Lucid Dreamers and God

The only way science would ever conclusively defeat dogma is if it defeats the inevitability of death. But even if we did find some means of inhibiting cellular aging (perhaps by telomerase therapy of some sort), "manual" death by disease or violence would still be a constant threat. So maybe religion will never disappear entirely--it will, however, become a pariah fetish, with the doubtful as the majority instead of the minority. :)

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

buildit wrote: I guess it would make more sense if god were an experimental scientist and considered us his bacteria which should produce repeatable results.

You mean it would make more sense from the conjecture that God exists in some form and possesses a mind not unlike ours. To be an experimental scientist, He'd have to think somewhat like us in principle with similarly experimental goals. He wouldn't be omnipotent either if He's just a scientist doing experimental work. Why even call Him "God"? There isn't even any reason to worship Him or even follow Him as a paragon of virtue. And then there is the question that the pious don't even bother with: Whence did He come and how?

buildit wrote: Arguing faith to me is a societal and cultural issue. Science can contribute to the discussion but it will never, on its own, cause the elimination of beliefs.

Faith is a delusion, though, because it goes against the principles that science stands for, namely, testing well constructed theories and deriving conclusions from empirical evidence. Faith is, therefore, the antithesis of reason and cannot be a good compass for humanity. By believing in God you already deny the possibility of a universe emerging without one as its author. Considering that the proposition of a godless universe is most likely to be the case, you have already rejected reality as it is (or could be, if you like) and denied yourself an honest study of the cosmos.

You can't just be a scientist and believe in God without evidence. Francis Collins is only a scientist by title and a disgrace to the scientific community for his unreason. You really think the waterfall trinity he witnessed is enough to convince anyone of the existence of God? Science exposes how the world works and our reasoning should be enough to demonstrate that believing in God is illogical. I pose to you, for the second time, the same question which I expect you to answer scientifically given your alleged credentials:

Why believe in something for which there is no proof?

Secondly, discussing faith isn't just a cultural and societal issue. Let's not forget that religious belief trespasses on other important areas when it makes claims to knowledge. They say Jesus Christ existed. This is a historical claim. Young-Earth creationists say, against all evidence, that our planet is only a few thousand years old. This is a scientific claim. So science, in principle, should be able to eliminate this belief since it provides evidence that our planet is much older -- and it does (!) because people renounce their faith everyday when they come across undeniable facts that are pointed out to them (usually those who have the power of reason, the ability to think for themselves, but were just manacled from an early stage in their lives when their minds were underdeveloped). It baffles me as to why the demonstrative and explanatory power of science fails to wake the spellbound rest. The monotheisms say that morality comes from God and that anything He mandates is righteous. This one encroaches upon moral philosophy.

We can't ignore the problem religious ideology poses as it tends to be absolute, the only solution to life -- or so its adherents claim. What we are dealing with here is theocracy where God is, just like in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four," the dictator who is never seen in the flesh who apparently rules the world via astute men who claim to know His mind.

I've just started reading "Can a Robot be Human?" by Peter Cave (sorry, Deschain, but the Hitch is going to have to wait), a professor of philosophy who chairs the Humanist Philosopher's Group and happens to be an atheist (by reason... of sanity). :mrgreen:

I learned that Cave also engaged in debates and I found this one (where he shines forth in the style of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism) for us to watch and comment on. I must say, Buildit, that his Muslim opponent Hamza Tzortzis's reasoning is redolent of yours:

Can We Live Better Lives Without Religion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXncw5r7AKY

Get the popcorn. 8-)

Giving it a watch.

Look out for the disgusting signs of homophobia amongst Muslims and how Hamza's asseverations -- which start from the premise that Allah exists period (divine aseity would have been more convincing but by no means an explanation) -- echo the casuistic William Lane Craig, a theologian whose contention that objective moral values substantiate God has been refuted time and again by the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris. :roll:

About 25 minutes in. Why is god an "objective moral anchor against human subjectivity?" This is constantly asserted by apologists, but never qualified. It has been proved by countless writers that theism is the ultimate nihilism. What has Hamza to refute these thinkers?

There is also a hilarious non sequitur (maybe it's addressed later). The entire point of his argument is that, "Well, the metaphysical claims of Islam may be spurious, but look at the benign effect they have on the world." That's funny in itself, but then he turns around and says that, "Yes, atheists are perfectly benign people, but they have no ethical ontology ... which religion can provide." :D

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

I found it annoying how the audience kept laughing with approval at the jibes of a smug Hamza. Keep watching! It's a bit ironic at the end when, describing Peter Cave's input, Hamza appears to be talking about himself. :lol:

I wish I was there to tell Hamza that I'd choose truth, however served cold, over a comfortable lie. I'd also tell him that Cave seemed to be the only intelligent speaker there who had already won the argument with his reminder of the war-ravaged Islamic states and the tyranny of nations like Saudi Arabia on account of their hideous holy book. :)

Summerlander and deschainXIX... you two are simply too cocky in your atheism albeit not as ignominious as Hamza Tzortzis.

But let me tell you that, as someone who comes from a possible future--and the parameters of your own temporal reality seem to be leading you down the same road in this respect--I can categorically swan that Islam will win. As an agnostic and someone who has listened to the evolved arguments of Islamic theologians in the future, I could play an excellent devil's advocate in your time. (Make no mistake: Theologians will get better and better and they will convince most of humanity!)

I could foreground what remains known to humankind, thus far, before meretriciously declaring God as the only sensible account. A little dose of Eleatic philosophy (which I have available in my temporal pod's computer records) can do ontological wonders in reinforcing specious argumentation. Mentioning Zeno's Paradox is enough to make one appear sedulously mathematical. If the tortoise beats Achilles, because, paradoxically, limited measures of space and time are infinitely divisible, how can anything even begin to exist? (If there is always the half of any distance and the half of any time unit, it means that the computer screen before your eyes would have to cover an infinity to be what it is.)

Thus it can be concluded that everything in existence is a miracle and Parmenides' metaphysical perspective provided a stime of truth: God is the unchanging, timeless, spaceless, and necessary ground of all being. But if I were to make a case for this argument, I'd also have to somehow justify the worship of such god because it seems to me that there is more evidence that He is mostly bad rather than completely good. Or perhaps He doesn't care. This is why I consider myself to be an agnostic rather than an atheist. There is still room for God's existence. I have heard you talk about Thomas Paine, Summerlander. Paine was a deist as he still recognised something in nature which had some sort of order and, given the aforementioned philosophical paradox, the world is pretty miraculous.

I agree with your friend Hagart as he seems to be the only one in this forum to have his wits about him. Don't be so cocky, Summer and Des. Wise up!

I cannot believe this... :shock:

I guess I'd still vouch for the following quote by the other Tom:

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

• Thomas Jefferson :ugeek:

Right... I know I pretended to be you before because you asked me to but I've had enough of this now. Enra Traz... WHO ARE YOU? :?: :?: :!: :!: :o :o :shock:

I told you before, I am a time-traveller from a possible future (I must say "possible" from this temporal dimension's perspective given the nature of quantum mechanics). And your Thomas Jefferson quote is no reason to get cocky.

(I haven't gotten around to watching the whole video yet.)

Well, that's all very interesting and educational, Traz, but I don't see one strand of chewing gum attaching the two postulations, "Infinity is weird," and "There is an independent metaphysical entity that either created the universe, is the universe, or cares about humans" to each other. Isn't it more likely that infinity is a mere construct erected by bored mathematicians? Especially when one subscribes to (as I do) the philosophical camp of mathematical fictionalism. Mathematics is nothing more than a language we can use to conceptualize and understand the world with our mammalian brains. It's not something that exists outside the human experience. Just as one can use any fabricated word to identify an object, one can also select an infinite number of units to use in describing the dimensions of that object. (One apple equals one apple, but the atoms that compose these mathematically distinct and equal bodies are certainly not equal. By the way, what even is a "point in space" but a gross and infinitely inaccurate approximation? Yet mathematics does launch rockets into space, so perhaps what we need instead is closer to mathematical Platonism.)

