Author Topic: Re:Hello  (Read 216 times)

jefferywinkler

  • Spammer Banned
  • Padawan Learner
  • Posts: 3
Re:Hello
« on: April 24, 2012, 09:40:55 AM »
If you were talking about any other work of fiction containing magic to have ever existed in human history, not one person on this forum would be disputing that the definition of magic is the impossible. Let’s choose the example of the TV show “Once Upon a Time” on ABC. Let’s say an example of a non-magic thing happening on the show is Emma walking into the diner and ordering a cup of coffee. Let’s say an example of magic thing happening on the show is Mr. Gold turning a man into a snail. Now ask yourself this. What is the difference between ordering a cup of a coffee, and turning a man into a snail? What makes one magic and the other not? What do you believe is the difference between something on the show that’s magic, and something on the show that is not magic? The difference is when Mr. Gold turned a man into a snail, that was impossible. When Emma ordered a cup of coffee, that was possible. That’s the difference between “magic” and “not magic“. “Not magic” is possible, and “magic” is impossible. Let’s say you were talking about the tv show “Merlin” on the SyFy network? What’s the difference between Merlin polishing Arthur’s armor, and Merlin’s eyes glowing, and then one of the bad guys is thrown backwards?  The first is “not magic“, and thus possible, and the second is “magic“, and thus impossible. If you were talking about any work of fiction containing magic other than Judeo-Christianity, nobody would dispute that the definition of magic is the impossible.

If you were talking about any work of fiction containing magic to have ever existed, except Judeo-Christianity, not one person on this forum would have any objection to me saying that magic is defined to be the impossible. Ask yourself this. What is your definition of magic in the context of Greek Mythology? What is your definition of magic in the context of King Arthur? What is your definition of magic in the context of “Lord of the Rings”? What is your definition of magic in the context of Dungeons and Dragons? What is your definition of magic in the context of Harry Potter? If any of these cases, if someone defined magic to be when characters did impossible things, would you object to that definition? If so, what would be your definition? Of course, if we were talking about any of the above examples, and I defined magic to be the impossible, not one single person in this forum would have any dispute with that definition. Why then, do you react differently when the work of fiction containing magic is Judeo-Christianity, as opposed to any other examples I listed? Why treat Judeo-Christianity differently than any other example of a work of fiction containing magic? Everyone uses the words “magic” and “supernatural” to mean “impossible”.  If that’s not your definition, then what is your definition?

There are a group of people who claim that the “Iliad” is based on real events. In reality, that’s not true. There’s no evidence to support that claim. However, there is a group of people claiming that the “Iliad” was based on real events. Those people do not claim that the “Iliad”, exactly as written, is true. Instead, they take the “Iliad”, remove all the magic from the story, and claim that what you have left, after the magic has been removed, is true. Why do they feel the need to remove the magic from the story? The reason they do it is because, there is an assumption, that you would need to remove the magic from the story in order to be able to claim it was true, and that you would not be able to claim it was true unless you removed the magic from the story. If you deny that’s the reason, then what are you claiming is the reason?

You have a similar thing with King Arthur. There is a group of people who claim that the stories of King Arthur are based on real events. That’s not true either, but they are claiming it’s true. Those people also remove the magic from the story, before claiming that what’s left is true. Why do they do that? Why do they feel the need to remove the magic from the story before claiming it’s true. The reason is because everyone assumes that you would not be able to claim a story was true if there was magic in it. If you are denying that’s the reason, then what you claiming is the reason?

There is a group of people claiming there is such a thing as cold fusion. They are wrong. In reality, there is no such thing as cold fusion. However, they are claiming that there is. Because they are actually claiming that it actually exists, even though it doesn’t, they are claiming it exists, and so they would never say it was magic, they would never say it was supernatural, they would never say the words, “I believe in cold fusion”, and they would be deeply offended if they ever heard anyone else describe it in that way.  Why is that? It’s because everyone assumes that if you are actually claiming that something exists, that means you are saying it’s not magic.

Be honest about the following question. Let’s say you heard someone say they thought the so-called “Face on Mars” was made by aliens. What’s your initial response? Most people’s initial response would be one of bemusement. In other words, you think the other person is crazy for believing it. Why then do you not have the same initial reaction of bemusement when you hear someone make what, by any objective measure, would be a vastly more outrageous ludicrous grandiose claim that, not merely the “Face on Mars”, but instead the entire infinite Universe, including the observable Universe, containing 100 billion galaxies, was all deliberately single-handedly made by one single person? Most people think the first person is crazy, when they said a far less crazy thing. The same people don’t suspect the second person of being crazy, despite the fact they said what by any objective measure would be a far more crazy thing. The reason for the different reaction is because in the first case, you think the person thinks it, but in the second case, you don’t think the person actually thinks it. Nobody thinks the second person actually thinks what they said. If you are denying that’s the reason, then what are you claiming is the reason for the different public reaction?

The assumption that everyone has is if you are claiming that something exists, then you are saying it’s not magic. If you are saying something is magic, then you are not claiming it exists. Physicists claim that there are 11 spacetime dimensions, and all but 4 are compactified. That may not be true, but since they are claiming it’s true, they are saying it’s not magic. On the other hand, if someone said there was a spiritual plane of existence, they are saying it is magic, which means they are not claiming it exists.

In the real world, there is always a logical explanation for everything, even if we don’t know what it is. We don’t have a final theory of quantum gravity. However, we know there must exist a logical explanation of how quantum gravity works, although the explanation is currently unknown to us, we know it’s not magic. We know there must exist a logical explanation for how iron-based superconductors work, even though we don’t yet know what it is, we know it’s not magic.

With magic, there is no explanation as to how it works, not even an explanation unknown to us. In “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, when the Green Knight’s head was cut off, and still alive, he put his head back on, there was no explanation as to how he did that. It was magic. In “Lord of the Rings”, when the ring turned Frodo invisible, there was no explanation as to how it worked. It was magic. If you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and you are playing a magic-user, and you cast a spell, there is no explanation as to how it works. It’s magic. In Judeo-Christianity, if God magically creates the entire infinite Universe, there is no explanation as to how he did it, It’s just magic. Well, that proves that magic can only exist in fiction, since in the real world, there always has to be a logical explanation as to how something works, or why something works, even if we don’t currently know what it is, we could in the future discover what it is. Therefore magic can only exist within fiction. To say that something does not have any explanation as to how or why it works, is another way of saying it's impossible. Therefore the words "magic" and "supernatural" are synonyms for "impossible".

Jeffery Winkler

http//jefferywinkler.com
 

This user has been banned as a spammer, posting rubbish and paying no attention to the rules. - Tank

Tank

  • Fed up with stupid.
  • Administrator
  • Excellent and Indefatigable Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 30160
  • Gender: Male
Re:Hello
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2012, 10:07:37 AM »
Please note Jeffery has been banned for spamming, posting rubbish and ignoring the rules. Tank
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.