Why do Curses of pagans work?

[Imryl]

Gandalf,

Thanks for taking the time to answer some of my questions. Now for the caveats. Although this time I’ll be doing it in MSWord first!

Um… Why? If you accept “All the assertions of Christianity”, why do you choose Satan over God?

Well, what do you think would be attractive about Christianity? The things that generally attract people to God and doing good seem to be lost on me. Unlike most of the diabolists I have known, I chose to turn from God at a much younger age and for very different reasons. This wasn’t some pre-teen or teen rebellion. Therefore, I don’t have the same attitude or hang-ups toward religion that most Satanists do. There was no perceived hurt or injustice that caused my turning away from God. Now, I obviously knew nothing of the faith I was brought up in at the time (which was Catholicism), but that knowledge hasn’t wrenched me from it yet… not that it hasn’t come close a handful of times. I’m still discerning. But I’m a lot older now, and old habits die hard.

Enough about me.

Religion:
For the most part, I don’t see why you need to know. I don’t mind telling you, it’s just that that would bring up a whole different discussion, and this forum is about magic. Luckily, magic is not specific to my religion. If you want to pm me about the matter, feel free.

You’ve misread my question again. I’m not asking you about your religion. I’m asking you to define religion since religion is, at its core, a relationship. That’s why Christianity is a religion. I’m wondering what you have a relationship with, because a relationship is between two persons who can respond to one another. i.e. You can’t have a relationship with a slice of cheese pizza.

Energy:
As I’ve said earlier, everything is energy. If you doubt this, read up on some of Einstein’s work.

I’m reordering your post because this is possibly the most important part of the conversation.

E = mc^2; where m = mass and the constant c is the speed of light. What this equation is saying is that Energy is mass in motion. Energy is not just some nebulous thing. Things have (kinetic) energy because they are in motion, or the potential for energy but what it is is not necessarily energy, which is the word that describes mass in motion, but mass itself. (Note: I am not a physicist, but I am an engineer that makes things that go into space so I have a basic understanding of these things, but electricity mostly. However, I have posed this question to one of our astrophysicists. Unfortunately I can’t be sure when or if he’ll respond. Hopefully he will give me a quick rundown of how these things are visualized. If I’m wrong I’ll certainly recant.)

However, there are more types of energy then mainstream science acknowledges.

That is because the physical sciences can only describe things in the material world. The whole crux of the matter is that the soul is not material.

For instance, you have energy. And by “you”, I am not referring to your body, which is made of matter, I am talking about you. Your essence, soul, chi, spirit, consciousness, or whatever.

I hope you see where this conversation is going. This is why you are having difficulty conveying yourself to others. You are using certain words like they are synonyms when they are not synonyms. e.g. energy and soul. This is causing a lot of confusion on both ends. This is the reason I said that you and I need to hammer out vocabulary and agree on some first principles.

Now I’m going to wade into less familiar territory, so I hope someone who has more training in philosophy and its language will chime in and correct me if needed.

It seems to me that by energy you mean, possibly, your “being” or your “soul”. I am not sure if the Christian would say there are two parts to the soul, but one might wager that the soul determines what you can do and who you are. As it has been explained to me they use the following words to describe these attributes: Your “nature” tells you what you can do, and “person” describes who you are. This is not important now, but may be important in the future.

You may have an easier time, when dealing with Christians, if you refer to “what you can do” and “who you are” as the soul, rather then energy. This is the language that has been used to describe these realities long before you and I were ever born. It might cause you fewer headaches too, especially since Catholics don’t like a lot of hand-waving. If you’re not willing to give explicit detail and specific distinctions (like with your use of the word energy) each and every time you’ll spend most of your effort reinventing the wheel every time this subject comes up.

There are different types of energy, like the energy of yourself, the elements, matter itself, and of course the more scientific ones like electricity, light, heat, mechanical energy, and whatnot. Though now that I think of it, matter would fit nicely in both categories.