I could make the pantheistic statement, "God is everything that exists," but this is a purely linguistic assertion, and why would one ever care to make it, outside of some poetic, Einsteinian sphere? Keep ontology and poetics separate, please! And, Enra, even if this God was "good" (whatever that means), why still would we worship it? I insist on the pronoun "it" because a sexually dimorphic deity is absurd in my mind; of course, a deity at all is absurd--it has the fingerprints of anthropic origin all over it.

Also, if we're going to make linguistic assertions, it is necessary to examine words. A miracle is something that violates the laws of physics. Would my taking a single step and thus traversing an infinite distance be a violation of physics? No, I don't see how so.

I hold to Nietzsche's perspective on atheists: that they are not nearly "atheistic" enough. That, indeed, they can be just as absurd as theists. We are not truly free thinkers until we divorce ourselves from every assumption, every conviction, every faith ... even faith in truth. There is no argument for Truth, any more than there is an argument for God, or reality, or ideals.

So, Traz, even forgetting the fact that time travel is an illogical paradox, you're clearly not from the future. Elizabeth Warren is (regrettably) not even running for presidency. I have my trusty razor of old Ockham ready in hand, and no matter what excuse you make for this, it will always be eminently less probable than the possibility that Summerlander made a misjudgment in the realm of speculative American politics. :mrgreen:

So is this Summerlander or his wife?

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

You son of a... :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

What, you think I'd forget? I take these things very seriously, you know. :D

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

I think the belief in God hinders progress in applying lucid dreaming effectively.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

You guys are ridiculous. Summerlander, you can stop pretending you're me. You wish! In the future we have machines that make people lucid dream and it's fine to believe in God.

Deschain, familiarise yourself with "Buridan's Ass" and remember Leibniz's "apex of rationality." This principle is used to argue that God is the only reason that is sufficient enough to explain the existence of the universe -- and Himself. If He necessarily exists, He is His own sufficient reason. In this vein, we need a sufficient and relevant reason for everything we do. We can, and often should, act without reason. (You think time travel is impossible, but, look at me--a time traveller--and you don't know everything about reality.)

To be rational, sometimes we should act irrationally, or non-rationally--without a reason for every feature of the actions performed.

God believers... Are ya with me? :-P

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerland has had his brain cut in two and one half has a separate female personality :lol:

Leibniz? Teleology in science surely has been eliminated in the future, seeing as Islam is generally more at ease with unfettered inquiry than Christianity is. Leibniz grants a deity a priori, and bases his thought around that assumption--it's not the other way around. So citing Leibniz as proof of God probably wouldn't make sense even to Leibniz. Leibniz and his theory, anyway, just seem like another pathetic excuse to sustain a fear of chance and meaninglessness; we know that humans love suffering, it's meaningless suffering that they can't stand and will do all they can to rationalize. Can't that be a sufficient reason for the precise nature of man's obsession with deities? Surely you can't mean that "Since the God hypothesis exists, God as posited by the hypothesis must exist." That's absurdity of the finest quality, Traz, and I think you've been blinded by what sounds like a pretty theocratic society (we've invented time travel, though, apparently).

