Gandalf the white vs yoda AOTC

[Admiral Valdemar]

OK, if you're serious, then all I can say is that you should really look over an entire thread before commenting on it. If you see a post which does not include all of the necessary evidence to support itself, do not assume that various supporting facts were not provided in a previous post; read the thread or don't comment. Some people get SERIOUSLY pissed off at strawman distortions.

Evidently, I am no LotR nut so I am basing most info off previous posts and knowledge found here and at SB.com and elsewhere, from what I saw it seemed a Gandalf win, but I was fuzzy over both combatants and just moving back into Uni means I'm knackered and disorganised.

Usually I unwind with just debating down Creationists, but I guess that's a lot easier than these debates where there is something to debate over.

[The Silence and I]

Gandalf wins this. No question. A Balrog has been used to compare with Gandalf the Grey, and as the White he is far stronger.
Lord Wong: You insist a lightsaber would be lethal to a Balrog, using evidence showing lightsabers can thermally cut through nearly any material. I doubt this would work with a Balrog because it A. Is already partly or wholely molten, and can at least seal any cuts the saber manages to make B. Whatever the Balrog is made of, it is likely magically augmented, as it allows an undamaged landing on the unyielding water surface underground after a long fall. The KE here must have been high, to say nothing of the momentum as the Balrog is heavy enough to move chunks of a mountain after a fall. C. Unmagical weapons are stated to be useless against it, either because they will have no effect, or because the heat would melt them(Yoda could use the force to overcome the second)

However, the point of this debate was Gandalf vs. Yoda, not the Balrog.
I say Gandalf wins because there is little Yoda can do, and plenty Gandalf can do to Yoda. For example, I would not expect a lighsaber to be exceedingly dangerous to Gandalf. In the movie, when Gandalf the Grey blocked the Balrog's sword, did anyone notice the shield that surrounded him? In the book he is described as blocking the Balrog's blade with a flash of white light as well as his sword. Gandalf's telekinsis is just as effective on living things as non living things, while Yoda's has limited effectiveness on living matter, like, oh say Gandalf? Gandalf states in TTT that none of Gimlie's, Aragorn's or Leogolas's weapons can hurt him (as I understand it. He may have just said they couldn't hurt him and I don't feel like looking it up). Then of course, Gandalf could simply turn Yda into a a green little burning ember. Causing something to just combust suddenly through magic can be fought with magic, but not the way Yoda absorbed force lightning.
Gandalf wins.

[Balrog]

Alright, now that we've had time for cooler heads to set in....

Gandalf has the power to make objects either burst into flame (i.e. Aragorn's sword) or be incinerated to ashs (i.e. Legolas' arrow). He also either has A)the reflexes or B)some precog ability to use this ability on Legolas' arrow midflight (kinda like a Jedi senses a blaster bolt heading his way maybe).

While Yoda could quite easily dodge or deflect a blasterbolt or Force Lightning, Gandalf's spontanious combustion act does not appear to be something you aim, but something along the lines of thinking "Yoda burst into flame".

So unless Yoda has some ability that'll prevent him from going under Fried Frog Legs on a French cafe's menu, it becomes a test of who's faster.

Can Gandalf make Yoda go extra crispy before Yoda pulls the staff out of his hands? If he can't get it out of his hands for some reason, can Yoda pull something else off (force push off a cliff, drop a boulder, I don't know, you think of something) before he does down in a firey death?

[Balrog]

Edit: Suppose to be goes down, not does down

And why didn't I see Silence's post before?

[Darth Wong]

This debate has become a round-robin of dogmatic claims. Gandalf can make an inanimate object burst into flame (another parlour trick; for all you know it's an illusion), therefore you assume he can make anyone and anything burst into flames. I challenge you to justify this assumption, you simply repeat it.

A Balrog has a physical body and can thus be damaged by physical attacks, you simply say "no he can't, nyaa nyaa nyaa". Typical LOTR fan-whore behaviour.