Here distinctions must be made again. Energy is the word that describes mass in motion, where soul describes your being, i.e. “what you can do” and “who you are”. Matter is not the same as the soul either, because matter takes up space and has parts. The soul does not.

It is not the same as mechanical energy, which is the movement of some object from one place to another. It is not the same as electricity, which is the movement of electrons from one place to another. It is not the same as light or heat, which is the transfer of energy, or mass, from one place to another through waves - which you can think of as collisions between different particles.

Energy is essentially the dimensions of physical action which are described by an objects mass, the distance it travels, and the time it takes to get there. Again, this is not the soul.

 

[Imryl]

Magic:
I believe that magic is the channeling and manipulation of energy to accomplish a specific purpose.

Anyway, energy is everywhere, and everything. Just in different forms. This is one of the reasons why I disagree with the claim that magic is supernatural.

If that is all that magic is, then ok, it’s not supernatural. I think that’s a little generic though since throwing a ball could then be considered magic. At least with this definition. I am still uncertain what type of “energies” we’re referring to here. (Maybe spiritual energies? The soul as I described it, interacting with some other sort of spiritual energy?) You would have to go into more detail for me to have a better understanding.

What spells can do:
There is no clear cut answer to this. It greatly depends on the caster, how much energy is involved, and what you are trying to do. If you want to, for instance, blot out the sun, you aren’t going to get anything done. However if you wanted to do something simpler like help protect your home, that is likely to work.

How would a spell protect your home? Would you say that a spell communicates your will with something outside of yourself?

I’ve been discussing the first group primarily, though some forms of magic (Necromancy is an easy one to point out) work by forcing something to do something else, instead of you doing it more directly.

I have the same sort of question here. You say you are forcing “something” to perform an action it was not already doing. Does that mean you believe in the spiritual? A soul is spiritual. Does that mean you believe in spiritual beings that do not have a body? You’ve mentioned this before, so I’m assuming that you do. I just want to make sure I have all of this in one place. Maybe you could describe what you think these beings are?

I would like to say though that these are all my views, and would not be universally accepted.

I’m not really concerned what people who aren’t part of this discussion believe, so that’s no problem.

 

[Imryl]

Gosh, I must check my responses for run-ons and nonsensical sentences.

(Note: I am not a physicist, but I am an engineer that makes things that go into space so I have a basic understanding of these things, but electricity mostly. …

The above should have read:

Note: I am not a physicist, I am an engineer that makes things that go into space. I have a basic understanding of many of the general concepts in physics because we sometimes have to deal with these things, but I work primarily on the electrical side of things. I invite anyone who is more competent on this topic to comment.

 

[_Gandalf]

MtnDwellar:

Can you tell us, briefly, how you do that?

It’s kind of tricky to explain, to be honest. Unless you have a point of reference for me to start with, it’d be kind of like explaining the ocean to a tree.

What physical laws are being manipulated towards your ends?

No physical laws are being manipulated towards my ends. I can’t remove gravity, alter the laws of motion, change the laws of thermodynamics, or otherwise alter/amend any natural law. Though I must admit it would be awesome if I could. I would totally make a perpetual motion machine just so I could show it off at conventions.

And you have no way of knowing if the act was done for you or not.

I would disagree. I have no way of proving to you if I did it myself or not. Not quite the same thing.

Imryl: (Part one)

Thanks for taking the time to answer some of my questions. Now for the caveats. Although this time I’ll be doing it in MSWord first!

No problem. And I love MS Word. The other MS Office programs are kinda off if you ask me, but Word is a great word processor.

Enough about me.

Thank you for sharing what you did.

You’ve misread my question again. I’m not asking you about your religion. I’m asking you to define religion since religion is, at its core, a relationship.

Ah, sorry about that. I wouldn’t really disagree with your definition. Though Google has a safer definition of “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods”. I don’t find either to be incorrect, just different ways of saying it.
However, I happen to have a very good relationship with pizza. Here’s how it works, I order pizza, I eat the pizza, and then I order more pizza. It’s a nice system.

