Is Magic Possible?

[dustinzgirl]

I believe that magic is possible. I believe that it is not, really magic, but a focus of energies. Spells, charms and so forth only focus the energy of the caster/user, so there has to be an amount of true belief behind it. But, hey, you guys should know by now that I am a believer in a lot of things, which either makes me insane or dangerous or a combination of both. Having practiced the wiccan religion and dabbled in a bit of natural magic, I can say that I believe in quite a bit. Yes, I am a Christian now, but that was a personal choice I made. I do not discount witchraft, wicca, or elemental magic, demonicisms, or even posessesion as being non-existent because a few scientists can't figure out the math to them. And, yes, I think magic boils down to mathematics that we as humans can not comprehend. I don't think we have gotten that far, but in ancient times they discovered how it works. I also think that our 'fiction' has removed the belief because it is marketed as fiction---The Exorcism of Emily Rose comes to mind----and therefore removed our belief that it is possible and real.

[andrew.v.spencer]

There is no scientific evidence for magic. But many want it to be true. However, if one believes in a god or gods, you believe in magic.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by andrew.v.spencer

There is no scientific evidence for magic. But many want it to be true. However, if one believes in a god or gods, you believe in magic.

In my opinion, humanity should not be so arrogant to think that science is the only religion or belief.......

If we used to believe that the world was flat, and then we believed it was round, how can we be so arrogant as to believe that math and physics have all the answers? Because I'm pretty sure there is more to the universe than we can explain.....who knows, a thousand years from now we may discover alternate universes, or be able to use the power of our minds to control the physical world, or meet beings that are not physical in thier existence........

[Gav]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

In my opinion, humanity should not be so arrogant to think that science is the only religion or belief.......

Oh boy ...

If we used to believe that the world was flat,

We didn't. This is an urban myth. clarification: Or at least - not in the way you imply.

and then we believed it was round,

Though the Earth is not a Sphere. This is actually a fact - belief doesn't have to come into it.

how can we be so arrogant as to believe that math and physics have all the answers? Because I'm pretty sure there is more to the universe than we can explain.....who knows, a thousand years from now we may discover alternate universes, or be able to use the power of our minds to control the physical world, or meet beings that are not physical in thier existence........

No scientist worth his/her/it's salt is going to tell you that science has all of the answers. To think that it does would be foolish. Our model of the universe should be considered to be a best estimate of our current understanding and no theory is 100% correct. I believe that there is a [relatively] famous quote which runs along the lines: "The very act of answering a question should raise new ones and so; the closer we get to the truth, the further away it is." Or something like that.

[SpaceShip]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

It depends on what you mean. As Plato insisted (and probably all those before him for a very long time): define your terms! If we're talking that sense of the mystical and the magical in an emotional reaction to certain phenomena or an overall experience of life, then yes, magic is all around us. If we're talking something that transcends "natural" law, i.e., physics, then once you start investigating, there has yet to be a single claim that can stand up to scrutiny. This does not invalidate anyone's feeling that they have encountered magic; it brings it down to an epistemological rather than an ontological difference.

That said, I'm in agreement with most of a scientific bent: I'm open to evidence that this is wrong, but it's going to have to be put through the same severe scrutiny as any other claim before I can accept it as fact. Until then, it remains a wonderfully powerful emotional response to something that I treasure, but I see no reason to accept it as part of actual entity.

Brill j.d. Magic!

[Loner]

It amazes me how humans can believe 9and discover) so many things they don't see with their own eyes. Not in a bad way. But just think, do you even know how your microwave works? How do you know there are microwaves? Yes you could go to college and learn all about it ... There is so much knowledge out there that we can't possibly take it all in. We now have to take what we are told at face value because we don't have the time or skill to investigate things ourselves.
It must have been exciting during the Renaissance to be discovering so many of our now accepted sciences!
And we are still discovering more everyday - ( check out String theory for example! It strongly suggests the existence of ten or eleven (in M-theory) spacetime dimensions, as opposed to the relativistic four (three spatial and time ~ Wikipedia). But there will always be more to know. And every discovery poses more questions.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Gav

Oh boy ...

We didn't. This is an urban myth. clarification: Or at least - not in the way you imply.

Though the Earth is not a Sphere. This is actually a fact - belief doesn't have to come into it.

No scientist worth his/her/it's salt is going to tell you that science has all of the answers. To think that it does would be foolish. Our model of the universe should be considered to be a best estimate of our current understanding and no theory is 100% correct. I believe that there is a [relatively] famous quote which runs along the lines: "The very act of answering a question should raise new ones and so; the closer we get to the truth, the further away it is." Or something like that.

