Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ok, who can prove magic exists?

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Kidfinger,

Subtle body energy, I believe. I've studied accupressure and practiced it a little, and it was that little practice alone that convinced me of the reality of Chi or Qi.


I think you have found proof of magik, but you just dont realize it. This same energy (Chi, or Qi) is IMO the same energy that the Wiccans tap into. It is a natural energy. Chi practicioners have studied ways to use this energy for over a thousand years. Majik practicioners have studied ways of tapping this energy for even longer. Think of it like this. Two people travel to the same destination from the same origin. One drives a car, the other a motorcycle. They get to the same place, using the same fuel, but the maode of transportation is different.

KF




posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Kidfinger,

For the sake of arguement, say that a person who studied the manipulation of Chi were able to live and study it for 300 years, rather than less than 100, as we live now? What do you think would be possible?



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I think that with total dedication for that amount of time, total mastery of ones body would be obtained. Ill expound. One would be able to speed up or slow down your heart rate at will to control blood pressure. One would be able mend a broken bone by focusing on the broken limb. You would have to set it of course, but once set, one would be able to heal ones self. One would be able to produce adrenaline at will. One thing to add here. All the healing one could do for Ones self, could be done to another as well.
That covers the Biological side, now I deal with the physical side.

One could learn to recieve the emotional state of someone. To make a kind of emotional connection to them. One would be able to affect physical objects. With the proper amount of training, one would be able to use Chi as an extension of your body. I think it would be possible to create an impenatrable(by a person) wall. I believe all these things are possible through a dedicated lifelong study of chi, if the life was extended ahundred or so years.

I also think you would be more in touch with the natural world around you. Able to sense changes and conditions around you.

What I dont think is possible is levitation, teleportation, or flying of any kind.



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Magic suggests the control of energy or power to manipulate the environment around the user. If the energy exists, it exists independently of us, one would think, as all other forms of energy exist independently of us. They are just forms of energy.


Ok..maybe we are getting somewhere. I know I have said it before...but I just don't know any other way to state it. Up just direct the energy. All thing posses a type of energy that may be suited for different uses...you learn to mix the energy from within yourself, with the energy of what your working with and then through emotional input, you direct it out. I think you are looking for the grandiose, and that is not what I am referring to...no floating table, no willing doors to open....changing the energy filed around someone in a position to hire you for that job you want...yes. helping to heal, yes. "needing" a little extra cash, yes. Though when it comes to money....it will not work, if there is not true need...no spending the rent money for a new dress and then working for the rent money...the universe doesn't give that way...I tried to explain this to you in the beginning of the thread...how many pages ago? That it is not like "Bewitched, I Dream Of Jeanie, or silly Hollywood movies. There a lot of very good essays on all things pagan if you care, and have the time to read some of them at the Witches Voice. I really don't know what else I can say.
www.witchvox.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Ok, first, lets see the definition of "Magic" as that would be the first step to take if any proof exists:
www.hyperdictionary.com...

Now, the main question is if proof can be found under any of the definitions of "magic" as pertaining to what I would assume to be the "supernatural" form of magic? Is "magic" in this form just tricks?...or as you can see Arthur C. Clarke once said:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

In accordance with the defintion, I will list some of the basic definitions of magic:
1. an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
2. any art that invokes supernatural powers
3. possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers

However, here are some "newer" defintions pertaining to the supernatural definition of magic:
1. As yet unexplained, or too complicated to explain
2. Characteristic of something that works although no one really understands why...

Ok, now we have some working definitions of "magic" with which to start from. As we can all see, magic works on several different levels and on many definitions. Is magic just some natural physical property that many humans are not capable of understanding such as Quantum Mechanics or the Superstring theory? Many scientists certainly do not believe in the presence of magic, because they seek proof of everything either through mathematics or observation. Certainly, as we all can see, the defintions of magic are as obscure as the very nature of magic itself. Can one prove magic exists? Through scientific discovery my first answer would be yes, but in a different sense.

One of the many definitons states, "As yet unexplained, or too complicated to explain", which implies that magic is nothing more than physical and chemical properties in nature that the observer is not able to fully grasp. Does this make someone whom practices magic naive to the fact that their is no verifiable proof? No...in fact...if magic can be coined as natural forces in nature then it would completely negate the fact that magic is fake in any sense of the word. The question then turns into a completely different one.

