Levite
Higher and Higher
It's the energy of the soul and of the divine generative/maintaining force of Creation.
I know it is real because I experience it. How else would I know it's real?
-
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!
What is magic?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
It's the energy of the soul and of the divine generative/maintaining force of Creation.
I know it is real because I experience it. How else would I know it's real?
Blastcat
Active Member
OH lol what a straight line. pure BAN BAIT there.. lol
yes, you are quite magical. ok, got it , thanks. magic is real ok. good.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Oh, I see now. Yes, yes, I'm sure we're all impressed with your rationalist skepticism. I'm sure your mockery of things mystical and supernatural makes us all question our beliefs and experiences.
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
In the Bible, God's people were forbidden to have anything to do with the magical arts...these included divination, contact with the spirit world in any form and visits to those who could predict the future. (Deut 18:9-12)
The difference between magic and a miracle is "who" performs it. Supernatural power exists and so does a spiritual realm that powerful creatures inhabit.
Ones who performed miracles such as those mentioned in the Bible, had permission from the one who imparted power to alter natural events. This resulted in cures for disease, speaking languages never learnt and walking on water. The dead were raised back to life and food was miraculously supplied to a crowd of many thousands.
The others get their power from a completely different source...an illegitimate one....hence why God's word carries a warning about it.
There are rebel spirits according to the Bible and these can fool humans with the use of their powers in spiritistic pursuits, which is why we are told to avoid them. Still there is great fascination with the spirit world and many have made friends with it. There is a good reason why God tells us to avoid it, however.
The difference between magic and a miracle is "who" performs it. Supernatural power exists and so does a spiritual realm that powerful creatures inhabit.
Ones who performed miracles such as those mentioned in the Bible, had permission from the one who imparted power to alter natural events. This resulted in cures for disease, speaking languages never learnt and walking on water. The dead were raised back to life and food was miraculously supplied to a crowd of many thousands.
The others get their power from a completely different source...an illegitimate one....hence why God's word carries a warning about it.
There are rebel spirits according to the Bible and these can fool humans with the use of their powers in spiritistic pursuits, which is why we are told to avoid them. Still there is great fascination with the spirit world and many have made friends with it. There is a good reason why God tells us to avoid it, however.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Gambit
Well-Known Member
This depends on your definition of "naturalism."
Gambit
Well-Known Member
That's why I say quantum events are magical.
Blastcat
Active Member
Oh,It's getting obvious that nothing will get you to question your beliefs and experiences. I am supposed to take whatever you say as true. Well, sorry.Oh, I see now. Yes, yes, I'm sure we're all impressed with your rationalist skepticism. I'm sure your mockery of things mystical and supernatural makes us all question our beliefs and experiences.
The reason I do mock is because you surely seem to believe, but when you try to prove that your belief is in any way justified or evidenced, you side step and make vague nice sounding assertions that have nothing to DO with reason or evidence.
I am mocking your methods, not you. I don't see you describing any method at all about how you arrived at the truth of your magical assertions, which are many.
I don't know why you bother to keep asserting as true which is merely a claim of the truth.
A claim of the truth isn't the truth.
You seem to want to not use reason or accept criticism of your beliefs, and you want to be applauded for that. I stand FOR reason.. not unreason. I VALUE skepticism, as it's a very good tool to make the distinction between falsehood and fact.
Maybe someone who values falsehood over fact might not LIKE skepticism or reasoning. I can understand that.. makes it harder for the falsehood to seem real, when it is examined.
Your beliefs can't be or should not be examined? We shouldn't apply the method of reasoning or skepticism to your beliefs? .. You see, if that's the case, this fact makes it more likely that your beliefs ARE false. If they were true, you would never object to even the most rigorous analysis and critique. In fact, the welcomed critique, if rigorous would most likely PROVE your beliefs true, if such was the case. Sometimes, we love our conclusions SO much, that we are willing to dispense with any examination that might POSSIBLY dis-confirm our cherished notions.
