Messages

I have another question.  The other night I put my music on and had it going all night.  The music woke me up in the morning in mid dream, but then I went back to sleep and went right back into the dream, then I woke up and went back and repeated this process maybe 3-4 times.

Do you think that I should keep the music on so this happens and I will be able to remember my dreams better?  I was thinking it would be ok, but I didn't want to turn my music into a crutch that I had to lean on.

Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated.

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions of books I should buy.  I already own astral dynamics and am a beginner at that, but I have money to spend and I don't want to waste it on games.

This summer I will have a lot of time to develop my energy and I really want to make some strides.  I want to try and make the exercises in Astral Dynamics part of my daily life.

I am a beginner, I can feel energy the most in my forearms when I meditate.  I can't really do pinpoint awareness like it is mentioned in the book.

My question is, does anyone have any suggestions for energy development that could be done daily that could really make a difference?  My goal is to have a not to easy not to strong schedule that has variety.

I will have a lot of freetime this summer and I would like to use it well, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

What piece/composer are you talking about Kazbadan?

I Just finished the book.  I enjoyed it very much.  I liked his instructions on how to have an oobe, good structure.

This is probably slightly out of place, being in this forum, but since you just started Holosync, I would like to share my experience with it.

I have been using Holosync for meditation for the past 7 months and I think it is great.  I am definately going to get the next level, (the only reason I haven't so far is because I don't have the money.)  

I think it has definately been worth the money.  

I must agree with you about mind chatter in The Dive.  

As far as Endorphins being released, I think it has done a great job.  Here is my example.

Whenever you aren't doing something, just in a neutral mode, how do you feel?  Are you down, or happy, or just in between?  I know that before I started using HS I was in between, but now, for no apparent reason, I just smile and feel good, not very strong feeling of good, but comfortable and pleasant.  I am not even trying to smile, it is just natural.  

Also, things that used to bother me before just pass through me, becoming the watcher is hardly even necessary, things don't phase me like they did before.

It is amazing to think how it has done this much for me and I still have 11 more levels to go, (About 10 more years to complete the whole thing!)

Iceman, I think you will find that if you do Holosync everyday, if you were to not do it a couple of days, and then you do it the next day, you will get some euphoria.  The next day though it will be back to normal.

When I said "I wouldn't do that." I mean I wouldn't bs you.

"You can never completely "clear your head." We are what we think, without thought we are nothing.

We aren't what we think.  I have had horrible thoughts in the past, that doesn't define me as a person.  I have had depressing thoughts for example, but that isn't me deep down.  

"Don't be fooled into thinking that meditation is getting rid of your thoughts and sitting in utter stillness in your mind."

It is interesting how you stated this "getting rid."  It has a negative connotation.  

There are different kinds of meditation.  The Dalai Lama describes 2 kinds.  There is one kind that is called single pointed.  There is another where one just lets the thoughts flow past oneself like a river w/o attaching to them.  I can't remember the name he used for it.

Another form of meditation could be zen meditation.  Being completely present in the here and now.

"There is always thought."  

I disagree.  From my personal experience I know, (using the word know here *emphasis*) that there isn't always thought.

One example of me being without thought is when I did intense questioning to my "self" whenever I had a thought.  "Who is that which feels/thinks this?"  After half an hour all thought stopped.  I was literally looking around my room waiting for a thought to occur, but there was nothing... emptiness.  I felt lighter too.  This effortless emptiness/total presence/silence/stillness went on for about 2 hours.  

When Buddhists speak of meditating on emptiness this is one of the levels they are speaking of.  Monks spend years on this subject alone, it is the most difficult part of buddhism to truly grasp.  I read this in one of the Dalai Lama's books.  His reputation may make more of an impression on you than I could.


One could have no mind by feeling the life within oneself.  The energy within.  This is what I do.

One could also achieve no mind by listening to the noise which I have described.  

