“You’re” is not the same as “your.” Please learn the difference. No, I did not major in English, you illiterate asshole.
Have fifty people chant a spell for good luck and fifty people do nothing. Then have all 100 of them attempt the same task (let’s say shooting free throws). Record their rates of success. If the rates are no better than what one should expect from random chance, then you must conclude that chanting spells had no effect on “luck” (which doesn’t really exist either).
But they aren’t claiming that magic is abstract, they’e claiming that it’s real, that it’s concrete, that it IS a measureable thing.
Sorry, but you don’t get to define words to mean what you want them to mean. You can’t do that and communicate successfully.
If no one’s doing these things, how can you say they’re possible?
I loved your Edison story, Jab. What Peanno proved was that 1 + 1 = 2. Numbers are not elements of the physical universe, and therefore fly under the radar of the scientific method. They must be verified using question begging epistemologies like deduction and induction. Scientists may do their experiments all they like, but ultimately, to quantify them, they must take their equations on faith.
It depends on your “definition” of know :rolleyes:
It’s really a simple matter of deduction, and no great leaps of logic, and perhaps a little use of occams razor. When we map the brain, fear, love, want, simple emotions like this are found to cause reactions in certain areas of the brain. Courage, bravery, etc, are also emotions, though I am not sure they have been mapped, it stands to reason that these things will share the same things the other emotions have, and not have some “magical”, “mystical” or orgone causes.
[Lib]: I do not see where you are comming from with trying to prove 5+5=10, is this a straw man? or is it just a really bad argument. if I take a single apple, and put another single apple beside it, there are two apples, same if i put 5 and 5 apples together, Time and time again, if I do this, they will equal 10, repeatability too. So what more proof do you need? You want more proof? you need that much proof that 5+5=10, yet you blindly believe in magic/god etc? sheesh.
Depends upon your definition of the word set, doesn’t it? I suppose what I should have said is, “There is only one correct answer for every properly-phrased question.” My fault.
Eh, your fault, my bad example. Upon re-reading, I realize that without defining what the set is, that is a trick question. Sort of like asking how much change I have in my pocket without telling you which pocket I’m referring to.
Really? What is the one correct (direct) answer to this question: What is the single most beautiful item in the
world?
How about this one: What is the most frightening event or sequence of events a person could possibly experience?
Or this one: What is the best recipe for chocolate cake?
Or this one: What is the best way to travel to the outer reaches of the universe?
When we are dealing with the unprovable – which includes, but is not limited to, the subjective, or quasi-subjective – there is no single right answer. To say that there is reduces the world to its objective elements alone, as if that were all it is, which clearly it is not. Matters of opinion have no single right answer. Matters that are beyond human proof have no single right answer, either. Matters that depend on theory or events that have not taken place or cannot be accomplished with what we know now have no single right answer – at least, none that we know and can name as “right” just yet. Shoot, even the assertion “every question has but one single correct answer” is itself a an unprovable and unproven hypothetical. It seems for a self-avowed champeen of science and objectivity, JAB has strayed pretty far from the field himself. As I have said before, one thing science is pretty good at is recognizing its own limitations, and it does not concern itself with matters beyond them. Science and religion are not concerned with the same things. That does not mean that one is valid and the other is not. Faith is integral to religion (well, lots of religions) just as proof is integral to science. But you have no more basis to ask me for proof in matters religious than I do to require you to rely on faith in matters scientific. They are two totally separate spheres, and respecting one does not mean you have to disrespect the other. Really, I don’t see what’s so hard about this.
The rest of your post about it requiring faith to drive, etc., is patently absurd, IMHO. First: there are physical laws of the universe - observed happenings - which have been observed repeatedly and the way the vehicle operates is repeatable, thus the millions of automobiles on the road.
Now having faith in the other driver’s ability to drive competently is a different issue.
What happened to all the good scientists on this board, i.e., the ones who can read and write and do arithmetic and logic?
[ul]
[li]Number one: I am not trying to prove that 5 + 5 = 10. Jab is. He brought it up.[/li][li]Number two: Even if I were, it would not be a straw man. It would be a red herring.[/li][li]Number three: Hi, Opal.[/li][li]Number four: The point of the argument was that the whole foundation of arithmetic rests on the acceptance of an unprovable assertion, Peanno’s Induction Axiom. Those, like you and I, who believe that 5 + 5 = 10 take that axiom on faith.[/li][li]Number five: Repeatability is not proof of anything. Don’t they teach statistics or number theory in your science classes? We’ve already established that they don’t teach the epistemological foundation of science, so you just accept your premises on faith.[/li][li]Number six: I do not believe in magic.[/li][li]Number seven: Unlike you, I do not “blindly” believe in anything. God manifests Himself to me daily. He goes under the radar of your scientific method because He is real, i.e., made of Spirit and not atoms.[/li][li]Number eight: The good scientists, i.e., the ones who think and reason — the ones who know the underlying principles and epistemological origins of their own discipline — are the ones who make new discoveries. The rest of you guys are just me-toos, spending your lives repeating what they have done already, all the while basking in your own glow, convinced that your grunt work, the science equivalent of assembly line work, proves something meaningful. You think you’re so damn smart because you know about vitamins. Why haven’t you figured out how to feed the world?[/li][/ul]
You’ve merely transfered your faith from one axiom to logic as a whole, attaching arbitrary meaning to an abstraction. Unfortunately, you must use logic to validate logic, which is no different from using the Bible to validate the Bible.
