Do you believe in magic?

[mike_w]

Supernatural means something that is not natural. In my book, if something is not natural, then something or somebody must have intervened from outside the natural order, which is where the supernatural or magic supposedly arise from. Yet, surely they know what they did, so that event has an explanation, and is therefore not magic?

Let's say we're in the past i.e. B.C. If I see a plane or something like that, some might consider it magic. However, we know now that there is a logical explanation. Logic does not change over time - it is constant. The logic behind a plane is the same now as it was thousands of years ago. Therefore, I would not consider that plane, in any time period, magic. As such, I think that magic can't exist since it must have a logical explanation, even if that explanation is beyond our grasp.

Definitions of magic vary from source to source, whether it's something that cannot be explained in the present and contradicts current science, or the interventation of beings from other dimensions (or whatever else is out there). Perhaps the thread starter would like to shed some light on the topic and give us his definition of magic? Otherwise, we would just carry on arguing about the actual meaning of magic, which would probably prove to rather pointless if we're arguing about two separate things!

[shiato storm]

"ha ha this a way, ha ha that a way..."

[dazedhorizon]

I believe in pub tricks anyone got any good ones ?

[autopilot]

I voted yes. I kind of wanted to vote no, but it's a yes thats probably not what your after. You see i don't really believe in 'magic' in the sence that people here probably think of it, such as curses and making people disspear etc. However, i do think there are forces at work in the universe that we either don't know about yet, miss-interpret or simply don't have the brain capasity to even come close to understanding. I think the only word for such things is magic, just as people hundreds of years ago thought many things explained by science now was magic. Maybe i just like to have a different understanding and meaning of the word magic.

I believe anthing can be explained by science to a degree, accept maybe those questions that are beyond out brain capasity - like why am i here, whats the point of this thread? but i don't see anything wrong with calling something magic until a scientific explanation appears. So long as you are always open mind to the fact there may well be a simple explanation.

Oh, i think i should have voted no, i don't think i am explaining myself very well. Maybe dunno. Oh, why do I come here when i have had a drink?! :/

Maybe I should start another poll, entitled "does Dangerous Dom talk a lot of s**t?".

[Mblaster]

I believe that everything can be explained by science, but it just hasn't happened yet. I would put a better explaination but you can just read with mike has been writing as I agree completly

[klarrix]

Supernatural means something that is not natural. In my book, if something is not natural, then something or somebody must have intervened from outside the natural order, which is where the supernatural or magic supposedly arise from. Yet, surely they know what they did, so that event has an explanation, and is therefore not magic?

Let's say we're in the past i.e. B.C. If I see a plane or something like that, some might consider it magic. However, we know now that there is a logical explanation. Logic does not change over time - it is constant. The logic behind a plane is the same now as it was thousands of years ago. Therefore, I would not consider that plane, in any time period, magic. As such, I think that magic can't exist since it must have a logical explanation, even if that explanation is beyond our grasp.

Definitions of magic vary from source to source, whether it's something that cannot be explained in the present and contradicts current science, or the interventation of beings from other dimensions (or whatever else is out there). Perhaps the thread starter would like to shed some light on the topic and give us his definition of magic? Otherwise, we would just carry on arguing about the actual meaning of magic, which would probably prove to rather pointless if we're arguing about two separate things!

I've got a better idea:

supernatural

• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.

• noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.




magic

• noun 1 the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. 2 conjuring tricks performed to entertain. 3 mysterious and enchanting quality. 4 informal exceptional skill or talent.

• adjective 1 having or apparently having supernatural powers. 2 informal very exciting or good.

• verb (magicked, magicking) move, change, or create by or as if by magic.

— DERIVATIVES magical adjective magically adverb.

— DERIVATIVES supernaturally adverb.

While logic is constant, understanding is not- anything may be considered 'supernatural' until it is proven by science, and not all unexplained events have a person or purpose behind them (even if that may the the first possible explanation). Therefore, in your analagy the plane is a supernatural occurance to the people who see it and can't explain it, but it is not supernatural to us because we understand how it works.

It is definitely possible to wield forces without understanding them (e.g. i'm typing right now but I have absolutely no idea how the computer is taking in the info and displaying it on-screen). Just because something happens that is either beyond scientific understanding or breaches our laws of nature, doesn't mean necessarily that there is an entity that understands what is going on- you are assuming that if there is an entity, it understands what it is doing, which is not a certainty.

There is also not a necessary need for 'someone' to cause a supernatural event. Supernatural does not mean 'not from nature', it means 'beyond science', so if science cannot explain the source then it is a supernatural occurance- it doesn't need to be caused by someone with understanding or a purpose, just by something we don't understand.

[Byatt]

Wave upon wave upon wave upon wave

Biffy! Woo!

I'm somewhat scared that >7 people have voted yes. Piss-takers, one hopes.