Gandalf claims he is not vulnerable to primitive metal swords and manages to deflect some arrows. You conclude that therefore, he is invulnerable to a FUCKING LIGHTSABRE THAT CAN CUT THROUGH A THREE-FOOT THICK BLAST DOOR. Does the term "leap in logic" mean anything to you? I point out that obvious flaw in your logic, and you simply repeat it.

And when all else fails, invoke various super-deities who will step in on Gandalf's behalf. Again, typical LOTR fan-whore behaviour. I see now that logic and evidence have no meaning against this kind of Wall of Ignorance; what's the point of identifying logical fallacies in your opponent's argument when he simply ignores you?

Go on, I don't see any point arguing further with your dogma. Continue wanking yourself to LOTR fan-whore ecstacy.

[Balrog]

This debate has become a round-robin of dogmatic claims. Gandalf can make an inanimate object burst into flame (another parlour trick; for all you know it's an illusion), therefore you assume he can make anyone and anything burst into flames. I challenge you to justify this assumption, you simply repeat it.

A Balrog has a physical body and can thus be damaged by physical attacks, you simply say "no he can't, nyaa nyaa nyaa". Typical LOTR fan-whore behaviour.

Gandalf claims he is not vulnerable to primitive metal swords and manages to deflect some arrows. You conclude that therefore, he is invulnerable to a FUCKING LIGHTSABRE THAT CAN CUT THROUGH A THREE-FOOT THICK BLAST DOOR. Does the term "leap in logic" mean anything to you? I point out that obvious flaw in your logic, and you simply repeat it.

And when all else fails, invoke various super-deities who will step in on Gandalf's behalf. Again, typical LOTR fan-whore behaviour. I see now that logic and evidence have no meaning against this kind of Wall of Ignorance; what's the point of identifying logical fallacies in your opponent's argument when he simply ignores you?

Go on, I don't see any point arguing further with your dogma. Continue wanking yourself to LOTR fan-whore ecstacy.

Docter recommendation: Take a chill pill

Why would you say Gandalf's "parlour trick" wouldn't work on living flesh? (and no, we don't know its an "illusion", plz explain it to the unwashed masses) We've never seen Yoda use a Force push/pull on a living being, does that mean he can't push someone off a cliff? In fact, I don't recall in any of the films any Jedi using a Force push/pull on a living being. Does that mean they're barred from using it on a person?

Second, no, the Balrog is not invincible. It'll die to a Nuke, it'll die to something really, really big falling on it, it'll probably die to an artillery shell. The thing with the Lightsaber is that it gives off a lot of thermal energy, against something that's made of fire. Unless lightsabers can do something to fire in that wacky EU-verse that I've never heard of, it'll take a lot of hack'n slash to bring that big thing down.

And no, I don't expect Gandalf to be invincible to a lightsaber, so that beef's not with me ^_^

Again, I never said the Valar would step in on Gandalf's fight. They probably would want to bring him back to finish his job on ME, but that's it.

I get the feeling you really don't like magic

[Darth Wong]

Docter recommendation: Take a chill pill

Why? Because I grow irritated at people who debate by ignoring things you say and repeating themselves? Does it ever occur to you that this is not only bad form, it's stupid and rude? If you did that in normal face-to-face conversation about any subject, people would get pissed off.

Why would you say Gandalf's "parlour trick" wouldn't work on living flesh? (and no, we don't know its an "illusion", plz explain it to the unwashed masses).

Burden of proof is on you, not me. We know they can create illusions; it is up to you to show that they have this ability to kill any opponent by simply making him burst into flames.

We've never seen Yoda use a Force push/pull on a living being, does that mean he can't push someone off a cliff?

Maul did that, and Vader did that, so don't be a jack-ass.

In fact, I don't recall in any of the films any Jedi using a Force push/pull on a living being. Does that mean they're barred from using it on a person?