I’m reordering your post because this is possibly the most important part of the conversation.

Doesn’t matter to me.

What this equation is saying is that Energy is mass in motion.

For the purpose of science, you can put energy into two categories: Kinetic energy and potential energy. I can see why you say what you do, though I would disagree on some of the more nit-picky details. For instance, no scientist would deny the existence of chemical energy, which does not involve velocity. And actually, I would disagree with your interpretation of Einstein’s equation as well. What it is saying (As far as I know, I might be wrong) is that there is a direct correlation between mass and energy (using the scientific definition of the word). You may notice that the variables in that equation (Mass and energy. I’m not counting the speed of light because that’s a constant), none of those express momentum. Kinetic energy is calculated by mass*velocity (though you can get much fancier if you like), Einstein expressed more what I would refer to as constant energy, instead of kinetic energy.

That is because the physical sciences can only describe things in the material world. The whole crux of the matter is that the soul is not material.

It’s funny, but the only forms of energy that science has acknowledged have mass. Electrons, light, heat, kinetic energy… They all have mass. I guess if I had to draw the line between my definition of energy and sciences, it would be that I recognize forms of energy that do no possess mass.

I hope you see where this conversation is going. This is why you are having difficulty conveying yourself to others. You are using certain words like they are synonyms when they are not synonyms. e.g. energy and soul. This is causing a lot of confusion on both ends. This is the reason I said that you and I need to hammer out vocabulary and agree on some first principles.

Well, I haven’t actually referred to the soul as energy, though I have stated that it has energy, if you see the difference. Though I see your point, I did use many words which are not quite synonyms, yet the purpose of doing that was that there are many words (and with each word, many understandings) to describe what Christianity calls the soul. Though now that you point it out, I do see why this trips people up. I’ll try to be a bit more consistent with my vocabulary. Because everyone here is most familiar with Christianity, I will simply use the word “Soul” to refer to ones essence, though if there are any connotations to that word that I am unfamiliar with I might end up using it incorrectly, or in a way that conveys the wrong idea. Though I think it would be simpler then using a barrage of pseudo-synonyms each time.

It seems to me that by energy you mean, possibly, your “being” or your “soul”.

I believe that the soul has energy, may even be energy, but I am not using the words interchangeably. There are more types of energy then that of your soul, so you can’t really lump the two together.

If you’re not willing to give explicit detail and specific distinctions (like with your use of the word energy) each and every time you’ll spend most of your effort reinventing the wheel every time this subject comes up.

Good point. I do seem to spend most of my term defining terms instead of actually talking.

Matter is not the same as the soul either, because matter takes up space and has parts. The soul does not.

I never said that matter is the same as the soul. Mainly because that is contrary to my beliefs.

 

[_Gandalf]

Imryl: (Part two)

If that is all that magic is, then ok, it’s not supernatural. I think that’s a little generic though since throwing a ball could then be considered magic.

Well, yes, it is a flawed definition. But it’s the best I could come up with in two minutes haha. I think it works better in the right context, and if you don’t focus too much on the words. But now I’m making excuses for my own feeble definition. I’ll try to come up with a better one.

How would a spell protect your home? Would you say that a spell communicates your will with something outside of yourself?

There are forms of magic which work by involving other forces (ie, spirits), though I tend to avoid those. I figure that you could safely do that type of magic if you know what you are doing, but it’s kind of like a pot luck. You never really know what you’re going to end up with. If you aren’t careful, you could get something really nasty.
As for how it does it, that largely depends on the spell. Most of them would try to ward off an intruder to begin with. That, I think, would be the most common way of going about it.

Does that mean you believe in spiritual beings that do not have a body? You’ve mentioned this before, so I’m assuming that you do. I just want to make sure I have all of this in one place. Maybe you could describe what you think these beings are?

Yes, I do believe in spiritual beings. My thoughts on them? Well, I believe that they largely inspired the concepts of angels and daemons, and depending on how you define each term, I would agree completely with those groups. Though I believe that they, like people, can be good, bad, or simply neutral. I don’t think it’s quite as black and white as Christianity makes it sound.

