with considerable interest. I believe it does an adequate job of debunking Dr. Wayne Dyer, but that is a rather soft target.
My chief disagreement is with the following:
Yet these folks don't like to set limitations to this principle, thus implying that it is all-powerful. ...
Now, if all thoughts materialized into reality instantaneously, then we would all be like "Q" in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where everything we willed into existence would materialize and everything we wanted to go away would dematerialize. I don't have to explain to you how preposterous that is of course. But if I'm overstating it, again the fault lies with the New Age gurus who refuse to clarify or define the exact magnitude and degree that thoughts can create reality.
I think there are at least three classes of persons who would argue that "thoughts create reality" with more nuanced limitations.
1. Bishop Berkeley and his Immaterialists would argue that thoughts do indeed create objective reality, but only God's thoughts have ultimate strength. The rest of us are intimately linked to God, but we are flawed personalities and God is not. Thus God's thoughts are indeed omnipotent and ours have very small powers. God is Reality; that which goes against the nature of God cannot exist in Reality.
2. Plotinus, and the Neo-Platonists, would, I believe, say that "thoughts create reality." However, they would specify that one would have to first learn "to see with the eyes of the mind," and perhaps gain "non-dualistic insight," before one truly understood one's own thoughts. Further, after gaining enlightenment, the nature of things is not necessarily as arbitrary as the whims of the exterior personality. Thus even though one's true thoughts do create reality, one does not necessarily have the power to create any sort of imaginable reality.
3. I believe various Hindus, Advaita Vedantists, etc. could be found to argue that "thoughts create reality." Some of these philosophers perform great feats of asceticism - one of them was found to have subsisted without food or water for several days with no significant metabolic impairment. Many paths of Hindu asceticism, of course, are subject to many limitations in practice, such as chastity and restricted diet. All Hinduism of which I am aware imposes limits on the theoretical side. For example, if I recall correctly, Atman is Brahman, thus individual Atman-thoughts can indeed create objective reality. However, the personal ego is not Atman! The meditator must divest himself of flaws and weaknesses to commune with Atman.
(If I am painting Hinduism with a very broad brush, I apologize -- but it's a big subject and this is a short forum post.)