[klarrix]

I was hoping at least one person would get it eventually

[mike_w]

While logic is constant, understanding is not- anything may be considered 'supernatural' until it is proven by science, and not all unexplained events have a person or purpose behind them (even if that may the the first possible explanation). Therefore, in your analagy the plane is a supernatural occurance to the people who see it and can't explain it, but it is not supernatural to us because we understand how it works.

It is definitely possible to wield forces without understanding them (e.g. i'm typing right now but I have absolutely no idea how the computer is taking in the info and displaying it on-screen). Just because something happens that is either beyond scientific understanding or breaches our laws of nature, doesn't mean necessarily that there is an entity that understands what is going on- you are assuming that if there is an entity, it understands what it is doing, which is not a certainty.

There is also not a necessary need for 'someone' to cause a supernatural event. Supernatural does not mean 'not from nature', it means 'beyond science', so if science cannot explain the source then it is a supernatural occurance- it doesn't need to be caused by someone with understanding or a purpose, just by something we don't understand.

Your own definition states that the supernatural can be:

some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

As I said, it all depends on which definition you use - the plane is never beyond the laws of nature.

As for the intervention idea, if something disobeys the laws of nature, it must be outside of the normal confines of this universe - this something or someone has yet to present itself with any evidence of its existance to me! My point was that if that event (intervention) was happening outside of our universe, it would still have to follow the laws of nature wherever it is taking place, so is not supernatural.

To summarise - logic, the laws of nature, whatever you wish to call it, is constant. Everything can be explained by that constant, whether in this dimension or the next. As such, there can be no supernatural.

Of course, as I said originally, this whole debate hinges on your definition of magic. Even if you do have the definition of magic, or the supernatural, it is still open to interpretation.

[klarrix]

[QUOTE=mike_w]Your own definition states that the supernatural can be:

some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

As I said, it all depends on which definition you use - the plane is never beyond the laws of nature.

As for the intervention idea, if something disobeys the laws of nature, it must be outside of the normal confines of this universe - this something or someone has yet to present itself with any evidence of its existance to me! My point was that if that event (intervention) was happening outside of our universe, it would still have to follow the laws of nature wherever it is taking place, so is not supernatural.

What about Miracles? Do you consider them normal and natural events? By defying the laws of physics they are supernatural occurrances.
What I was saying in respect to the plane argument is that something may be regarded as supernatural till proven otherwise- from our perspective it isn't, but from theirs it is so it's a relative term.

To summarise - logic, the laws of nature, whatever you wish to call it, is constant. Everything can be explained by that constant, whether in this dimension or the next. As such, there can be no supernatural.

You sure? Has everything been explained yet? You're assuming a lot there.

[mike_w]

What about Miracles? Do you consider them normal and natural events? By defying the laws of physics they are supernatural occurrances.
What I was saying in respect to the plane argument is that something may be regarded as supernatural till proven otherwise- from our perspective it isn't, but from theirs it is so it's a relative term.

I do not believe supernatural is a relative term. I have seen no evidence that anything can disobey our laws of nature, nor have I seen any miracles. Even if there were miracles, I would expect them to follow our laws of nature, or the laws of nature of another dimension (as explained previously).

You sure? Has everything been explained yet? You're assuming a lot there.

I believe that the laws of nature are the rules by which the universe must obey. Seeing as the universe covers just about everything we're aware of, the laws of nature apply to everything we've seen, so there can't have been anything supernatural.

Edit: This is a good argument. We should disagree more often.

[klarrix]

Regardless of what those laws are or how great their influence is, supernatural events are ones that defy them. As long as bizzare, totally unexplainable events events occur the supernatural shall exist, but tbh I think it's still a relative term. It comes down to perspective; calling something supernatural is a personal view and is choosing to find explanations outside of conventional logic in a similar fashion to somebody giving their own spin on something. Events can be blamed on science without an explanation in an equally unconvincing and unproven way, so until all events are explained it's all still up in the air.


EDIT: T'is a good argument. OT- what's that name of the PC store by Wilko in the Marlowes?? I need to phone them about something but I can't find them in the book

[mike_w]

Regardless of what those laws are or how great their influence is, supernatural events are ones that defy them. As long as bizzare, totally unexplainable events events occur the supernatural shall exist, but tbh I think it's still a relative term. It comes down to perspective; calling something supernatural is a personal view and is choosing to find explanations outside of conventional logic in a similar fashion to somebody giving their own spin on something. Events can be blamed on science without an explanation in an equally unconvincing and unproven way, so until these weird events are explained it's all still up in the air.

Indeed - I think we've both proven that our arguments are equally valid.

And yes, it is a good argument. OT- what's that name of the PC store by Wilko in the Marlowes?? I need to phone them about something but I can't find them in the book

Ottomans or something like that - I think it begins with Otto... definately begins with O.