Prove Magic?

[Taylor Seraphim]

And it is repeatable, which is why so many magicians continue to use the same rituals and symbols for decades.

With that logic that means that almost all of the religions in the world are correct.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Supernatural means beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Im not talking abut your definition.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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

Why don't you google it.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

It's obvious the OP is looking for proof of a definition of magic that does not exist . . .

I am using the definition of magic that most dictionaries use.

The definition obviously exists.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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

That is not what science is trying to be.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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?

Science claims to root from logic, not be the sole user of it.

 

[1137]

With that logic that means that almost all of the religions in the world are correct.

No, but any system can be used pragmatically for the individuals benefit.

Why don't you google it.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

un·nat·u·ral
ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.

Maybe YOU should have google it.

I am using the definition of magic that most dictionaries use.

The definition obviously exists.

Well, other definitions obviously exist as well, but you keep pretending otherwise. Further, I've already explained magic in the sense of your definition, as have others. Still not sure what you want here.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No, but any system can be used pragmatically for the individuals benefit.

Im well aware of paradigm shift and such.

But that does not deny my logic.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

un·nat·u·ral
ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.

Maybe YOU should have google it.

As you can clearly see they are not the same.

Well, other definitions obviously exist as well, but you keep pretending otherwise. Further, I've already explained magic in the sense of your definition, as have others. Still not sure what you want here.

I was refuting the notion that the definition I used was non-existent remember?

 

[EtuMalku]

Im well aware of paradigm shift and such.

But that does not deny my logic.



As you can clearly see they are not the same.



I was refuting the notion that the definition I used was non-existent remember?

If your goal is to deny the existence of supernatural magic, then I agree fully that this type of magic does not exist.
However, newer, updated, logical definitions of Magick do exist and does explain the process / philosophy.

 

[1137]

If your goal is to deny the existence of supernatural magic, then I agree fully that this type of magic does not exist.
However, newer, updated, logical definitions of Magick do exist and does explain the process / philosophy.

Exactly. This is like saying that since the earth isn't flat, as we originally thought, it doesn't exist.

 

[1137]

Im well aware of paradigm shift and such.

But that does not deny my logic.

But it does. There's a massive difference between being able to use different religions as tools and all religions being equally true.

As you can clearly see they are not the same.

That which is supernatural is unnatural. I don't see how you're confused on this.

I was refuting the notion that the definition I used was non-existent remember?

Ok, of course the supernatural definition exists. So do all the others. How did you chose what definition is valid?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

If your goal is to deny the existence of supernatural magic, then I agree fully that this type of magic does not exist.
However, newer, updated, logical definitions of Magick do exist and does explain the process / philosophy.

Well my goal was to have someone prove supernatural magic to me but okay.

Sure, I would love to discuss that in another thread if you would open one or tell me where I should put it.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

But it does. There's a massive difference between being able to use different religions as tools and all religions being equally true.

Congratulations you beat down a strawman you made.

Are you happy?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

That which is supernatural is unnatural. I don't see how you're confused on this.

Yes, but that which is unnatural is not necessary supernatural like you where claiming.

 

[1137]

Well my goal was to have someone prove supernatural magic to me but okay.

Sure, I would love to discuss that in another thread if you would open one or tell me where I should put it.

Put it in the magic dir, assuming you can hold an open and respectful discussion with those you don't agree with.

Congratulations you beat down a strawman you made.

Are you happy?

What are you talking about? You're the one who said "With that logic that means that almost all of the religions in the world are correct." I'm pointing out that you are incorrect.

Yes, but that which is unnatural is not necessary supernatural like you where claiming.

Ok, so we can't even discuss supernatural magic now, which would be non natural? If you won't even discuss your own topic what are we doing here? What else do you want?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Put it in the magic dir, assuming you can hold an open and respectful discussion with those you don't agree with.

Im not talking to you.

Put a sock in it.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

What are you talking about? You're the one who said "With that logic that means that almost all of the religions in the world are correct." I'm pointing out that you are incorrect.

No you did not.

You said well they can all be used for magic......so what?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Ok, so we can't even discuss supernatural magic now, which would be non natural? If you won't even discuss your own topic what are we doing here? What else do you want?

Stop using strawman arguments.

I am saying that you cannot say something is unnatural therefore supernatural exist because it makes no logical sense.

 

[1137]

Stop using strawman arguments.

I am saying that you cannot say something is unnatural therefore supernatural exist because it makes no logical sense.

If something is not natural, it would definitionly be supernatural. It's something "contrary to the ordinary course of nature" that is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

If something is not natural, it would definitionly be supernatural.

Not according to the definition YOU provided.