To achieve no mind one could also try and figure out the source of thought.  I don't mean the simple answer "the brain."  I mean while a thought is happening try and find/feel it's point of origin.  For example, trying to find the origin of a thought before it is reflected into the mind chatter called "thought."  

These three methods are the best I know of, and I try to do them simultaneously throughout the day, it helps a lot.

I wouldn't do that.  Hindus call this inner noise the Om.  It is actually the sound the nervous system makes.  A composer with the last name Cane (K or C sorry I can't remember) was a guest professor at harvard and he had the engineering students there create for him space with absolutely no noise inside of it.  When he was in there he heard his own heartbeat and a noise in his head that the nervous system makes.

In my experience the louder the noise is the deeper the state, i.e. the deeper the brainwave (Beta Alpha Theta Delta)  From my own personal experience I suspect that the high noise is alpha.  There is a noise behind that noise that is heavy/flat.  That heavy/flat noise is theta I believe.  Theta is the brainwave pattern that one is in when he/she dreams.  It is also the state that one is in before Astral Projecting.  

If you were in a quiet room and just woke up and listened on the inside then you would hear these noises of described.

Don't confuse this with the noise one gets from electronic devices.  Tinnitus is where one has a ringing in the ears, here is a link for tinnitus information: http://content.health.msn.com/hw/ear_disorders/hw88326.asp

Tinnitus is in the ear, the noise I am talking about is in the brain.  

When meditating one may be deeper than they think.  They may be in theta but think they are not because their state isn't a dreamstate.  But they may really be in this deep state.  This is because even though the brain is predominantly in a theta state, alpha can also come in there.  I believe this is why people are able to remain "conscious" during a dream, or during an oobe.


While meditating your mind will probably become cluttered with other thoughts.  When this happens just watch them, be like a witness.  Don't judge them, just watch, as if you were watching a movie.  If you get a strong emotion just accept it, say "I am having this emotion" and watch it.  Resistance is what causes you pain.

Hope this helped.  

Best Wishes,

Michael

Go in a room that is absolutely quiet and still/silence your mind.  Try to listen for a noise in the middle of your head, it may be a high pitched noise or a heavy/flat noise.  When you hear it, listen to it.  Do this for 15-30 minutes.

Here are some of the best movies I have ever seen in the various categories.

Shawshank Redemption
Grave of the Fireflies
Pirates of the Caribbean
LOTR
Star Wars
Matrix
What About Bob?
Tombstone
Finding Nemo
Serendipity
Winged Migration
Cruel Intentions

If you haven't seen Grave of he Fireflies then I would highly recommend it.  Ebert loves this movie too, he has it on his top 100 great movies if that means anything, i.e., it is up there with Citizen Kane and The Godfather.

LogoRat, did you read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle?

If you haven't you should.

It is a shame that so many people have sex before they are married.  I myself am waiting.  

I think it is the parents fault for their kids having sex before they are ready.  Either they didn't tell them, or they didn't tell them the right way.  I wasn't told by my parents.  Or atleast if I was I can't remember it now.  If the parents really got through to their kids, the media wouldn't make enough of an impression on them to think that they have to have sex.

4-5 years ago I think I was in the state of mind where if I could have sex, I would.  I am thankful now that I didn't.   I can't really act like a saint or anything, the reason I didn't have sex was probably because I never had the chance.  If I had the choice to do it or not do it back then I honestly don't know what I would choose.  But it is a moot point now.  

Now I am content with not having sex, it is not important to me in the sense that society has.  It isn't about being cool, or being on some conquest, or whatever else other guys are tripping on.  It is about wanting to have the first time be special.

jc84corvette:
"Hey I have a easy question. Who got the credit for publicly saying this theory?"

I already said it was St Thomas Aquinas.

As I may have said before, I did used to smoke constantly.  I am not morally against it.  It just doesn't make sense to me to do it.  I see it as something that detracts from spiritual advancement.  That is all, nothing more or less.