I’m not really concerned what people who aren’t part of this discussion believe, so that’s no problem.

Okay, though to be honest I only partially put that there for your benefit. I was also doing some CYA in case another Pagan/Witch came along, and got all flustered about something or another that I said. As a general rule, I try to avoid having pointless arguments. It wastes time.

 

[MtnDwellar]

From the sidelines, it looks like you two are still spinning your wheels.

It seems to me that both of you should avoid discussing Einstein’s principals.

Gandolf, there are many groups that identify themselves as witches. Do you indentify with one of them?

About energy… From my witchy days, I was taught that everything IS energy. Both animate and inanimate objects are energy. Our 5 senses are designed to detect certain types of energy in certain ways. Additional senses are available that detect more. Spirit energy is completely beyond the sensitivity of our normal senses. The words spirit and energy were often used interchangeably. These teachings are not totally opposed to the Catholic doctors who teach accident and substance.

Regarding magic… We mostly incorporated the maxim As Above So Below into our magic. It was mainly mental magic. We believed that if we sent thoughts, or more specifically mental images in which we visualized a particular result into the mental plane, that event would be duplicated on the physical plane. The process always involved meditation. There were some witches who were more ceremonial than my group. We believed that the ceremonies were mainly for the witches and helped in their meditation and visualization.

My witch group borrowed strongly from Hermetics. We incorporated the principles of the elements. The elements were actually part of the creator. When God created the universe, He only had Himself to work with. The building blocks, or elements of creation, were God Himself. They were energy. Elements such as fire and water had some commonality, but were mainly in opposition. They are not fire and water, but instead represent super natural energy. By invoking one, more could be attracted or the other repelled. It is in this way that a witch can bring that which he desires closer and repel what that which he is opposed to.

Ok. I wanted to try to get the wheels turning. Please comment.

 

[vz71]

I have no way of proving to you if I did it myself or not. Not quite the same thing.

Surely a solid grounding in the natural is easy to prove.
Unless, of course, there is not one.

It’s funny, but the only forms of energy that science has acknowledged have mass. Electrons, light, heat, kinetic energy… They all have mass. I guess if I had to draw the line between my definition of energy and sciences, it would be that I recognize forms of energy that do no possess mass.

It would appear you do not have a firm grasp of what is natural and what is supernatural.

What you describe is supernatural.
You have no real connection between whatever ritual you do and then result you wish to achieve.
And therefore you cannot know if it was done for you or by you.

One should ask themselves what the motivation would be behind all of these creatures doing for you.

 

[Imryl]

Quick post!

It seems to me that both of you should avoid discussing Einstein’s principals.

I was certainly not trying to tackle Einstien’s principals my dear. Just discussing how the equation reads!

About energy… From my witchy days, I was taught that everything IS energy.

At least you can articulate your thoughts on what you consider this different sort of energy to be, but only slightly better then our friend Gandalf. I have never really liked that pagans or witches used the word Energy to describe whatever it is their doing, because it always seems like energy is this big fuzzy unknown, and that’s not the case. But as I said, that’s why we’re trying to hammer out vocabulary. >.<

More later!

 

[_Gandalf]

MtnDwellar:

It seems to me that both of you should avoid discussing Einstein’s principals.

Well, though I could argue it is on topic, I see your reasoning. Once we start doing that we could take over the whole thread just by talking about Einstein, which would derail it. On the other hand, talking about Einstein is just so fun.

Gandolf, there are many groups that identify themselves as witches. Do you indentify with one of them?

I’m mainly a solitary practitioner (I actually have some rather sharp opinions on practicing in groups). Because of that, I differ from many of the more common denominations of Witchcraft, sometimes in rather insignificant ways, sometimes in much more significant ways.

About energy… From my witchy days, I was taught that everything IS energy…

I wouldn’t really disagree with what this paragraph had to say. I find the most difference though in the bits about spirit energy.

