Ok, who can prove magic exists?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Paul Richard,

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Finally someone can actually attest to these things actually having happened. A television show or a stage isn't the best place to study these phenomena. I think that if these people can do these things at all, even if intermittently, they should be tested in controlled settings. Hypotheses developed as to why these things may be possible, and retested to qualify or falsify assumptions. Develop a theory and prove it. Then, with what we learn, consider it science, improve it and make great things happen. Of course there would obviously be antagonists who would no doubt attempt to block the study and development of this science, as they always have. Most currently with stem-cell research.

I can believe that a phenomena may not be able to be reproduced by a person consistently, but I believe there's a good reason. I don't believe that reason could be because some unseen spiritual force is arbitrarily allowing it. If it is being done by a person, then the person is doing it.




posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
@ DeltaChaos

Having read (and responding to) your posts of the inquiry of Magik, why are you so adamant about Magik being proven?

It seems to me that possibly there is a subversive motive? That the powers of Magik, if can not be proven to you, are actually myth.

Misfit



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
@ DeltaChaos

Having read (and responding to) your posts of the inquiry of Magik, why are you so adamant about Magik being proven?

It seems to me that possibly there is a subversive motive? That the powers of Magik, if can not be proven to you, are actually myth.

Misfit


Subversive? It seemed pretty damn obvious to me.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
You said

I am an athiest for the same reasons I don't believe in phenomena that are not documented, not witnesses, and are untestable. Or at least the tests do not produce predictable results.


The you said

I don't believe that reason could be because some unseen spiritual force is arbitrarily allowing it. If it is being done by a person, then the person is doing it.


I'm confused at this....does this mean that you can prove that unseen spiritual force, or have seen predictable results!?



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Subversive? It seemed pretty damn obvious to me.


Well, I guess not too damn obvious to me, or I would not have asked.

Just seems there is an overwhelming push for Majik to be proven.

My thought of subversive was just as I stated.

Misfit



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
Having read (and responding to) your posts of the inquiry of Magik, why are you so adamant about Magik being proven?




Because, everything else that we know to exist can be proven. And it could be used for a purpose. Don't get me wrong, we have a long way to go on a lot of things. But the thing is, if something happens, there is usually a record of it. Witness testimony. These testimonies just aren't around in abundance like with other previously unexplained phenomena. That only suggests that people have not witnessed it, and that it doesn't exist.

I'll be the first one to tell you that I would like very much for it to be true. If magic happens, then there has to be a cause for the effect. Just as all the other phenomena we study can be explained, so could magic, if it were found to be real in tests.

Just in this thread, I've heard about ten different explanations of where magic ability originates, whether it be a connectedness to the universe, a spiritual gift, the harnessing of mental energy. All these different stories, but no one wants to just cough up the evidence. The only person who has bothered to list accounts of what he believes to be actual magic (or telekinetics, which I would place in the category magic due to the glaring lack of evidence and documentation) was Paul Richard.

This is a step toward subjecting a phenomena to scrutiny of science. Which all things should be subjected to. Eventually, science can find the reasons behind everything that we observe in this universe.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Hmmm...

maybe it's explained HERE.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
Well, I guess not too damn obvious to me, or I would not have asked.

Just seems there is an overwhelming push for Majik to be proven.

My thought of subversive was just as I stated.

Misfit

Sorry, didn't mean to come off combative.

But, of course there's a push for magic to be proven. There's a push for everything discussed here to be proven. Be it the NWO, UFO's, Bigfoot, whatever. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for verifiablle proof that such a thing exists.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
You said

I am an athiest for the same reasons I don't believe in phenomena that are not documented, not witnesses, and are untestable. Or at least the tests do not produce predictable results.


The you said

I don't believe that reason could be because some unseen spiritual force is arbitrarily allowing it. If it is being done by a person, then the person is doing it.


I'm confused at this....does this mean that you can prove that unseen spiritual force, or have seen predictable results!?


What I said was that I don't believe that the results of magic could be accounted for by an unseen spiritual force causing them, because I don't believe that an unseen spiritual force exists. There is even less evidence of unseen spiritual forces than there is for magic itself.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
DeltaChaos, it was told in this (may be the other) thread already that people HAVE been invited to rituals, and HAVE witness Magik first hand. Where those reports/findings or who it was I do not know.

But also as that post stated, Magik and rituals is simply not something that comes as a free for all to see. As one mentioned, negative energy (which can also be said as "disbelief") in of itself can (and usually will) cause the Magik to in fact not happen at all.

So, knowing those circumstances, how could it be proven, when someone that would have the positive energy for Magik to be "proven" alread of themselves believe in it be it even subtle, otherwise they would be the negative energy that dispells it from happening.

I actually dont KNOW how it can be proven, much as a Christian can not PROVE that "God" exists.

If you do not believe that an unseen spiritual force exists, how is one to prove it - what is it you want to "witness", as it were, to believe; that is NOT a statement that it will happen, just my wanting to know what you want as proof?