"Many kinds of things can "act like atoms" but only 1 kind of thing can be an "atom"."
True, but, since the properties of an atom that we know thusfar are how we define and catagorize an atom, what is wrong with calling the thing that fulfills all of these definitions and catagorizations an atom?  


"When new measuring tools (like microscope or particle collider) are invented, old tools that were thought to give accurate results are understood to not be accurate or only give an interpreatation. My senses are measuring tools. I dont need to wait until new senses are available to know the current senses are not accurate."
I highly doubt that in our lifetime we will be given new senses that will improve how we perceive our world, so wouldn't it make sense to do with tbe best that we have now?  If the only way to perceive things that are firsthand is with our senses, be it our normal 5 or the other ones that we use with our metaphysical work, wouldn't it make sense to trust them?  It is all we have to go by, so we may as well trust them.  Even you said that you don't trust outside sources.  The thing that you can trust the most is your senses, so you may as well trust them, since they are all you have got.  

Firstly, it seems you contradict yourself.
"Nothing can be 100% proven except purely theoretical things = math or logic."

"Proof (the 100% kind) is irrelevant because it doesnt exist, so i cant require it."

Secondly
"The Proof that "can help" is not proof but is similar to proof (99% proof). That kind of proof can make me think something is more likely."

Doesn't make sense after you say that

"The Proof that "can help" is not proof but is similar to proof (99% proof). That kind of proof can make me think something is more likely."

because:you are saying that you cannot truly prove anything.  I believe you can prove things, as I mentioned before, love for example.

I don't believe that this:
"Can a mouse know how a bird flies by thinking in terms of its hole in the wall? Start with the mousehole. Its the best place."
is a good analogy.

First, there is no motive behind a mouse wanting to know how a bird flies, given the mouse actually has the intelligence to want to know something like that.  The only things a mouse would probably want to know is how to get food, where to sleep and where to get a partner.

"Its ok to be wrong or guess, but you shouldnt say that you're right."
I don't recall ever saying I was right.  The statements I have made are what I believe to be right, but I know that I am not infallible.

"Humans already started thousands of years ago."
According to your logic, it wouldn't matter if humans started last year or a thousand years ago.
"I know pictures of things that dont exist can be created with photoshop. People can lie to your face or in a book. Without using any people, books, or pictures, (because I dont trust them)"

"If that was the best place to start is not relevant."
I don't know why you would say that the best place to start is not relevent.  In any sort of investigation, the starting point is very important.  If you wan't to know about the nature of the crime, you would probably go to the crime scene.  If you wanted to know what a persons traits were you would probably look into records of some kind.
Without the starting point a search for an answer is nearly impossible.  For example, how much luck would you have of finding a video game in a victoria secret store?  Close to 0 probably.

"Where should we finish/continue?"
Well of course we should always keep in mind the finish line, our overall goal.  But to reach our finish line we must start from somewhere.  Where we continue depends on where we start.  When it comes to finding the origin of our existence not only is it a good idea to start in the linear world, but it is necessary.  Our existence is primarily based in the physical world.  This is where the most of our attention is focused.  This is what was shown to us first.  Why are we shown this first?  Why weren't we born as entities in the non-linear world?  

By the way, if someone could, would you explain to me why or why not the astral world is linear or non-linear?

"Probably something that behaves like atoms exists, but many things could exist that act like atoms but are not atoms, like a simulation of an atom in "the matrix"."

The word atom is just the name we chose to call these things.  Just like a spanish would say frio and an english person would say cold.  Why not make things easy for yourself and call these things that "act like atoms" atoms.

It seems as if you don't trust your own senses.  You taste/smell/feel/hear/see things but it seems as if you choose not to trust any.  That seems a bit absurd to me.  If one can't trust the tools they use to perceive the real world, then what can they use?  As you said, you don't trust outside sources, and now it seems you don't trust your own senses.  It doesn't make much sense to me.