Regarding magic… We mostly incorporated the maxim As Above So Below into our magic.

An apt definition for many forms of magic. Though it is not all-inclusive.

The elements were actually part of the creator. When God created the universe, He only had Himself to work with. The building blocks, or elements of creation, were God Himself.

I wouldn’t really disagree with this either. I figure that there has to be the divine, that much can be proven logically. One of the ways of logically deducing that is because there has to be something that set everything else into motion. Otherwise we end up with a chicken and the egg problem, which the only solution to is that time is infinite. Something which can be disproven. At that time (and I use the word “time” loosely), there was only the divine. Nothing else existed. Because things exist now, it is reasonable to conclude that existence itself was made as a part of the divine. I find no flaw with this logic, and it seems to make more sense then saying that the whole universe came from nothing. That violates at least four laws of nature.

vz71:

Surely a solid grounding in the natural is easy to prove.
Unless, of course, there is not one.

You’ve just made the mistake of saying something that is blatantly wrong. For instance, we can’t even prove that gravity exists, unless you choose to use the vaguest of definitions. I’m sure you’ll agree that gravity is natural, would you not? Sure we have theories, the most common one being about the Graviton particle, but completely unproven. You want to know what else is unproven? How about String Theory? Loop Quantum Gravity? The Big Bang? Yep, all theories. And all completely natural. And even things we know exist we have no proven explanation for. Like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. So you see, something being natural doesn’t mean that it is easy to prove. In fact, we are so ignorant about the natural world we barely understand how little we know.
If you find fault with any of the examples I have listed above, feel free to debate the matter. But none of them are as solid as the mainstream belief suggests.

It would appear you do not have a firm grasp of what is natural and what is supernatural.

That all depends on your definition of the word. You seem to be using the word “Supernatural” to describe anything you don’t understand. If that is the definition you are using, then yes, magic is 100% supernatural.

Imryl:

At least you can articulate your thoughts on what you consider this different sort of energy to be, but only slightly better then our friend Gandalf. I have never really liked that pagans or witches used the word Energy to describe whatever it is their doing, because it always seems like energy is this big fuzzy unknown, and that’s not the case. But as I said, that’s why we’re trying to hammer out vocabulary.

Well… Yeah, I kind of suck at explaining things. And I agree, “Energy” is a highly overused word, making it hard to tell what someone is talking about in a conversation. In my defense though, I warned y’all in the beginning that when I start talking about that type of thing my lake of synonyms tends to trip people up. Heh, sometimes I trip myself up.

 

[vz71]

You’ve just made the mistake of saying something that is blatantly wrong. For instance, we can’t even prove that gravity exists, unless you choose to use the vaguest of definitions.

We have no problem at all proving it exists.
The fact that it is there is adequate proof.
Now if you wish someone to explain how it works, that could be difficult as our science has not explained it yet.

That all depends on your definition of the word. You seem to be using the word “Supernatural” to describe anything you don’t understand. If that is the definition you are using, then yes, magic is 100% supernatural.

Actually the definition I have been using is ‘not grounded in the natural’
Beyond scientific understanding of the laws of nature.
And the definition I have been using is solidly within the common usage of the word.

And you are reaching very far and becoming rather insulting to lay claim that you are directly effecting whatever spell you wish to use.
Twisting common usage of words as well as attemting to toss in red herrings show a serious problem on your side of the argument.
Admit it.
Your claim to magic places no direct connection between your actions and the results.
It is done for you.

 

[_Gandalf]

We have no problem at all proving it exists.

That depends on how you define it. We know something exists, and we call that gravity. But that’s a little soft if you ask me.

The fact that it is there is adequate proof.

The fact that it is there is adequate proof? Is the fact that the square root of two there adequate proof that it is irrational? Something existing isn’t adequate proof of what it is, or even if our perception of it is correct.

Now if you wish someone to explain how it works, that could be difficult as our science has not explained it yet.

