How to start someone on Enochian?
-
@Jason R said
" You admit there is MORE to the universe than we know. So there you have room for something else like magic to be possible."
Of course it's possible that magic works. It's also possible that Bigfoot exists or that leprehcauns are stealing my socks when I seem to "lose" one.
But if you ask me what I think is true, then based on evidence, I don't think that leprechauns are actually stealing my socks, even though I admit it's technically possible, and based on evidence, I also don't believe that Bigfoot exists, even though it's technically possible that he does.
And in the same way, based on evidence, I don't think that magic works, even though I admit it's technically possible that it does.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
" You admit there is MORE to the universe than we know. So there you have room for something else like magic to be possible."Of course it's possible that magic works. It's also possible that Bigfoot exists or that leprehcauns are stealing my socks when I seem to "lose" one.
But if you ask me what I think is true, then based on evidence, I don't think that leprechauns are actually stealing my socks, even though I admit it's technically possible, and based on evidence, I also don't believe that Bigfoot exists, even though it's technically possible that he does.
And in the same way, based on evidence, I don't think that magic works, even though I admit it's technically possible that it does."
This makes me curious then why you seem to show such strong contempt for those who believe. Imagine people in the past before flight was understood, those who smirked at those who said "I think we can fly", were eventually proven wrong, yet, as you admit now, it was admittedly "possible."
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
"This makes me curious then why you seem to show such strong contempt for those who believe."Because those people believe that magic works without any good evidence to support their beliefs."
It's just that your definition of magic refers to things that don't work. You're expecting fireballs and dragons. So yeah, your magic doesn't work. I understand why you might want to distance yourself from that. It might be that you have the wrong concept of magic.
Dude, you gotta make these symbols work for you and not the other way around.
-
@Deus Ex Machina said
"
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
"This makes me curious then why you seem to show such strong contempt for those who believe."Because those people believe that magic works without any good evidence to support their beliefs."
It's just that your definition of magic refers to things that don't work. You're expecting fireballs and dragons. So yeah, your magic doesn't work. I understand why you might want to distance yourself from that. It might be that you have the wrong concept of magic.
Dude, you gotta make these symbols work for you and not the other way around."
Thank you! Yes, exactly what I had said before, magic does not happen with the bells and whistles of D&D fame lol. Come on, anyone knows this with just a basic understanding of the occult.
Plus, the comparison of the analogy of someone in the past before flight, having contempt and laughing at someone believing in it, because their was no evidence it was possible. There are thousands of things we do today and know exist, that at some point there was no known evidence for. The absence of evidence one would expect for a possible ability in nature may not take the form we think it should either. It may br right there in front of us and totally misunderstood. Again, I point to the unknown laws BEHIND what governs "chance".
-
EVEN if we proved people wrong who make various supernatural claims, that does not mean magic itself is not possible. If a doctor made claims of curing cancer, yet was proven a fraud, it does not mean ALL doctors, or the science of medicine etc., should be laughed at, nor use that doctor as "evidence" to support your disbelief in going to the hospital. Likewise, this fraud (completely hypothetical BTW, and in no way is this hinting at anyone here being a "fraud") doesn't not prove cancer cannot be proven itself, and perhaps does not necessarily prove the method claimed a success untrue either. Your judging "claims", and a particular persons failure to explain, or THEIR explanation for it.
-
@Deus Ex Machina said
" You're expecting fireballs and dragons."
No, I'm not. I'm evaluating claims that I've been presented with.
When I say that no one has evidence that magic works, the "magic works" I'm talking about is "I found money in the street after doing a spell for money!" or "Grandpa learned that his cancer diagnosis was an error after I did a spell to heal him!"
That's the sort of "magic" I'm talking about. It's indistinguishable from "prayer" in other religions, and it doesn't work. Or, to put it another way, there's absolutely zero evidence that it's anything other than the coincidences that happen to people all the time.
-
@Jason R said
"If a doctor made claims of curing cancer, yet was proven a fraud, it does not mean ALL doctors, or the science of medicine etc., should be laughed at, nor use that doctor as "evidence" to support your disbelief in going to the hospital."
