>>17364283

Magic isn't real, which is why there has never been the slightest shred of proof produced by the countless """wizards""" who spend all day shitposting here.

>>17364283
>I am a man of science and reasoning

Then go and get yourself some proof. Magic takes no interest in being proven. Spirits do not take interest in being proven, for else it would be too easy.

Want proof? Go, experiment, evaluate the results.

>>17364296
Then I guess I'll have to get off my ass, explore the world, and see what I find instead of checking out internet bullshit.

>>17364296
Why should anyone attempt to prove anything

>>17364300
>Then go and get yourself some proof. Magic takes no interest in being proven. Spirits do not take interest in being proven, for else it would be too easy.
>Want proof? Go, experiment, evaluate the results.
This teenage non-answer has gone beyond boring. If you don't have anything to add to the dialogue, don't speak.

The assumption here alone is damning. Plenty of people asking this question have done experiments. But intelligent people don't rely exclusively on their own testing and knowledge. They also ask around, compare notes, learn, figure out things they might have missed or misunderstood by asking others.

Others with actual knowledge will either share or keep silent. But when you say, "go figure it out yourself," in these contexts, that translates to you saying that you don't know but want to sound self important.

Magic cannot be proven, it can always be attributed to luck or chance. Magic is just trying to work with things we know little about so we just find out what works and repeat that and pass that down. We don't really know what we're doing, I don't really care. I don't know what magic is, or if it's really a thing, it certainly can't be just one thing. Just like the word "animal" describes animals but isn't really sufficient by itself to describe something. I just believe in it and hope it works. If it doesn't then it doesn't.

>>17364348
>Magic cannot be proven
>we just find out what works

If you can't prove that it does anything whatsoever, then you cannot in any capacity say that anything involving magic has "worked".

>>17364316
>that translates to you saying that you don't know but want to sound self important.
No, it translates as
>"Others with actual knowledge will either share or keep silent".

I chose not to talk about it with people who do not show signs of being completly serious about it.

Why should I, or for that matter anyone else, be throwing around sacred knowledge and secrets of the universe, that is usually gained through hard work, sweat, endurance, and hardship?

First, it would not only be disgraceful, degrading and desecrating for this beautiful knowledge to be thrown around in such a pejorative way, but

Second: How would someone uninitiated who does not understand the full importance of what is being said, be able to appreciate it in the way it deserves to be appreciated?

And Third: It would go against the basic universal principe of why we are even on this planet - and that is to figure things out on our own for the sake of selfimprovement. There is a reason why Gods don't prove their existence or the existence of the paranormal. There is just enough to make you wonder, but no prove. The reason is, that its the duty of every single person to find it out on her own. Thats why you are here.

And thats why no one but only yourself can obtain it.

>>17364353
Cause and effect. If you do a spell, and 10 out of 10 times it produces the desired results, even if through seemingly coincidences, its easonable to assume that it has worked.

>>17364386
Then magic can be proven...

...if it actually worked, which it hasn't for the last billion people who have tried.

OP why does 2 + 2 = 4?

>>17364395
>Then magic can be proven...
No, because it can always be attributed to coincidence. Its not an empirical process.

>...if it actually worked, which it hasn't for the last billion people who have tried.
It has for me and it has also worked for atleast 10 different people that I know who do magic on a regular basis. It also works for everyone else who is practicing it, for else they wouldnt be practicing it.

The reason why magic survived since dawn of civilization, is because it worked for millions of people.

>>17364405
this guy gets it

>>17364371
>Why should I, or for that matter anyone else, be throwing around sacred knowledge and secrets of the universe

It's a good thing scientists don't operate this way, or we'd still be living in the dark ages, yelling at the sky gods to send rain for a good harvest

>that is usually gained through hard work, sweat, endurance, and hardship?

You mean "the 'New Age/Self Help' section at my local Barnes and Noble".

>First, it would not only be disgraceful, degrading and desecrating

Not nearly as disgraceful as your current behavior.

>for this beautiful knowledge

A collection of dark age bullshit superstitions is neither "beautiful", nor "knowledge".

>How would someone uninitiated who does not understand the full importance of what is being said, be able to appreciate it in the way it deserves to be appreciated?

You have yet to actually say anything important. You're just posturing.

>It would go against the basic universal principe of why we are even on this planet - and that is to figure things out on our own for the sake of selfimprovement.

Nobody cares about your stupid beliefs, they care to see evidence of magic, since you retards never shut up about it. The rest of your post is just insane schitzophrenic rambling that isn't worth replying to.

Unless your next post is a demonstration of magic, stop wasting our time.

