Lucid Dreamers and God

For those who wish to discuss the purely scientific aspects of sleep and dreams, including new research and future technologies.

Have you ever tried to communicate with God in the phase state (LD/OOBE/AP)?

Yes, and I was successful
5
9%
Yes, but nothing happened
2
4%
Yes, but what was encountered was a product of my mind
5
9%
No, but I am willing to try
28
51%
No, and I'm reluctant to try out of fear
0
No votes
No, and I never will (I'm an atheist who doesn't see any point)
15
27%
 
Total votes: 55

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 611
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Pilgrim » 23 May 2016 06:28

Let us move on, lest we end up writting a whole book. You do want to hear of my dreams someday? Plus, we can move on to something else. Is there a thread where it is debated about the "chakra" spirituality that people reference so often? We can be on the same team if there is a thread that challenges this system. :D

User avatar
Z0rb
Posts: 23
Joined: 20 Mar 2016 18:45

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Z0rb » 23 May 2016 18:57

As this topic is very frequented, I decided to talk to God.

Summary of my Dream: I'm inside the Church, and decide to talk to God, and I get sent automatically to the Altar of the Church, I see a golden door that is open, and inside it has a lit candle. I tried to communicate with God, but god no reply my asks. So I came to the conclusion that God doesn't talk to anyone, or he wouldn't talk to me. I just saw people around me to pray and believe that in that light, it was really a manifestation of God. I was curious and tried to stick around for, what would be the manifestation of the people and of God when the candle went out ... but I woke up without seeing the end result..
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”
― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4354
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Summerlander » 24 May 2016 00:20

Thanks for sharing that! So he was absent, yeah? :mrgreen:

I once entered a WHSmith's and found the Bible and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion next to each other on the shelf. I picked up the latter and ignored the former since this one had already been shoved down my throat when I didn't even have the mental capacity to think for myself. Well, now that I'm more mentally liberated I feel I have understood the professor's argument against theism---backed by evidence and lack thereof---and I must say that atheism resonates with me.

It's quite logical! Why should one believe in such fairytales when there is no evidence for them whatsoever? And if one insists that a prime mover must be true then an older anti-religion argument by an intelligent deist can be invoked and it is that of Thomas Paine in his book The Age of Reason. Paine reminds us that the so-called revelation is suspiciously secondhand and unverifiable. It proclaims itself to be the unquestionable truth in an attempt to evade enquiry. Its main advocates indeed claim to recognise miracles when they present themselves in the world---a claim exposed for its noetic arrogance by philosophers such as David Hume, who reasoned that one would have to know everything about the nature of reality in order to recognise that which violates it and possibly indicative of divine intervention.

I think it's time our species grew up to become more scientifically mature. And I must say that, so far, considering all the factors in this debate, the absence of God is quite apparent. :-D
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 611
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Pilgrim » 25 May 2016 11:48

Transitioning now from the backdrop of the discussion, wherein I acknowledge the challenge of the "problem of evil" but maintain that God is logically possible nonetheless, I believe that it is reasonable to consider Scripture as the word of God.

It is unnecessary to spend 15 years of your life, as William Mitchell Ramsey did, with benefit of unusual resources, digging in the lands of the Bible with intent to disprove it, only to find it accurate. It is reasonable to believe the Scriptures and believe in Christ, and acknowledge that there is no reason to remain in such belief if it proves wrong. This is a rational consideration, and it is not even considering that many people report a spiritual c______n.

The authority of Scripture is my understanding of the spiritual world, and that which I weigh experience against. My dreams, then, I do not submit in the arena as proof of God for others, though meaningful to me.

Those who respond to my post, will probably not suggest that I could be lying. It is uncool to do so. This is out of courtesy that people avoid the charge. However, cult leaders have followings because special claims are given too much weight. So, it does not bother me in the least that readers question the validity of my experiences, and lean instead on objective measures for truth.

Alternatively, I think that many do not report certain supernatural aspects to dreams because of the backlash to be classed as a quack. It is why I have shared my own experiences with so few. The relative anonymity of the forum frees up some conversation.

Two of my dreams from long ago, as a teen, regarded specific dreams preceding actual events in an uncanny way. I did not typically have dream recall. Two separate dreams were very vivid and shook me, however, involving two separate classmates (school of 700, town of 10,000). I was not friends with either, and had no social life with either.

