Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

I've been lucid dreaming since I was little. My dad taught me how to hold my nose in the dream to stop breathing and tell myself its not real, thats always happened and I didn't realize till I got older what I could do with lucid dreaming. long story short I recently started to fly in my dreams and escape my nightmares by controlling it. I bought a couple guides and I was looking into some crystals to help but I want to know since I am lucid dreaming, can I convert into an astral projection or change from a lucid dream to astral projection?? always been able to control my dreams but I never really read about it and researched till now.

I've read that one way to change a lucid dream to an out-of-body experience is -- If you realize you are lucid in a dream, imagine being in an outdoor landscape. Then imagine feeling your body jumping high so you can fly around and look down at the dream neighborhood.

If this results in occasional out-of-body experiences, then eventually, you can get brave and focus on zooming straight up into the sky at supersonic speed. Request for you dreaming mind to allow you to have an out-of-body experience in a strange realm of existence that is entirely new for you.

Here are some suggested resources, including some discussions which overlap lucid dreaming and out-of-body experiences.

• Book - "Lucid Dreaming: Gateway To The Inner Self" by Robert Waggoner

• Book - "Out Of Body Experiences: How To Have Them And What To Expect" by Robert Peterson At Amazon - Click - "Look inside - First pages" - (Includes extensive parts of the book)

• Books on out-of-body experiences by Robert Monroe, William Buhlman and Robert Bruce

• Website - The Travels Of A Dreamwalker - karen659.blogspot.com

• Article - "10 Effective Techniques For Experiencing An OBE (Out Of Body Experience) a.k.a. Astral Ptojection" - the mindunleashed.org

'Imagine, imagine, imagine ...' is the advice given by Jasmine2. There is no such thing as 'astral projection'. It is all dreaming (concocted by your mind as the brain's 'software') and you are either lucid (knowing it's a dream) or not. To imagine is to conjure images IN your mind. And imagination can also appeal to memory of real places. You'd be merely conjuring visual illusions--not visiting real places incorporeally as in an out-of-body experience. Nothing along the lines of ectoplasm (or some such nonsense) separates from the body. There are no real OBEs, only illusions ... and confirmation bias delusions. :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I personally think its very hard to go into a astral projection state from a dream one as when one is dreaming what one thinks, one then usually dreams. So this means that when one is trying to tune into ones astral body and not ones dream body it is more then likely that the dreamer then will on wanting to astrally project, is then quite likely to only go dreaming about it.

There is a different mind state involved.. with dreaming one has let go of the mind enough that ones subconsciousness is creating things eg dreaming or drifting some. With astral projection, its more like a physical mental state (by this I don't mean a very clear thoughts which also can be had in LD, I mean a state in which the subconsciousness isn't just creating around one constantly). Both LD and AP though have the same physical body state of complete body relaxation going on.

if you want to experience AP I suggest to give up doing LD for a while (at least several months) so you aren't in the habit of entering a LD mind state. Then if you focus on energy work ie energy raising AP techniques (some of the occultic methods of working with energy are quite powerful eg Denning and Phillips method in their book on Astral projection is a great occultic method).. then its lot easier to end up having spontaneous OBEs or learning how to move your energy and astral body out of the physical one to experience an OBE.

One thing about astral projection is that one doesn't have to go to sleep to have an OBE and the extremely experienced can be having astral experiences at the same time as going about their daily lives.

How can you project from a lucid dream?I read a book say all you have to do is shout out is "i have an out of body experience from my dream now!" Does that work?And by the way the name of the book is called adventures beyond the body and the author's name is william buhlman.

Tania ... what a load of pseudo-scientific mystical gobbledegook! Astral projection during our daily lives sounds a lot like imagination to me! :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I was watching some internet porn for 2 minutes or so, all of a sudden I was like, "Wow, I'd better finish this elsewhere before my keyboard gets all messy..." ...so I went into the shower, and once I was there I astral projected my naked body into another realm where there was an astral being that looked just like the chick from the porno... we started you know, doing stuff, and next thing you know I was finished. True story.

Great story! :mrgreen:

Primo! :mrgreen:

Enra Traz wrote: Tania ... what a load of pseudo-scientific mystical gobbledegook! Astral projection during our daily lives sounds a lot like imagination to me! :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

it may sound like gobbledegook but I have known 5 different people who can do that over the years (it is very uncommon, I hang around healers and psychics for over 15 years and only ever met 5 who could or at least showed and/or told me they could and which I saw evidence of it.. Four of these people were in same social group so I met in same place (they all knew each other so I was introduced to the others by two which helped me ..and one later became my teacher for a while).

Another was a student of his that he'd taught to do it.. my teacher himself had been taught to do it, trained in occult stuff since a young child (he was in some kind of special order).. (they could do some other strange stuff too, I had some weird experiences with them including my teacher trying to pull me out of body while I was fully awake and on phone to him.. it was weird, I started perceiving things in his home)

another two I met were connected to them (but not taught by by teacher but had natural gifts in able to do OBE and do this (I don't think they were trained in it), one of those also helped me one time using his gift.. and my teacher helped me once too with something too using his OBE skill).

