Mageth

I disagree. Unless you can ensure that your control group is receiving a zero quantity of the independent variable, there will always be a problem. How can you design a study that purports to contrast prayer and non-prayer if you can't provide a true non-prayer group?

I think you misunderstood what I said, or meant to say (I could have made it clearer). What I was claiming was "not a problem" is not being able to determine if a supernatural power, or a particular supernatural power, is having an effect through prayer if a controlled study was possible and all one set out to do was to study the effects of prayer. One could, if a truly controlled experiment was possible, study just the effects of prayer (positive, neutral, or negative) on a control group without concerning oneself with the source of the "magic", if any.

But I absolutely agree with the control group problem. In fact, if you reread my post you responded to, you'll see that it begins "As far as prayer studies go, I agree that they are impossible to control..."

Goliath

Vinnie,

So you've answered with more name-calling. Is that a "yes," then?

I dare you to find a single post where I've asserted that magic exists. In fact, if you can find such a post, I will give you $5,000. No, I'm not kidding. Find a single post in which I've asserted that magic exists, and I will mail you a check for $5,000.

What's troubling about this is that I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "greater."

I have no idea what you mean by this, either.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Philosoft

Ok, my mistake. It did strike me that my reading of the latter part was incongruous with the first sentence. It's clear now.

Lobstrosity

I'm sorry, but my operating definition of magic is simply that which does not adhere to the physical laws of this universe, and that's why God is magical being. I don't believe in magic because I believe that everything adheres to the physical laws of this universe. So far that has proven to be a reasonable stance to take as science would not be possible without it, and so far there's no indication that science is impossible. If something appears magical, it is because it appears to violate these laws, but every time we look into the process we see that we just didn't completely understand what the physical laws were. A better understanding of the laws reveals that there was no magic after all. According to this definition, which I view as more than reasonable, God is quite magical. He would be the quintessential magical being as viewed from any frame of reference located within this universe as he can violate any physical law. I don't believe in magic for the same reason I don't believe in God...I have no reason to assume there exists that which intelligently and willfully violates the laws of this universe. So what is your operating definition of "magic"? I know you provided me with some examples of magical beings, but that hardly gets at what one means by the term "magic."

You know what else sounds like a fairy tale? An all powerful, intelligent, "greatest" being who created the universe and periodically fucks around with it just for the hell of it. The afterlife sounds like a fairy tale. The entire Bible sounds like one giant fairy tale.