Yoda threw Force lightning at Dooku. If the situation warrants it, they'll do it, even if it's a Sith Lord thing.

Second, no, the Balrog is not invincible. It'll die to a Nuke, it'll die to something really, really big falling on it, it'll probably die to an artillery shell. The thing with the Lightsaber is that it gives off a lot of thermal energy, against something that's made of fire. Unless lightsabers can do something to fire in that wacky EU-verse that I've never heard of, it'll take a lot of hack'n slash to bring that big thing down.

So you admit it will die to a nuke, which is basically a whole lot of heat. And a nuke won't blow through three feet of SW armour plating. In other words, you don't realize it but you just conceded.

And no, I don't expect Gandalf to be invincible to a lightsaber, so that beef's not with me ^_^

Then why should anyone care that he claims Aragorn can't hurt him? How is it relevant in any way? Don't you think Yoda could kill that whole Fellowship party if he wanted to, and not break a sweat?

Again, I never said the Valar would step in on Gandalf's fight. They probably would want to bring him back to finish his job on ME, but that's it.

Yoda would finish the job; I don't see why Yoda would be any more enamoured of Sauron than Gandalf was.

I get the feeling you really don't like magic

I don't like cop-outs. Whenever people say "magic, nya nya nya, you can't do anything to it", it's a cop-out. They don't want to limit it in any way, they don't want to subject it to any kind of mental process other than mindless worship. Anyone who knows my attitudes about all manner of real-life subjects knows that I don't like this approach.

[NeoGoomba]

Unmagical weapons are stated to be useless against it, either because they will have no effect, or because the heat would melt them(Yoda could use the force to overcome the second)

I never remember reading ANYWHERE that non-magical weapons wouldn't harm a Balrog. All that was said close to that is "This is a foe beyond any of you". Kind of hard to construe invincibility from that.

Gandalf's telekinsis is just as effective on living things as non living things

Where in the books did Gandalf demonstrate TK on a living being? In the movie he was able to knock Saruman around, sure. But there was never any mention of this fight in Tolkein literature, so that is simply the director's representation. All Gandalf said about his imprisonment in Orthanc was "they came and took me to the pinnacle of the tower" or something similar.

Then of course, Gandalf could simply turn Yda into a a green little burning ember.

That surely would have been useful against the Orc chieftan in Moria, or against the Balrog, or against the Witchking. But spontaneous combustion of living beings isn't one of Gandalf's demonstrated powers. Innanimate objects, yes, like pinecones. But people, no.

Causing something to just combust suddenly through magic can be fought with magic, but not the way Yoda absorbed force lightning.

Can you prove that? Who knows, Yoda may be able to absorb the lightning that Gandalf throws around (on top of Weathertop, against the Balrog, against one of the flying Nazgul before the gates of Minas Tirith). And even if Yoda can't absorb it, he is quite agile and could perhaps dodge it.

Gandalf wins

As much as I'd like to agree with you, I'm going to flat out say no.

[NeoGoomba]

Gandalf has the power to make objects either burst into flame (i.e. Aragorn's sword) or be incinerated to ashs (i.e. Legolas' arrow). He also either has A)the reflexes or B)some precog ability to use this ability on Legolas' arrow midflight (kinda like a Jedi senses a blaster bolt heading his way maybe).

In the books, which override the movies, the arrow wasn't aimed at Gandalf, merely launched into the air, where it then caught on fire. Regarding Aragorn's sword, "blazed with a sudden fire" could mean simply that the blade glowed brightly, as it makes no mention of Aragorn dropping it from excess heat.

While Yoda could quite easily dodge or deflect a blasterbolt or Force Lightning, Gandalf's spontanious combustion act does not appear to be something you aim, but something along the lines of thinking "Yoda burst into flame".

As I've mentioned before, there is no instance of Gandalf being able to do this to a living being. Which is rough, as there were quite a few instances where it would have been incredibly useful.