Dude, you take me far to literally. Really. I'm not that explanatory, analytical, or resolution oriented. But hey, I have seen and felt things that boggle the mind, including 'psychic' connections with my siblings (we just KNOW, you know?), and once, Im pretty sure I saw an angel. But that was during my teenage years when I was on some pretty heavy drugs and practicing witchcraft in the most unchristian meaning of the word, so......

Look, all I'm saying is that we can not be so sure of ourselves to discount possibilities. Science doesn't have all the answers, and it never, ever, never will. And if you think science has all the answers, go divide by zero.


PS: The above comment makes me wonder if my microwave is posessed by demons. My burritoes exploded earlier......

/me GRIN!

[Joel007]

Magic is such a broad term these days.
It could mean something that can't be explained, or it could be the act of a spirit affecting this world (technically the "good" ones are called miracles), or it could just be the definition of all that lies loosely defined quite happily within fiction.

[Saltheart]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Look, all I'm saying is that we can not be so sure of ourselves to discount possibilities. Science doesn't have all the answers, and it never, ever, never will. And if you think science has all the answers, go divide by zero

Science doesn't claim to have the answers; science has all the tested theories. Everything found by science is a theory. The only true thing that can ever be 100% true is math, because math was invented by man and it isn't about theorizing like science: with math, it is possible to postulate; with science, all you can do is theorize and hope it stands up to scrutiny.

But anyway, whoever says that science has all the right answers is wrong: science has testable and vertified theories, not answers. The only thing that can give answers is math. Science, like religion, requires faith: it requires that you have faith in theories that hold up to scrutiny.

Anybody who claims to have an answer to anything that is not mathematically postulated is a liar: he/she only has a theory that seems about right.

[Specfiction]

I think the problem here is that some misunderstand what science is. Science is not saying you know something, science is the process of acquiring knowledge. At the heart of the process of science are doubt, critical thinking, experiment, and reproducibility by ones peers. Faith and Science are dialectic opposites. Science is based on proof. Faith is acceptance of something "without" proof. The only real assumption that science makes is that there exists an objective reality separate from the subjective reality of humans. A graphic example of what objective reality is, is that reality that existed before there were humans on Earth, which is 99% of the time the Earth has been around; and by extension, the reality that will exist when humans no longer exist.

Arrogance is thinking that we can believe in something without proof and that this power of belief somehow makes it real. This has been a source of much failure and suffering for humanity, and may indicate a basic flaw in the way that we think, i.e. in order to relate to the world we feel it necessary to anthropomorphize it.

[steve12553]

If Magic were (or is) true, you'd have to prove it. I believe that would redefine it as Science. So......... it's probably best to believe (or not) but certainly don't question. Remember what it took to save Tinkerbelle.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Specfiction

I think the problem here is that some misunderstand what science is. Science is not saying you know something, science is the process of acquiring knowledge. At the heart of the process of science are doubt, critical thinking, experiment, and reproducibility by ones peers. Faith and Science are dialectic opposites. Science is based on proof. Faith is acceptance of something "without" proof. The only real assumption that science makes is that there exists an objective reality separate from the subjective reality of humans. A graphic example of what objective reality is, is that reality that existed before there were humans on Earth, which is 99% of the time the Earth has been around; and by extension, the reality that will exist when humans no longer exist.

Arrogance is thinking that we can believe in something without proof and that this power of belief somehow makes it real. This has been a source of much failure and suffering for humanity, and may indicate a basic flaw in the way that we think, i.e. in order to relate to the world we feel it necessary to anthropomorphize it.

Bravo! This sums up the dichotomy quite eloquently (and well)!

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Specfiction

I think the problem here is that some misunderstand what science is. Science is not saying you know something, science is the process of acquiring knowledge. At the heart of the process of science are doubt, critical thinking, experiment, and reproducibility by ones peers. Faith and Science are dialectic opposites. Science is based on proof. Faith is acceptance of something "without" proof. The only real assumption that science makes is that there exists an objective reality separate from the subjective reality of humans. A graphic example of what objective reality is, is that reality that existed before there were humans on Earth, which is 99% of the time the Earth has been around; and by extension, the reality that will exist when humans no longer exist.

Arrogance is thinking that we can believe in something without proof and that this power of belief somehow makes it real. This has been a source of much failure and suffering for humanity, and may indicate a basic flaw in the way that we think, i.e. in order to relate to the world we feel it necessary to anthropomorphize it.

I agree with JD, this is an excellent post.