The only one I met who was unrelated to the group of others who could do this, I first met at a psychic expo who was actually giving demos using astral projection while standing to read what people in audience were writing on cards far away from him (when he had his back turned)... he was well known in occultic circles so a guest speaker at this large expo where thousands of people went and also used to teach occultic stuff including OBE .

I ended up attending one of his classes though I had no luck with it (I'd had a few spontaneous OBEs myself before that but had been hoping to master the skill). I didn't even have a regular OBE with him though others did in the class with him. I didn't find his teaching helpful though he certainly knew his stuff and had that amazing ability with it to do it whenever he wanted..at the demo he did it standing (but his body went all loose.. sagging at knees etc and stayed frozen in that position the whole time he was out as if he wasn't in it while he projected to read things on other side of room people had written down.

My teacher thou and the other 3 were different and could project just while relaxed but fully still there and talking but I mentioned the other one too as just being able to stay standing while projecting is unusual and I consider very gifted in it.

In occultic circle things like watchers are more common, when someone gets relaxed and sends some astral energy out (like an astral ball) and sends it somewhere to "watch" someone or something (so not getting any feedback from it while going about daily life) and then later just recalls it back and then has any info it picked up flow back in (which they usually do while just meditating).

those who do remote viewing experience being in two places at once (very much like I was talking about though the remote viewer does it in a meditative kind of state)

Many people think LD is bullshit but that doesn't make it so.

LMAO! :lol:

It's comical to see you cling to your ignorance and fallacious analogies PLUS unimaginatively hurl 'irrelevant' and 'dishonest' my way after I exposed you of being exactly that. Furthermore, obfuscation is certainly your area of expertise as you've just demonstrated with your post. As for fishing ... :mrgreen: I happen to go once in a while as my old Skype picture once showed and Hagart can confirm it. :-D

Your post is also somewhat oxymoronic when you say that I revealed being Enra and Summer and then claim I'm deeply dishonest. I've actually revealed it a few times before I confirmed it for you in said Introduction thread. (Quite recently I revealed it to Prince Dimitri as the history of my posts will show--not just in the time-traveller prank.)

Only a narcissistic individual who will do his best to give others an intellectual impression by employing latin terms galore will lack the sense of humour to grasp the brilliance of the Enra Traz prank and the Cluedo-like game a few brilliant WOLD members played because of it. ;-)

Oh, before I forget ... you can take a fish to a desert inside a bag of water or tank. But that's beside the point. Fish don't have the capacity to grasp anthropic concepts--hence the illogical nature of the analogy.

Also, a desert is a real place. The astral isn't. (According to Robert, if any of us doubting thomases venture into the astral plane, we will suffocate or fall into a coma.) Nuff said. :mrgreen:

Summer, sorry for the delay but I was on the road for a while.

Your energetic refutation of something unprovable makes me wonder a bit... ("Methinks thou dost protest too much" - A Famous Quote by William Shakespeare)

I suspect you have had a "road to the pseudo-scientific Damascus moment". I suspect that in your early days as a projector of consciousness you had a whopper of an experience the likes of which you have never been able to repeat.... (you might be surprised how common this is) Thus, you are now hell bent on poo-poohing the rest of the world whenever they touch on the edges of your enigmatic experience.

Tell me, if you will... Did you have an early projection experience that made you "believe" in other worlds? (at least for a little while?)

Along the lines of coincidence? Yes. But that was a long time ago when I was young and stupid. All such experiences are still only subjective. The mind can emulate anything. Also, if such numinous mental experiences never occurred, then it would be really weird. Think about the enormity of the number of insignificant dreams against the 'jackpot' ones.

This is why I maintain that there is nothing out of the ordinary going on. How many dreams take place every night and day and only a few nab our attention because we deem them to be significant?

You can discuss this with me like a rational and civilised individual or you can continue to pretend that there is real evidence for the paranormal and churn out ad hominems in this discourse ... 8-)

I could say to you that there is a gnome living in my garden and accuse you of not believing enough as the reason why you don't see it. I could also say that despite the Higgs boson having been discovered at CERN, science can never detect and measure the gnome because it is non-physical. I would be saying that the gnome proposition is unfalsifiable. But Hitchens razor (hope you heard of it) cuts right through this nonsense:

'That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.'--Christopher Hitchens

Imagine in a court of law someone claiming to have seen President LBJ shooting JFK without no evidence whatsoever and subsequently saying to the judge: 'Can you prove right now that such wasn't the case?'

Ant joe can claim flying pigs and black swans exist but it takes a real scientist to build a theory and deliberately attempt to falsify it to see if it stands the test of time. 8-)

Enra Traz wrote: Along the lines of coincidence? Yes. But that was a long time ago when I was young and stupid. All such experiences are still only subjective. The mind can emulate anything. [...] You can discuss this with me like a rational and civilised individual or you can continue to pretend that there is real evidence for the paranormal and churn out ad hominems in this discourse ... 8-) [...]