Maybe its just the usage of the term "magic" that needs to be better defined. Is the term "magic" to general to denote all of the physical and chemical properties that make up this universe? Is magic just a general term to descibe things that cannot be described in any other words? Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. As I have written on this site more than once...there can be only one ultimate truth, and if it is out of the reach of human defintion or thought, then one cannot possibly have "proof" of its existance. One commonly used question would be "Prove Love exists?" Now, surely any rational person would tend to believe in the existance of love, but can one effectively prove it? No...all have tried and all have failed, yet most of us believe that "love" exists. Just like magic however, it leads us to an even bigger question:

If their is no proof of love, nor magic, what are these concepts? They could just be figments of our imaginations run amuk, or could be "proof", if you will, that human intelligence is not capable of understanding complex issues. If, according to scientific thinking, something cannot be proven then it more than likely is an untruth or false belief. Since love cannot be proven, does love even exist?

I propose that before such a bold statement as "Prove magic exists" be exclaimed, one needs to look at the fundamentals of "proof" itself in order to formulate a hypothesis that fits the scale of the question. Proof usually lies on those making claims, and in this case it is those that believe magic is real. However, it is all in the eyes of the beholder...what some may see as a certain magic force in life others may see as nothing more than a plethora of natural principals and forces that one can manipulate. "Proof" is a big burden to bear, and this is why many scientific theories remain just that...THEORIES...not LAWS. Not even until the present were many of Newton's, Einstein's, etc. theories able to be observed at a larger scale...so how is it that in what I consider a still very primitive world are we able to define and prove something as grandeur' as "magic".

It's almost not even worth a debate, because we are not able to handle the full scale of what we would even be discussing. Much less the very nature of the question itself.

Ask this question again, in say, 1 million or more years, and humanity may just have advanced far enough to answer it by that time...MAYBE!



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Magic suggests the control of energy or power to manipulate the environment around the user. If the energy exists, it exists independently of us, one would think, as all other forms of energy exist independently of us. They are just forms of energy.


Ok..maybe we are getting somewhere. I know I have said it before...but I just don't know any other way to state it. Up just direct the energy. All thing posses a type of energy that may be suited for different uses...you learn to mix the energy from within yourself, with the energy of what your working with and then through emotional input, you direct it out. I think you are looking for the grandiose...


But this claim that there are 'different types' of energy for all kinds of different things is grandiose. Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't. We humans have come a long way in understanding what energy is, where it is found, and methods to manipulate it.

What forms of energy are specific to specific people or objects. Human energy is a form of energy that I do believe exists. The kind of energy that can be vaguely discerned with Kirlian photography. The energy that accupressure, accupuncture, and I believe, chiropractic disciplines work with. But this energy is no different from individual to individual, it is the same type of energy. One day, western science and medicine will acknowledge this energy, and it will be considered scientific fact.

Does a spoon have it's own energy, or a refrigerator, or a candle? If they do, it would be a form of energy specific to all inanimate objects. Are you saying that it's possible for you, a person, to manipulate these inanimate objects? If so, in what way, and how is this control achieved?

[edit on 25-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Ok, this is a good idea. Maybe with the definition of 'magic' we can begin to solidify what 'magic' actually is, and then determine whether it exists.

1) [n] an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
2) [n] any art that invokes supernatural powers
3) [adj] possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers; "charming incantations"; "magic signs that protect against adverse influence"; "a magical spell"; "'tis now the very witching time of night"- Shakespeare; "wizard wands"; "wizardly powers"

I tend to agree with the first instance of the definition, that magic is illusory in nature, and that believers are simply naive.

However, what seems to be suggested by most believers here is that it is an art that invokes supernatural powers. This is hard for me to swallow, just because supernatural powers haven't been shown to exist, either. Supernatural suggests that these powers are 'beyond nature', and could by synonymous with 'beyond science', which is where believers and non-believers meet their impasse.

Belief in the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I simply tend to have more faith and belief in things that I can see, that everyone can see, than things that maybe some people can see.

But this reminds me of a saying that a friend's Goju Ryu instructor had: "When the unnatural becomes natural, then the supernatural is achieved"

I'm probably not going to believe in supernatural powers, until either the apocalypse begins, and the four horsement ride across the continents and the oceans, or someone can show me some magic.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Belief in the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I simply tend to have more faith and belief in things that I can see, that everyone can see, than things that maybe some people can see.

So do I.. I am a skeptic by nature however it wasn't a matter of faith for me.. it landed in my lap. I didn't ask or pray or wish for it. I provided.. despite it being very personal.. a very objective detailed example of a major preminition from a scientific point of view.. even without throwing religion, spells into lighting candles. 'Proof' as you requested and you've suggested the majority of people here just wanted to believe.. completely disregarding my input.. I guess it got put in the 'yeah right' box? I was hoping someone might have some theories on how this was possible as I haven't been able to work it out.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Sorry riley, totally missed your post...

There have been times when I knew who was calling me and why, but not until the phone rings. Even now, when the phone rings, and it's my ex-girlfriend, I tend to know it's her before I pick up. Which is annoying.

Nothing like the car situation, though. That is premonition. Now, I don't totally disbelieve premonition because I've heard many stories from people I trust, and even more people I trust could back them up.

What this reminds me of is the theory that all time, past, present, and future exist all in one infinite moment, and that some people have more of an ability to see beyond our perception of 'now'.

I have no idea how this might work, or even if the theory holds any water. There's no evidence of factual data on it. Your car situation could have been a gut feeling, too, based on what you knew about that car, and other pieces of the situation. But then, gut feeling could be another word for premonition, I guess.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I can prove manipulation of certain streetlights off and on at will.

Known as SLI phenomenon, or SLIders. However, my key argument here, for it being "paranormal" is that it can be done "at will" and thus is evidence of mental energy causing a real physical outcome.

I usually show this only to close friends and family, as it's really weirded others out before, and that wasn't very comfortable...but if you're ever in the area, let me know, and I can show you.

I've been able to spin a paperclip, stop watch second hands, move compass needles, even singe pieces of paper, but fair warning, took about an hour of concentration to do it...(less for stopping already moving things, for some reason) You'd be amazed at how long an hour seems when all you're doing is concentrating on something... On the rare occassions I've done this, it seemed more like 10 hours...

But...

1. It can be reproduced at will.
2. Can be done while being witnessed by others.
3. Can tell there is no trickery involved.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
1. It can be reproduced at will.
2. Can be done while being witnessed by others.
3. Can tell there is no trickery involved.


What do you concentrate on, or how do you concentrate? Is it like visualization?

Streetlights, I'd say one in ten, turn off when I drive by them. It seems to happen when I'm deep in thought, but if I 'try' to be deep in thought in an attempt to turn it of, it never works. My aunt, when she was younger, would baby sit me with her son. She would pick me up early in the morning when the sun was still down, and we all remember that entire strings of 7 or 8 streetlights would go off in a row as we drove past.

I know it was her, and not me, because my family always used to talk about how strange it was that all the streetlights would turn off with her in their car.

Do you know anything more about this?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Whoah.. one moment..



Ok, this is a good idea. Maybe with the definition of 'magic' we can begin to solidify what 'magic' actually is, and then determine whether it exists.

1) [n] an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
2) [n] any art that invokes supernatural powers
3) [adj] possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers; "charming incantations"; "magic signs that protect against adverse influence"; "a magical spell"; "'tis now the very witching time of night"- Shakespeare; "wizard wands"; "wizardly powers"

I tend to agree with the first instance of the definition, that magic is illusory in nature, and that believers are simply naive.


There are many different interpretations of the word magic as I presume from your question that you mean other than stage magic.

There have been organisations such as the Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth at the turn of the century which had as its goal "To synthesize the aim of religion and the method of science" who had the definition of magick as: The Science and Art of causing Change in conformance with Will.


However, what seems to be suggested by most believers here is that it is an art that invokes supernatural powers. This is hard for me to swallow, just because supernatural powers haven't been shown to exist, either. Supernatural suggests that these powers are 'beyond nature', and could by synonymous with 'beyond science', which is where believers and non-believers meet their impasse.


Well I suppose I am not most but.. I see no distinction between natural and supernatural - it is all shades of grey and at what point to you classify something as being "beyond nature', often pretty subjective. I do occasionally use the word "praeternatural" - supernatural nah..

There are some pretty substaintial questions still left outstanding in pure regular science.

Most of the time I am of the opinion that the praeternatural is internal and thus difficult to show that it exists - others take the view that this is external, in my limited experience it matters not.

IMO Believers and unbelievers (practioners - non-practioners?) meet an impasse because the science is statistical and thus subjective.



Belief in the supernatural requires a leap of faith. I simply tend to have more faith and belief in things that I can see, that everyone can see, than things that maybe some people can see.


I don't think that belief is required if that is the point, don't know that it is always visible. I also don't subscribe to the consentual reality viewpoint as it can be philosophically and evidentually challenged IMO significantly.



I'm probably not going to believe in supernatural powers, until either the apocalypse begins, and the four horsement ride across the continents and the oceans, or someone can show me some magic. There are many definitions of magic.


True there are many definitions.. The apocalypse however is much advertised but rarely delivered. Science would say belief is not necessary to prove or disprove. It is a statistical science and all results will always be subjective.

If someone else shows you some magic are you not more vulnerable to fraud other than the self delusion one might experience if one experimented for oneself?

Not trying to sell you anything I have nothing to sell and care not for sales.

This is just a point of view to give you a mechanism to answer your question: true knowledge comes to those who investigate, rather than those who wait for answers on a plate.

I don't think it is scientifically prudent to make conclusions on 70+ odd replies on the internet and I certainly wouldn't advise waiting for death, pestilence, famine and the other one as a recourse, rather than further research and a clearer definition of terms if this question is truly important.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Well, we don't have to wait for the other one...He's already here, and he wields a sword of flame.

Muahhaahaahaaaaa!!! Happy Halloween

But anyway, two things you say are for certain. Asking these questions and waiting for an answer on a plate is no substitute for first-hand research. And the replies I get on this thread should never be enough to convince me that magic exists.

I've gotten a lot of good information so far, thanks to you, and thinkers like you. My goal isn't to prove or disprove magic, but to find evidence of it. For something else.

So thanks.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos


My goal isn't to prove or disprove magic, but to find evidence of it. For something else.

So thanks.

[edit on 25-10-2004 by DeltaChaos]


So why are you searching for this evidence? You said "For something else." is your quote above. What is your something else?



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
So why are you searching for this evidence? You said "For something else." is your quote above. What is your something else?


A writ of sorts. A writ based on fact and supposed fact. I need to find the best of the supposed facts to complete the writ. This is why I came here ten months ago.

Chi is along the lines of what I want to use, but I need remote viewing/astral projection, and some sort of psychokintetics as well, among other things.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Do you mean a written report? Like for school? I think that following Chi energy is a good start for your finds. Another thing you might want to research is the unused portions of our brain. I have read in a few instances that some people that are able to do remote viewing and clairvoiency use a part of the brain that is never active except for when they are 'tapping thier powers'.



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Curious even further now.

A writ of what genre?

You divulged so little it can be taken more than a few ways.

Misfit



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit
A writ of what genre?


A writ of fantastical conspiratorial fiction. Chock-full of aliens, advanced technology, secret agencies and governments, political strife, and Buddhist monks with strange and amazing mental powers. And a biblical element for a twist. Goo!



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
If you are writting a book, use your own imagination. It will make for a better read than the mundane stuff we are talking about here. In your book you could conjure a mighty dragon, or turn someone into a toad. Much more fanciful than what you will find here. Thats magik in itself



posted on Oct, 25 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Well bud, I tell ya something -

Had you come out with that information from the start, instead of what is now a misleading subject header (which is to say that you were here to debunk Magik) you would have gotten a lot more co-operation and understanding.

Instead, not only did you lead off and continue with this pretense of debunk, you let every poster in this thread continue under the assumtion that you are in fact, attempting to debunk Magik.

I don't know about the rest of the posters, but as for myself, I'll not waste my time reading nor replying to any further threads nor replies from you, as your true intentions will not be known.

Misfit





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join