These are statements that I quoted from you in your previous posts.

"I dont require math, logic, or proof to think something exists, but it helps. I think you misunderstand what I first said about math and logic: Nothing can be 100% proven except purely theoretical things = math or logic."

And

"It has been proven that nothing but math and logic can be proven, therefore, proof is irrelevant. It can only be shown that one thing is more likely than an other."

It seems as if you are on both sides of the fence, pick one.  First you say that proof is irrelevent, but then you say you don't require proof but it helps.  I give you proofs and you say that they are irrelevent.  You tell me my proofs are "blind" and "easy to refute", then you come back to me and say that proofs can help.

"I dont have a problem with "what if...". I do have a problem with blind assumptions."
What blind assumptions are you speaking of?  What I have said thusfar makes logical sense.  If you don't believe me, read the quotes again and actually think about it.

"No I dont think it makes more sense to have a creator. There are assumptions for that to make sense that I dont assume: Time exists everywhere. AND There was some time that nothing existed. AND Things must have a reason to exist."
Firstly, why don't you think it makes sense for there to be a creator?  There is a beginning to everything, right?  You read the analogy I quoted about the train having to have an engine pulling it right?  It makes sense.  

Please answer me why you don't think that time exists everywhere, and that there was a time that nothing existed, and that things must have a reason to exist.

"Better to be unexplained than explained incorrectly."
I disagree, atleast if we explain things we have a chance to learn from our mistakes.  Take Edison for example.  Better yet, let me quote him.
"Results? Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is just one more step forward....  There are no rules here, we're just trying to accomplish something. Surprises and reverses can serve as an incentive for great accomplishment."
When we are given explanations, they can either make sense or they don't make sense, they are either correct, or incorrect.  These explanations are worth having because it gives us a chance to think about something we may have never thought before.  We have a chance to make the wrong explanations right, or the right ones better.  

"Time is a specific shape of a network of connected energies, but other energies of the same type can be organized nonlinearly into something that does not resemble time. In this network, cause/effect does not have to exist. Your examples do not contradict this. They only apply in our locally linear part of this nonlinear network."
I don't fully understand this statement, if you could break it down for me, I would appreciate it.  

"linear part is not a good place to look for information about the nonlinear (biggest) part (where it came from, etc)."
Well given that we human beings live in a linear world, wouldn't it be a good place to start?

"Earth is probably round, but it is possible earth is flat. Have YOU seen its roundness with your own eyes?"
Yes, I see the roundness all the time, but since the curveture of the earth is so miniscule to my field of vision I wouldn't actually see the curve.  Take an iceberg for example.  It moves all the time, but you can't see it move because it moves so slow.

Also, you want proof that the earth is round?  Start from where you live and walk/swim/whatever in a straight line, after a certain amount of time I guarantee you that you will end up in the same spot.


"Here's something you cant prove:
Prove that time goes forward instead of backwards, because it could be this way:

All the laws of physics are the reverse of what we think.
The future is set and our experience, actions, thoughts, and anything else that appers to react in a forward time direction, are dependent variables on the future that already exists. The past is the independent variable. The timeline is built future to past. Because everything is reversed, there is no perceptual difference between this way and forward time.
Prove its not true."
You can't prove that it is true, that statement is just conjecture at this point.

You just did remind me of something though that really intrigued me.  I was thinking of the akashic records, and about other places where you get glimpses in the future from.  I was thinking, how can I be shown the future?  What if it has already happened and I am yet to play out the part which has already been set?  

Of course when you see the future, it is subjective, especially when you have doubts, and/or preconceptions, and even high hopes.  But still, if the akashic records is a record, as the name implies, when I get  a prophetic message from it that really happens, could it be possible that it has already happened as I am getting the message of the future?

It is very interesting, and kind of scary at the same time.  It makes me feel like Neo in The Matrix when he talks about how he doesn't like the idea of living a life where he isn't in control of his destiny.

I know it wasn't my fire alarm, because it is in the room.  Also, I have heard it go off from when I am cooking.

This was way louder, when it first started going off I thought I was going to go deaf.

I don't live by any high voltage power lines.  I live in a residential zone, there is a supermarket that is about a mile away from me though, across from that supermarket is another supermarket and a group of restaraunts.

Arcane:The noise was coming from the speakers, and the telephones are fine.  This has never happened before.

kakkarot:Nope, if it happens again I sure will, I don't know why it happened, but everything is working fine now.

No batteries, because whenever I unplug the speakers to plug in my headphones they always are off.  (The lights which show the volume level on my speakers were off) but the noise was still coming out of them.

"Physics uses math but contains nonmath elements, therefore you can never prove anything in physics with 100% certainty. You probably think atoms have been proven to exist, but they havent. If you cant prove that the smallest particles are not numbers in a giant computer containing the visible universe, then you cant prove 100% that atoms exist."

We can't see atoms.  But how do you explain an atomic bomb?  From your reasoning it seems you don't think atoms exist... come on.  How do you explain scientists knowing that water is made up of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms?  How do you explain any of the sciences?  I feel that you are just being stubborn and don't want to admit that you may be wrong.  All the scientific work that has been done until present day points to the fact that atoms exist.  Why are you trying to argue that atoms don't exist?  It is an uphill battle.  While you are at it, why don't you tell people who they can't prove love.  Tell people how they can't prove sadness.  Tell people they can't prove any other emotion that everyone on earth experiences because there is no math and logic explanation, the lifeblood of you're reasoning.

"What if it was designed by a can of tomato soup? What if... what if..."
From your posts it seems that you are saying we should just give up on trying to find out the origin of our creation..  What is wrong with the question "What if?"  Doesn't it make more logical sense that someone created the universe then all by chance?  Do you think that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing?  If you see a rabbit hop around you do you think that it just popped into existence, or do you think that it came from it's hole?  Take this into account.  

Also, for this comment you made:
"In my example, the total mass and energy of our solar system 500 years ago is the designer, and the total now is the design.", Read the following quote.


Cause and Effect
"There must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.  Now, the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence.  Each of these things must therefore have a cause.  I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriage of my ancestors.  The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes.

But does the universe as a whole have a cause?  Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes?  If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain.  If so, then there is an eternal necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it.  It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first cause and uncaused cause.  Such a being would have to be God, of course.  If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause?  Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.  If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained.  Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation.  I'm just an instrument.  Something else caused me."  If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck.  

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a agreat chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing.  If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine.  Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera.  But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train.  That would be impossible, of course.  But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Here is one more analogy.  SUppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained.  You want that book very much.  You ask me whether I have it.  I say no, I have to get it from my wife.  Does she have it?  No, she has to get it from a neighbor.  Does he have it?  No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it... et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.  No one actually has the book.  In that case, you will never get it.  However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it.  Well, existence is like that book.  Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect.  If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it.  But we did get it.  We exist.  We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels.  Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way.  Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself.  If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself.  It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides.  If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence.  Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it.  Beings whose essence does not contain the reason fro their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings.  A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being.  The universe contains only contingent beings.  God would be the only necessary being-if God existed.  Does he?  Does a necessary being exist?  Here is the proof that it does.  Dependent beings cannot cause themselves.  They are dependent on their causes.  If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist.  But they do exist.  Therefore there is an independent being." - Peter Kreeft

"I was making a blanket statement. It is never true that I must believe something because everyone else believes it."
I agree, but does that mean that the belief is not worth your time?  It seems you are implying that it is not.  

"Suppose I've never been in space or been to the edge of this flat earth. I know pictures of things that dont exist can be created with photoshop. People can lie to your face or in a book. Without using any people, books, or pictures, (because I dont trust them) prove to me that earth is round."
I agree that you shouldn't trust anything off the bat.  But I can hardly believe that you are asking me to prove that the earth is round.  You are fighting an uphill battle.  Please, admit this to me, you do believe that the earth is round right?  because if you can't admit that I may as well stop replying to this topic right now.  If you want proof for yourself, become an astronaut and go into space.  

"Then you agree that things other than math and logic cant be proven."
No.  I agree everything can't be proven WITH math and logic.  Math AND Logic.  I don't think that everything can be proven with math.   I am thinking to myself right now of something I can't prove with logic.  I am talking good logic here by the way.  I can't think of anything right now.  Why don't you use your logic and admit that things without math can be proven.  Admit to yourself (you know it's true) that love exists.  You are fighting an uphill battle, because you know that love exists, and you know that you can't prove it with math.  You also know that you can't prove love doesn't exist with logic, unless it is bad logic.

From the statements you made, I couldn't prove that you weren't a meat popsicle.  I mean, my eyes, when I see oranges, you could see banana right?  Do you see how absurd this is?

I agree with you, excess guilt is a big problem indeed.

"It has been proven that nothing but math and logic can be proven, therefore, proof is irrelevant. It can only be shown that one thing is more likely than an other."

Math and logic is great, it gives us clear answers, but that doesn't mean that it is the ultimate.  Consider physics.  Pretty important field of science right?  Math and logic go with it too, eh?  But did you know that the laws of physics had to be changed so it would be possible for a bee to fly?    

Also, just because we don't have the instruments to prove something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that proof is irrelevent.  We have only an idea of what atoms look like, but we can't actually see them.  Does that mean that they don't exist.  And if you come back to me and say that we can see atoms now, remember when the atom was first thought of?  The person who came up with the idea of the atom, I guarantee you, couldn't see it.  

If we all thought that way then we would probably not be anywhere as technologically evolved as we are today.

"There is no prescribed route to follow to arrive at a new idea. You have to make the intuitive leap. But the difference is that once you've made that intuitive leap you have to justify it by filling in the intermediate steps." - Steven Hawking

"I dont see how those 4/5 questions lead to this."
Explain, because I don't understand your reasoning.

"It is possible for the design to be more complex than the designer. Then the chain of designers could start at (almost) nothing and end here. Example: 500 years ago is a designer. The present is the design. It is more complex."
This is pretty vague.  I think I understand you, but I am not totally sure.  Your example is weird.  Do you mean that the state of technology 500 years ago was the designer?  Were people 500 years ago the designer?  Well what if there is just one designer (god) and the big bang started the design that is still evolving to this day.  It is pretty impressive isn't it?

Kreeft's quote:"Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer?  Because everyone admits this principle in practice."
How you quoted him:"Why must we believe... Because everyone admits this principle in practice."

I think that in the manner that you quoted him you took him out of context to twist what he was really trying to say.  When you quoted him, how you quoted him, it seemed to me as if you were making a blanket statement which would apply to everything else he said.  Although I think Kreeft could have written this part better, ask yourself the same question.  If you saw a hut with no people in sight, wouldn't you think that someone designed it?  With your own logic you know that this is true.  You also know that everyone else will admit this too.  No one is going to say that that hut was built by chance (unless they are stubborn/not really trying to understand anything, but only trying to win an argument that is impossible if they wanted to use sound reasoning).  

"Hundreds of years ago, everyone believed earth was flat, therefore we must believe it if we lived then and it is correct."
People believed that because they didn't have the technology to prove that the earth wasn't flat.  Also, people believed that because if you didn't you would be killed.  It has happened before.

Also, can you prove to me that love exists?  Is there a mathmatical equation that proves love?  Can you logically prove that you actually love someone?  All you can do is show me proof that you say is "irrelevent."  You can show me a picture of hugging your father or mother, or significant other, but that proves nothing right?  Maybe you hate them but someone made you look happy.  Maybe you don't love your significant other, but you are just attracted to them for their body.  Do you get the point that I am trying to make?  Math and logic only take you so far.  If everything could be proven then wouldn't our lives be pretty boring?  Nothing to explore, nothing to ponder, just a list of facts that you read out of a book.  Isn't that a big portion of the fun factor that astral projection is?  That you will see something new, something no one has ever seen before?  Something that is your own and only you have.  Really, you must admit that a life with something besides just math and logic makes life worth living.

"I've seen the rest of that argument too many times. Its just too easy to refute and I'm bored with it."
Which part of the argument?  How is it easy to refute?  If by refute you mean giving substandard counterstatements, then I suppose it is easy to refute.  My motive here isn't to make myself seem like the one who is right, my motive is to bring some good points to the table.  Actually put some thought into what I have written down and ask yourself if it makes any sense.  Check yourself, is your motive here to learn?  Or is your motive to be the one who is right?  To me it seems like you are fighting an uphill battle.

I honestly have put a lot of thought into what you said, as you can tell from my lengthy responses, I hope you show me the same courtesy.

"The real reason I dont trust "god" is because I've never met him and dont know if he exists."

I don't know if you mean god, as in the one Christians believe in or not, but let me just say this, better yet, let me quote Peter Kreeft.

"Can you prove that God exists?  Before we answer this question we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.  First there is the question of whether something exists or not.  A thing can exist whether we know it or not.  

Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)

Third, there is teh question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge.  We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons.  Many Christians think God's existence is like that.

Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists amounts to a proof.  Most reasons do not.  Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs.  FOr instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.

Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by scientific method?  Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.

I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth.  God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument.  First, there is a major premise, or general principle.  Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle.  Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.

In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different.  The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God.  In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascals Wager.  THis essay explores the argument from design.

The argument starts with the major premise that where there is design, there must be a designer.  The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe.  The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer.

Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer?   Because everyone admits this principle in practice.  For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found "S.O.S." written in the sand on the beach.  You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message.  If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance.  You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer?  There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that "S.O.S." could be written in the sand by the wind.  But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation?  Someone once said that i fyou sat a million monkeys at a milion typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance.  But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whehter it came from chance and monkeys.  Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?  Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist.  At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.  We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it.  It's called God.

There is one especially strong version of the argument from design that hits close to home because it's about the design of the very thing we use to think about design: our brains.  The human brain is the most complex piece of design in teh known universe.  In many ways it is like a computer.  Now just suppose there were a computer that was programmed only by chance.  For instance, suppose you were in a plan and the public-address system announced that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by a computer that had been programmed by a random fall of hailstones on its keyboard or by a baseball player in spiked shoes dancing on computer cards.  How much confidence would you have in that plane?  But if our brain computer has no cosmic intelligence behind the heredity and environment that programs it, why should we trust it when it tells us about anything, even about the brain?

ANother specially strong aspect of the design argument is the socalled anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been speciall;y designed from the beginning for human life to evolve.  If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the Big Bang some fifteen to twenty billion years ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed.  The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions; only one of them could support human life: this one.  Sounds suspiciously like a plot.  If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved.  The chance of this molecule's evolving is osmething like one in a trillion trillion.  Add together each of te chances and you have something far more unbelievable than a million monkeys writing Hamlet.

There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians.  The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But doesn't evolution explain everything without a divine Designer?  Just the opposite; evolution is abeautiful example of design, a great clue to God.  There is a very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex.  But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle.  But this is sheer theory.  There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive.  How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design?  Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.  If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause.  But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence.  Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

How much does this argument prove?  Not all that the Christian means by God, of course - no argument can do that.  But it proved a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe and the human mind.  If that's not God, what is it?  Steven Spielberg?" [End Quote]



I would also like to point out that we cannot scientifically prove the astral realms, but we believe in them.  

I just thought it would be worth it to point out to those that don't know that the Big Bang theory was thought of and put down on paper by Saint Thomas Aquinas, a christian.