It all depends on the METHOD being used. Reason and skepticism are two FINE examples of such techniques. But you don't welcome good techniques. You don't welcome skepticism or rationality. You prefer, what.. gullibility and irrationality? Would those two methods preserve your beliefs better?
Maybe you are here more for dreaming out loud than for thinking... ok, fair enough. I like dreams too, but if I come into a debate forum, I expect all of what I write to be challenged. I'm NEVER "above" being challenged.
Blastcat
Active Member
Sounds like a great topic to me. I'm an atheist, and I'm supposed to be a naturalist as well, by some accounts. In the past, I would have just assumed that was true. But these days, I look words up to find out what is meant.
I got this quickly from Wikipedia, and I think it's a pretty common definition. Please provide a better one if you have it. I know Wikipedia isn't much of an authority.. but it's usually the first. So, I went with the very first hit.
"Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses."
- And I find that definition a bit curious. It's seems to be a NEGATIVE stance about the supernatural, in the same way that ATHEISM is a NEGATIVE stance about theism...
So, to me, saying that I might be in favor of naturalism means that I am some kind of a "A-supernaturalist".. but NOT that I am making any positive claim, myself.
Interesting, yes?
What are your thoughts? I always assumed that naturalism is a POSITIVE claim.. But in my current view, naturalism seems to be ONLY the negation of supernaturalism. I think of myself as in favor of what I call "reality-ism".. because I only know about the material, natural world. That's it.
IF the supernatural exists, to BE in opposition to naturalism, I have yet to see any evidence for the supernatural, I highly suspect that there is such a possibility until i get some evidence for the supernatural, and then the whole dichotomy evaporates, and I can conclude, that barring new information, there IS only nature. And we are smack dab in it.
Supernaturalists want to claim that they can "see beyond" reality. Fine, great. But I have no reason to accept their claim. I have NO reason to believe that any "super state" exists to nature.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
You have implicitly defined naturalism to be interchangeable with materialism. IOW, you believe only the physical exists. So, any evidence for the nonphysical would constitute evidence for the supernatural (which literally means "beyond the natural').
Blastcat
Active Member
Yeah, ok.. I'm not too clear about the distinction. pity you chose not to clarify this for me....
hmmm but that's not at all my claim I don't claim that only the physical exists.. My claim is more about the epistemology of reality. I say that I can't KNOW anything else BUT what we call nature or the physical or the material... Can't know or at least don't CURRENTLY know. This is a posture of NOT KNOWING.. that's it. I don't make a claim that I KNOW only this or only that about what reality is composed of. Do you see all of the negative words here? Do you see ANY positive claim that I am making?
Please QUOTE me any positive claim that I am making! If I am wrong, and I am mistaken in that I am only making negative claims then PLEASE correct me. I hate being wrong, and THAT is a positive claim.
Since I DO not believe in anything that I don't have any evidence for, or good reason for, then I have NO BELIEF that "only the physical exists" as you say that I do. I most certainly do NOT have that belief.
What I DO have is NO belief in any SUPERNATURAL.. notice the negative word "NO" before the noun "BELIEF".. that is NO BELIEF.. so my stance is NOT a positive stance at all.. it's just admitting to myself that I simply don't and quite possibly cannot know anything OTHER than what is real. My position is very like the agnostic position .. not knowing or not being able to know.. It's the epistemological honest stance that, when something is UNKNOWN, we should be NEUTRAL as to it's possibility. And that means NO BELIEF should be held. NO BELIEF.. an ABSENCE OF BELIEF should be held.
And an ABSENCE of a belief is NOT a belief.. I repeat because this is apparently CHALLENGING to most apologists.. an ABSENCE of something is not an POSSESSION of something. Ever. To play on the English placement of the word NO.. is a silly pursuit, IMO.
I believe in NO god.. NO supernatural isn't the same as I DON'T believe in the god or the supernatural. If I can't know anything about the god or the supernatural, then how can I BELIEVE in them? I CAN'T, so I just DON'T.