While it's largely been classified as an outdated pseudoscience, the strong irony of Alchemy is that it is actually the Chemistry of the future.

Once you understand that all matter is, is protons/neutrons/electrons in specific combinations, it actually becomes theoretically very easy to transform say, lead into gold. The technology just doesn't currently exist.

I know its scfi but consider things like transporters, food replicators, and the holodeck on Star trek. What are these if not alchemy? Breaking down rubbish into it's constituent parts and then rebuilding it into what you see fit. Again I know it sounds silly to use scifi as an argument for realistic proof, but then again they said the same thing about actual space travel and tiny long-range communication devices and so on.

So I do think that alchemy is very real in its own way, I do not think some old guy waving crystals around a pile of iron filaments actually ever managed to rearrange the subatomic particles into gold though.

The same is true for other forms of "magic". What is an electronic device worn on the hand that reads your bodies hormonal signals or obeys a verbal command and uses your own bodies energy as fuel to create a flame if not a wand?

So really I guess it depends on your definition of Magic.

>>17364412
Are you aware of a thing called "statistics"?

If you can cause something with less than a 50/50 chance of happening, 10 times in a row, consistently, then that would prove magic is real.

So lets see it.

>>17364428
>You mean "the 'New Age/Self Help' section at my local Barnes and Noble".
No, I dont mean that.

>A collection of dark age bullshit superstitions is neither "beautiful", nor "knowledge".
And this demonstrates exactly the reason why I did not share knowledge in this thread, for your behavior would just desecrate it. You don't throw pearls in front of swine etc.

Thanks for reinforcing my point by behaving like a monkey eating its own shit.

>Unless your next post is a demonstration of magic, stop wasting our time.
You mean stop wasting my own time by responding to toxic primates like you.

>>17364283
OP stop antagonizing these poor people and answer >>17364405

>>17364475
Get a load of this spiritual master. :^)

He's so powerful that magic still isn't real.

>>17364433
I am. What about you?

>If you can cause something with less than a 50/50 chance of happening, 10 times in a row, consistently, then that would prove magic is real.
You do a money magic ritual and ask for money. A week later somebody who owes you 300 bucks since five months decides to give it back.

Was it magic at work?

You do it again, and a few weeks later you get more clients in your business than usual. Was it magic or chance?

You do a love spell on a certain person, and this person suddenly is more attracted to you and starts flirting with you and acting seductive. Magic or chance?

Another scenario: After indulding in magic for a while and trying to work with certain entities, an entity appears in a dream. Subconscious/psychology or magic?

The point that I am trying to make, is that it is ALWAYS plausible deniable. It always manifests as a coincidence. But it does fucking manifest every single time. Yet people will find ways to deny it, to rationalize it, etc.

>>17364515
>It always manifests as a coincidence.

Then it's a coincidence, and magic isn't real.
>bbbut it wor
No, it doesn't work. If it performs no better than chance, then it obviously doesn't do anything.

>>17364556
And yet it manifests in real life. What about your statistics?

Or are you one of those people who will do amazing amounts of mental gymnastics because it would be pretty hard to admit its real?

>>17364570
You just said it will always "manifest as a coincidence", aka, performs no better than random chance.

There are, quite literally, only two options:
A. Magic is a real thing, which can affect the world in a way that performs better than random chance, in which case, it would be trivially easy to prove its existence.
B. Magic doesn't perform better than random chance expectation, which means it's fake and gay.

Which one is it? Because it's entirely nonsensical to say "I know magic works, but it's impossible to prove it works", or "I know magic works, even though by my own admission, it looks exactly like magic isn't even remotely real".

>>17364646
>You just said it will always "manifest as a coincidence", aka, performs no better than random chance.

I said it will look like coincidence, not that it performs randomly. It will materialize/manifest given it is properly performed etc. But the way it manifests looks random. If you do money magic, you don't find a 100$ bill under your pillow. You won't see the money literally manifest from thin air.

But you will get a raise at work. Or a new job offer. Or an investment tip. Maybe you get some of your taxes returned.

No matter what channel its going to be, but its going to be in a natural way. And this is why

>it would be trivially easy to prove its existence.
Except when dogma, core beliefs, denial, self-deception, angendas, ego, mental gymnastics, rationalizations and a huge portion of ignorance and unwilligness to change the own beliefs comes into play.

>>17364673
Do I really need to explain the basics of a controlled environment and double blinds to you?

Serious question. Because I will, if you are seriously unaware of what those things are.

>>17364405
Can Be 2 again. 1 + 1 = 2. But it depends of what you speak.

Example. Have one man and one woman 2 peoples but is one man and one woman. Understand. Nothing is anything