In each dream, these classmates inquired as to where I attend church. When, in real life, each of these, separately, approached me directly with this question for no apparent reason, I immediately told of my dream. One subsequently came to my church, bringing her boyfriend.

These dreams I consider in no way an endorsement of the church that I attended. It was a dysfunctional church, that disbanded shortly thereafter. The point of the dreams I consider the interaction that we shared on matters of God.

This type of dream is present in Scripture. In Acts 10, Luke, the physician, provides the details wherein both Peter and Cornelius had separate dreams that brought them together. In this case, more validity was associated with each party specifically having prior dreams that corroborated the divine meeting between the two.

I have not had prophetic dreams as normal occurrence. I see no reason that they could not occur again. The significance of dreams and visions are regularly cited in Scripture as a means that God communicates. The Old Testament prophet Joel wrote: "Afterwards I will pour out my Spirit...your old people will have dreams, and your young people will see visions."

I have in more recent days found intense joy in fellowship with God in lucid dreams. John writes in the letter identified as "I John", regarding Christ as the "Word of life" which "we have seen with our eyes...our hands have touched" that such reality of Christ is the basis for a fellowship with God. This fellowship is how a believer's joy is most complete.

I recently became aware of intense joy by the following dream...

The location was rather dingy supermarket relative to the modern super stores of my area that are grand, bright, and clean. My memory and lucidity of the dream began as I was approaching the back, inside of the store, toward an area similar to a customer-service attached room. Benches were to the left of the service desk. The store and this service area had random people.

But, one person on the bench was of particular interest. It was a rather uncomely woman of poor hygiene. Something within me was aware that the woman presented as a messenger, and her eyes had a most confident and piercing gaze. She spoke to me, and she was aware that I was in a dream. She insisted that I remember, after awake, this phrase--"Assembly of God 1917." She repeated this phrase to me more than once.

It seemed appropriate for me to bid her farewell and head toward the front of the store. The check out registers were resembling of old technology, but the lanes were numbered with electrically lit signs.

At check out location, I was encountered with temptation. It was most vivid. Anything I could conceive to desire was most available. Yet, in my mind, I heard myself: "Just try God, just try, just try." I turned away from the temptation of evil origin and attempted to fly as superman through the ceiling to escape, but met resistance. Unable to escape by bursting out, I turned away by foot to the nearest door exit (drained, but determined).

After outdoors, I faced a clear blue sky upward. I determined to seek heaven and nearness to God. I shortly became able to fly upward and felt the presence of God as I soared at greater and greater speeds. I did not see heaven or God with my eyes, but outer space became light. The experience of His presence was overpowering. Tremendous tremor I felt and state of ecstasy that surpassed any experience I ever had in dream or wake. As I woke, my body still shook with tremor for couple of minutes, which I assume was some hormonal rush or adrenaline.

I learned more clearly than ever, by dream, that fellowship with God surpasses any fulfillment of natural desire. (And, I assure the reader that I am just as bad or more evil by nature than any.). The Christian life is not a miserable, ascetic choice against happiness. There is more abundant life.

As to the "Assembly of God 1917" message, I immediately searched the internet. I believe that I saw such group was founded in 1914. I believe I saw some events significant in 1918, but I am not sure yet of the 1917 significance. I did see that this group had an interest in the spirituality of the Great Awakening (good in my mind), which period I had been studying over the subsequent months.

Will I ever attend church in such denomination? Highly unlikely. With due respect to sincere people in the movement, the strong Armenianism of the movement (spelled also as Arminianism commonly) is contrary to Scripture from my understanding, as those who read the last few pages can see. It does not matter even if I perceive an angel from heaven declaring opposition to plain Scripture, I will not believe. Of course, it will get my attention if someone were ever to walk up to me and say something about Assembly of God 1917.

I do not assume spiritual encounters are necessarily of good origin. Evil spirits can mislead and deceive, as I understand from the Scriptures. This is my basis for my insisting on diligence in confirming that experience be subservient to Scripture.

As to the prior reference that certain Christians oppose lucid dreaming as evil, I oppose any such view on this matter. Nearness to God is not limited to while awake. Communication from God often occurred by dream in Scripture.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4354
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Summerlander » 25 May 2016 17:00

Pilgrim wrote:Transitioning now from the backdrop of the discussion, wherein I acknowledge the challenge of the "problem of evil" but maintain that God is logically possible nonetheless, I believe that it is reasonable to consider Scripture as the word of God.