Ant joe can claim flying pigs and black swans exist but it takes a real scientist to build a theory and deliberately attempt to falsify it to see if it stands the test of time. 8-)

Enra, you say, "The mind can emulate anything" but I submit that this is not really true, imho. The Ancients teach that there are realms of consciousness beyond duality where mentation is about as likely to occur as a human is able to take a full breath in deep space/pure vacuum. Also, are you suggesting that because you can emulate something it indicates that it does not exist or is not real? (If so, I'll just say it does not suggest any such thing -- not even a little bit!) What an absurd claim to make!...?....

Also, I say again that I am pretty sure that you do not understand the difference between evidence, proof and opinion so there is really no point in pretending that it is possible to engage you in rational discussion or debate. (The last one we tried to have you LOST by virtue of Cohen's rule which was pointed out by a third party here.

Finally it is such hypocrisy that you keep making reference to "ad hominems" when you are one of the worst offenders in this regard.

Just from a single thread you recently unleashed a steady stream of them (Flying Jesus)

Enra/Summer, you have complained multiple times about ad hominems and you intimate that it indicates lack of intelligence or proves the labeler is wrong, loses the debate, etc. But then you proceed to spew ad hominems willy nilly whenever it suits you. What hypocrisy.

Note; when someone engages in hypocrisy it is NOT an ad hominem to point out that it is hypocrisy.

When someone gets bossy and tyrannical it is not an ad hominem to point out that such behavior is that of a petty tyrant.

If someone is duplicitous and speaks out of both sides of his mouth it is not an ad hominem to point out that they are duplicitous or deceptive remarks.

You recently said'

"I can be good, happy, and have my moments of both egoism and altruism without a belief in God. "

But "in "The Shocking Truth" thread you said;

Summer says; And you are absolutely correct. **Altruism is an illusion **as ultimately so-called selfless acts are about self-gratification

So which do you really believe?... or do you just blow whichever color smoke suits you in the moment?

Here is a list of hypocritical comments and ad hominems and gratuitous put downs that you spewed willy nilly in the flyingjesus thread (who are you trying to kid?);

It's also funny how the pious all sound the same when their pseudo-prophets are attacked. They've got nothing intelligent to say as a counterattack so they resort to ad hominems and name-calling. Soooo benign and divine [....] And the sad thing is that you probably have it read to you so no wonder you are lazy reading in general [....] You are still religious. Probably not as bad as ISIS but enough to warrant ridicule and derision [....] What a pathetic loser! [....] You really think I care about the number of people who check your silly dream? [....] By your standards, in Nazi Europe you would have given up like a coward and would have followed the Hitler-adulating crowd like a sheep. Quite sad ... [....] Anyway, I suspect the majority who checked your thread were more interested to see me intellectually caning you and your buddy there who is away with the fairies {hahah... don't kid yourself, Summer}(italics mine) [....] Anyone who says books don't help is the biggest doofus ever. **You are the best example **I've encountered so far of the definition of ignoramus

Summer/Enya, I seriously doubt that anyone here is buying your pretend persona of being a highly edumacated science-type... nope... I know I ain't buying it.

Is that the best you can do? A non-argument and a non-sequitur about what arises in consciousness? Do you believe dreams happen in some other dimension, too? Because if you do I rest my case. My message is clear: the mind can emulate things real and imagined, meaning you can dream about your house, your deceased pet, and a winged dragon, too; this doesn't make the latter objectively real. My six-year-old son can understand this and I'm surprised you need clarification. :-)

And why do you speak of the ancients like they knew it all? Hello?! They thought the world was flat and the sun a deity. 'In your opinion' doesn't cut it as a legitimate argument and you still sound like a schizo claiming his hallucinations are real. A feeble non-argument or speciousness is what it is ... Also, show me again where Cohen's law applies to me more than you ... :mrgreen:

Secondly, my statements about altruism and the contexts in which they were said don't contradict each other at all and you know it. If you don't know it, let me help you out: an illusion is not something that doesn't exist, it is something which isn't what it seems. So maybe go away and do your homework again ... (I can't believe I mean that much to you for you to suddenly study my posts--I must've really made an impact!) :-D

Finally, regarding the fatuous Flying character... when someone is being unreasonable and misologistic, or just downright dense, it is the intellectual's duty to point this out and let them know why the discussion cannot continue. And you seem to be cut from the same cloth as you're unable to compute with your misunderstanding of terms like 'illusion', 'evidence', 'proof' and the scientific method itself. Keep your circular logic about your amorous astral projection affair and continue spouting nonsense with your New Age buddies in this little thread of yours while I discuss real matters of the mind in mine. 8-)

Thanks for checking out my Shocking Truth thread, btw. I only wish you'd learnt something ... :mrgreen:

It is not even close to the best I can do, Enra... it is merely all that is necessary to make my point. I prefer to be frugal in this sense.

I have shown clearly that; You are a hypocrite your posts are deceptive/deceitful you do not understand basic rules of logic you do not adhere to rules of disciplined debate

Note that I just made a reply to you and I am pretty sure that I backed up every point I made with exact quotes from your posts.

