Magical Realism

That was the title of a novel I was planing on composing after I wrote a short story titled "Magic Realism". I don't have the story on this pc (I think), and I would be too embarrassed to present it regardless.

So the question is: "does magic exist?" Well, the question goes further: "what is magic/hows does magic work?"

Also consider the possibility of miracles being magical acts of Yahweh.

I am aware that many readers will probably have an automatic reaction regarding the stupidly of this thread, and that it should be moved to another board, such as the fan fiction one, but I believe it belongs here, because of the idea of its connection with miracles.

So what do the readers think?

(Note: all terms of "magic" refer to the non card trick/stage type of magic, but the other type, referring to "super natural" powers (or whatever the definition is).)

I actually don't know what I believe. Usually I think that there can be no such thing as magic in real life, but then at other times, I think maybe the reason we don't see magic is because we expect it to be something like what we see in movies or games. Magic is not necessarily the ability to move something across a room without touching it, or have a ball of energy fly from your hands at will.

Magic has been a constant in human nature, from the times before the ancient world. Now if someone were trying to prove magic in the sense of werewolves, or anime style magic, then I would give it a definite no. However, since we are talking about miracles or even inert abilities, such as how twins can seem to read each other's minds or something, then I am completely undecided. Part of me says that in a way I do believe in it, but another part of me says that I would need to see undeniable proof in order to fully believe it.

So I guess my answer to the question of do I believe in it or not would be yes, I do.

I'd say there is no such thing as magic. Why? It's never been demonstrated. If magic can be controlled then it should be easy enough to do an actual show of it. Yet no true, ah, "wizards" ever have.

GDwarf. The type of magic we are talking about isn't magic that can really be controlled. We are talking about magic that is more of a "miracle" kind of magic. Something supernatural probably couldn't be controlled by any human.

Regardless, before you start speculating about causes you need to show that these things actually happen.

Ok, well prove to me that miracles don't happen. If you want me to prove to you that magic is real, then why don't you prove to me that it isn't? Prove to me that miracles don't exist. Or that twins can't sometimes tell what the other is thinking. Those are potentially both forms of magic.

It's impossible to disprove something until evidence has been shown for it.

I can say that magic of the kind described would violate the laws of thermodynamics, but most people would argue that all that means is that thermodynamics is wrong.

However, if evidence is shown then I can look at that evidence and say if it works or not.

That's called the burden of proof, and it's always on the person making the positive claim. As soon as you say that 'X' happens it's up to you to prove that this is the case, only then is it up to me to show it's wrong.


This may seem unfair or odd to you, but I'll give you an example of why it works this way:

I tell you that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. That's all. I don't tell you why I think this, nor do I let you see my garage. Could I then say that since you cannot disprove my statement there must be a dragon in my garage? Well, no, obviously that isn't how it works.

First I'd have to provide evidence of this dragon in my garage. I could show you a footprint that I found. Then you would be able to start trying to disprove my statement. You could say: "One footprint isn't enough evidence." (which is true.), you could also ask how I know that a dragon left this footprint, etc.

If the footprint is my only evidence and you raise enough doubt then I'd be forced to abandon my dragon hypothesis. The same thing holds here. You need some sort of evidence of magic, otherwise why would you accept it? If someone can then point out that the evidence isn't good enough then presumably you'd abandon your view. If you have enough solid evidence to prove the existence of magic then it would become accepted.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

It's impossible to disprove something until evidence has been shown for it.

Not necessarily true, but ok.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

That's called the burden of proof, and it's always on the person making the positive claim. As soon as you say that 'X' happens it's up to you to prove that this is the case, only then is it up to me to show it's wrong.

I know what burden of proof is, I just said that its perfectly within my right to ask you for proof on your end as well.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

This may seem unfair or odd to you, but I'll give you an example of why it works this way:

Not unfair at all. I understand burden of proof.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I tell you that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. That's all. I don't tell you why I think this, nor do I let you see my garage. Could I then say that since you cannot disprove my statement there must be a dragon in my garage? Well, no, obviously that isn't how it works.

