Originally posted by DeltaChaos
What's funny is that it seems so simple just to provide some indication that magic actually happens. Yet everyone vehemently refuses to show some scrap of evidence that it exists and simply states that If I don't believe then I'm wrong.
It really isn't too much to ask for evidence of what you state is fact.
Originally posted by LordGoofus
I can't believe how many posts have been made to this thread. It was a VERY simple and straight forward question. If magic is real. Prove it. All I keep reading is people talking about "energy seeping into the earth", "you don't understand" and basically "you can't see it if you don't believe in it to some extent" etc etc.
I believe the original posters' intent was a simple demonstration. A practioner of magik, sits down at a table, with the poster. Says "Ok, now I am going to make such and such happen", they do the spell, and either "such and such" does or does not happen. This "spell" is then repeated for arguments sake let's say 5times, in different locations, at different times, with thorough checking before the spell is started that there are no hidden wires, or whatever equipment magicians use to conjure stage magic.
You then document these results, using both cameras, video AND hand written notes, and repeat the experiment on say, 100 other practioners who have had NO contact with each other. At the end, you analyse the results which will either suggest magik is indeed real, or it isn't.
It's really not that hard to understand. I'm sure if the original poster wanted a theory / history lesson on magik he/she would have gone to the nearest library..
Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by ashanu90
Werll why not have the courage of your convictions and give me a larf. Get any recipe for evoking a demon to visible appearance. Fast for 2 to three days and follow all the instructions to the letter. If the spell doesn't work then step into the triangle and repeat. Disolution would not happen but you would get proof for yourself. Is it objective probably not be proof non the less.