Precisely my point. There’s plenty of stuff that is natural which we can’t prove, we don’t know how it works, and/or we don’t know if it’s there. You’re argument that you can prove anything natural is falling apart. And the rest of your claims with it.

Actually the definition I have been using is ‘not grounded in the natural’

That’s like defining a dog as not being a cat. Sure it’s accurate, but isn’t actually a description of what it is, it’s a description of what it’s not.
However, like usual, Wikipedia is here to save the day. It defines supernatural as:
"The supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra “above” + natura “nature”) is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the observable universe.
A little ambiguous if you ask me, but a workable definition. The one problem with it is that it implies anything not understood by science is supernatural, in which case rain was once supernatural, and gravity would be now. Though ignoring that implication, it’s a workable definition. Ideally it would state that anything that doesn’t operate within the bounds of science is supernatural, which is correct, though not very useful. We don’t know the bounds of science, so just as there definition is too restricting that definition is too vague.

And you are reaching very far and becoming rather insulting to lay claim that you are directly effecting whatever spell you wish to use.

I’m reaching far to say that I am the author of my own work? And I am becoming insulting by claiming responsibility for it?
What an oddly distorted view of things.

Twisting common usage of words as well as attemting to toss in red herrings show a serious problem on your side of the argument.

There’s no such thing as common usage of words. It differs quite largely from region to region, and time to time. Even in the same time period, and the same region, there are still multiple definitions for virtually every word. It’s one of the reasons why language is a limited form of communication, though it’s the best we have.
And you’ll have to elaborate on the herring comment. I prefer halibut personally, but I don’t think you’re referring to meal options.

Admit it.
Your claim to magic places no direct connection between your actions and the results.
It is done for you.

Since you obviously aren’t going to take my word for it, and like most of many religions, it can’t be proven empirically, let me give you some logic that supports my argument. For starters, Occam’s Razor. If you aren’t familiar with it, it states that when the theories are of equal merit (Since neither of us can empirically prove our arguments, from a scientific standpoint this claim could be made), then the one with the least complexity is most likely to be correct. Now I’m going to make a quick flow chart:
Your theory:
Caster>Energy>Entity intercepts energy>Entity does something of it’s own>Result
My theory:
Caster>Energy>Result
It appears that good 'ol Occam is on my side for this one. It’s not a proof, but it’s logical data that supports my claim over yours. Since my experience can’t be submitted as scientific evidence, I’m treating both as theories, regardless of my knowledge.

 

[vz71]

The fact that it is there is adequate proof? Is the fact that the square root of two there adequate proof that it is irrational? Something existing isn’t adequate proof of what it is, or even if our perception of it is correct.

Existence is its own proof.
Do you really wish to dive into proving existence?

That’s like defining a dog as not being a cat. Sure it’s accurate, but isn’t actually a description of what it is, it’s a description of what it’s not.

You are being disengenuous.
If you wish to critique the definition I use, then you should actually critique the entire definition. Half is deceptive and causes me (as well as others) to question your integrity.
Here is the definition again…

Actually the definition I have been using is ‘not grounded in the natural’
Beyond scientific understanding of the laws of nature.

There’s no such thing as common usage of words. It differs quite largely from region to region, and time to time. Even in the same time period, and the same region, there are still multiple definitions for virtually every word. It’s one of the reasons why language is a limited form of communication, though it’s the best we have.

So you cannot point out an actual connection because the language fails you?
I am uncertain why you would begin calling into question the language itself.
Unless you are now going to lay claim that we haven’t the vocabulary necessary to describe what you do, therefore you can lay claim to anything you wish.

Since you obviously aren’t going to take my word for it, and like most of many religions, it can’t be proven empirically, let me give you some logic that supports my argument. For starters, Occam’s Razor.

Actually, I am not as much concerned about taking your word for it as I am that you have convinced yourself of something that is verifiably false.
You have no physical connect between your spell, and whatever results.
You have distorted definitions, appealed to inadequecies of science, appealed to inadequacies of language.
But the disconnect is still there.
And you cannot see it.