When I am there, magic doesn’t work. Jab has noticed the same thing. He knows the unprovable, and unscientific is not real. I know the Lord protects me by preventing from magic from happening wherever I am.
We both have faith in our own perceptions of the world. I suspect that a great part of that faith rests on our desire not to exist in a formless void, bereft of reality. The fundamental objectivity of our perceptions defies proof, unless we define proof in an achievable way. Each of us exists within his own circle of logic.
We also happen to include a lot of elements so similar that our description of them will be identical, even without communication between us. That portion is what we call the physical world. We perceive other things differently. We must decide independently whether to assign value judgments of each other based on that fact.
One thing both Jab and I have noticed is that a lot of what we are told is magic does not have any perceptible existence to us. We also notice that frauds, and deceits do exist, with unhappy frequency. We deal with that too according to our perceptions of reality.
ring…ring
Hello Pot?
This is the kettle, just wanted to let you know you’re black.
The problem with this, as with just about everything else you’ve said, is that you’re taking it out of it’s element. You seem to be missing the point. If I ask the blessings of the Goddess in my life, to bring me happiness, and good luck in my day to day life, how is that tested by having me throw a basketball? **You’re ** the one that is asking for examples that are outside of what * most * people here are talking about. I’ll tell you what, you bring a scientist to my house, and have him point out an atom to me right in my living room, then I’ll believe. If he can’t do it under my conditions then I’ll assume he can’t do it at all. This is basically what you’re asking.
No, **you ** are. Most people in this thread, and the other couple of threads have stated repeatedly that what they practice as “magic” isn’t measurable. You’re the one demanding proof of something that can’t be proven. There are some people in the world that are convinced that the US government has the technology to have a space station in the asteroid belt. (anyone remember that guy?) So if I ask for proof of that claim, and the person cannot back it up, can I then conclude that technology doesn’t exist?
Why not? You are. Despite repeated statements that “magic” involves the changing of oneself, and one’s own outlook on life, you keep defining it as something else. Looks to me like you’re changing the definition to suite your expected outcome.
And I have repeatedly said that I believe that many things considered ‘magical’ are simply unknown properties of our own bodies. Let me ask you this. How long did it take from the time that man knew that flight was possible (from the observation of birds) did it take for us to actually understand the physics of it? So why do you believe that since we know what physically happens in the brain under certain stimuli, we understand how it actually works? We physically knew the sun rose in the east a hell of a long time before we really understood why it did.
Monty–
I think you missed the point. I probably should have type (or affirm) there as well. The point that I was trying to make is that saying those words will not force someone to tell the truth. It will not compel them to honesty. But we use something that looks a lot like a ritual in every day life. When those words are said, the underlying laws are what (supposedly) make a person tell the truth.
And you’re entitled to your opinion. My point in this is the absurdity in believing that we understand all the laws of the universe, from our one little corner of it.
Triskadecamus–
The unprovable isn’t real huh? There are an awful lot of things that science can’t prove. They supposition, and make assumptions based upon observations. However, if one single assumption is incorrect, then the entire basis for their understand, and every conclusion they’ve reached from that understanding, is wrong.
I have read this entire thread and to be honest, all this talking in circles and branching out in every direction has given me a headache.
I’m going to make this as simple as possible. Forget the Wiccan vs Pagan argument. Forget the differences in religious practices. Forget the Scientific explanations vs faith. Forget explaining the varying degrees such as simple meditation to all-out flame throwing. Forget who is not respecting another persons beliefs. Forget the debate of who should provide proof of the existence or non-existence. I’m not calling anyone names, I don’t even care what religion you are or are not. I just want simple answers to the following simple questions.
Can anyone give me an answer without flying off into left field or without throwing a hissy fit or claiming that I an intollerable?
Can you perform magic? Yes or no.
What can you do, specifically?
Are you able to perform magic that can be observed with the naked eye? (i.e. move objects)
What is your success rate of all magic performed?
What can you provide skeptics that shows this success rate is more than chance of the odds?
If I were there with you now, what could you show me that would make me a believer or at the very least persuade me to open my mind?
Can you perform magic that no one has been able to explain? What did you do?
Are you willing to take this power public and allow yourself to be tested by the skeptics? If not, why are you unwilling to gain respect from your critics by proving them wrong?
