I don’t have to admit Fluffy exists. However, if Czar posts a thread entitled “Does Fluffy Exist”, then I would be wrong to answer “No, because I haven’t seen him”.
Counter analogy for you. Is there life on other planets? By your argument there can’t be, as we’ve never seen it.
“Whoosh”, Gary… “Whoosh”.
Not really.
My own analysis later on went something like this:
[ul]
[li]The cigarette[/li]It was a Winston that came out of the pack that “Larry” had. Upon inspection, I saw no difference between it and the other cigarettes in the ashtray, except that it was burned a bit onto the filter cotton. My conclusion was that he might have blown on the cigarette, as I watched it burn down.
[li]The dog[/li]It was well known that the dog sort of meandered around the semi-rural neighborhood, and that she hung around various houses hoping to be fed some scraps. “Larry” might have already seen her shadows through the window/French door, and knew that she was there. He might have seen her pause and freeze, concluding that she had discerned people inside. It was likely that she might make her presence known as a way to beg for food. Thus, “Larry” made his remark and timed it correctly.
[li]The orgasm[/li]This is the most difficult one to explain since I was not a homosexual and “Larry”'s offer to blow me would have struck me as funny more than anything else. As I looked back on it a couple of years later, though I did not recall any specifics in this regard, I am almost convinced to a certainty that we were thoroughly stoned. We smoked an awful lot of pot on a regular basis back then, hence, no particular memory of being stoned on that particular night. If there had been a pretextually heightened sexual tension, perhaps created by private fantasies about one or more of the girls who were staying there, in my stoned state, the mention of a blow job could have triggered a fantasy image. Jeans were very tight, not loose, back then, and I might have grabbed myself (not recalling that detail later) upon realization of this image, thereby releasing the tension in a sudden orgasm.
[/ul]
Of course, some other analysis might explain these and other things I witnessed back then much better. Because the universe is tautological, there is always an explanation of the machinations of any event in it.
If Pagan Magic is subjective, then you, and only you, can know that you accomplished it. Subjectivity is the cognitive context of a closed frame of reference.
Please donate my prize to a charity of your choice. (How will I know whether you do so? I won’t, but you will!)
Ok, I have read this entire thread from start to finish, no Czarizm you never did define magic, as much as you protest that you did, you neatly side stepped the entire issue by saying it has been defined. You said you don’t care about religion, does that mean that religous examples are out? What if they affected the external world?
I have been reading in Great Debates for a while and I have typically been very impressed by the quality of the posts and their particular rigor in making sure that their positions were based upon some logical premise.
However the anti-magicians on this board have been very dissappointing (I’m sure I’ll get flamed, I don’t know what would make logic appear at this point). You are making the flippant argument that “if it existed we would’ve seen it”.
Before I launch into my tyrade, I will state that I put a lot of faith (ouch) into science. I have a much greater tendency to believe something that has been rigorously tested, however I do not limit my belief systems to that which can only be explained by todays science, as I hope you will soon see.
Ok let’s turn the tables, you claim that everything that is a scientific theory has been tested. If that is the case let’s talk about one of the oldest and most accepted (in scientific circles) theories. Namely that of the theory of Evolution. Why have there never been any instances of speciation observed in the laboratory? It is pretty much scientific gospel that speciation is what has led to the current diversity of the earths population, yet it has never been observed, ever. Not even among bacteria that have life cycles 1000 or more times shorter than ours? Well it takes millions of years, and well most things that evolve don’t leave much of a fossil record, so we can’t find any. Oh…it’s never been observed therefore it doesn’t exist.
It also seems to me that it’s generally accepted in the scientific community that the earth is moving, yet I would like to see someone reproduce a laboratory experiment that proves from our frame of reference that the earth is moving (good luck).
Let’s see, what is the most hunted after scientific theory of our time? Hmm…seems to me it was the one theory that Einstein (bright guy) spent the rest of his life on after relativity…oh yeah…the Unified Field Theory. Well hell…we ain’t found it by now, it must not exist. If it does…prove it!
What about a quantum leap…gosh, how do those pesky electrons travel across time and space, without actually traversing the distance or allowing any time to elapse? Or do they? Prove it!
What about the non-interactivity of photons, how is it that an unlimited number of photons can occupy the same space time continuum. Or do they? Prove it!
What the hell is gravity? Sure you can see it’s affects, but can you prove that the universe isn’t somehow accelerating in every direction simultaneously, thereby giving us the illusion of gravity? Of course you can’t, the two effects are indistinguishable from a closed system.
What about frame dragging, that is a widely accepted part of Einstein’s theory of relativity…hmm…where’s the proof? Oh…wait you don’t have a laboratory experiment set up for that yet? What happens if the experiment that Nasa sends up fails (don’t remember the launch date), probably what normally happens, they’ll say the machine wasn’t calibrated properly.
What about those pesky things called black holes? I mean we know they exist right? I mean…well we haven’t actually seen one yet, but we’re pretty sure they exist…well no we can’t see them because light doesn’t escape them (convenient) oh…and they’re rare too…so they’re hard to find. Hah, prove that the candidates they are looking at are in fact black holes!
Go back 200 years, taking no planes from today, and “prove” to people that heavier than air flight is possible. If the wright brothers had believed that the conventional “science” was correct we wouldn’t be flying today.
Let’s talk about Galileo, you know he wasn’t the first person to speculate that the earth revolved around the sun. There was actually a fair amount of documentation about that 3500 years before him, but noone had telescopes to prove it with. They also couldn’t prove that the planets were not made of perfect celestial incorruptible matter, because they could not see their surfaces.
What makes you any different than the people that “knew” that heavier than air flight was impossible? What makes you any different than the people who “knew” that the planets revolved around the earth? I mean they had a pretty accurate model that could describe just about all of the daily occurances that they encountered. You people think that you know everything? That our age is so enlightened? You rest all your confidence and arrogance upon these great minds of the past, these people who defied the science of their time, the ones who said “I know all the evidence indicates it doesn’t exist, but I just know in my gut, in my heart of hearts that it does. I will find a way to prove it.” It’s a good thing there are people like them around, god forbid everyone had the attitude of many of the people on this board, if that was the case we’d still be living in caves going “Og if there was such a thing as the wheel, we’d have known about it by now!”
You all say that magic doesn’t exist, that it would violate the laws of physics. Which ones? Let’s take two examples specifically (they are the easiest to prove my point with =P ). Time travel, can it exist? Well we just aren’t sure are we, we do know that you can slow time down by accelerating close to the speed of light (time dilation), we also know that you can make an object shorter by the same process (length contraction), we also know that an object gains mass (mass expansion). What we don’t know specifically is what happens when you hit the speed of light or if it’s even possible. What about teleportation? Could we go from one side of the universe to the other without crossing the distance between? Electrons travel across time and space in that manner (quantum leaps), and wormholes have been theorized (although never experienced). We will of course forget the fact that pretty much all known laws of physics breakdown at both the quantum and relativistic levels.
I have experienced some things in my life that I cannot attribute to anything other than either spiritual, supernatural or “magic” forces. However I’m not going to get into that right now, because I don’t feel like this board is conducive to anything remotely resembling an honest intellectual discussion. From Czarisms posts I can only discern that he wanted to belittle anyone who believes in something that science can’t prove today! I’d like to see you explain some of the things I posted above, and there are a LOT more things in the sciences (everyone that I have studied) that cannot be explained.
Most of the scientists that I know believe in things that are not yet proven. That is the only way to prove something exists, is to attempt to prove it, even though people have failed at it for hundreds or thousands of years. If everyone that ever lives from now on out says “Magic doesn’t exist, if it does we would’ve seen it.” Then I would imagine it would never be discovered.
But think about it for a moment, think about the beauty, the mystique, the incredible beauty it could add to our lives if it did. What if we humans could move something by mere thought? What if through nothing more than sheer force of will we could “summon fireballs”, “levitate quarters” whatever the hell would convince you. Wouldn’t that bring the entire human race to a new era? Something that we have wished for, for thousands of years? Much like flight? Or space travel? I don’t envy those of you who believe that there is nothing that exists that is not explainable, you must live in a very sad, very boring world. I just hope that the next revolution that comes a long and changes fundamentally the way we view science doesn’t destroy your world altogether, and though you claim to be the proponents of science, if Einstein, Galileo, Newton or The Wright Brothers were trying to convince you, you would be arguing against them until they proved it. You would be the ones saying, “Stop spending money on this idiotic nonsense, if it could’ve been done it would’ve.” All I can say to that is BS!!!
From what I have seen Svinlesha and Gary Kumquat are much more open minded than you are. Svinlesha even posted a link to a study that shows based on thousands of tests that the human mind can influence the external world. Yet not one of you even dared touch that. None of you has provided any kind of a site proving that magic doesn’t exist. I haven’t seen any really good, really scientific studies presented that prove magic doesn’t exist. But I have seen one in favor of it.
I’m sure the other Pagan “weasels” reading this thread are waiting for your response as well. BTW it was definately your group that resorted to the name calling, and diverged from anything that ever resembled a scientific inquiry and turned it into the inquisition it has become.
BS. He clearly did so in the OP:
And he was quite clearly careful to say that he wasn’t dismissing a person’s religious claims.
That is not a definition, there is too much open territory. You are the ones claiming to have the scientific high ground here. You say that magic doesn’t exist, but refuse to allow certain examples and nebulously define others. Every example that has been discussed has been dismissed, even though it falls within this vague definition. Why? Because it “could’ve” been caused by something else. Please, you don’t want to discuss magic, you guys want to flame, this should’ve been posted in The Barbeque pit from what I’ve seen.
When people legimately ask for more information on what Czarism is looking for he takes the time to rip them a new one, but won’t answer the post? In fact when Freyr tried to nail down some specifics he was told “we don’t need a new definition”, yet most people trying to answer the question would like to define it further. What are you afraid of geeze, it’s a simple request, everytime someone tries to define what you mean by magic you say “Why does everyone that believes in magic run when the scientist comes” geeze, it doesn’t look to me like we are the ones running, or attacking or name calling. Man I don’t care Moderator or not, that doesn’t belong in the Great Debates. I would classify this as anything but great.