In reply you just made a completely worthless response to me that amounted to nothing more than a smiley rich tantrum and senseless rant that you backed up with nothing. I made no non-arguments and nothing I said was a non sequitur. You have a bad habit of making false evaluations of other people's posts which you back up with nothing. You remind me of that phrase, "a legend in his own mind".

My message is clear: the mind can emulate things real and imagined, meaning you can dream about your house, your deceased pet, and a winged dragon, too; this doesn't make the latter objectively real

Not only is your message ridiculously muddled and unclear, it borders on incomprehensible. You are so busy with your put-downs and insults you forget to actually make a meaningful point. You also spend an inordinate amount of time refuting points that no one has made.

You have no idea what my cosmology is or whether I believe dreams are another dimension. You have never attempted sincere and genuine communication on this subject. You have this chip on your shoulder and respond instantly with some irrelevant knee jerk reaction to something that is only happening in the space between your ears.

Then you ask.

And why do you speak of the ancients like they knew it all?

I don't speak of them that way. I speak of them with due respect. (Respect, Enra, perhaps you could give it a try now and then?) Oh, & guess what?... The Ancient sages were well aware that the earth was not flat. I find that a lot of pseudo-educated pretenders do not know this. The burden of pseudo knowledge that so many brainwashed plebian serfs carry must be torture....

"

~8-9th Century BC The idea that the Earth is in motion around the Sun is proposed in Sanskrit texts in ancient India. It is the first recorded evidence of heliocentrism.

4th Century BC Greek philosopher Heraclides Ponticus proposes that the apparent daily motion of stars is created by the rotation of the Earth.

3rd Century BC Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos advances heliocentrism in a now lost book. The ideas of Aristarchus, however, were described in a book by the great philosopher and scientist Archimedes called The Sand Reckoner. "

Then you say, "when someone is being unreasonable and misologistic, or just downright dense, it is the intellectual's duty to point this out and let them know why the discussion cannot continue."

No Enra, its not. You are wrong... again.

Circular non-logic, no reason, and no evidence. ^^ :lol:

And my quotes which you posted above only served to expose you as someone in need of learning the meaning of certain words like ... 'illusion'. Funny how you conveniently ignored that part which backfired on you.

Another fallacy in your argument: the most tenuous indications that a minute minority suspected heliocentrism in the distant past must mean that they have the answers to everything as a whole. You bury your head further in the sand, Robert. :mrgreen:

Oh, before I forget ... you say my message about mental emulation is muddled and unclear but you fail to point out in what sense. If you really don't know what I'm saying there then I feel sorry for you! My kids would embarass you and I can get a better and more intelligent conversation out of my youngest.

Robert, how old are you? Either you're a teenage delinquent or a senile, cantankerous individual with serious raciocination issues. :-)

Enra, just more false accusations that you back up with nothing. There is no circular reasoning in any of my posts. Your replies are meaningless. You make the accusation but never explain how it is so -- because it is a false accusation. Repeating yourself does not make your lame point any stronger.

I back up what I said by simply pointing out that you made accusations without stating how anything was circular. When I point out that your posts lack anything substantive, that is in and of itself a form of evidence! (res ipsa loquitur) which I have repeatedly noted that you do not understand. If I say that your car has no wheels and your false reply is "circular logic... my kid is smarter than you" you not only fail to make a rational argument but you come across as totally clueless.

Your meaningless replies are merely a string of insults and put downs. You are full of stuff and nonsense. To repeatedly state how your child is smarter than someone that you are only trying to insult is basically an admission that you can't make a valid point to support your thesis. That is not a rational argument.

Since I got here it seems your entire argument is merely, "You believe in other dimensions, ipso facto, you are an idiot". This is False Logic (just plain wrong). Many extremely intelligent, knowledgeable, rational people believe in a Creator and dimensions beyond the 5 senses. They also recognize that it is a matter of faith.

If someone says, "I believe in X" and some arrogant, egotistical, irrational petty little tyrant continually insists that "you must prove it" is merely being obstinate (and wrong).

The problem with atheists is that most are not aware that they are adhering to their "Belief" as matter of faith in the same fashion;

Atheist certainty and religious certainty are both faith claims that transcend reason and common sense. But at least religious believers have the intellectual honesty to admit theirs is a faith claim.

So, enough of the college dorm clichés about “no evidence” for God. You have not decided to be an atheist because of “no evidence.” As a non-scientist, you are unlikely to even know the evidence that believing scientists offer. The Times piece quoted Collins: “When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion–letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe.* I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind**.” Have you checked those 3.1 billion–letter instructions? I suspect you would understand them as poorly as I would. In a future response I will address the other points in your opening statement. But I will respond to one now—your argument that Prager’s or Collins’s God is in the same intellectual league as belief in Zeus. Did anyone studying the human genome ever argue for Zeus? What are you talking about? I’ll answer that question. You are talking as if you are addressing fellow atheists who cheer all these lines that belittle faith in God. They think ridicule compensates for their ignorance of intellectually sophisticated God-belief. But unfortunately for you, in this dialogue you are not addressing fellow believers in atheism or people who mock religion. You are addressing a mixed audience and debating a man who knows his arguments. I heard them in high school*.

P.S. I am twice your age and on my third career. I am a degreed physicist and worked a couple decades in the sciences. I have forgotten more about science than you will likely ever know. What do you do?

First of all, atheism is not a belief, it is a disbelief. I am either educating you repeatedly or your senility is affecting your neurons. :mrgreen:

Secondly, anyone who thinks faith is a virtue is a fool and very anti-scientific. Science doesn't care about what you believe. If you believe in other dimensions without any evidence or even a coherent scientific theory about it, you're just a pillock. :-D

Thirdly, one look at your posts is enough to see that you believe in New Age poo. You're an old codger afraid of death and desperately wishing for fairytales to be true. What you need to do is invest in a new pair of glasses so that you can read the dictionary before you attempt to understand my statements.

Finally, I've already refuted the statements of dishonest scientists like Collins who make exaggerations and have political agendas. (The kind of person who claims a waterfall is a sign from God.) :lol:

I suggest you get yourself a few books on the human genome and evolutionary biology and then you will understand why DNA complexity is not evidence for God. You have just displayed an ignorance of biology and a lack of imagination for genetic propagation. If you had an iota of a clue, you'd be familiar with the countless ways in which our bodies could be better ... indeed intelligently designed. Instead, we wear glasses, have cancers, and you're probably wondering why you're greyer than ever before. Go ahead, continue to prostrate before an imaginary father while I laugh my head off. :mrgreen:

You bring nothing new to the table, just the same old weak points that have been refuted a thousand times by proper scientists like Dawkins. But I won't even recommend The God Delusion where Collins is thoroughly destroyed. Just read my entire thread 'Lucid Dreamers and God'. You might learn something before you cash your chips. 8-)

A degree in physics he says ... yeah, right! Theology and mythology more like! :-D

PS. This is probably going to receive another feeble and truly meaningless reply from Robert, our expert in specious argumentation! I am 33 years of age and I am pretty sure I've done a lot more than Robert in my first five years than he has in a lifetime. 8-)

Hmmm ... another someone I've debated with claimed to be an accomplished author but then failed to mention one single book! Dimitri, is that you? :mrgreen:

As one of Michael Raduga's researchers and the head of the Phase Managing Department at the Phase Research Centre, I have probably done more science than you have ever even read about. Plus I am also an illustrator, bookmaker, and a writer yet to publish his first book. (But I've already got an illustration publish in Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC's magazine when I used to work for them as a bilingual researcher and I also have a conclusion to a study I conducted published on OBE4u plus an account of an out-of-body experience I had in Raduga's The Phase--A Practical Guidebook. :-)

More insults and put downs from Enra/Summer that do nothing to advance his argument.

First of all, atheism is not a belief, it is a disbelief

This is a meaningless nit-pick.

Secondly, anyone who thinks faith is a virtue is a fool and very anti-scientific

I say this is False and false. Prove it, Enra.

Science doesn't care about what you believe.

This is a straw man argument. Again you are refuting things no one has said. In the debate realm of logical discourse you are failing miserably.

If you believe in other dimensions without any evidence or even a coherent scientific theory about it, you're just a pillock

Again, you demonstrate that you do not understand the difference between proof and evidence.

If I see creation and I hypothesize a Creator I am being more rational than the atheist who insists that something comes from nothing.

Finally, I've already refuted the statements of dishonest scientists like Collins who make exaggerations and have political agendas. (The kind of person who claims a waterfall is a sign from God.)

Atheistist scoundrels often default to The Big Lie when they are stymied. Collins did not say that (a waterfall is a sign from God.).

Dr. Collins did not offer three waterfalls as an argument for belief in the Trinity, not even in your isolated citation from his book or in the single sentence in Time. All he said was that three waterfalls reminded of him of the Christian Trinity and that after observing such awesome beauty he became a believing Christian. If a man says that a beautiful flower reminds him of his beautiful wife, he is not saying that the beauty of the flower proves his wife is also beautiful. Natural wonders often inspire a person to reflect on the divine. You see natural beauty and, for that matter, everything else in the universe, and see no Creator, just coincidence. I find that reaction at least as odd as you find seeing in nature evidence for a Creator. The Collins comments simply indicate that he and other eminent scientists see science as arguing for a Creator God. If Collins had said that the existence of three waterfalls proves that there is a Trinity, I would then share your dismissive attitude. But these comments didn’t even imply something so preposterous. - See more at: http://jewcy.com/post/day_3_prager_why_are_atheists_so_angry#sthash.lO5hgNBd.dpuf

new age poo? You have no idea what I believe Enra, because you have never attempted to find out. You read one or two sentences and leapt to conclusions in typical knee jerk fashion.

When I go to Mexico I speak Spanish. Your comment is like saying, "Oh, listen to that language -- you believe in Spanish..." No, I use the language people are comfortable with in a given locale. It facilitates communication... something you appear to know little about but perhaps you could learn.