Can Gandalf make Yoda go extra crispy before Yoda pulls the staff out of his hands?

Nope. Unless he nails Yoda with a flaming pinecone or a blast of magic/lightning.

[thecreech]

I will finally put my two cents in. Yoda takes this, At the shear speed at which he moved in AOTC there is no way that Gandalf would be able to keep up with him. In AOTC Yoda also fought like we have seen no Jedi or sith fight before, Dooku could barely keep up and he is a master himself. Yoda was already referring to dooku's loss. "Fought well you have" i assume that Yoda was about to kill him b4 dooku made that pillar fall and took off. Either way I have to go by the movies for this, (Sorry i will read the books when i have time: Wife and kid takes alot of my time) We have never seen sword play that fast in LOTR. People keep saying that Gandalf deflected an arrow, a sword. Big deal, your average padawan learner can deflect blaster bolts with ease and those travel faster and are shot more frequently than any arrow. Gandalf MIGHT be able to parry Yoda's first strike but it is over after that. Gandalf lays in little pieces

[xiophen]

this is the right thread here....

Well yoda could kill his physical form but in the end hed lose for the mere fact that nothing yoda can do will kill gandolf permenantly or keep him from coming back. The balrog forced gandolfs death because the two were on the same power level in the ME universe both were demi-god/angels thus the balrog was able to damage gandolf in the end

As for gandolfs resiliance we see him falling an to an unknown depth on a pit that was assumed to be bottomless pit that no one knew its true depths. several miles deep. the fought the entire way down then fought from the lake bottom to the mountain top IIRC the battle lasted pretty much the Remainder of the fellowships journey to Loiren. remember the BALROG is nothing but a Creature of fire. so it again becomes a question of how long it takes the Lightsabre to harm gandolf.

As for Yoda forc pushing yes maul, vader, and dooku do it but they are Sith lords same rules dont apply.

Ganolf restrained by his 3rd age restrictions will probably lose in a close fight but if hes completly unleashed in his full maiar form yoda wont last long.

[Balrog]

In the books, which override the movies, the arrow wasn't aimed at Gandalf, merely launched into the air, where it then caught on fire. Regarding Aragorn's sword, "blazed with a sudden fire" could mean simply that the blade glowed brightly, as it makes no mention of Aragorn dropping it from excess heat.

By that logic, Legolas simply shot his arrow straight into the air for no apparent reason . He he wasn't aiming at Gandalf, then what was he shooting at?

As for Aragorn's sword, you can either take it into a different light (he made Aragorn think it was on fire) or you can take it at its literal meaning (Gandalf made it blaze with sudden fire). When I read it, I took it that Gandalf set the sword on fire, but however you wanna read it.

It would be easy to dismiss Gandalf as playing a "parlor trick" on the Three Hunters except for the bit about Legolas' arrow (which, from reading the actual section, gives the impression that he was aiming at Gandalf). You can make a person think that the arrow they shot at you has burned up, but there's still that speeding projectile coming your way. If it was an illusion, and the arrow is still heading for Gandalf, he'd have to display near-Jedi agility to dodge it, while still convincing Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas the arrow was now just ash and dust.

That surely would have been useful against the Orc chieftan in Moria, or against the Balrog, or against the Witchking. But spontaneous combustion of living beings isn't one of Gandalf's demonstrated powers. Innanimate objects, yes, like pinecones. But people, no.

A) Gandalf theGrey was at Moria, we're talking about Gandalf the White, totally different and more powerful person. B) Oh, right, that's how you defeat a being of fire, by making it burst in....flames C) Gandalf wanted to go fight the Witchking at Pelanor, but Merry (or was it Pippin?) told him the King of Gondor had went mad, and was about to burn Farimir cause he thought he was dead already.

So you admit it will die to a nuke, which is basically a whole lot of heat. And a nuke won't blow through three feet of SW armour plating. In other words, you don't realize it but you just conceded.

