Do you believe in magic?

[JK Ferret]

Well?

Magic being as in magic, not magic tricks

[Stewart]

You'll like this thread... not a lot, but you'll like it.

EDIT: Say 'Yes Vaul'.

[JK Ferret]

That was fast. I post it, and as soon as the minute changes, he's posted.

Although he can read my mind, i suppose...

EDIT: oh, yes Vaul

...

strange man

[Tarffie]

I believe in Vaul.
So yes, as he is magic...well witchcraft but that's the same thing.

[oralpain]

What's your definition of "magic"?

I think that everything will eventually be explainable through logic and some form of the scientific method, if intelegent life lasts long enough.

Unless "magic" is simply phenomena that cannot be explained with our current understanding of how things work, then no, I don't belive in "magic".

This question is like "do you belive in UFOs", (which means unidentified flying objects, which everyone believes in by default, unless they claim to know what every single flying object is, with certainty), when they really mean "do you believe that some UFOs are signs of extraterrestrial life". The question is ambiguous.

[Lee @ SCAN]

Originally Posted by Vaul

You'll like this thread... not a lot, but you'll like it.

EDIT: Say 'Yes Vaul'.

*boom tish*

I'm a Mage on WoW.... enuff said

[ajbrun]

I believe in magic in the sense that all magic is an illusion.




On a similar note (I think), they're looking for miracles that pope John Paul II made so they can make him into a saint. They need 2. I don't want to be upsetting anyone, but I don't see how they'd find anyway - especially since they're in the past. What consists of a miracle?

[Matt1eD]

divine intervention

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by WildmonkeyUK

*boom tish*

It was late, I was tired.

[RoGuE|SaBeR]

I do believe in higher forces, kind of a given being a Christian.

To a certain extent I do believe but in the majority of cases the people need locked up.

[klarrix]

Wave upon wave upon wave upon wave


No, I don't. I believe in the arts of optical illusion and mental trickery.

[mike_w]

How do you define magic? To people from 2000 years ago, planes are magic. As said before, all 'magic' should be able to be explained logically.

Paul Daniels is still fun to watch though.

P.S. If you're talking about Gandalf sort of magic, I don't think any human can do that (although Gandalf wasn't human...). If anybody can do that sort of 'magic', I still don't think it counts as magic because there must an explanation behind - I suppose real magic, by its very defination, is impossible.

[klarrix]

Not quite, Mike-

The supernatural refers to conscious magical, religious or unknown forces that cannot ordinarily be perceived except through their effects. This word is often used interchangeably with preternatural or paranormal. Unlike natural forces, these putative supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.

By definition, you cannot scientifically prove that the supernatural doesn't exist (as it represents forces which cannot be explained by science)-

Magic- any art that invokes supernatural powers

[mike_w]

Originally Posted by klarrix

By definition, you cannot scientifically prove that the supernatural doesn't exist (as it represents forces which cannot be explained by science)

That's my point - I believe everything can (eventually) be explained by science. As such, magic, or the supernatural, in my opinion, cannot exist due to the conflict with my belief that science can explain everything - perhaps not the science we have now, but science in terms of logic and fact.

[rajagra]

If the effect of something is so insignificant that it cannot be proven scientifically, then it isn't worth believing in!

[klarrix]

Originally Posted by Mike_W

That's my point - I believe everything can (eventually) be explained by science. As such, magic, or the supernatural, in my opinion, cannot exist due to the conflict with my belief that science can explain everything - perhaps not the science we have now, but science in terms of logic and fact.

But it's more like a definition that can only be applied to anything in the present tense- I'm sure there may be explanations for many current mysteries things in ten thousand years, but there will then be other unexplained aspects of the universe that would technically be classed as supernatural. Maybe in twenty thousand years they will be explained but advances in science would present new problems, and so on.

Absolute knowledge is impossible as information has infinite boundaries- things are 'supernatural' until fully explained, and there will always be past events that science can no longer solve (i.e. evidence needed has decayed or just isn't there).

Also the theory of science/logic being able to prove everything is unproven till everything is discovered, no? Hard to use it convincingly as a ends all argument if it cannot be proved itself.