Misfit

[Edit = too many threads in me head, can't spell worth diddly right now, lol]


[edit on 22-10-2004 by Misfit]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Damn Delta...you obstinate thing you! I have tried so hard to explain to you and I think I am just not articulate enough to do so......it's once again...the directing of energy....I just don't know how to explain any better than that. I have to work tomorrow so I gptta hit the mattress.....I'll think and try to come up with something to explain better....ya know, you could find a group in your area an respectfully ask to sit in being honest and telling them you are interested in magic....I dunno though, we can be a bit disseminating due to the nature of things.....I'll leave this conversation to my hubby for the night...you guys can keep at it but I'm tired.
Blessings..



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
But, of course there's a push for magic to be proven. There's a push for everything discussed here to be proven. Be it the NWO, UFO's, Bigfoot, whatever. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for verifiablle proof that such a thing exists.


Exactly. What is subversive about suggesting that a phenomena be subjected to the scientific process. That is the most obvious thing we could do to determine the validity of the claims.

The only thing that's subversive about my suggestion, maybe, is that I know that magic, psychokinetics, astrology... all these things have been studied by science for years and years. And no conclusive results have been achieved.

What I see is people simply convincing themselves beyond reason that something that they would like very much to be true is, when it is in fact not. For example, Religion is magic. It is the best magic. Not because it works, but just because so many people believe it. It's majority rules. If I ask a religionist to subject their beliefs to question, I'm the crazy one. I think not. Look at the real results of religion. It's simply a voluntary submission of the mind to claims that have not, can not, and will not be proven.

Soon, the Judeo-islamo-christian God will die, and faith will go away. Just like the gods before him.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

I think that applies here, in a way.

If it's repeatable, then it's not magic. It's merely unexplained.
And Doesn't really have to be High technology, just not fully understood.

ergo: no such thing as magic..



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Assassin
Hmmm...

maybe it's explained HERE.


Magical Trevor! That was cute. Good break from the discourse!

Everyone check out Magical Trevor!!! You will smile!



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Soon, the Judeo-islamo-christian God will die, and faith will go away. Just like the gods before him.


I do doubt that. Billions of people believing in something doesn't go away over night.

For everyone else, I'm not trying to say it's wrong to believe in magic (or religion, or anything for that matter). Faith in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's just that you need to accept that it is in fact faith and belief, and not some sort of fact.

Humans by design are believing creatures. The world is much too large and complex for us to scrutinize every detail. So we form beleifs about the world, and then find facts to reinforce them. If we find facts to the contrary, that belief dissolves and is replaced by a new one. So someone who beleives in magic will see the proof everywhere, whereas someone who does not will only see empty promises.

Again, nothing wrong with that,, as long as you accept it.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Magic is the ability to manipulate natural energy's to do your will.which all of us do every day,like turning on our lights,or driving at 55 mph to the store.all of us are witchs by the classical definition.thats one reason groups like the amish arent all happy about technology.ITS THE DEVIL!!!



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Soon, the Judeo-islamo-christian God will die, and faith will go away. Just like the gods before him.


I do doubt that. Billions of people believing in something doesn't go away over night.


Good point. No, religions of today are going to be around for a long time. How many people were there believing in the Greek and Roman gods? Maybe a couple of million? And the Sumerian/Egyptian gods? Even less.

The Christian god will die only when people get tired of waiting for the return of Christ. The Jewish god (which is the same god) will only die when the Jews get tired of waiting for their messiah.


Faith in and of itself is not a bad thing.


I think it is. Why pass off accountability for successes and failures to an intangible spirit figure, when in actuality the accountability rests on the individual. I hate seeing people with great talent such as athletes, musicians, artists, and others blaming success on God and Christ, when they actually produced the results themselves. And what's more, is there are people all around them achieving similar levels of success and don't believe it was due to God. It doesn't make sense.


Humans by design are believing creatures.


We are. We are storytellers. We like to tell stories about things we don't understand. And in the interest of telling a good story, with the hopes of someone listening to our next story, we embellish and exaggerate it to make it more sensational. Or to induce fear of eternal pain and lonliness in an attempt to control the thoughts and actions of the masses. Which works very well, by the way.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
So we form beleifs about the world, and then find facts to reinforce them. If we find facts to the contrary, that belief dissolves and is replaced by a new one.


This brings to mind the kept books of the Bible that the (?)Vatican(?) is holding back.

Thoughts are, that things in those books are so controverisal to the modern Christian (as a whole - God, Jesus, Mary, etc) world that it would rock it to shambles.

That just may, also, rock to shamble the power grip modern church (again, as a whole) has on the world.

Hmm, maybe it's the truth?

Misfit

[Edit = added sentence of "power grip" within a minute of post]


[edit on 22-10-2004 by Misfit]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   
We need truth now more than at any time in our past. The amount of deceit that we have propogated and allowed to this point is causing us to question everything we see and hear, to include ourselves.

There is no way for a person in this world to know where they stand because no one knows what's true, yet we all profess to. That only causes us to fight each other, and despise each other. We hate each other on the basis that our lies are the truth, and your truths are lies.

[edit on 23-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Do you read your horoscope every day. If one were to read their horoscope every day of their life, what are the chances that the information was correct? Now, what are the chances of the horoscope being the same in 20 different newspapers. I know, newspaper horoscopes aren't real. That's a given, but it has the same effect.


Okay... speaking as someone who WAS a professional astrologer... the stuff in the newspaper isn't real astrology. And even the kings didn't do it on a daily basis.

Horoscopes are entertainment. REAL horoscopes are a form of divination: formation of a consensual reality (as discussed before.)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join