If you want to have an open intellectual discussion about magic, then let’s have that. If all you want to do is flame and namecall, maybe this should be moved to the Barbeque Pit.
That’s not an apt an analogy for the argument. If you said you had an alien in the closet, but couldn’t produce any evidence, yet still demanded that I believe in his existence, then you would have a parallel to what the pagans claim. My argument has been put up or shut up. I’m willing to be convinced, but I require more evidence than just some hippie’s say-so that magic exists. There may be magic, but to get me to believe, you have to show me some. If you don’t show me any evidence, then I am free not to believe. But you can’t tell me that magic absolutely exists with no evidence whatsoever.
In adition, with the arguments you’ve put forth, there is no way you’re an atheist. An agnostic, maybe, but no atheist.
As far as life on other planets goes, the only honest answer
is to give a Gallic shrug and say, “Who knows?” We have no evidence for or against. Personally, I hope there is, but, likely we will never know.
Ha! Good answer! 
First off, thanks, BeoWulf! I was beginning to suspect that someone had cast an invisibility spell on my posts!
Secondly, Wulf’s got a point. Czarcasm originally asked for an example of magic that inclued “hand waving, chanting, etc.” and that “influence[d] the material world.” I provided an example and was rebuffed because it was “anecdotal” and “non-repeatable.” So at the very least Czarcasm’s definition of magic also includes the quality “repeatability”, which I argue might not be a magical quality in the same sense that it is a quality of say, the motion of heavenly bodies.
Later on he wrote out a list of things that he would consider “magic” – like levitation, invisibility, dowsning, etc. I perused it thinking, “Sheesh, this boy’s read one Dr. Strange comic too many . That’s a far cry from the sort of ritual magic that I’m most familiar with (not that I’m even all that familiar with ritual magic, mind you). I thought he was talking about something completely different.” (Hence the need for a definition.)
But okay. C claims that scientists have “never” found the slightest shred of evidence that others can influence the external world using nothing but their thoughts. I’ve seen some evidence of this myself however; namely an article in a highly-respected, peer-reviewed political science journal called “The Journal of Conflict Resolution.” To make a long story short, after searching my attic for the article (I know I’ve got a copy of the damn thing somewhere) I did a quick search on the net and stumbled onto the PEAR site. There’s evidence for you, even down to the repeatability – just no hand-waving.
The response? andros informs me haughtily once again that my original story “does not serve to expand a body of supporting evidence,” and the rest of my post is ignored.
So tell me again – what is it you’re looking for?
Look at the question on the title. “Does Magic Exist”. Change subject in question. “Does extra terrestiral life exist”. Just through a change in subject, you’ve changed your underlying logic from
to
Explain to me - why should one be more likely than the other? Neither has any evidence to support them.
Nope. I can’t. And I have not tried to do so. All I have ever done is to give your gallic shrug and say ‘perhaps’. However, please give me the evidence that it doesn’t. I’ve now said this several times, but I’m prepared to repeat my point - you cannot just say something does not exist because you have not seen any evidence.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica’s article comprehensive definition of atheism
"a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God "
And I do. But thank you for your interest.
So are you saying that God exists, but you’re just not going to be a follower? That’s a new, and most interesting, definition of atheist.
Gary,,
There is another reason why I can deny the existence of magic, but I can acknowledge the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
Magic contravenes everything we know about how the universe works.
ET life is perfectly consistent with the state of our knowledge.
Nobody has ever managed to demonstrate magic in a controlled setting that prevents fraud. (that lets your anecdote out, Svinlesha
Astronomers have found more than 30 planets in extrasolar planetary systems. Although the planets found so far could not support life, there may be life-bearing planets nearby.
ET life is plausible, magic is not.
**
I remember your example. When I was growing up in Colorado I would sometimes hope for heavy snows so I wouldn’t have to go to school. And sometimes for some reason it did snow enough to the point where we couldn’t go to school! Imagine something queer like that happening in a place like Colorado. Who’d of thunk it?
If someone can control the weather to that degree why not go to places where drought and famine are common?
Marc
No - as you can see, that isn’t what I wrote at all. The definition I quoted was “Someone who rejects belief in God”. I’d suggest going to EB’s definition that I linked to, and having a read. If you choose to argue with their definition, that’s really another debate.
No, but after all the guff you have given me in this debate about how I can’t say magic does not exist just because I’ve never seen any, yet you reject belief in GOD?
Do you see how inconsistent that is?
Ok bracing for flaming…
I am not christian, and I do not believe in magic
I had heard something about a christian radio show doing “mass prayers” for people undergoing high risk surgical procedures, and that so far these people had a higher than average survival percentage. I would love to know the details of how they went about some of this like did they know these prayers would be done before they went into surgery. If they did not I think it would make for pretty good evidence of an “energy” that we have not as yet been able to measure (ki, spirit, etc)
Can anyone fill in details of the show/events I am referring to?
Does that fit your definition of magic Czar?