"human beings have evolved to perceive medium sized things moving at medium speeds over human like periods of time."
-bastardized quote of richard dawkins

i find this debate interesting, but i am not out to read every single one of these huge posts today. i also find it interesting that we have arrived at this place from a newbie post on AP.

i have to agree more strongly with MindGames in the overall sense of scientific skepticism trumping hopeful super natural open mindedness.

THE SUPERNATURAL: super-natural implies among other things various levels of GOD, Angels, Demons etc w personalities, it implies realms and processes WHICH SCIENCE CANNOT UNDERSTAND, IN WHICH SCIENTIFIC LAWS / PRINCIPLES DO NOT APPLY. One can do their best to say "that's not really what I meant, I'm not a Christian / Muslim etc, I just believe in the super-natural." That's great, it doesn't matter what name you give it, it's still claiming there are things that are above nature. If there are "other dimensions" (and I do believe in the emotional and mental dimensions as non-physical dimensions) and / or Angels and such, if 'God' does communicate with people, if the Universe is 'designed' (which I feel / think / believe it was NOT) then these things are of great interest to Science and are under the Magisteria of science, regardless of whether or not science has the correct theories or technology to explore them. This is a classic question, all of these are, and have been replayed, re-worded and re-explored numerous times throughout history. The above separation of 'natural' and 'supernatural' is called the "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA) model of science and religion.

To me, religion and "the supernatural" (for the most part) is historically, socially, politically, and economically motivated delusion.

CREATION / EVOLUTION: The anthropic principle is a very powerful trump card. No matter how unlikely it is that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter, it is much more unlikely that some super-being created us. If so, using logic, how unlikely is it that that being itself came to be? Furthermore, no matter how unlikely life on Earth may be, the fact that we are here discussing it means that we are alive and here discussing it, even if no where else in the universe it has happened (and I don't believe this for a minute.)

What's more, the creation of life only had to happen once. One very unlikely event could trigger the entire evolutionary process. These processes operate on time scales that are basically unimaginable to us, we try to use every day common sense where it does not apply. The more i learn about DNA, RNA, bacteria and simple organism reproduction and mutation the more I see that evolution is an extremely graceful and viable Scientific theory.

A THEORY IS NOT A HYPOTHESIS: "theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard."

OBES / AP: AP is a specialized form of lucid dreaming (particularly WILDING) stemming from body awareness. Often when I WILD I 'separate' from my body and end up in my bedroom. It feels like an OBE, it looks like an OBE, but I believe it is foolish to think that one can project their consciousness and thoughts into the physical world apart from their body. The brain is required for you to "think therefore I am." You do have a soul. It is comprised of your genetics, the memory of your experiences, your thoughts, and your emotions. These are a complex dance created by various systems in the body and intersecting at a single point called awareness. Once your brain is offline, you are gone, gone, gone, except as existing in the memories (mental dimensions / thought / emotional forms) of other beings or physical mementos such as photos.

ONE SHOULD NEVER TRUST THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE AS AN OBJECTIVELY RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. You are filled w/ assumptions, hallucinations, imaginings, and perceptions. Your perceptions and experiences of the world around you ARE NEVER AND CAN NEVER BE absolutely reliable. They are your brain's interpretation / filtering of the incoming (and internal) data. Observe and ponder but don't delude yourself if you claim to want the truth.

ENERGY: the macroscopic difference between molecules is significant enough to render understanding of mass as energy as a moot point IN EVERYDAY LIFE. sure that rock contains "energy" but you cannot eat it and hope to absorb that energy. sure there are "spiritual" underpinnings to all of life consisting of energy, but on the macro level the sun is not a chair and i cant drive a plank of wood to work everyday. you can have energy without life (say, fire) but you cannot have life without energy (say, a fluffy white kitten.)

I recommend reading as many books on OBE's / AP / LDing as possible as well as books on cosmology, evolution, design theories, and the histories of religions. No matter what your argument, someone has probably made it before much more elegantly than you, and someone else has responded much better than me.

good discussion!