Your theory:
Caster>Energy>Entity intercepts energy>Entity does something of it’s own>Result
My theory:
Caster>Energy>Result
It appears that good 'ol Occam is on my side for this one. It’s not a proof, but it’s logical data that supports my claim over yours. Since my experience can’t be submitted as scientific evidence, I’m treating both as theories, regardless of my knowledge.

What you believe is my theory is not…but the leap you made to the conclusion I cannot say was unexpected.
Occam’s razor would also have something to say about this energy you believe can be manipulated by mere humans that you have overlooked.

 

[_Gandalf]

Existence is its own proof.
Do you really wish to dive into proving existence?

We don’t even know what existence is, it can’t be a proof. We know so little of our universe, the only absolutely concrete proofs are in mathematics. For all of science’s flaws, math is perfect. All other proofs rely on basic assumptions which themselves can not be proven.

If you wish to critique the definition I use, then you should actually critique the entire definition. Half is deceptive and causes me (as well as others) to question your integrity.
Here is the definition again…

I was using the part you put in quotes, which I incorrectly assumed was your complete definition. However I already combated the second half anyway. Look at what I had to say about Wiki’s definition. The same critique applies here. Those in science not understanding something in no way makes it supernatural, it simply means it’s not understood.

So you cannot point out an actual connection because the language fails you?
I am uncertain why you would begin calling into question the language itself.

My critique was of your definition, I do not recall making any connection between the shortcomings of language and my own inability to empirically prove magic. Though there are plenty of things that we do not yet have language to describe, what we have is usually enough to get the point across.

Actually, I am not as much concerned about taking your word for it as I am that you have convinced yourself of something that is verifiably false.

Verifiably false? A bold claim. Okay, humor me. Empirically verify your view of magic. Prove that there isn’t a direct connection between the caster and the spell.

You have no physical connect between your spell, and whatever results.

Wait a minute, is this what you’ve been saying all along? In that case, we actually agree completely. There is no physical connection between magic and it’s results. However, this world consists of more than just the physical.

You have distorted definitions, appealed to inadequecies of science, appealed to inadequacies of language.

Distorted definitions have I? As I recall, I’m the one who’s been quoting dictionaries. Unless you want to claim that they are distorting definitions, you’ll have a hard time proving that I am.
And again, I haven’t said anything about language in reference to empirically proving how magic works. Though science… We know so little about it it’s hard to say anything with certainty.

What you believe is my theory is not…

Yet you have failed to provide your theory. Please do so now.

Occam’s razor would also have something to say about this energy you believe can be manipulated by mere humans that you have overlooked.

Whatever causes the least number of new assumptions is praised by that rule. It is one assumption to say that we can control energy (And not even a far-fetched one at that), though you are assuming that there is another entity, that it can control energy, and that it seems to like spending it’s afternoons doing random stuff for whoever casts a spell.
Again, I think Occam is on my side for this one.

 

[vz71]

Whatever causes the least number of new assumptions is praised by that rule. It is one assumption to say that we can control energy (And not even a far-fetched one at that), though you are assuming that there is another entity, that it can control energy, and that it seems to like spending it’s afternoons doing random stuff for whoever casts a spell.
Again, I think Occam is on my side for this one.

You already have made the assumption of other beings that can manipulate.
Using your own assumptions, this is the most likely and least complicated theory.

You attempt to cast a spell → Something performs the action for you.

2 steps.

 

[_Gandalf]

You already have made the assumption of other beings that can manipulate.
Using your own assumptions, this is the most likely and least complicated theory.

You attempt to cast a spell → Something performs the action for you.

2 steps.

But whether I believe spirits exist or not is completely irrelevent to my view of how magic works. Therefore, you can’t submit it in your claim without first having to make the assumption that they exist. You are assuming that spirits exist, that they have the power to do this type of thing, and that they have the inclination to serve our wishes. My view doesn’t involve spirits, making it much less complicated.
I find it interesting though that you ignored the rest of my post. I guess my views aren’t as verifiably false as you claim.