I have found that certain metaphysical terms facilitate communication of certain ideas better than other terminology. I also have found that atheism is generally embraced by obstinate, myopic types who are so irrational and narrow minded that certain valid concepts and ideas cannot even be discussed. Most atheists that I have met are egotistical and hugely arrogant -- not all, but most.

You did not answer the question, again... what do you do?

There is just no end to your unreason, is there? :-D

However you want to put it or whatever fool you want to quote, Collins allowed the mere beauty of a waterfall to convert him. That's not a good reason to believe in God and become a Christian--this is as unscientific as you can get! :lol:

Furthermore, saying a Creator made the universe is not solving the problem of its origins at all; in fact, a Creator only aggravates the problem for now you are left to explain how this hypothetical Being--which should be as complex, if not more complex than the cosmos--came to be. (And you don't even have evidence for it! You do know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis, right?) :-)

And the latest in cosmology and physics does suggest that the universe did indeed arise ex nihilo--and what's more, it redefines 'nothingness' and shows us that it was inevitable as the potential for something to arise from the highly unstable nothingness at the quantum level is ginormous! In fact, it would take a miracle to prevent the Big Bang ... :mrgreen:

Scientists are still learning about it but to fill the noetic gaps with the hypothetical God is simply to give up on the quest for knowledge. A Creator begs the question of who created that creator and the creator before him ad infinitum. (In the end, you are simply perpetuating the problem.)

For the latest in cosmology, I recommend that you read the book A Universe From Nothing--Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing by professor Lawrence Krauss. I've already explained this shit in my threads and I'm surprised that you haven't spotted it yet for someone who takes the time to go through the history of my posts here. :mrgreen:

Finally, a coup de grace. Faith is not a virtue, it is self-delusion not to be mistaken for hope. Faith is the suicide of reason. Faith is for weak minds who pharisaically refuse to budge even in the face of contradicting evidence. I wonder why the ugliness in nature did not inspire Collins to become a devil worshipper... :-D

PS. Your analogy as a counterattack is the lamest I've ever come across yet. Really?! :lol:

Come on, man. Come up with something better or quit while you still can. If you want to call the laws of nature 'God', 'Creator' or some shit like that, be my guest, but I will have you know that it is not a supernatural intelligent being worthy of the abject religious worship. It would be less ludicrous for you to revere the cosmos pantheistically and preferably in the way of Spinoza.

Perhaps I have not taken the trouble to find out what you really believe. But then again why should I even care? I go by your posts which are here, with all their fatuity for all to see. And you certainly do give the impression that, to cut a long story short, you believe in magic.

Never too late to grow up, even at your age. You might just die an atheist. ;-)

Then again, if you don't join reason and the reasonable DISBELIEF in God and all things supernatural (a lot of meaning here) ... another theist has perished with his prayers unanswered. :mrgreen:

Okay Enra/Summer, I will proceed to eviscerate yet another of your vacuous, pseudo-rational replies. ( Not that you have the education, understanding or discipline to grasp and comprehend it... just that, I am not doing this for you but for the honest innocents you sadistically abuse with your phony pretense at intellect and logic).

There is just no end to your unreason, is there? :-D

However you want to put it or whatever fool you want to quote, Collins allowed the mere beauty of a waterfall to convert him. That's not a good reason to believe in God and become a Christian--this is as unscientific as you can get!

False logic x2 -- non sequitur and 'straw man'.

C'mon!... "FAITH" is basically "unscientific" by definition. Your complaint is like saying "hey, this glass of water is worthless because it is not a piece of granite". Please try to get a grip on reality here. Unlike you, people of faith are not pretending to be something they are not.

I think your problem may be that you are operating from a set of a priori assumptions that are ... well, FALSE. Science is NOT the be all and end all of LIFE.

Furthermore, saying a Creator made the universe is not solving the problem of its origins at all; in fact, a Creator only aggravates the problem for now you are left to explain how this hypothetical Being--which should be as complex, if not more complex than the cosmos--came to be. (And you don't even have evidence for it! You do know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis, right?) :-)

Do I know the difference between something out of the blue and something I actually said?... what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? (non sequitur) As far as the rest of the quote; False. It absolutely solves the problem of the origin of creation... the Creator created it. Asking "where did the Creator come from?" is irrelevant and mere obfuscation. I will also destroy this lame attempt at refutation of yours later on with another source (see below) that kills two of your false birds with one stone.

And the latest in cosmology and physics does suggest that the universe did indeed arise ex nihilo--and what's more, it redefines 'nothingness'....

hahahahahahah! It sure does. And that is its downfall -- see link below (teaser preview;)

A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well.

PS. Your analogy as a counterattack is the lamest I've ever come across yet. Really?! :lol:

Come on, man. Come up with something better or quit while you still can. If you want to call the laws of nature 'God', 'Creator' or some shit like that, be my guest, but I will have you know that it is not a supernatural intelligent being worthy of the abject religious worship. It would be less ludicrous for you to revere the cosmos pantheistically and preferably in the way of Spinoza.

Logical Fallacy -- straw man (I never said it was any such thing) Also, what analogy?... please quote me and show how it is lame. Until you do that you continue to lose this debate miserably. You really need to up your game a little.

Perhaps I have not taken the trouble to find out what you really believe. But then again why should I even care? I go by your posts which are here, with all their fatuity for all to see. And you certainly do give the impression that, to cut a long story short, you believe in magic.

I doubt that you truly "go by my posts". I suspect that you jump to conclusions in knee jerk fashion again and again based on half a sentence. This is part of how you end up being so wrong so often. The closest I ever came to practicing magic was as a child saying my prayers. Just because I have a curious mind and investigate ancient languages and traditions does not mean that I practice them. If I have friends who believe in or practice magic it does not mean that I do. It would be nice if you could stop being so presumptuous (& wrong).

For the latest in cosmology, I recommend that you read the book A Universe From Nothing--Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing by professor Lawrence Krauss. I've already explained this shit in my threads and I'm surprised that you haven't spotted it yet for someone who takes the time to go through the history of my posts here.

Again you jump to a false conclusion in knee jerk fashion based on almost nothing. I have not gone back through your old posts. I do click on the green "unread" posts and a couple days ago I saw you say you were altruistic when you wanted to be and then moments later I saw you say "altruism is an illusion" -- this had to be from posts made within days apart! and I just thought, "Gee, what a hypocrite, talking out of both sides of his mouth..." That's it That's all... take it at face value if you can.... I know hopelessly insecure and neurotic people can't do that but, its just a suggestion, if you can manage it.

As far as Krauss and his underwhelming book goes...

Without a trace of irony, Krauss approvingly cites physicist Frank Wilczek’s unflattering comparison of string theory to a rigged game of darts: “First, one throws the dart against a blank wall, and then one goes to the wall and draws a bull’s-eye around where the dart landed.” Yet that is exactly Krauss’ procedure. He defines “nothing” and other key concepts precisely so as to guarantee that only the physicist’s methods he is comfortable with can be applied to the question of the universe’s origin”and that only a nontheological answer will be forthcoming.

As noted already, Krauss has merely changed the subject. Perhaps realizing this, he completes his bait-and-switch with a banal anticlimax. In the end, he tells us, “what is really useful is not pondering [the] question” of why there is something rather than nothing but rather “participating in the exciting voyage of discovery.”

Exciting or not, Krauss’ voyage does not take his reader where he thought he was going. To the centuries-old debate over why any universe exists at all, Krauss’ book contributes”precisely nothing.

heheh...good stuff...

The bulk of the book is devoted to exploring how the energy present in otherwise empty space, together with the laws of physics, might have given rise to the universe as it exists today. This is at first treated as if it were highly relevant to the question of how the universe might have come from nothing”until Krauss acknowledges toward the end of the book that energy, space, and the laws of physics don’t really count as “nothing” after all. Then it is proposed that the laws of physics alone might do the trick”though these too, as he implicitly allows, don’t really count as “nothing” either.

His final proposal is that “there may be no fundamental theory at all” but just layer upon layer of laws of physics, which we can probe until we get bored. But this is no explanation of the universe at all. In particular, it is nowhere close to what Krauss promised his reader”an explanation of how the universe arose from nothing ”since an endless series of “layers” of laws of physics is hardly “nothing.”** His book is like a pamphlet titled How to Make a Million Dollars in One Week that turns out to be a counterfeiter’s manual**.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing

For Neoplatonists, everything made up of parts can be explained only by reference to something that combines the parts. Accordingly, ** theultimate explanation of things must be utterly simple** and therefore without the need or even the possibility of being assembled into being by something else. Plotinus called this “the One.” For Leibniz, the existence of anything that is in any way contingent can be explained only by its origin in an absolutely necessary being.

The above is from yoyr link which shoots itself in the foot As I said earlier, a Creator who intelligently designed the universe would have to be as complex--if not more complex--than His creation. A simple 'cause' is not worthy of being called a 'god' at all. If it's simple at the beginning, it should be simpler than a lifeless rock (duh). :-D

Moreover, as I said before, a state of nothingness at the quantum level is an extremely unstable state and the potential for expansion is enormous. Hence why the universe is expanding faster and faster even today and will continue even after all the stars go out. (Whose lame creation is this? The Invisible Mighty Doofus?) :mrgreen:

You think a Creator is uncaused (don't know what gave you this idea because all the little Earthly creators were caused by something or someone), and then have the audacity to say, 'You're not allowed to question how the Creator come into being.' You might as well say magic created the universe using this standard of raciocination that only a theologian would employ! Typical. If you don't understand it, just say 'God did it!' :-D

:lol: You obviously have not read the book. It's ok. Don't read it. Stick to ancient doctrine and pseudo-scientific/anti-scientific articles. Farewell and good luck with the afterlife, Robert. :-D

[ Post made via Android ] Image

The above is from yoyr link which shoots itself in the foot As I said earlier, a Creator who intelligently designed the universe would have to be as complex--if not more complex--than His creation. A simple 'cause' is not worthy of being called a 'god' at all. If it's simple at the beginning, it should be simpler than a lifeless rock (

Logical Fallacy; Red Herring

Enra, you are wrong, again. It does not shoot itself in the foot. You are replying (again) to something no one has said. Just because he says the 'explanation' is simple does not imply that the Creator not more complex than the creation. The rest of your reply is a string of fallacies extending from the original fallacy.