I'm not saying that if you can't disprove magic then it must exist. I'm just saying that if you can say it doesn't because there isn't any proof, I can say there are unexplained things that seem to be magic and for you to prove to me that they are not.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

If the footprint is my only evidence and you raise enough doubt then I'd be forced to abandon my dragon hypothesis. The same thing holds here. You need some sort of evidence of magic, otherwise why would you accept it? If someone can then point out that the evidence isn't good enough then presumably you'd abandon your view. If you have enough solid evidence to prove the existence of magic then it would become accepted.

As I said, miracles and "twin ESP." There has been no scientific reason why either exist, and because of this many people say they don't. That doesn't change the fact that there are things out there that do occur that just can't be explained. Perhaps these unexplainable things are only unexplainable because we have no way of explaining magic, much less measuring it. If I said to you, magic exists, and you said it doesn't, and I bring up unexplained things and you have no explanation, that means my unexplained things are plausible evidence and must be disproved before an answer of no can be accepted.

Its just like religion. I'm not sure if you are a religious person, but at any rate, there is no physical proof that God exists, and almost all proof that can be shown can be explained away. But people still believe in God.

Then there are the stubborn people who could be given the most undeniable proof of something, whether it be in the positive to a thought or the negative, and they still believe what they want and ignore the proof. For all I know, I could find absolute proof that magic exists, and show you this proof, but you could still just decide not to believe it exists.

Originally Posted by Bane

I know what burden of proof is, I just said that its perfectly within my right to ask you for proof on your end as well.

Burden of proof is always on the positive claim, not the negative.

I'm not saying that if you can't disprove magic then it must exist. I'm just saying that if you can say it doesn't because there isn't any proof, I can say there are unexplained things that seem to be magic and for you to prove to me that they are not.

Sure, but you need to provide something inexplicable that would be evidence.

As I said, miracles and "twin ESP." There has been no scientific reason why either exist, and because of this many people say they don't. That doesn't change the fact that there are things out there that do occur that just can't be explained.

Twin ESP has never been shown to actually happen.

As for miracles, which ones, what evidence is there?

Perhaps these unexplainable things are only unexplainable because we have no way of explaining magic, much less measuring it. If I said to you, magic exists, and you said it doesn't, and I bring up unexplained things and you have no explanation, that means my unexplained things are plausible evidence and must be disproved before an answer of no can be accepted.

First we need some evidence that these inexplicable things actually happened.

I could just say: "My pet dog can fly. Since you can't disprove that I must be right." Obviously that doesn't work, but it's exactly what you're doing.

Its just like religion. I'm not sure if you are a religious person, but at any rate, there is no physical proof that God exists, and almost all proof that can be shown can be explained away. But people still believe in God.

I'm an atheist since there is no evidence for God.

Then there are the stubborn people who could be given the most undeniable proof of something, whether it be in the positive to a thought or the negative, and they still believe what they want and ignore the proof. For all I know, I could find absolute proof that magic exists, and show you this proof, but you could still just decide not to believe it exists.

I'd like to think I'm more open minded than that (I did, after all, go from being very religious to atheist.), but, of course, there's no way you'd be able to tell if that's the case or not.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Burden of proof is always on the positive claim, not the negative.

I didn't say it did fall upon the negative claim. I just said its within my rights to ask for your proof as well. Just as its within your rights to deny me that until I have presented my proof.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Sure, but you need to provide something inexplicable that would be evidence.

As I said, miracles and "twin ESP."

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Twin ESP has never been shown to actually happen.

Yes it has. Two stories come to mind. One was where the one girl got her foot caught in railroad tracks or something, and her twin was at home. The girl stuck in the tracks started freaking out, and her twin told their parents that she was in trouble. They got her out of the tracks just before a train hit her.

The other is about how the twins lived on opposite side of the country, and one had a heart attack. The other felt pains in his chest that were unable to be explained.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

As for miracles, which ones, what evidence is there?