No matter how you spin this, the logic is on my side. And the universe has an annoying habit of being logical.

 

[vz71]

But whether I believe spirits exist or not is completely irrelevent to my view of how magic works.

It is an assumption you have made. Further you also assumed the capability to effect changes.
If you wish, I can quote the specific posts.

Since you already have placed those assumptions, then your Occam razor scenario should include it. Your doesn’t. I felt no need to add it into mine.
Adding to both sides of the equation does not actually effect the equation.

You are assuming that spirits exist, that they have the power to do this type of thing, and that they have the inclination to serve our wishes. My view doesn’t involve spirits, making it much less complicated.

As stated, I can quote you on this to show otherwise.

But I am glad you pointed out ‘inclined to serve my wishes’
That is the point. WHY is this inclination there? What is the motivation?
What does this entity get out of it?

No matter how you spin this, the logic is on my side. And the universe has an annoying habit of being logical.

You mean the logic that says you did something supernatural even though you cannot describe how and blame the inadequecies of language and general ignorance of the sciences and philosophy for this shortcoming?
Perhaps your right. That logic is on your side.
I’m glad it is not on mine.

 

[_Gandalf]

Since you already have placed those assumptions, then your Occam razor scenario should include it. Your doesn’t. I felt no need to add it into mine.
Adding to both sides of the equation does not actually effect the equation.

You clearly don’t understand how Occam’s Razor works. We aren’t talking about our entire worldviews, we are discussing the validity of our theories on how magic works. Because my theory on magic does not involve spirits, it has no place in the analysis of Occam’s Razor. Your theory requires spirits, so it has to be included.
For instance, If I were using Occam’s Razor to prove that the Earth revolves around the sun (instead of the other way around), I would not include the principals of Chemistry in doing so. I accept those principals, but they don’t belong in that analysis because they are irrelevant to the question at hand.
I hope this makes things more clear for you.

But I am glad you pointed out ‘inclined to serve my wishes’

I said “our” by the way, but you improperly quoting is of little relevance.

That is the point. WHY is this inclination there? What is the motivation?
What does this entity get out of it?

There is no motivation and no inclination because it doesn’t work like that. It is 100% possible to do magic with spirits, but it’s a completely different type of magic. And you know how it works? Right off the bat, you have to include spirits. If you don’t give them a door, they don’t have any way of getting into the mix. With many forms of magic, including the types I do, spirits are not involved at all. I’m sorry you’re having so much trouble with this concept, but I really can’t state it any plainer. Magic can be done with spirits, but it’s an intentional thing. Unless you intentionally do magic that involves spirits, there are no spirits involved.

You seem to be treating the term “magic” as if it were one thing. This is not the case. If you were speaking specifically, in several cases I would agree with you. But since you are speaking generally, you are simply wrong. There are many, many different forms of magic. You can’t act as though they are all one thing.

Hope this helps.

 

[vz71]

With many forms of magic, including the types I do, spirits are not involved at all. I’m sorry you’re having so much trouble with this concept, but I really can’t state it any plainer. Magic can be done with spirits, but it’s an intentional thing. Unless you intentionally do magic that involves spirits, there are no spirits involved.

And what of your 5 senses tells you this?

Occam’s razor tells me that these spirits you claim to be uninvolved are actually doing it all for you.

You have no evidence to say otherwise.

 

[_Gandalf]

You have no evidence to say otherwise.

And you do not have any evidence to make your claim. Face it, you can’t empirically prove your theory any more than I can empirically prove mine.

 

[vz71]

And you do not have any evidence to make your claim. Face it, you can’t empirically prove your theory any more than I can empirically prove mine.

The very fact that you cannot prove your cause to effect tells us that there is no correlation.
Occam’s razor does not back your position.
Science does not back your position.

You have little left to back your position with.

So back to my question…
What exactly is the motivation behind the spirit working towards your end?