The shockwave would probably shatter most of his rock-covered body, and if it's the blast doors from TPM you're referring too, what prove do we have that it was designed to stop a nuke from going off next to it?

[Skelron]

First my Joke answer... Earlier on Lord Wong pointed out that as Yoda is CGI he wins, by virtue of their being more people behind Yoda than Ian Mcellian. My Answer is that, Gandalf in the movie is not Only Ian Mcellian, his Stunt Double, and his Giant Body Double, (For close ups with the Hobbits.) But in several occasions is also CGI. This means that we can now call up all those lovely people from WETA, who decide to bring along some spare swords to the fight.

Seriously. I have a question to all those people saying Prove Gandalf can make a living creature go up in Flames, when we have only seen him cause unliving matter to go up in Flames. Can you give me ONE good reason why the abilty to cause something ANYTHING to catch alight should be limited in such a manner, what makes Fleash so different to unliving matter. Surely unless stated in a source somewhere that the trick is limited in some manner, then we cannot assume an unnatural limitation.

For example lets say that I am new to the Star Wars Films and I am watching TPM, and I see the lightsaber cut Robots, and melt through Doors. Is it not logical using these observed powers to assume it can cut through flesh. I have seen it can cut non-living matter I do not need to see it cut through flesh to know that it can achieve this. Likewise we know Gandalf can make things catch fire spontainously, I do not need to see him do the same thing to Flesh to know that he can do so.

In either case he could cause Clothes to catch fire, thereby causing the person to be on fire, in either case objective achieved, or he could cause the circuits in Yoda's lightsaber to catch alight, convincingly disrupting that divice, or if that is too technical and you argue how would Gandalf know to do this, then he could start by melting someparts of the Lightsaber's outer casing.

[Darth Wong]

Seriously. I have a question to all those people saying Prove Gandalf can make a living creature go up in Flames, when we have only seen him cause unliving matter to go up in Flames. Can you give me ONE good reason why the abilty to cause something ANYTHING to catch alight should be limited in such a manner, what makes Fleash so different to unliving matter. Surely unless stated in a source somewhere that the trick is limited in some manner, then we cannot assume an unnatural limitation.

Let me get this straight: if it is not explicitly stated to have limits, we should assume it is limitless? Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that sounds? It is a parlour trick: he makes it look as if Aragorn's sword is on fire even though steel swords don't burn, and there is no damage whatsoever afterwards (hint: obvious illusion). He makes light tinder burn, which is no big deal since that's what dried pinecones and leaves do. So you assume he can make any arbitrary object anywhere, including people, suddenly burst into flames, even if they're not flammable. Yeah, sure. Whatever floats your boat, pal

In either case he could cause Clothes to catch fire, thereby causing the person to be on fire, in either case objective achieved, or he could cause the circuits in Yoda's lightsaber to catch alight, convincingly disrupting that divice, or if that is too technical and you argue how would Gandalf know to do this, then he could start by melting someparts of the Lightsaber's outer casing.

Sure, Gandalf can melt metals at will from a distance now. That's why Aragorn's sword was all melted after Gandalf ... wait a minute, there was no effect at all, was there? Bzzzzt- try again.

[The Dark]

AFAIK, we don't know Narya's capabilities. The only measuring stick we have is Vilya, Elrond's Ring, which (probably) created the wall of water that washed the Nazgul away. Despite the fact that Arwen appears to do this in the movie, the books trump the movies for canonicity for LotR, and it is almost certain the water was not moved by Glorfindel II (the elf who carried Frodo to the Last Homely House).

My guess would be that the Rings give mastery over their element, but not necessarily creation. However, this is just a guess, and the extent is unknown and unknowable.

[Skelron]

.