This one would be tougher to show to someone who doesn't believe in God or the Bible.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

First we need some evidence that these inexplicable things actually happened.

Most have not been documented, but the two cases of Twin ESP have both been on either 60 Minutes or Dateline or something. It was quite some time ago that I saw it.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I could just say: "My pet dog can fly. Since you can't disprove that I must be right." Obviously that doesn't work, but it's exactly what you're doing.

If you paid attention to my post, thats not what I said at all. I'm saying that if you just say that the unexplained things were not proof, but then cannot explain them yourself, your claim that they aren't proof is incorrect. If you can't prove my evidence is not valid, then you can't just write off my evidence as false.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I'm an atheist since there is no evidence for God.

There ya go. Because you don't seem able to believe in supernatural things such as God, it would be that much harder to get you to believe in magic because you have more than likely already written off the supernatural as all false.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

I'd like to think I'm more open minded than that (I did, after all, go from being very religious to atheist.), but, of course, there's no way you'd be able to tell if that's the case or not.

Its possible you are. I never said you weren't. I'm just stating that there are a lot of people like that out there, and it would be very hard to get a theory like this to be accepted.

Originally Posted by Bane

Yes it has. Two stories come to mind. One was where the one girl got her foot caught in railroad tracks or something, and her twin was at home. The girl stuck in the tracks started freaking out, and her twin told their parents that she was in trouble. They got her out of the tracks just before a train hit her.

The thing is, that isn't evidence. It's an anecdote being told by people who gain fame from telling it.

They could be telling the truth (or what they think is the truth), but they're still going to see events in the way that seems the best, not the way it actually happened.

Or they could be lying.

If they are telling the truth, we need to know how often the one twin felt that the other was in danger. I myself have felt nervous about a family member when they weren't home, but they were fine.

In addition, was the trapped twin late getting home? If so, then that right there explains the feeling.

Did the "psychic" twin know that her sibbling tended to play/walk near train tracks?

etc.

In short, the story could be false, and even if it isn't, it's hardly proof of psychic twins, just of a lucky chance.

The other is about how the twins lived on opposite side of the country, and one had a heart attack. The other felt pains in his chest that were unable to be explained.

All my points about the above situation apply here, they simply need to be modified a bit:

Did the psychic twin know that the other had a high chance of heart attacks?
Did he experience the pain at the exact same time as his twin? (This is pretty much impossible to prove, but is key.)
Did he have pains that mimicked a heart attack? Simply having a "chest pain" isn't enough, heart attacks have very specific feelings, and in fact, cause pain to most of the body, not just the chest.
Had the psychic twin ever had pains previously or did he have them afterwards? (No one ever seems to check these cases to see if the psychics had a similar feeling later.)


In addition, what of the fact that out of the tens (hundreds?) of millions of twins, almost none experience anything out of the ordinary when their sibling is in danger or dies?

In fact, given how often someone feels sad, or in danger, or dies, I'd be surprised beyond belief if there weren't a few hundred modern recorded cases of people just happening to feel something vaguely similar to what a sibling is feeling on the same day as that sibling.

Its possible you are. I never said you weren't. I'm just stating that there are a lot of people like that out there, and it would be very hard to get a theory like this to be accepted.

Oh, I'd argue that the gullible outnumber the skeptics. (I don't mean that everyone who isn't a skeptic is gullible, I mean that truly gullible people probably outnumber truly skeptical people, and that people who fall mid-way between outnumber both combined.)

Bane, what evidence would you accept as demonstrating the nonexistence of magic? It's not a falsifiable claim, and impossible demands like that get us nowhere. We can never completely rule out the possibility of magic, but until someone shows us magic, we have no reason to believe in it. This is why it's up to you to back up your claims.

And no, unsourced stories won't do. Claiming you have evidence is not the same as providing evidence. Unless you can prove that those phenomena occurred the way you said they did, you're only making yet another claim; not giving us evidence. The best evidence you could give us would be clinical studies, case studied, or some sort of controlled experiment, and preferably something that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.