Epicurus emphasised for mankind that no theodicy in the world can vindicate the existence of a good God in the face of evil. I'm sure you've come across his pithy axiom showing that the existence of evil is irreconcilable with His presupposed omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence and infinite mercy. Many theologians pretend to do so but their efforts are just bad philosophy upon unreason. You say it's reasonable to consider Scripture as the word of God; I find this questionable since men tell tales from their imagination and often for nefarious purposes.

Pilgrim wrote:It is unnecessary to spend 15 years of your life, as William Mitchell Ramsey did, with benefit of unusual resources, digging in the lands of the Bible with intent to disprove it, only to find it accurate.


Accurate? How is it accurate when, for example, it assumes that our world does not move and is at the centre of the universe as Ptolemy believed? And why 15 years? Also, it never proved what it claims to be true. In fact, it appears to disprove itself with contradictions.

Pilgrim wrote:It is reasonable to believe the Scriptures and believe in Christ, and acknowledge that there is no reason to remain in such belief if it proves wrong. This is a rational consideration, and it is not even considering that many people report a spiritual c______n.


Belief without evidence is not a virtue. Faith is the antithesis of science and reason. I don't know what spiritual something you're talking about there, but if you mean numinous experiences, let me tell you: They do not prove the existence of a spiritual realm or a divine Creator for that matter. As far as we can truly tell, we can only claim them to be mental appearances which have their own brain signatures.

Pilgrim wrote:The authority of Scripture is my understanding of the spiritual world, and that which I weigh experience against. My dreams, then, I do not submit in the arena as proof of God for others, though meaningful to me.


Then you are simply holding on to a meaning you created---which is the essence of self-delusion. It may be true for you but not for everyone. If it was factual, it would be demonstrable and true for everyone. :-)
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 611
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Pilgrim » 25 May 2016 23:25

Your concept that only something reproducible in lab has any weight, I deny. Anyone who experiences prophetic dream, which has amazing and unexpected fulfillment, has some evidence in a cumulative consideration for worldview. There is Scriptural basis that God would be opposed to being proved by lab tests. Such proof would nullify what pleases God--faith. It would also prevent upcoming prophecies from coming to pass. You will not see laboratory proof. There is reasonable basis for faith.

'True to me' assumes truth is subjective. Come on. You know better. I have some false beliefs. You do too. Truth we cannot view as relative, or we never find it.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4354
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Summerlander » 30 May 2016 02:07

Pilgrim wrote:Your concept that only something reproducible in lab has any weight, I deny. Anyone who experiences prophetic dream, which has amazing and unexpected fulfillment, has some evidence in a cumulative consideration for worldview.


Think about how many dreams people have at night---and sometimes during the day---on planet Earth. The number of insignificant dreams, which seldom get mentioned, far outweigh the so-called prophetic ones. You're referring to lottery winners, as it were, and our propensity to make significant associations where there are none goes a long way. It's called confirmation bias. Just ponder over the fact that it would be really weird if those significant hits never took place. Think about it ...

Pilgrim wrote:There is Scriptural basis that God would be opposed to being proved by lab tests. Such proof would nullify what pleases God--faith. It would also prevent upcoming prophecies from coming to pass. You will not see laboratory proof. There is reasonable basis for faith.


Faith is virtueless. There is no honour in the worst kind of blindness. I'll pretend there is a God for a minute ... Isn't it suspect that He hides from scientific enquiry? He wants to see His prophecies fulfilled to prove what? It would have been a greater display of power on His omnipotent part to reveal His plan through anthropic studies beforehand and still have it occur in all its divine inevitability. I fail to see a reasonable basis for what the pious prescribe. By the way, where is the scriptural evidence that God is opposed to proof via lab tests? Perhaps not everything about reality is reproducible in anthropically-run labs, but this doesn't mean that miracles or impossibilities occur. Chances are that our ken is limited about the natural world.

Pilgrim wrote:'True to me' assumes truth is subjective. Come on. You know better. I have some false beliefs. You do too. Truth we cannot view as relative, or we never find it.