Let me get this straight: if it is not explicitly stated to have limits, we should assume it is limitless? Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that sounds? It is a parlour trick: he makes it look as if Aragorn's sword is on fire even though steel swords don't burn, and there is no damage whatsoever afterwards (hint: obvious illusion). He makes light tinder burn, which is no big deal since that's what dried pinecones and leaves do. So you assume he can make any arbitrary object anywhere, including people, suddenly burst into flames, even if they're not flammable. Yeah, sure. Whatever floats your boat, pal

Okay lets see... First off limitless no but so far I've seen Stupid illogic limits. 'Steel dosn't burn so the sword bing on fire is an illusion' Yes I know as a scientist you want to obey the laws of Science, and in most cases I'd agree with you but, and I know you hate this but I have to say it anyway... This is magic. This isn't science, I like, I find the best explanation of magic from Arcanum, Magic breaks the natural worlds rules, twists and bends them. Magic makres the world act the way it wants it too. So then Steel dosn't burn but does that mean that while the spell is in existence a Mage of Gandalf's power can't make fire appear on it? Around it, well why not he is master of fire after all, a minor trick for the barer of a ring of power, whose Element is fire, and one which suits his purpose... More later. As for people not being Flamable, true, but Flesh, or fat should I say does melt, Painfully so...

Sure, Gandalf can melt metals at will from a distance now. That's why Aragorn's sword was all melted after Gandalf ... wait a minute, there was no effect at all, was there? Bzzzzt- try again.

BZZZTT, red herring, he did not want to hurt Arragorn or Legolas, or Gimli, trying to draw limits on Gandalfs powers from this therefore is impossible. He was limiting HIMSELF, all this can show is what powers Gandalf has at hand, not the limits to said powers. No one trys to hurt a friend when he wants to simply make them pause. Therefore you cannot argue maxium use of powers was demonstarted here. As logically it wasn't, and I think the dishonest/mistaken attempts by people to argue otherwise is foolish. In effect Gandalf was giving them a warning shot, he was saying don't even try it your outclassed here...

[Skelron]

My guess would be that the Rings give mastery over their element, but not necessarily creation. However, this is just a guess, and the extent is unknown and unknowable.

It is also argued that the rings boost a person's own abilties, if that is the case then Gandalf, as a Mair spirit is More powerful magically than Elrond. So concivably can achieve more with his ring than Elrond....

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you're basically saying that you refuse to conduct any kind of rational discussion because as soon as you say the word "magic", you figure all logic can go out the window

[Skelron]

In other words, you're basically saying that you refuse to conduct any kind of rational discussion because as soon as you say the word "magic", you figure all logic can go out the window

Not Logic no, but the laws of Science. Rather than look for the sCientific answer to the situation you have to be... more imaginative, more creative, and look for the solution outside of the box. This isn't Science Fiction, this is Fantasy, mytholgy, the stuff of legends.

The same way as you don't apply science to the Force... Is the abilty to see the future scientific? No, but that dosn't stop you using it in debates.... Is Magic Scientific NO FUCKING way... But it does have rules, but not Sciences rules, part of those rules rest on the power of the user, in this case Gandalf, so Scientifically Steel dosn't burn, but it does have a reaction to heat, it melts.

Standard rule of Myths, and remember that is what Tolkien was trying to create, an English/British Mytholgy, is the four Elements rule, Fire, Earth, Water, Air. That is what makes up the universe, Gandalf was unlocking a part of the fire in the sword... See an explanation, (maybe not the truth, for that we need someone more knowladgeable in Tolkien than I. (But it is also a standard rule of modern Fantasy, which in large parts flows from Tolkien so...)) and rules to follow, once you accept a different set of rules, then Logic can lead to answers and debates, Logic is not limited to use with science, it is a tool to finding answers. Apply different information or rules to follow at the start and logic will lead to a solution.

The true problem for you I fear, is not the lack of Logic, but the lack of Science in the answer. If I am correct and that is the problem Sorry, this isn't Science, Tolkien was not after science in Middle earth he was after Myth, look at things as a myth.