Can you perform magic that we can see here on the board?
If I assure you that I will keep an open mind, would you be willing to work with me or show me something that would prove your craft? If not, why?
I am still shocked that grown adults still believe in religion/magic.
I suppose this is one of the reasons why we all live under the threat of nuclear war. Humans, on average, are not rational creatures. Reading this thread has renewed my interest in the arms reduction process.
And I’m still shocked that most people obviously don’t think for themselves. They take the world as they are taught in school, and accept that as the way things are without question.
I want you to think about this for a moment. What is being said in this thread is that in the time that has been dedicated to the understanding of our universe we believe that we pretty much know how everything works. We may not know all the details, but we’ve got a pretty good grasp on things. To me, personally, this sounds like a 10 year old saying that he understands the world, and nothing is outside of his understanding. We see it right here on the board almost every day. “There can be no Faster Than Light travel, because nothing can travel faster than light.” This statement bothers me. Because it implies an absolute understanding of the entire universe. I’d be happier if that statement were made with “…as we understand the Laws of Physics now” tagged on the end.
Diane–
Good post, let me get back to you…I have a bit too much work right now to make a response.
Oh sure, the world would be a safer place were it controlled by good ol’ rational atheists like North Korean President Kim Il-sung, or his mentors Stalin and Mao. We can all hold hands and sing Kum Baya while all those atheist missions the world over feed the starving children. :rolleyes:
And I’m still shocked that most people obviously don’t think for themselves. They take the world as they are taught in school, and accept that as the way things are without question.
I want you to think about this for a moment. What is being said in this thread is that in the time that has been dedicated to the understanding of our universe we believe that we pretty much know how everything works. We may not know all the details, but we’ve got a pretty good grasp on things. To me, personally, this sounds like a 10 year old saying that he understands the world, and nothing is outside of his understanding. We see it right here on the board almost every day. “There can be no Faster Than Light travel, because nothing can travel faster than light.” This statement bothers me. Because it implies an absolute understanding of the entire universe. I’d be happier if that statement were made with “…as we understand the Laws of Physics now” tagged on the end.
Diane–
Good post, let me get back to you…I have a bit too much work right now to make a response.
And I’m still shocked that most people obviously don’t think for themselves. They take the world as they are taught in school, and accept that as the way things are without question.
I want you to think about this for a moment. What is being said in this thread is that in the time that has been dedicated to the understanding of our universe we believe that we pretty much know how everything works. We may not know all the details, but we’ve got a pretty good grasp on things. To me, personally, this sounds like a 10 year old saying that he understands the world, and nothing is outside of his understanding. We see it right here on the board almost every day. “There can be no Faster Than Light travel, because nothing can travel faster than light.” This statement bothers me. Because it implies an absolute understanding of the entire universe. I’d be happier if that statement were made with “…as we understand the Laws of Physics now” tagged on the end.
Diane–
Good post, let me get back to you…I have a bit too much work right now to make a response.
Or Christians like Adolph Hitler, those responsible for the Inquisition, etc., right, fuckchunk? Nice generalizations, jackass. It’s nice to know all atheists don’t care about suffering in the world and no religious types ever cause it. I think you just converted me. You fucking mule.
And you’re still missing the point. The ritual is not required. As it is, what’s most likely compelling witnesses to honesty is the threat of punishment, not at the hands of some deity, but at the hands of the civil authorities if they’re found out and the case was important enough to jail perjurors.
As it is, my opinion is based far more in reality than yours. I did not say that we understood all the physical laws of the universe. I said “there are physical laws of the universe - observed happenings - which have been observed repeatedly” and you’re extrapolating something that I didn’t even imply. What’s at issue here is two things: (1) a request from the OP to subject what some “practitioners of magic(k)” claim to be events caused in the physical universe by them and thus which should be repeatable, especially since there’s a market in spell books, etc. & (2) none of the “practitioners” ponying up.
Libertarian:
No. There is no issue of faith here. What’s happening is I’m accepting the rules of the mathematical game, kind of like agreeing that the Knight in a game of Chess always has a certain way of moving. All parties to the game accept that as a given. That does not mean, in any way whatsoever, that those parties have faith in the knight’s move.
No. Logic is a branch of mathematics. All parties who agree to play the game, as it were, of mathematics use those same rules. It’s called a working system.
Only on Planet Lib would that be true. First: the science of mathematics is exactly that: a science. Those who partake of it have agreed at the outset that certain things are axioms and that other things derived from those are also valid things within the context of mathematics. Using math rules to operate math rules is the whole point of math. Claiming that the Bible validates the Bible is claiming that such validation applies to faith - not an issue in mathematics.
Well, since that’s a basic postulate of mathematics, it’s one of the givens used as a basis for that scientific system and thus is not subject to proof. The proofs of mathematics fall back onto the postulates.
Mathematics is not religion and you make yourself look incredibly foolish to claim that it is.