There is subjective truth and there is objective truth (whether one likes it or not). The former is ontologically private and sometimes sourced from the realm of imagination and mental abstractionism. The latter is epistemically verifiable by more than one individual---thus being closer to truism. This is a logical positivist argument. You are losing sight with bad philosophy poorly undergirded by the delusional blindness that is faith.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 611
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Pilgrim » 30 May 2016 08:53

I took your comment about subjective truth as your attempt to be concilatory, when it is not necessary in my case. Most people like to hear that true is what is true to each, so that all feel a sense of harmony. The problem is that people feel no need to challenge ideas with such thinking. I find it a higher good that people feel comfortable to express opposing positions, and everyone understanding that it is not personal.

As far as deep philosphical meaning of subjective truth, I am not sure that I follow you. Of course, I see that it is true that people have imagination. That is not what I intended. I am referring to the truth of reality, which is something that we probably agree is objective (and which we can strive to know). I think this is getting more to semantic miscommunication, when we probably believe the same.

We did not even begin to discuss the messianic prophecies. Remember, it was to "cryptic" to even begin a debate. Fulfilled prophecies are but one reason to consider the Scriptures to be the Word of God. I do not think that faith needs to be based on what is opposed to reason. I find my faith coherent with reasonable consideration for truth.

Perhaps the precognition (that you mentioned as having had) was a lottery winner. It is data that you reckon with that is relevant to you. My experiences I interpret as most reasonable to me. I do not submit it as evidence for you.

You do realize that I acknowledge the problem of evil is difficult. Were it the only consideration in an empty box, the evidence would be supportive of your conclusions.

So, as to where is the Scriptural evidence that God will not be proved by science....I refer to the general lack of belief for God and prevalence of deception in prediction of the future (Matthew 24, 2 Thes. 2, Rev. 13, Daniel 7). If God were proved and all believed, the events would make no sense. Miracles of supernatural, too, will be astonishing and represent what is assumed not generally to be observed by the world.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4354
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Summerlander » 31 May 2016 12:55

Pilgrim wrote:I took your comment about subjective truth as your attempt to be concilatory, when it is not necessary in my case. Most people like to hear that true is what is true to each, so that all feel a sense of harmony. The problem is that people feel no need to challenge ideas with such thinking. I find it a higher good that people feel comfortable to express opposing positions, and everyone understanding that it is not personal.


I'm all for people expressing opposing positions and I admire those who go against vox populi. The 'higher good' of mavericks is well expressed---with several examples---in Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens. (If you ever get a chance to read that book you will come away somewhat enlightened.) But to be justifiably a contrarian you must have a solid argument that exposes the mistaken majority, otherwise you run the risk of being exposed as a juggins. Sure, always challenge ideas that don't resonate with you and get the opposition to expatiate by asking them questions if necessary (and be prepared to accept that you might be wrong yourself if you haven't thought your counterargument through), but don't just fight conventionalism for the sake of being different. I'd be a fool to oppose those who assert that water is H20 because such is well established and I'd have no basis whatsoever for a counterargument. The rapper Bobby Ray Simmons, for example, showed himself to be asinine for asseverating that the Earth is flat based on poorly understood 'evidence' on his part. I, on the other hand, feel comfortable opposing theism because I'm yet to find a convincing argument for it. :ugeek:

Pilgrim wrote:As far as deep philosphical meaning of subjective truth, I am not sure that I follow you. Of course, I see that it is true that people have imagination. That is not what I intended. I am referring to the truth of reality, which is something that we probably agree is objective (and which we can strive to know). I think this is getting more to semantic miscommunication, when we probably believe the same.


Ok. But I still have a bone to pick with your theistic assertions to the point where I actually find solipsism more defensible than the religious belief in blind faith. Solipsism, albeit ostensibly absurd on the surface, is a proffer which is reasonably and profoundly tolerated by epistemology. :|

Pilgrim wrote:We did not even begin to discuss the messianic prophecies. Remember, it was to "cryptic" to even begin a debate. Fulfilled prophecies are but one reason to consider the Scriptures to be the Word of God. I do not think that faith needs to be based on what is opposed to reason. I find my faith coherent with reasonable consideration for truth.


But notice the fallacy of waiting around for cryptic previsions to come true. To begin with, you are not sure what they are really referring to. Then something happens which seems to give more meaning to the purported revelation in your head---a mind which cannot help but make associations. You basically see what you want to see, hence the essence of confirmation bias. Just because your mind makes associations doesn't mean that the factors in question are related in reality. Many people believed Adolph Hitler was the 'Beast 666' in the Book of Revelation, but the passages can just about describe any tyrant. (Hitler himself would beg to differ if accused of being the Antichrist, as he claimed to be doing the 'Lord's work' in Mein Kampf.)