[AdmiralKanos]

If the laws of science go out the window, even simple logical connections like "fall off mountain, fall down to ground" can no longer be made. That is simply ridiculous. How would people like that distinguish between magic and high technology? Both of them do things which confound their expectations; both of them are beyond their comprehension. But only one of them is treated as an object of mindless worship and "no limit" fallacies by fan-whores (except for Trekkies, who treat technobabble pretty much the same way you treat magic, and for almost exactly the same reasons, ie- we don't understand it).

[Skelron]

If the laws of science go out the window, even simple logical connections like "fall off mountain, fall down to ground" can no longer be made.

In another Fantasy setting this can indeed be the case. (I don't know if it is the case in Middle Earth, I'm simply making the point about Magic in general) D+D the spell Fly, a person using this could jump off a mountain and not fall. a Sufficent knowledge and control over magic does indeed allow one to break sciences laws, As long as it obeys it's OWN Laws, whatever they may be in the particular case. (Each Author after all establishes his/her own rules)

That is simply ridiculous. How would people like that distinguish between magic and high technology?

Misleading, it's rather simple, Technolgy can be repeated by anyone with sufficent understanding of the device in question, magic cannot. Magic also requires, in Middle Earth especially, Internal Power/a spark or a gift for it's use, I.E even if you knew how gandalf did something and you held all Gandalf's equipment, using it in the identicle same manner you could NOT DO what Gandalf does.

In fact YOUR desire to make Magic answer able to Science Puts it closer to High Technolgy than any other view.

Both of them do things which confound their expectations; both of them are beyond their comprehension. But only one of them is treated as an object of mindless worship and "no limit" fallacies by fan-whores (except for Trekkies, who treat technobabble pretty much the same way you treat magic, and for almost exactly the same reasons, ie- we don't understand it).

Sorry but Have I said it has NO Limits, no the limits exist, but what I have said is that the evidence so far presented, (Of the Arragorn, Legolas etc incident) does not provide those limits. That, also, those limits are not necersary Natural/Scientific ones, that they are not ones that can be gathered by mathimatical/scientific equations, rather they have to reasoned by a process that first involves determining the new rules. Not by placing real world rules upon them. These rules will exist in the texts of the world, they will be written down, and magic explained in some manner, or else it fails to be consistent.

Luckily Tolkien wrote a hell of a lot of his history, worked out how things worked (So to say.), and so it should be possible to discover what those rules are. What I am arguing is that the limits can not be drawn from Quoting laws of science at people... Rather you have to learn the laws of Magic.

If you think this puts it on a par with Technobabble so be it. You can't escape it, Magic is not Science, it does not try to be, it does not want to be. Magic is something different....

(hay Mike have you ever played/Heard about Mage the Roleplaying game from White Wolf, as you'd be a perfect member of the Technocracy, they want to Scientify the world, including magic.... They fight a never ending war with the Mages, (they had it won, but I'm given to understand it's back in doubt according to White Wolf))

[AdmiralKanos]

I think you're still missing the point: if there are rules, then they are subject to analysis using the scientific method and logic. It doesn't matter whether you call them "magical" rules; there are some kind of principles and mechanisms at work which appear to be repeatable. Ergo, they can be analyzed.

Your refusal to subject those rules to analysis or even to logic (eg- demanding proof of a negative, else you will assume any given capability is limitless) is unsupportable in any rational sense; you are using the word "magic" as an escape clause to pretend that it's OK to be a fan-whore.

[jaeger115]

So you admit it will die to a nuke, which is basically a whole lot of heat. And a nuke won't blow through three feet of SW armour plating. In other words, you don't realize it but you just conceded.

Not to be a jackass, but where did you get that claim? I don't recall something like that happen in the movies.

[Skelron]

I think you're still missing the point: if there are rules, then they are subject to analysis using the scientific method and logic. It doesn't matter whether you call them "magical" rules; there are some kind of principles and mechanisms at work which appear to be repeatable. Ergo, they can be analyzed.