Simply because we cannot always behave totally rationally (which I don't cede in the first place) doesn't mean that we shouldn't constantly strive to be as rational as possible. That's like saying "Because we haven't always been good in the past, we should now totally abandon all effort to be totally good; because it's impossible." What a hoax! Buridan's ass is absurd because a hungry ass put in such a position would simply move toward the food source it sees first. That may seem reductionist, but we know that animals behave this way. Humans are no different. And the principle itself is just as absurd--never could two moral objects be inherently equal, and even if they were you are making no violation of "morality" (I scoff at the word) to simply choose one at random.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

deschainXIX wrote: Leibniz? Teleology in science surely has been eliminated in the future, seeing as Islam is generally more at ease with unfettered inquiry than Christianity is. Leibniz grants a deity a priori, and bases his thought around that assumption--it's not the other way around. So citing Leibniz as proof of God probably wouldn't make sense even to Leibniz. Leibniz and his theory, anyway, just seem like another pathetic excuse to sustain a fear of chance and meaninglessness; we know that humans love suffering, it's meaningless suffering that they can't stand and will do all they can to rationalize. Can't that be a sufficient reason for the precise nature of man's obsession with deities? Surely you can't mean that "Since the God hypothesis exists, God as posited by the hypothesis must exist." That's absurdity of the finest quality, Traz, and I think you've been blinded by what sounds like a pretty theocratic society (we've invented time travel, though, apparently).

I can't stand teleological arguments, either. Next she will tell us that the Gaia hypothesis is a well constructed scientific theory that has stood the test of future time. Sounds like she is telling porkies on that front, anyway... Unless, of course, she comes from a universe effected by different physical laws and a teleological system applies -- which makes its inhabitants believe in Allah more fervently. :mrgreen:

deschainXIX wrote: Simply because we cannot always behave totally rationally (which I don't cede in the first place) doesn't mean that we shouldn't constantly strive to be as rational as possible. That's like saying "Because we haven't always been good in the past, we should now totally abandon all effort to be totally good; because it's impossible." What a hoax! Buridan's ass is absurd because a hungry ass put in such a position would simply move toward the food source it sees first. That may seem reductionist, but we know that animals behave this way. Humans are no different. And the principle itself is just as absurd--never could two moral objects be inherently equal, and even if they were you are making no violation of "morality" (I scoff at the word) to simply choose one at random.

Unless, of course, Buridan's Ass decides to arse about. :mrgreen:

Those funny moments in life when Freud hangs you out to dry and you tell someone you are reading "Charles Dawkins". :lol:

I know some here will get a laugh. ;)

The Dawkinsian world-view, which is demonstrably substantiated by empirical evidence as highlighted in books such as The Blind Watchmaker, impugns teleology beautifully. I am proud to have looked into the literature of 'Richard Darwin' :mrgreen: and am not ashamed to admit being anally retentive (hello, Freud!) about the wonderful effects of evolution as I look forward to reading The Extended Phenotype. 8-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander likes to bust your balls, but he is one of the greatest people I have met. If you want to throw down and debate him, make sure you do your homework.

I think I only beat him once. That's because he is such a smart person. I challenge anyone to try it like I do and fail.

I want to apologize about what I said in June, and spoke out against militant atheist types like you and DescahinXIX. I take it back. I hope you accept my apology. You are both great people, full of love and understanding. Don't be afraid to step on a few toes. Or break egg shells as you romp in your path in life.

Why are there eggshells in your living room and why must we avoid them? It's such a stupid expression.

I still try to catch more flies with honey than vinegar but it's hard.

I don't have the gift for gab and let this quote speak for me.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

• Galileo Galilei

Hey HAGART!

Wanna see a fun thread of a current debate between myself and Summer? (He's resorted to a smear campaign against me now, which I can only assume means he feels he's losing so very badly.)

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts too!

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17363

Cheers my friend! 8-)

Been there and done that. :D

HAGART wrote: Summerlander likes to bust your balls, but he is one of the greatest people I have met. If you want to throw down and debate him, make sure you do your homework.

I think I only beat him once. That's because he is such a smart person. I challenge anyone to try it like I do and fail.

I want to apologize about what I said in June, and spoke out against militant atheist types like you and DescahinXIX. I take it back. I hope you accept my apology. You are both great people, full of love and understanding. Don't be afraid to step on a few toes. Or break egg shells as you romp in your path in life.

Why are there eggshells in your living room and why must we avoid them? It's such a stupid expression.

Aww ... I'm touched. :D

Btw, Mr Demitri here is dreaming.

@ Prince Demitri:

I thought it wasn't about winning or losing for you? You are so transparent! :)

HAGART wrote: Been there and done that. :D

:lol:

Summer, you truly do have a problem with reading what's actually written, don't you?

You seem to have missed that I was specifically talking about how YOU feel about winning and losing (as you have already made it clear that's your interest). Stuck your foot in your mouth yet again.

Do you perhaps need glasses? Or maybe a primary book on grammar might help you make sense of what others say.

If you're trying to needle me, you're going to have to do better than childish word twisting. This is just sad. Ahh well. I still have hope for you Summer!

Just to point out, you may need glasses or a memory boost because the person who came up with winning and losing between us was shutterbugjen ... :lol:

And you clearly have no imagination since you're the one mentally burdened with ideas of 'smear campaigns' and preoccupied with what Summerlander must be feeling. So, this idea of winning and losing is in your mind as much as you dishonestly try to deny it. (Besides, debates are about winning and losing anyway, doofus.)

I've replied to your thread for one last time to reflect how much you are not in a position to hold an intelligent discussion--and also for Hagart's amusement :-D--and let everyone see you crumbling under the weight of your misguided hubris. 8-)

As for needling ... don't tickle me! You do that all by yourself.Thanks for having hope for me, by the way. I'm afraid the feeling's not mutual, though. You truly need help! :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I knew I should never have stepped into this. ;) I shall go back to my previous role of secretly lurking and providing my own private commentary. Carry on, gentlemen...

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Don't worry Jen, Summer just has a very difficult time leaving the schoolyard mentality at school.

I'll just let him be and maybe one day he'll get over his insecurities and join the grown-ups in decent conversation.

I'm not going to continue the tit-for-tat that he seems to enjoy anywhere but in the thread where it started. He can say whatever he wants, but that still wont make it true anywhere but in his head.

So no worries, yeah? Cheers! 8-)

It's a shame. I was enjoying it! :-D

Here is a link which is more pertinent to this topic: http://obe4u.com/application_of_lucid_dreaming_and_obe/the-phase-and-god/

Enjoy! 8-)

Hello,

It would be interesting to explore the developmental psychology fields, understand the human evolution process. That would be more interesting than walk here to fight with each other. One of the biggest influences on human development, according to some scholars is heredity (which is transmitted from parents to children), others the environment and others believe that evolution is related with time. These factors shape the child, and it is through what she/he learns that builds their inner beliefs and universe. There is no need to create a discussion when an adult took all his/her life in religion... believing that the monotheistic God exists, while the other person has not had the same childhood. That said, everything that happens in the dream world is real! including the existence of God. As he reveals and expresses itself it is the imagination and interpretation of each.

Most people (in WOLD) said they haven't met God in their lucid dreams but they're willing to try. This is the conclusion obtained here.

You also need to be careful with what you define as 'real', Zorb. Some things are apparently objectively real while others are only subjectively real.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Hello, Enra Traz.

It's normal. Many people call themselves believers and follow a religious life when, in fact, inside of them they are skeptical. There is a difference between "I know there is a God" and "I believe there is a God." In the world of dreams that makes all the difference.

Yeah but dreaming of God and seeing the real thing are two different things. I don't believe the latter is possible. (And note that I said 'I don't believe' instead of saying I know it's not possible.)

Well... This concept is well explained by Robert Waggoner. Speaking of basic and simple way, it's hard to dream about something we do not know its shape. It is difficult for our minds to create an image of God, the Bible does not describe clearly. Therefore, it is easy to explain why many can't find God in their dreams and why some succeed, regardless, I believe that everyone can. It's just a matter of belief and dedication.

I dreamt of Ra-Horahkty last night. I've been believing in this ancient Egyptian God for years now, expressing my total dedication each night before bed, and he finally visited me!

He told me that a heathen priest named Zorb would come from the desert speaking of false deities and spreading vile prophecies to the village. And lo! There you lie!

(All of this happened, as a matter of fact. And you, in keeping a consistent epistemology, can't say a thing to refute its happening or deprive it of any validity whatsoever.) :mrgreen:

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Z0rb wrote: That said, everything that happens in the dream world is real! including the existence of God. As he reveals and expresses itself it is the imagination and interpretation of each.

I was the only one who actually shared my lucid dream experiments, trying to find "GOD". Although long and boring, I can't embellish what happened, and I submit that as my anecdotal evidence. I voted for, "I have tried, but it's just a product of my own imagination".

This all reminds me of a memory I had earlier today. When I was a child, I use to see some photographs in color and others in black and white. I posed a very serious question to my father:

"When did the world become color?"

It sounds so stupid and childish, but it was a very intelligent question, given what I knew at the time. I've been questioning reality since I was born and have since had a few paradigm shifts.

Since then, I realized that my beloved Santa Clause and Tooth Fairy don't exist. Why is it such a stretch to realize the same for the supposed existence of God, who's story is passed down from parent to child like a fairy tale?

And why should I even be ashamed to pose such a question?

It's like if I went to a Justin Bieber concert and posed a question to other Beliebers, and asked, "Do you really think he sings well, or is he just a product of the media like the Bible was the sole media in it's day?"

The Beliebers would behead me like ISIS! Teenage girls are cruel!

I should try to lucid dream of Ra-Horahkty. It's the same as dreaming about "God", but with a bitch-ass name!

I imagine him riding a Harley with flames coming out of his eyes. That's more kick-ass than and old man with a flowing, white beard.

Who would win in a fight between them? This is like Batman vs. Superman!

Maybe the fella who believed he wouldn't be attacked by lions because the lord would interfere didn't believe hard enough. :mrgreen:

Bright humor! Very good. :lol:

deschainXIX; Knowing God is not part of my belief, I do not believe in monotheism, I love polytheism and interestingly the culture that fascinates me is the old Egyptians and it is precisely this issue that I have explored more in the world of dreams, sometimes with success others without success, is the subject that I try to explore in detail.

HAGART: In my view, not everything that happens in dreams is virtual. Sometimes we explore things related to the world that end up being real.

Rats! Foiled again! I should've known that the guy who talks about "the Bible's description of what God (who is male) looks like" actually believes in Egyptian gods! :D

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

Damn, I was caught! :twisted: Or you.... :D

ZOrb is my new god but I have questions. Why do you have a scythe? It seems ominous, but I bet you are a hard worker, and are just cutting down sugar cane to help make Girl Scout Cookies. As for your complexion, I must say, you look horrible! You gotta eat! You're just skin and bone! Well, just bone.

And you're rocking that hoodie, but it's too goth.

The archetypal icon of death is just as worthy of ridicule because it's an idea that has no merit. ;)

You are a smart person and I am not making fun of you, but humour is a great way to express otherwise offensive ideas, and denouncing God is so offensive for most, but I put a spin on it and hope others see the comparison, and laugh, and then figure it out for themselves.

HAGART: All my profile information is directly from my original dream world. nick, signature and avatar, so do not be stressed. By the way, my nickname is Z0rb, written with zero and not with O.

My bad.

It's Z0rb, not ZOrb.

The difference is so apparent now. :lol:

'I believe God doesn't exist.'--Penn Jillette

:mrgreen:

I did another classic Hagart move and edited my last post right as someone replied.

That's a good quote. I have faith that God doesn't exist either. I like Penn Jillette, and may have wrote this before in this thread and will phrase it in my own words because I can't find the exact quote:

"The Bible is the the most powerful book to turn anyone into an atheist."

Yeah, he's a nutcase like you, bruv! :twisted:

The Bible doesn't make you an atheist. It only makes you realize the One Truth: that Ra-Hotahkty lives in our hearts and loves us all and demands the sacrifice of eleven African children each day to prevent him from eating the earth.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image