Of course not. But in the case that we're talking about on this thread, I'm not basing my conclusions on magic on any one specific instance...I'm basing my conclusions on the fact that nobody has ever -- not even once in the history of humanity -- produced any evidence that "magic" is anything more than the regular ol' coincidence that happens to people all the time.
Again, I'm not asking for "fireballs and dragons." I'm asking for any evidence -- at all -- that the ol' "We prayed for grandpa, and he got better" is anything other than regular ol' coincidence.
You don't have any such evidence...nobody does, and nobody therefore has any reason to think that these prayers...er, excuse me, "magical rituals"...cause anything at all to happen.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it's going to take a lot more than bald assertion to make your case.
-
I always liked the saying "the magic of today is the science of tomorrow". Maybe at some point our technology, or science will be at a point where we can present a valid model that explains the mechanics of magic, but that empirical evidence doesn't exist today. What we are saying is that the simple "facts" of nature we take for granted (as many did in the past) can be misunderstood, and so hinder our ability to observe the phenomena at work.
Magic, I keep trying to say, works on the "mechanism" or whatever we want to call it, that effects chance. Observed from a rational limited perspective, the effect disappears into a vague thing called "luck" or coincedence. The ONLY objective "proof" is then the consistency of results. This though is hard to show however and use as evidence based on the fact we have such a wide range of variables to consider, including how this consistency is recorded and the subjective nature of it all. This fact of recording and the subjective nature etc., does not make the actual "reality" invalid, just hardly something easy to quantify.
-
@Jason R said
" that empirical evidence doesn't exist today."
Right, so on what grounds do you accept that it does work? As I've been pointing out, you don't appear to have a means of distinguishing its so-called "results" from the regular ol' coincidences that we know exist and happen all the time.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
" that empirical evidence doesn't exist today."Right, so on what grounds do you accept that it does work? As I've been pointing out, you don't appear to have a means of distinguishing its so-called "results" from the regular ol' coincidences that we know exist and happen all the time."
As I said before, in the past people thought it was impossible to fly, to go to the moon, to make superconductors, computers, Iphones, and countless other things that at SOME point there was no demonstrable proof for, just perhaps belief or theory. That mean they were wrong?
My "grounds" are, once again, for the third time at least - CONSISTENT results. Honest record keeping, and personal experience that satisfies me, or I wouldn't bother the next time. If I obtain the results I seek at least MOST of the time in a manner consistant with what I expect, that's "proof" enough. I get results, results that match what I required from the magic, who cares if some other person doesn't "believe" it?
-
The evidence magic works is in the consistent results. From the outside on a purely limited perspective of others, and in the details of it coming about, it appears as coincedence. The "proof" is in the journal entries that show a history that sets it apart from the average probability. Its this subjective nature of the proof, of the journal keeping, and the wide range of personalities, etc., that make this "proof" weak to the skeptic.
-
@Jason R said
"The evidence magic works is in the consistent results."
No, it's not. I consistently have coincidences happen to me, practically everyday. If I started prefacing some of these coincidences with "magical rituals," it couldn't possibly demosntrate that the rituals are "causing" the coincidences to happen.
Importantly, it couldn't even demonstrate it "to me." Nobody -- including me -- would have sufficient evidence to say that the rituals are causing anything to happen, no matter how "consistent" the coincidences appear to be.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
"The evidence magic works is in the consistent results."No, it's not. I consistently have coincidences happen to me, practically everyday. If I started prefacing some of these coincidences with "magical rituals," it couldn't possibly demosntrate that the rituals are "causing" the coincidences to happen.
Importantly, it couldn't even demonstrate it "to me." Nobody -- including me -- would have sufficient evidence to say that the rituals are causing anything to happen, no matter how "consistent" the coincidences appear to be."