But I don't start off PRESUMING that no god exists, or that no supernatural exists.. So, please, don't say that I MUST. Because I most certainly MUSTN'T.
Now, that's a conditional stance. If anyone provides good evidence FOR a supernatural, then I could at least START choosing a "side".. I could then CHOOSE to be a naturalist, a materialist, OR a supernaturalist, because ONLY THEN would the supernatural be a real option to decide between.
This debate here is almost exactly the same kind of debate I usually have with people who want to shift the burden of the proof by re-defining what I mean by "atheism".
They want to have me accept that I am saying I have some positive BELIEF in a NON GOD ... A NON something? What an absurd concept! But some apologists think this is the finest kind of Slick move possible.
ER.. WHAT? .. look, honestly, every time someone uses the word, "SO".. I always look for the argument supporting the conclusion to follow.
It looks like the major premise in your argument is that I believe only the physical exists. Well, I hope I disabused you of that confusion for good. I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. There might BE something "other" than the natural.. but I don't know.. it's so weird to think that IF something can be observed, it means that it IS natural, physical, observable, natural... and IF something cannot be observed or experienced in any way.. then it's a mere hypothesis with not much merit. I don't have to include mere speculative notions as if they were true facts.
I take REALITY as a true fact. I hope you agree.. what is in QUESTION is any truth to supernatural claims or realms or beings or whatever it's supposed to BE... We know people make things up and are very credulous. We know about delusions and illusions and all sorts of weird beliefs... ALL MANNER of weird beliefs. You name it, and one of the 8 billion people on this planet MIGHT believe it already!
That does NOT support the claim that any supernatural exists.. Silence is simply NOT evidence.
Last edited:
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Well, what exactly is your definition naturalism? (And please don't start rambling on much ado about nothing. IOW, focus and try to furnished me with a succinct response.)
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
Ooh boy.
<<<Cues up "Toccata in D Minor">>>
So Crowley defined "magic" as something that actually happens, correct?
Does it? Really?
Crowley's definition doesn't even begin to qualify that "which is brought to pass by Will" with words like "perceived" (as in "He perceived that he was Napoleon Bonaparte") or "mistaken" (as in "the OP was badly mistaken"). The academic definition you've cited appears to blatantly contradict Crowley's definition.
Mind you, if we exclude gratuitous leering and all-round general flakiness, I'm not prepared to accept Crowley as an authority on much of anything. It's rather like asking for Anton Lavey's opinion regarding NASCAR.
Which one?
Does it? Or rather ... do they?
Won't theists and creationists generally insist that there is a crucial distinction between the alleged mental causation that they claim to believe in and basically any other sort of alleged mental causation?
In other words: It isn't "magic" when God does it.
Review:
"Magic."
"Certainly not magic!"
...
Edited to add:
They still believe that God pulled the universe out of his ... umm ... err ... hat, correct?
Last edited:
Blastcat
Active Member
NFI
naturalism seems to be defined as what it's NOT.. What a surprise THAT is..
here goes the paste proceedure....
Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
so, it looks like naturalism could be re-labled as A-supernaturalism.
What the EFF is supernaturalism?
Ok, firing up that paste function again... let me see... wiki here we go.....
The supernatural is that which is not subject to the laws of physics or, more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.
So, naturalism is what supernaturalism isn't, and supernaturalism is what naturalism isn't.
Well .. I'm happy that they have settled that. I can sleep nights now.
Oh. if you really need to label me as a naturalist, fine, but do I have to accept any labels people want to throw at me?
Don't I get a say in the matter?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I would see it the other way around - stage magic is real magic. It takes skill, knowledge and practice. It is truly interesting and amazing.
Most definitions of magic include the notion that it creates the APPEARANCE of supernatural powers.
The other form of magic - spells, potions and so on is the fake.
Blastcat
Active Member
I thought that's what I meant. Stage magic is the only kind of magic that we know really happens. Stage magic is the real magic. I meant that. So we agree.. maybe i garbled my meaning. Sorry if I did.