• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Prove Magic?

1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Carlita said:
Yeah. I'm weaning off this site for awhile. Almost finished packing my bags.
Click to expand...

Just come back! This is the best site I've found, but there will always be the people who trickle over from the worse sites or just find us first. I'm just unsure of when this site became so ridiculously forgiving of trolling.
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Acim said:
I'm not sure if it works for others based on my invocation and don't care much if it does. I used to care more about it in this way, but find it to be a bit shallow in understanding it through filter of 'magic.'



I do it because when I don't, I will notice how it perpetuates problems/errors in my observations (of all things) and in my relationships. I also do it, because the return of Love to awareness far exceeds every other experience I've ever encountered, especially when Love is the experience (and not just an intellectual understanding). And by Love I mean unconditional love. When it is exclusive relationship type love (to a person or thing), I don't readily call that love, but I recognize that as the normal use of love.

Back to what I was stating before you asked for specifics on how I invoke magic.... I honestly see thoughts as applied to anything physical as being invocation of magic. Thus, I do see 'scientific method' as a good example. Not found in physical nature, does appear to have mysterious understandings associated with physical existence, and/or does fundamentally rest on faith. Arguably is a supernatural force at work because nature (apart from humanity) is not relying on our understandings to function, nor seemingly concerned with our conceptualizations of 'laws of nature.' That the scientific method may not be an actual practice (ritual) of current scientists, while the popular perception is that it distinguishes science from other endeavors, just adds to the mystery. That we teach the scientific method to our offspring to indoctrinate them into the 'world of science' just adds to the mystery aspect of it. And that it actually comes down to multiple methods that aren't necessarily shared openly makes it almost cult like in the way in which the magic works within society. It is clearly 'working' and clearly a mystery in how it is working.
Click to expand...

So why do so many religious people and magic practitioners try to claim science under there umbrella when they clear come from very different ways of thinking?
 
Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
Taylor Seraphim said:
What is this ethical ideal and how do you know it is the highest possible.
Click to expand...

Well the highest ideal is the highest that one can try and reach.
Its like trying to calculate perfect Pi. We never get there, but that does not mean we stop trying to.

Perhaps I can try and express it thus:
Are you willing to risk going to hell, in order to save everyone you know from having to take that risk?
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Taylor Seraphim said:
So why do so many religious people and magic practitioners try to claim science under there umbrella when they clear come from very different ways of thinking?
Click to expand...

The actual practice of magic can be scientific. You know, theorizing, hypothesising, testing, gathering data, and readjusting? Magic can use the scientific method, we're not saying it literally is science.

Taylor Seraphim said:
Unnatural =/= magic.
Click to expand...

So now you won't even use your own definition, huh? So can we have a new one?
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
EtuMalku said:
So, when I state this in a post it is not conforming to your OP question . . . but when you do, everything is rosy?
Flip Flop Much?
Click to expand...

If I make a thread asking if a specific definition of magic can be proven to me.

Then if you do not believe in that form of magic you have NO reason to reply.
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
1137 said:
The actual practice of magic can be scientific. You know, theorizing, hypothesising, testing, gathering data, and readjusting? Magic can use the scientific method, we're not saying it literally is science.
Click to expand...

If it used the scientific method it would be science.

Also you forget something, it needs to be repeatable.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Taylor Seraphim said:
If it used the scientific method it would be science.

Also you forget something, it needs to be repeatable.
Click to expand...

No, not if I'm not studying something objective. And it is repeatable, which is why so many magicians continue to use the same rituals and symbols for decades. For me for example, the Setian system has been of the most benefit, but this doesn't mean it will be for Etu or any other practitioner. It's not some scientific truth that Setianism works better, it's a subjective truth.

Further, you're defining magic as supernatural, beyond nature. How would you expect science to test that? Let's say I do a ritual and invoke a literal god who has free will. In this example, I could do the exact same ritual with the same variables and the god could simply choose not to come the second time. This doesn't mean the god did not exist.

Taylor Seraphim said:
I never said it was unnatural, i said it was supernatural.

Unnatural =/= Supernatural.
Click to expand...

Then what's the difference? Either something is of nature or is not, isn't it?
 
EtuMalku

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
1137 said:
No, not if I'm not studying something objective. And it is repeatable, which is why so many magicians continue to use the same rituals and symbols for decades. For me for example, the Setian system has been of the most benefit, but this doesn't mean it will be for Etu or any other practitioner. It's not some scientific truth that Setianism works better, it's a subjective truth.

Further, you're defining magic as supernatural, beyond nature. How would you expect science to test that? Let's say I do a ritual and invoke a literal god who has free will. In this example, I could do the exact same ritual with the same variables and the god could simply choose not to come the second time. This doesn't mean the god did not exist.



Then what's the difference? Either something is of nature or is not, isn't it?
Click to expand...
It's obvious the OP is looking for proof of a definition of magic that does not exist . . .
 
A

Acim

Revelation all the time
Taylor Seraphim said:
So why do so many religious people and magic practitioners try to claim science under there umbrella when they clear come from very different ways of thinking?
Click to expand...

Because of what science is, or tries to be: a reasonable understanding of material existence.

Like asking why do science people claim reason under their umbrella where philosophy was first using it (for thousands of years) when clearly science comes from a very different way of thinking about reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top