No, your totally misunderstanding me. It is beyond chance to ME in the results, if say 6 out of 7 workings are successful - all the time. That's just a made up set of numbers, but what I'm trying to say is, if the successes outweigh the failures that's "proof" to me. However someone like YOU can smirk at the record and say I'm either lying about it, stretching the truth to fit, or using confirmation bias etc. In addition the actual event occurs as if by luck, yet to ME, I know what I record and how accurate it is. I'm not going to just play this game of semantics with you, and keep going back and forth over the same clearly stated explanation. Reread if you don't get it, its clear what I'm saying, you simply want to argue.
-
@Jason R said
"It is beyond chance to ME in the results, if say 6 out of 7 workings are successful - all the time [...] that's "proof" to me."
Sorry, but that's not valid evidence -- much less "proof" -- to anybody, not even to you.
All you're saying is that six out of seven times, you want something and then get the thing you want. That's not unbelievable or even unlikely.
Let me try to explain with an example. In my personal, daily life, I want things and then get things all the time. Consistently. I'd say I want X and then get X waaaaay more than 6 out of 7 times. The difference between me and you is that I don't articulate the wants as formal rituals/prayers. You do, and then you claim that there's a causal relationship between the ritual/prayer and getting X. But there's no reason to think that such a causal relationship exists. The evidence that you use to try to support the claim that there's a causal relationship -- i.e. that you consistently get the stuff you want -- doesn't demonstrate causality because, as I just pointed out, other people also consistently want things and get those things without doing any rituals/prayers at all.
I understand what you're saying, and I understand why your experiences might seem to you to be evidence for your claim, but they're not.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
"It is beyond chance to ME in the results, if say 6 out of 7 workings are successful - all the time [...] that's "proof" to me."Sorry, but that's not valid evidence -- much less "proof" -- to anybody, not even to you.
All you're saying is that six out of seven times, you want something and then get the thing you want. That's not unbelievable or even unlikely.
Let me try to explain with an example. In my personal, daily life, I want things and then get things all the time. Consistently. I'd say I want X and then get X waaaaay more than 6 out of 7 times. The difference between me and you is that I don't articulate the wants as formal rituals/prayers. You do, and then you claim that there's a causal relationship between the ritual/prayer and getting X. But there's no reason to think that such a causal relationship exists. The evidence that you use to try to support the claim that there's a causal relationship -- i.e. that you consistently get the stuff you want -- doesn't demonstrate causality because, as I just pointed out, other people also consistently want things and get those things without doing any rituals/prayers at all.
I understand what you're saying, and I understand why your experiences might seem to you to be evidence for your claim, but they're not."
You see? Here we go again! I even stated I made that figure up simply as an example. I knew you would jump out of your seat and wave your finger at it.
The point IS there IS no "evidence" YOU WILL EXCEPT OR ANY SKEPTIC, because the "proof" is based on subjective record keeping, or I should say rather it is easily argued it can be. BUT! To the person recording it, IF they are honest with themselves, and in recording the results, it is proof of SUCCESS.
NOW! IF 90% of the time the results are obtained that is ENOUGH proof to the worker to encourage them to continue doing it. Why not if it seems to work?
IN ADDITION, from the outside, looking AT THE EVENT ITSELF, it does not unfold or occur with puffs of smoke or lightening from heaven, but as if simply luck.
I'm done spelling it out as if to a child. You either get it or don't. I could care less.
-
MAGIC itself works OUTSIDE the realm of known SCIENCE, and so a demand for "proof" and casualty is problomatic on that ground. It works. We cant "prove" how. Live with it. If one obtains their aim, it obtains their aim. So WHAT if you dont want to? Don't then lol. If the results are reliable enough, then that is all that is needed.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
" It works."As I've been suggesting, nobody has any valid grounds for saying that it works. You just admitted that you don't, for example."
Lol ok. Well guess what? "MAGIC" - and this may surprise you, and I hate to burst your bubble, ISNT a mainstream science.
Its Magic. Unproven. Yes, your in a forum about a subject and technique that is so far unproven. You know, like so many other things in our past that were at one time thought "impossible"? Like that.
The good news is, YOU don't have to stress over it! Its ok, we are ALL ok if we decide to believe it. Los doesn't have to save us.
Whew! I bet that took a load off hour shoulders right?
