Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Discuss paranormal activity linked with sleep and dreams, such as out of body experiences, astral projection and psychic dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4210
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby Summerlander » 04 Mar 2016 01:59

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:
"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

RobertForsythe
Posts: 87
Joined: 17 Feb 2016 20:02

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby RobertForsythe » 04 Mar 2016 06:06

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
How I Project Consciousness In 15 Minutes Or Less & How You Can Too
by Robert Forsythe

Enra Traz
Posts: 310
Joined: 28 Nov 2014 10:55

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby Enra Traz » 05 Mar 2016 20:04

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

RobertForsythe
Posts: 87
Joined: 17 Feb 2016 20:02

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby RobertForsythe » 06 Mar 2016 01:46

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.
Last edited by RobertForsythe on 06 Mar 2016 02:45, edited 1 time in total.
How I Project Consciousness In 15 Minutes Or Less & How You Can Too
by Robert Forsythe

ThePurple
Posts: 151
Joined: 02 Nov 2015 01:30

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby ThePurple » 06 Mar 2016 02:02

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. :-)

RobertForsythe
Posts: 87
Joined: 17 Feb 2016 20:02

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby RobertForsythe » 06 Mar 2016 02:52

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...
How I Project Consciousness In 15 Minutes Or Less & How You Can Too
by Robert Forsythe

ThePurple
Posts: 151
Joined: 02 Nov 2015 01:30

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby ThePurple » 06 Mar 2016 03:42

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.

RobertForsythe
Posts: 87
Joined: 17 Feb 2016 20:02

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby RobertForsythe » 06 Mar 2016 03:59

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.
Last edited by RobertForsythe on 06 Mar 2016 04:09, edited 1 time in total.
How I Project Consciousness In 15 Minutes Or Less & How You Can Too
by Robert Forsythe

ThePurple
Posts: 151
Joined: 02 Nov 2015 01:30

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby ThePurple » 06 Mar 2016 04:02

Exactly. You can't.

Shall I break the quote down for you?

RobertForsythe
Posts: 87
Joined: 17 Feb 2016 20:02

Re: Lucid dreaming convert to astral projection???

Postby RobertForsythe » 06 Mar 2016 04:11

Yes Purple, please do.
(as long as it answers the question)
How I Project Consciousness In 15 Minutes Or Less & How You Can Too
by Robert Forsythe


Return to “Paranormal Activity”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests