mjm,

I see this as somewhat of an ambiguous statement.

In what way?

But I simply cant except that tiny minute infinitesimal organism like us can worry an Infinite Being to the degree that it would punish infinitely for a finite transgression against ourselves...

But we're not talking about finite transgression, nor are we talking about transgression against ourselves. We're talking about transgression against an infinite being (an infinitely Holy being, actually). What you're trying to do here is quantify transgression in such a manner as to lessen it's offensiveness: 1) by calling it finite, and 2) through redirection (note that the offended party has changed above from that of an infinite being to that of ourselves).

Come on Alan.... what's up? 

...having a projection experience is worth the time and the effort, I cannot stress that enough.

It's certainly fun and interesting, that's for sure 

You aren't possible. You shouldn't exist. Think of that. We exist, we are alive, we breath, we can experience life!!! That should be impossible! How lucky am I to be alive? To experience? To be here now?

Why do I exist? It is not possible.

Of course it's possible. If it were otherwise, you wouldn't exist. Where did you get the idea that your existence is impossible?

...If one thinks deeply about the view most fundamental Christian believe about hell. It is completely horrific and unspeakable cruel. Think about a person because of a "finite transgression", being tormented by an "infinite being" in an "infinite way"...

I think your premise is faulty. Consider the following points by Jonathan Edwards, and see if you can figure out why:

1) "A crime [transgression] is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary... because it is herein that the criminalness or faultiness of any thing consists, that it is contrary to what we are obliged or bound to, or what ought to be in us."

2) "The fault of disobeying another, is greater or less, as any one is under greater or less obligations to obey him. And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary towards him must be infinitely faulty."

From these points Edwards draws the following conclusion:

"...sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous... Nothing is more agreeable to the common sense of mankind, than the sins committed against any one, must be proportionably heinous to the dignity of the being offended and abused."

Quotes taken from the essay, "The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners", by Jonathan Edwards

-Michael

If you notice, Alan used the word "try" about 3 or 4 times in the original posting. "Try" obviously sounds like "tri", which means 3. It's repeated usage could have suggested a 3 sided object to ones subconcious.

I don't know why this happens, but wanted to add that I've had the same experience on a few occasions. I was able to stop spinning around the room by reaching out for something to slow my momentum... I used my bedroom wall on one occasion, and my window blinds on another. I've only experienced this in the RTZ, in close proximity to my physical body.

...You are right then we descend into the impossible scenario of infinite regression. My wife always brings up this "Who made God?" Here we must abandon human logic and just accept God and Existence are synonymous

I think I get your point here, but I wouldn't say one has to "abandon" human logic in order to reach the conclusion that God exists. I would argue in response that logic actually leads us towards that conclusion (or ought to, IMO). I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you said that God and Existence are synonymous though. I hope you didn't mean to suggest that whatever has existence is God... I don't think that's what you meant, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say the following:

God is responsible for our existence and I bless him for this "FACT"

Anyways, good chatting with ya... see ya around.

-Michael

...Why is there something instead of nothing?...

This sounds like the begining of an apologetic for the existence of God to me...

The interesting conclusion of this ultimate puzzle is that, we can be sure of, it that at least something exists.

Norman Geisler used this as his starting premise for his version of the cosmological argument. More specifically, he used the undeniability of his own existence as his starting point.

...Many physicists search for the most elementary laws of physics, and believe that a law is more likely to be true, when it is simpler, more elementary.

Occam's Razor?

Some think that at some moment, humans will understand how the Universe and everything works, and, even more, that we find out why the Universe is necessarily as it is.

Ah... Theory of Everything! 

...I believe humans cannot ever give a satisfactory or final answer to this ultimate of all questions. Why is there something instead of nothing?

I think I have a good answer to this question, and I personally find it satisfying. I'll get back to this in a moment...

 

...Nevertheless, one thing we can be sure of: this nothing is not correct: we do not have “nothing”, but definite and absolutely do indeed have ‘SOMETHING’. This shows that the simplest model is not always the correct one.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you on this point. I certainly agree that something definitely, absolutely, undeniably exists, but the fact that one can conceive of a simpler model here (non-existence) doesn't prove the principle wrong, IMO. In fact, haven't you already established that we can't truly conceive of nothing anyways? How could we say that non-existence or nothingness is a simpler model if we can't even truly conceive of the model in the first place?

The universe is almost infinitely complex and to me this points to the simple logic that it is the creation by an infinite, intelligent power. Nothing is the very most basic of all concepts and if there were nothing, there would be no creator, of course.

Now we're getting somewhere...

Some people may argue that the universe was created in the Big Bang ( but whom and what pressed the button of the big bang in the first place, so to speak?) , and that positive matter and positive energy are actually negated by the simultaneous creation of negative matter and negative energy. However, this doesn't answer the other question, where do matter, energy and laws of physics then come from in the first place?

As far as I understand it, these things break down at the singularity anyways, don't they?

 

...If something exists because it either was a modification of something or else, Something or Somebody else created it, then what caused that to exist?

Ah... now you're alluding to an infinite regression of finite causes. There's a subject that'll make your head spin if you think about it too long! An infinite chain of finite causes can be likened to a chain or series of dependencies, each dependent upon something else for its being or existence. But even an infinitely long string of dependencies can't exist independently; it would have to have been derived from something that isn't part of the chain. That something would have to be independent and underived; that is, it would have to be self-existent.   

It seems that our logic is unable to deal with the question

I think the question is simply misguided. The question falsely presumes that nothing could have potentially existed instead of something. The underlying premise is therefore faulty.

That's my take on it anyways 

-Michael

It's all astral projection- 'phasing' and 'traditional' are just ways to get out.  Even though some phasers say you don't really get out, there is a feeling of 'stepping into' or 'being sucked into' the environment- another way of saying 'separation'.

Agreed. The method of exit is different, but the end result seems to be the same... at least in my somewhat limited experience. 

Not only does it appear to be fairly common, but it's probably a good sign you're making progress. I've experienced the same thing on two different occasions, and  both instances resulted in OBE'S only a few moments after the symptoms began. Stay calm, focused, and as detached as you can from the body sensations you experience... instead, focus your thoughts on moving away from your body, floating out of it, being sucked or pulled out of it... whatever works for you. You could also try the rope technique at this point if you like.

-Michael

Here's a suggestion that might help. Next time try and visualize an out of body experience from start to completion.... imagine that it's really happening to you. imagine leaving your body a short distance and try and perceive what you would see from that location... try and stay cognizant of your spacial relationship to your physical body (in your imagined scenario, that is). Imagine moving farther away... then try and percieve your location again... visualize your surroundings as best as you can. Treat the exercise as a daydream of sorts if you like.

With practice, the exercise could induce a full blown OBE... at some point your perceptions during the exercise might become more visual than simply imagined... you may suddenly begin to *see* what you had previously been trying to visualize or imagine (perhaps for brief moments at first). At some point you may suddenly realize you're not imagining the scenario any longer, but that you're actually wherever it is that you had imagined yourself to be. Sometimes the switch is very subtle, but when it happens, you'll know.   

Some people here seem to refer to this sort of experience as "phasing"... personally I think it's just another term for the same old experience though (astral projection, that is).

Anyways, try it a few times and see if you have any experiences with it.

-Michael

"circumventing logic" - not sure what this meant... probably made me think of a circle. Not sure where the triangle came from though, lol.

I never wrote down anything, but within 5 seconds had clearly percieved a triangle within a circle, and somehow knew this is what you would post.

Was this a trick? Hmmm... gonna have to go look back at your first post for any subliminals 

-Michael

It sounds like an astral experience to me, although I'm personally still trying to figure out for myself what "the astral" really is, exactly. A lot of people seem to talk about it as a "realm" of some sort (presumably located somewhere... like on a higher dimension or something). Others seem to view it as a construct of ones consciousness (or something similar). Regardless of the answers to these sort of questions, I have a feeling that most here would probably view your experience as an astral one.

i got bugs itching in my head, im going to shave my head with a headblade sport to help with it because itching takes me back to square one.

I haven't experienced the "bugs" in my head, but have felt them all over my skin, particularly on my face. Most noticably on my upper lip and just inside my nostrils. It's quite disturbing, actually. See the post below in Robert Bruce's forum... I posted it a few days ago. If anyone has any insight into this, or knows how to deal with it, let me know!!

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=12018

-Michael

Like Alan said, you're sooooo close! I've experienced the feeling that my bed was shaking as well (not violently however, just enough to notice)... I've always wondered if it was my imagination though. My heart chakra usually flutters rapidly right before an exit... may want to try focusing on that while imagining you're rising out?

Good luck...