Ok, first, lets see the definition of "Magic" as that would be the first step to take if any proof exists:
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!