This is elementary Enra/Summer. Just curious, I missed where you might have answered the question before -- What do you do for a living? You have brought this up concerning others here but other than your age and how smart your kid is you withhold this particular piece of info.

edit;

You think a Creator is uncaused

I never said that. Nothing even close.

RobertForsythe wrote: Just curious, I missed where you might have answered the question before -- What do you do for a living? You have brought this up concerning others here but other than your age and how smart your kid is you withhold this particular piece of info.

Enra Traz wrote: As one of Michael Raduga's researchers and the head of the Phase Managing Department at the Phase Research Centre, I have probably done more science than you have ever even read about. Plus I am also an illustrator, bookmaker, and a writer yet to publish his first book. (But I've already got an illustration publish in Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC's magazine when I used to work for them as a bilingual researcher and I also have a conclusion to a study I conducted published on OBE4u plus an account of an out-of-body experience I had in Raduga's The Phase--A Practical Guidebook. :-)

The Purple,

I am pretty sure that is NOT what someone does for a living. [Raduga's books are free]

Plus, I say that there is nothing "scientific" about the "Phase Research Center" Please show me the "science" there...

Oh, well, as long as you're pretty sure it's not a correct answer, you should definitely keep saying he didn't give one at all. Good idea ignoring all the non-Raduga-related occupations in there, too.

How can I be ignoring that which has not been presented?

edit; I have serious doubts that he receives even one quid in salary for this position. He may get a few pence here and there for seminars and such ... but that is not something someone raising a family does for a living.

Exactly. You can't.

Shall I break the quote down for you?

Yes Purple, please do. (as long as it answers the question)

:lol:

Don't bother, ThePurple. It's a waste of time with Robert. He hasn't even bothered to check out Raduga's site properly otherwise he'd know studies were conducted which have nothing to do with the book. Secondly, you can actually purchase a hard copy of The Phase plus another book on how to get started to represent The Phase Research Centre anywhere in the world. :-D

I will just day one final thing before I leave Robert with his unreason: It's fine if you want to insist that God exists and He is not simple, He's complex. But if you are saying a complex thing requires no explanation for coming into being than you are practically saying you believe in magic and take the defeatist approach that He is God and therefore requires no explanation. Imagine if scientists took that approach about the big complex universe! They haven't as they say there is more work to be done. By the way, according to the evidence so far, the universe did start from something simple--with the huge and inevitable potential to expand. Consider your logic annihilated. :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

You are Wrong again, Enra. Note that you have not demonstrated logically and reasonably one single "unreason" on my part. Saying it don't make it so.

Speak the truth and keep it rational and logical and you will find that I am very easy to communicate with and a productive outcome can be attained by those with a win-win attitude.

Yet another one of your multitudinous FALSE allegations too, Enra -- I am very familiar with Raduga, his website and his books. I downloaded and read nearly every word of two of his books. (I skimmed quickly over many of the wordy personal experiences by countless forum contributors, though). Is it okay with you if I choose not to worship him the way some do?

But if you are saying a complex thing requires no explanation

I didn't say that. I said it was an irrelevant Red Herring. You show a chronic inability to understand what is actually being said and misinterpreting and ultimately putting words in other people's mouths. I did not say that a complex thing required no explanation. I said that asking "where did the creator come from" and inserting it into the "creation of the Universe" debate is a Red Herring. Please do make a small effort to try and discern the difference.

By the way, according to the evidence so far, the universe did start from something simple--with the huge and inevitable potential to expand. Consider your logic annihilated

Annihilation nothing! Hahaha. Your continuous stream of non sequiturs and red herrings do NOTHING to even diminish my logic. On the other hand I have repeatedly obliterated your pseudo-logic and pretense at knowledge.

And just to tie up a loose end...

The honest answer to the question, "Where is memory stored" is "We don't know".

First it was believed to be stored in the neurons, but when it was realized there weren't enough it evolved to synapses and when it was determined there still weren't enough they morphed it to combinations and permutations of synaptic interaction ... whatever that is.... Even the neuroscientists clinging to this great hope of the atheist materialists are honest enough to admit they really have no idea how this works or even if it is actually accurate. It is just a theory and the whole "gee, well, we kinda think now that memories are not really stored anywhere as fixed data but are reconstructions made in the present moment which explains how so many have faulty memories...." (paraphrased). They do not bother to address how many people can demonstrate dead on accurate recall of the most minute and voluminous detail of an event from decades ago, even though they never thought about it once in the interim. They can even recall detail that they made no conscious recognition of in the past, such as a license plate number they paid no attention to at all, at the time.

Neuroscience is completely befuddled by the reality of "memory".