Your refusal to subject those rules to analysis or even to logic (eg- demanding proof of a negative, else you will assume any given capability is limitless) is unsupportable in any rational sense; you are using the word "magic" as an escape clause to pretend that it's OK to be a fan-whore.

No I am saying, that what we observe does not have to fit into Science. That the fact, for example, that Arragorns Sword catches fire, does not have to be an illusion because Steel dosn't burn, rather that magic can cause the steel to catch fire, because it can break real world laws. That it may be repeatable etc yes, but that you can't use a set of rules from science and say, because I know Steel dosn't burn the Sword can't be on fire. If the laws of Magic say you can make a sword burn then by God you make a sword a burn, and all the rules yo can quote are irrelevant.

Look I'll go through the Sword and Flesh thing from a magic point of view using only what I have said in earlier posts. (While the rule of the four elements may not true, for Middle Earth, it seems a reasonable starting point, since this is mythology essentially it provides a set of rules to follow, my argument does not rest on it's use, (well the one below does but, if givcen the correct Middle Earth magic system I will endevor to present a better version) but it makes it easier to have a debate

Okay everything has Fire inside of it, Gandalf is able to 'unlock' that fire, to make things catch alight by using it. As pointed out by lord wong wood, kindling etc is designed to catch fire, we can therefore assume it has a high degree of this fire element inside it. Steel melts only at high temperatures, so I'll assume it either has less fire or it is simply harder to access, and/or to draw it out, requires more power. (therefore a weak mage could draw fire from wood but not steal...)

Gandalf is able to draw Flame from a Steal Sword, (Actually it's more than this, but that complicates matters unneccersary so)

Now then a Question Which melts eaiser Steal or Flesh, Flesh... which if you used the above would mean that it's easier to set fire to flesh.

Is it repeatable, well assuming that Gandalf was willing to sit down and repeat to demand the situation then yes. Is there a limit yes, do we know it... no, we have not seen Gandalf strain to achieve these things therefore we know we have yet to see his limit. In fact in the situation of the sword we know he would have been looking for minimum effort.

However if that dosn't satisfy you then there is the following.
too the argument of was the Sword on fire an illusion or was it real, too which the whole above argument rests, if it was really on fire then we know he can set steel on fire and have no logical reason to assume steal is easier to set on fire thsan flesh. (we know both cannot happen in the real world so if the sword is really on fire then why not the flesh)

Since we are trying to prove something impossible to science, using a Non Scientific source I will ignore Science for this. Magic I have argued breaks science, it is not science, to a non-magic user the very nature of magic is to do the impossible.

So we have the following situation Gandalf has shown the abilty to set things on fire, the arrow etc. So we know he can set things on fire, he was actually using the abilty at the time of this incident. Which is simpiler, while setting one thing on fire, he extended the effect to set something else on fire, or that he did something completly different and created an illusion. To me to argue that he was doing something completly different is to complicate the matter for no other reason than to Weaken Gandalf's power. Without using science you cannot prove the existence of an illusion, See I'm not asking to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove the existence of an illusion.

[Darth Wong]

See I'm not asking to prove a negative, I'm asking you to prove the existence of an illusion.

Which is precisely what I did, by showing that the face-value explanation doesn't make any sense. Steel, after all, does not burn. And if it did burn, there should be damage to the blade.

But you rejected this proof because it is based on knowledge of the real world, all of which you consider guilty until proven innocent (proof being that it meets your expectations of what should and should not be true in your universe).

So what we have is essentially unfalsifiable dogma from your side: it becomes impossible to disprove anything because any disproof, not matter how well-grounded or well-supported, is simply dismissed as inadmissible if it uses any fact, no matter how obvious (eg- steel does not burn) which defies your interpretations of LOTR. So how would it be possible to disprove your interpretations of LOTR? What form of evidence would you accept? This is why the term "fan-whore" was coined.