Pilgrim wrote:Perhaps the precognition (that you mentioned as having had) was a lottery winner. It is data that you reckon with that is relevant to you. My experiences I interpret as most reasonable to me. I do not submit it as evidence for you.


Fair enough. But precognition implies knowing beforehand (without the scientifically predictive basis, I should add, as the distinction is relevant to this argument). This isn't what happens in reality for there is no reason to suppose visions of any kind are premonitory whatsoever. What really occurs is the following:

1) Vision: people have visions, i.e. dreams, hallucinations, intuitive hunches.

2) Uncertainty: people are not sure if their visions will come to pass---so they wait and look for indicative patterns!

3) False positive: if the visions compellingly appear to come true---most likely by coincidence!---they are retrospectively labelled 'precognitive' or 'prophetic'.

But how could the visions be precognitive if at the time you didn't know if they would come true or, more precisely, resemble true events? They were never precognitive because you remained uncertain about the future throughout. If I bet on a jockey because I had a feeling about who the winner might be, and said jockey won, I would not regard such feeling as being in the least clairvoyant. :geek:

Pilgrim wrote:You do realize that I acknowledge the problem of evil is difficult. Were it the only consideration in an empty box, the evidence would be supportive of your conclusions.


The proverbial box is far from being empty and I still find that the problem of evil persists. How is the existence of evil reconcilable with a good and merciful god? And if a god exists but he is far from being moral in his tolerance of cruelty and injustice, if such entity is indifferent in its omnipotence, why adulate it? Such god is not worthy of any respect let alone veneration. :!: :?:

Pilgrim wrote:So, as to where is the Scriptural evidence that God will not be proved by science [my italics]....I refer to the general lack of belief for God and prevalence of deception in prediction of the future (Matthew 24, 2 Thes. 2, Rev. 13, Daniel 7). If God were proved and all believed, the events would make no sense. Miracles of supernatural, too, will be astonishing and represent what is assumed not generally to be observed by the world.


My question was: 'Where is the scriptural evidence that God is opposed to proof via lab tests?' But if you want to rephrase it like that, that's fine. But ask yourself what is more likely:

A) That a good and all-powerful god chose to hide from scientific enquiry (one cannot help but wonder why as this does not help to eradicate doubt in doubting Thomases) ...

Or ...

B) That the leaders of a brand of medieval cultism conveniently felt the need to mention the Creator will never be found even if we apply the most rigorous methods of enquiry in our search?

And if God is powerless to give His intended events proper meaning simultaneously with His would-be undoubted and scientifically verifiable presence, then He is not omnipotent. Then why call Him 'God'? :roll:

The Christian Tribulation---more of a reasonable anticipation of the inevitable persecution of religious groups rather than a prophecy, in my opinion---where persecution is prescribed as a means of purification, seems like a cruel experiment to me; just as abject as God testing Job in His biblical wager with Satan. It's shameful, immoral and senseless. Moreover, why would an omniscient being feel the need to test His creation, and subject it to great suffering, when He should have complete confidence in it. The suffering is unnecessary and cruel. It speaks volumes about God as a character for He seems to take pride in the fact that a human being still loves Him and fears Him despite the torture he's made to endure. Job is a lost character anyway; renouncing God would lead to eternal damnation so the little man opted for temporary affliction. Only one type of person, by the way, would bet and have fun in proving his superiority at the expense of somebody else's suffering: the psychopath!

Disclaimer: Labs are not mentioned in the Bible. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 611
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Pilgrim » 31 May 2016 23:53

Okay, my friend, it is time for me to retire from this thread. People can make up their own minds about messianic prophecies and whether they have any weight. Of course, lab is not in the Bible. My conclusion about scientific labs is reasonable to me from from either the passages that I cited, or from other considerations that I could cite.

You should also understand that at some point in one's development of presuppositions, the majority of energy might be more toward understanding what the Scriptures say (as opposed to philosophical arguments relevant before one believes the Bible to be relevant). The emphasis relevant to me is not higher criticism. Lower criticism (manuscript evidence, as most thoroughly studied by Bruce Metzger) and a biblical theology from plain language are my greater concerns.

Of course, it will be difficult for me not to reply to your further 'but what about' questions. But, I do not want further clutter that further detract from our main and more important points. (So, I really try to end!)

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image


Return to “Dream Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests