Jump to content


Photo

Law of One


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#1 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 09:14 AM

Out of curiosity and possibly sparking up some discussion, I'm wondering if there is anyone here who has read part of or in their entirety the books of the Law of One? I'm nearly finished with the third book and have found them to be inspirational, intriguing, mind blowing, spiritually awakening, and thought provoking.

 

For a little reference, the Law of One book series is a collection of channeling sessions with a social mind complex of sixth density which refers to themselves as Ra. The books cover a very large and wide range of varying information, but the main purpose is to share the knowledge of the "Law of One".



#2 Mator

Mator

    Thane

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 12:08 PM

I had no idea what this was about, so I grabbed the first volume and started reading.  Now, obviously I haven't read all of the material, but my initial reaction to it is along the lines of: -.-

 

Unsurprisingly, I'd hope.  From a scientific perspective, the most immediate issue of the first few pages is thusfold:

 

1. The "researchers" are proceeding forward based on unproven assumptions, and the source or reliability of their "data" hasn't been thoroughly tested.  It's one thing to gather data using scientific instruments, where there is physical evidence promoting the validity of the data.  Gathering data using "tuned trance telepathy" is not gathering data at all.  A human test subject isn't a scientific instrument.  It's extremely complex and unreliable. 

 

EDIT:  Skimmed further ahead, the entire nature of their "process" is so utterly bonkers.  There is no explanation for ANY part of their process, notwithstanding the fact that it is totally "bats in the belfry" cuckoo.

2. The researchers going into this had a bias to discover something supernatural.  That's not how science is performed.  You cannot perform good science if you go into something with an expectation of a certain result.  The only way I could ever take a "scientific study of the supernatural" remotely seriously is if it was conducted by individuals with no preoccupation to find a supernatural result.  This group failed that test in the first 6 pages.

 

3. This entire "scientific work" is nothing better than any other "UFO sighting" or whatnot.  It's entirely comprised of subjective experiences - anecdotal evidence.  Unless the subject you're studying is psychology (how humans think), anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to come to any sort of conclusions.  No scientist or rational skeptic will consider this work (or similar works) seriously because there is no physical evidence.


Honestly, I feel somewhat embarrassed for you presenting your interest in these writings publicly.  While it's true that people are susceptible to things such as this, it's still concerning.


Sincerely,
- Mator

 

EDIT 2: Here's some debunking of the materials: http://www.skepticfo...pic.php?t=25205

 

EDIT 3: I also must admit that I came to this topic expecting it to be about the Rule of One.


Edited by Mator, 07 April 2017 - 12:41 PM.

  • 0

#3 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 03:54 PM

If you want scientific evidence to back up the material you need to look no further than "Wisdom Teaching" by David Wilcock on Gaia. He's a fairly large advocator for the Law of One material and gets fairly technical on that show with the science that backs up most of the material (a lot of it is over my head as I'm not that big of a science geek). Granted, you have to have an open enough mind to look past the conspiracy theory tone in all of the material surrounding this area of discussion, but all the data you're wanting is provided within the episodes of that show.

 

 

2. The researchers going into this had a bias to discover something supernatural.  That's not how science is performed.  You cannot perform good science if you go into something with an expectation of a certain result.  The only way I could ever take a "scientific study of the supernatural" remotely seriously is if it was conducted by individuals with no preoccupation to find a supernatural result.  This group failed that test in the first 6 pages.

Without even knowing it, you just made a contradictory statement: "You cannot perform good science if you go into something with an expectation of a certain result." So your statement of, "The only way I could ever take a "scientific study of the supernatural" remotely seriously is if it was conducted by individuals with no preoccupation to find a supernatural result." would result in little to no data being found because you now have the preconceived expectation that you will not find any supernatural evidence. :^_^: This is actually something talked about on Wisdom Teachings. The idea that an expectation of an certain result during experimentation will likely conclude in or close to the expected result simply because it's what you are expecting. Thusly, if you expect no result...you're likely end up with no result.
 
In my opinion, the "supernatural", whether it be ghosts or religious miracles or something else, can not be measured by our current science and must be experienced by the individual. History is littered with a plethora of documented experiences of ghosts, aliens, UFOs, religious miracles, etc. with no real "science" to back any of it up, but yet the sheer amount of documentation of individual experiences can not be simply ignored. The point I'm making here is not everything can be backed by science due to our limited knowledge of our universe.
 
Now allow me to head one thing off here that I see coming from the science minded, which is faith. "How can you believe something on faith and without proof?" (like the supernatural) Well let me ask the same question. Take for example Einstein's theory of special relativity (E = mc2) which has never been proven (hence the word "theory" attached to it), yet in the science community has taken it as factual and we have entire sciences which are built on this and other scientific theories. These theories are nothing more than thoughts based on observations of various data. Therefore, in a sense the supernatural is no different than scientific theory. Rather it being based on math and observations in a lab, the "theory" of the supernatural is based on the documented accounts throughout history combined with the same visual observations which most science would use in an analogous, visual lab experiment. I feel most science minded people dismiss the supernatural because there are not specified tools other than the individual which can measure and capture the data in the same sense as a scientific experiment would...which I assume is basically your view as well given your statements in your third point.
 
I would like to point out most science started as "anecdotal evidence" until we developed our technology enough to properly measure data and correct our theories. One of the best examples of this is that we used to believe we were the center of the universe and everything obits around us...until a little "tool" was invented that allowed us to obverse our heavens more closely.

 

 

Honestly, I feel somewhat embarrassed for you presenting your interest in these writings publicly.  While it's true that people are susceptible to things such as this, it's still concerning.

Embarrassed? Really?  :O_o: Why? Are you not open to philosophical thinking? Belief in a higher power?

 

I like intellectual debate with those that can do it. Most seems to just get offended or are too rigid to have a meaningful debate. I will admit that I do get amusement whenever the science minded individuals start discussing on such material simply because of how rigid most are in "show me the proof".  :^_^:

 

I will say that your statement here is suggesting that you are not likely open minded. "While it's true that people are susceptible to things such as this, it's still concerning." Who is to say who is right or wrong until it is proven or disproven? Does God or a higher power exist? Who knows! A higher power can't be proven or disproven with science and tools so are you going to tell 84% of the world population they are wrong in believing in such? Those that don't believe are in a great minority, but no one can proven who is right and who is wrong. I would also ask how is believing in the supernatural any different than believing in a higher power when there is nothing but anecdotal evidence of either? That last question is some food for thought.

 

 

EDIT 2: Here's some debunking of the materials: http://www.skepticfo...pic.php?t=25205

Pish posh. You can find anything debunking anything on the internet. Until it is proven or disproven it can only be a philosophical debate; therefore, tossing about this and that evidence in either way is only good for the debate of the information. Which brings me to the point of posting, "sparking up some discussion" in the OP. Ultimately, people will have to make up their own minds. As for me, I'm a free thinker with an open mind who tests new material according to my own experiences, knowledge, and research. I do not require something to be proven to me by hard facts as long as it rings true with my spirit. If I'm eventually proven right or wrong, so be it. I encourage all to do the same when it comes to such subjects.

 

See there...discussion! ::D:



#4 Aiyen

Aiyen

    Dragon King

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,536 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 04:16 PM

Ahhh step forum.. you never fail to be awesome! :) 

 

Well since I have a bit of time on my hand I might as well try to join this potential hornets nest! 

 

Tech: 

I immediately had this sentence pop out at me. 

"In my opinion, the "supernatural", whether it be ghosts or religious miracles or something else, can not be measured by our current science and must be experienced by the individual."

 

For the science hardcore people this pretty much hits the nail straight on the head. If NO instrument can detect what the individual experience... then skepticism is warranted. In just about every respect you can build measurement devices that go well above and beyond what humans are able to perceive, detect etc. 

In the case of ghosts.. when someone claims they have seen the ghost.. but the plethora of EM detectors do not see it in any part of the spectrum.. something is wrong. 

When someone claims to have seen a giant sea monster in a lake.. but no sonar can detect anything of that size... something is wrong. 

You get the point I hope. 

 

In my experience then in order for just about most of the supernatural accounts to be true... there have to be intelligence behind them that make sure they are never detected when a detailed investigation is performed.

 

The only cases that come to mind right now where this would make sense is UFO sightings. These would by definition have an intelligence behind them, that would most likely have an interest in covering up their mistakes. 

 

But overall when someone claims they experience something, and that something is either not detectable by any instrument, or it is a one time event only for one person... it is just common sense to be skeptical about the accounts. After all it is the most likely explanation that a person has been on drugs, or need attention, or what have you.



#5 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 05:03 PM

I immediately had this sentence pop out at me. 
"In my opinion, the "supernatural", whether it be ghosts or religious miracles or something else, can not be measured by our current science and must be experienced by the individual."

For the science hardcore people this pretty much hits the nail straight on the head. If NO instrument can detect what the individual experience... then skepticism is warranted. In just about every respect you can build measurement devices that go well above and beyond what humans are able to perceive, detect etc. 
In the case of ghosts.. when someone claims they have seen the ghost.. but the plethora of EM detectors do not see it in any part of the spectrum.. something is wrong. 
When someone claims to have seen a giant sea monster in a lake.. but no sonar can detect anything of that size... something is wrong. 
You get the point I hope.

That, I completely understand and was trying to say as much in my ramblings. I likely didn't get that point across. In my experience it's hard for most science minded people to have a philosophical-type debate because of this very reason. It's all about the proof for them and is hard for them to open their minds to other possibilities beyond their measurements and data. I'm not calling out anyone here to be this, but rather making a statement of my general experiences with science-types.
 

In my experience then in order for just about most of the supernatural accounts to be true... there have to be intelligence behind them that make sure they are never detected when a detailed investigation is performed.

The only cases that come to mind right now where this would make sense is UFO sightings. These would by definition have an intelligence behind them, that would most likely have an interest in covering up their mistakes.

You're hitting on some people's beliefs without even knowing it.

 

Ghosts, I believe are disembodied souls/spirits who have not moved to the next step due to being confused at their death. This mainly happens with unexpected deaths and instruments like EMF detectors can pick them up because they still have an energy to their presence. However, being a preserved consciousnesses, ghosts would be able to intelligently hide themselves and their energies if they have figured out how to do such. Therefore, depending on one's personal beliefs, your case of making sense of it could also be applied to all of the supernatural. It's just comes back to whether or not you believe the supernatural entity to be of intelligence or not and capable or not of hiding from detection.
 

But overall when someone claims they experience something, and that something is either not detectable by any instrument, or it is a one time event only for one person... it is just common sense to be skeptical about the accounts. After all it is the most likely explanation that a person has been on drugs, or need attention, or what have you.

I'm curious as to what you're thoughts would be of the documented evidence not just of the supernatural but of UFOs. With the Freedom of Information Act, it's been proven that even the U.S. (and other) governments of the world have been sitting on a treasure trove of information, witness accounts, photographic evidence, etc of UFOs (granted, in true government fashion, there is a lot of "blackout" lines on these documents). Furthermore, NASA has been quietly releasing information for a few years now such as that the likelihood of other life is that it's very likely, they've found water on Mars and throughout our solar system (like an ocean on one of Saturn's moons), there are an estimated 100 billion planets and estimated 1 billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy alone, etc. etc. For those skeptics out there that believe we're alone in the universe, I believe they're about to have a rude awakening when it's announced that we're not. NASA just keeps dripping more and more of this disclosure information. The information is out there for anyone willing to search for it.



#6 Aiyen

Aiyen

    Dragon King

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,536 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 05:50 PM

When you claim something is tangible, and true, but you cannot correlate it with other peoples observations and perceptions then I think it is very natural that you get skepticism.

After all there is a big difference between someone saying they believe in X and that they claim X is real.

 

Belief/faith is healthy, and in my optics it is just an alternative expression of fantasy. And having a good fantasy is vital to being a human being. I do agree that people tend to get too close minded.. In my opinion because something becomes dogma. This is bad in science, it is bad in religion... it is bad just about every single time. But it is understandable why it happens. You have most likely seen it at your own work... do you challenge the way you do things, or are you just happy that procedure A is the same today as it was yesterday. And how much of an uproar is there when someone change procedure A. 

 

 

As for the ghost part. I hope you can see that it is rather huge to claim that ghosts are intelligent etc. The ramifications of this would be huge... but basically I think it comes down to this... would this not imply that something is policing the ghosts? If ghosts retain sentience, and they can make contact.. what is preventing them from doing it at a whin? And why would it be a problem that "the living" know about it? If you have a person die and that person then gets "stuck" and is aware of it ... I would think that person would do anything possible to try to contact someone regardless of how it would affect "the living". 

I am all for extra dimensions, and alternative worlds etc. But it is a bit of a long shot. 

 

As for UFO´s... I believe there is life out there... or rather I would be immensely impressed if there was not. I mean who in their right mind would bet money on there not being life somewhere else today?

Which is also why I think it is nice to see the debate moving away from ... "is there life out there?" to .. what should we do about it?



#7 Nebulous112

Nebulous112

    High King

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 06:17 PM

I haven't digested everything in this thread, I've only skimmed...I will properly read it all when I'm off work.

Just a couple basic thoughts:

I do believe there is some "higher power" or higher form of existence. I have a sneaking suspicion that the earth and the organisms on it are somehow connected like organelles in a cell, or cells in a body. But that is neither here nor there.

However, generally when I think of things that cannot yet be explained, I think of Clark's three laws.


1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


It is folly to think that what we currently know (based on science) is all there is. As we get better technology and theorists continue to further the work of those that came before them, we may yet discover things that most people would currently think are ridiculous.


That being said, I also try to remember this XKCD comic to keep me rational: https://xkcd.com/1235/

So who knows. :-P

#8 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 08:32 PM

@Aiyen
As for procedure A, I'm the type of person that challenges the procedure with B, C, and D to see if there is a better way of doing it. Self discovery is something that I highly value and I often find that procedure A works just fine, but sometime it can be improved upon. However, one thing I dislike is routine. I love change and the newness and challenges it can bring.
 
As for the ghosts, you have an interesting prospective, but I would also call it a common one. Think, if you will, what are ghosts? Humans who have die, right? As humans we have consciousness and intelligence, do we not? Then I ask why would we lose consciousness and intelligence upon death? For this point of view, you must also believe there is life after death (which I do believe). When you strip away the flesh what is left? Our soul, spirit, or consciousness: the true nature of our being. Therefore, ghosts are a manifestation of our consciousness or spirit which still has its intelligence as it did in "life". There is no "governance" beside our own free will which survives death (the Law of One is very big on free will). I will reiterate that I believe ghosts are not the natural process. A ghost is the result of a traumatic or sudden death and in most cases the ghost is confused and is aware of its death. Therefore since the free will of the consciousness of the individual is to continue to live, this results in what we call ghosts.
 
You are assuming someone's free will on the contact with ghosts bit. If they wish to be in contact, it will take the knowledge to do so as they are no longer a part of our physical realm. They are energy and would have to learn to manipulate that energy to manifest into the physical. Even then, in most cases all you hear reports of are cold spots, voices, sounds, and orbs. The full or partial apparition is rare. Most ghost that become "aware" of not being among the living move on to the next stage since that is the natural process. Those that choose to remain do so for their own reasons which can vary like any other reason for doing something.
 
As for UFOs, I believe alien intelligent life is real, it's closer than most think, the governments are fully aware of it, and we (the public) are all going to get some disclosure on it real soon.
 
@Neb,
The Law of One actually very briefly touches on Bigfoot in the discussion of Maldek. Maldek (also more commonly known as "Phaeton") is believed to once have been a planet which its remains are now the asteroid belt.
 

Questioner: Is there any particular race of people on our planet now who were incarnated here from second density?
 
Ra: I am Ra. There are no second-density consciousness complexes here on your sphere at this time. However, there are two races which use the second-density form. One is the entities of the planetary sphere you call Maldek. These entities are working their understanding complexes through a series of what you would call karmic restitutions. They dwell within your deeper underground passageways and are known to you as “Bigfoot.”

Questioner: Where are these body complexes located?

Ra: I am Ra. These body complexes of the second race dwell in uninhabited deep forest. There are many in various places over the surface of your planet.

Questioner: Are they Bigfoot-type creatures?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct although we would not call these Bigfoot, as they are scarce and are very able to escape detection. The first race is less able to be aware of proximity of other mind/body/spirit complexes, but these beings are very able to escape due to their technological understandings before their incarnations here. These entities of the glowing eyes are those most familiar to your peoples.

Questioner: Then there are two different types of Bigfoot. Correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This will be the final question.

There are three types of Bigfoot, if you will accept that vibratory sound complex used for three such different races of mind/body/spirit complexes. The first two we have described.

The third is a thought-form.

Questioner: Well, have any of these entities moved on now, made a, shall we say, graduation at the end of a seventy-five year cycle and gotten out of the second-density body into third-density-type bodies?

Ra: I am Ra. Many of these entities were able to remove the accumulation of what you call karma, thus being able to accept a third-density cycle within a third-density body. Most of those beings so succeeding have incarnated elsewhere in the creation for the succeeding cycle in third density. As this planet reached third density some few of these entities became able to join the vibration of this sphere in the third-density form. There remain a few who have not yet alleviated through the mind/body/spirit coordination of distortions the previous action taken by them. Therefore, they remain.

Questioner: Are these the Bigfoot you spoke of?

Ra: I am Ra. These are one type of Bigfoot.



Later in another book one the questioner's friends asked him about bigfoot remains so the questioner asked Ra:

Questioner: He also asked— and I know this is unimportant— why there were no Bigfoot remains found, that is after the Bigfoot entities had died on our surface. He had asked why there had never been any remains of these entities found. Could you answer this for him? It’s just of no importance but just as a service to him I ask it.

Ra: I am Ra. You may suggest that exploration of the caves which underlie some of the western coastal mountain regions of your continent will one day offer such remains. They will not be generally understood if this culture survives in its present form long enough in your time measurement for this probability/possibility vortex to occur.


Did you notice the "I know this is unimportant" bit? It's funny because in the books Ra will often tell the questioner that the information being requested is of no significance before providing an answer.



#9 Mator

Mator

    Thane

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 08:47 PM

If you want scientific evidence to back up the material you need to look no further than "Wisdom Teaching" by David Wilcock on Gaia. He's a fairly large advocator for the Law of One material and gets fairly technical on that show with the science that backs up most of the material (a lot of it is over my head as I'm not that big of a science geek). Granted, you have to have an open enough mind to look past the conspiracy theory tone in all of the material surrounding this area of discussion, but all the data you're wanting is provided within the episodes of that show.


I only looked at it briefly, but from what I can tell David Wilcock's stuff is a bunch of ******** pseudo-science. Typical mumbo-jumbo you can find regurgitated by anyone who follows New Age Woo.

If you have to tell someone to look past the conspiracy theory tone, then what you're showing them is probably ********.
 

Without even knowing it, you just made a contradictory statement: "You cannot perform good science if you go into something with an expectation of a certain result." So your statement of, "The only way I could ever take a "scientific study of the supernatural" remotely seriously is if it was conducted by individuals with no preoccupation to find a supernatural result." would result in little to no data being found because you now have the preconceived expectation that you will not find any supernatural evidence. :^_^: This is actually something talked about on Wisdom Teachings. The idea that an expectation of an certain result during experimentation will likely conclude in or close to the expected result simply because it's what you are expecting. Thusly, if you expect no result...you're likely end up with no result.


Uhhh, no. It's not contradictory at all. What I stated is you cannot go into an experiment with an expectation of a particular result. I didn't say they should perform their study expecting no supernatural results, but that they should not perform it expecting supernatural results. In other words, the middle ground of having no expectation for the results. This is important because of the role of cognitive bias in how humans percieve the world.
 

In my opinion, the "supernatural", whether it be ghosts or religious miracles or something else, can not be measured by our current science and must be experienced by the individual. History is littered with a plethora of documented experiences of ghosts, aliens, UFOs, religious miracles, etc. with no real "science" to back any of it up, but yet the sheer amount of documentation of individual experiences can not be simply ignored. The point I'm making here is not everything can be backed by science due to our limited knowledge of our universe.


If it can't be measured then for all intents and purposes it does not exist. Also, you must either provide an explanation for why it cannot be measured, or recognize that it's made up. I don't disagree that humanity's understanding of the universe is limited in some areas, but having limited understanding does not mean we should believe every fantasy that pops into our heads. The correct approach to proceed carefully and rationally to avoid falsehoods. Truth is not an easy thing to come by, and humans are easily mislead. These are facts which can be supported by physical evidence and rational thought. As much as I'd like to believe certain things exist, I refuse to believe that people have experienced them or understand them save in the face of overwhelming evidence, per occam's razor and similar principles.

 

Now allow me to head one thing off here that I see coming from the science minded, which is faith. "How can you believe something on faith and without proof?" (like the supernatural) Well let me ask the same question. Take for example Einstein's theory of special relativity (E = mc2) which has never been proven (hence the word "theory" attached to it), yet in the science community has taken it as factual and we have entire sciences which are built on this and other scientific theories. These theories are nothing more than thoughts based on observations of various data. Therefore, in a sense the supernatural is no different than scientific theory. Rather it being based on math and observations in a lab, the "theory" of the supernatural is based on the documented accounts throughout history combined with the same visual observations which most science would use in an analogous, visual lab experiment. I feel most science minded people dismiss the supernatural because there are not specified tools other than the individual which can measure and capture the data in the same sense as a scientific experiment would...which I assume is basically your view as well given your statements in your third point.


There are a bunch of issues with this paragraph, I'll try to break it down.

  • "Scientific theories are just theories". This is commonly regurgitated falsehood. A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. A layman's theory is an assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information: hypothesis.
  • E = mc2 has been scientifically demonstrated in numerous settings, including but not limited to the atomic bomb. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. When last I checked there weren't aliens in UFOs dropping atomic bombs on the Earth. (joke)
  • People are EXTREMELY unreliable. They are easily influenced, their memory is selective, and cognitive bias directly interferes with their ability to percieve the world. 1, 2
  • Scientific research does not rely heavily on people. It relies on scientific instruments to perform measurements, which the researcher records. The researcher then attempts to explain the measurements rigorously using mathematics. Ultimately, the mathematical results may lead to a conceptual explanation of what is happening in a system. I recommend you watch videos about scientific thinking and how it differs from "magical thinking".

I'm sorry, but what you're peddling here is nothing more than quackery. Science IS rational thought. People who refer to it in the tone of it "not being good enough" to explain certain things don't understand that science is LITERALLY the only way to rationally explain anything in the real world. Don't get me wrong, I totally believe there are things we have not yet been able to explain with science (yet). However, I will defer judgement on these things UNTIL we have scientific evidence on them. When it specifically comes to things like UFO sightings and other supernatural "woo", we have a lot of scientific evidence that it's made up and has no basis in reality. I'm not saying that no one has ever sighted a UFO that was an alien craft, but that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe it to be so. I believe (upon the basis of the Drake equation and associated scientific ideas) that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. However, I don't think that life has visited Earth because there is no strong scientific evidence to suggest as such (and occam's razor). If it was reasonable and there was evidence for it, it would be a part of mainstream science.

vd1iz.jpg





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMLSs8t1ng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k

 

I would like to point out most science started as "anecdotal evidence" until we developed our technology enough to properly measure data and correct our theories. One of the best examples of this is that we used to believe we were the center of the universe and everything obits around us...until a little "tool" was invented that allowed us to obverse our heavens more closely.


Anecdotal evidence which other people could recreate. The DEFINITION of science, and the scientific method, is such that it literally cannot be in the same context as this New Age Woo - they are fundamentally incompatible. Yes, scientific discovery has led to growth and change in ideas over time. As new evidence was discovered, we have discarded hypotheses which were based on weak evidence in favor of stronger ones. There is no shortage of ideas in the world, but there certainly is a shortage of correct or true ones.

 

Embarrassed? Really? :O_o: Why? Are you not open to philosophical thinking? Belief in a higher power?


I am totally open to philosophical thinking, and I actually DO believe in a higher power. That doesn't mean, however, that I engage in cults, group delusions, or New Age Woo. Trust me, I have family members who have been involved with this (because they're gullible as ****). I know more than enough about this stuff, it's all just a bunch of ********. I'm totally open to (and enjoy engaging in) rational philosophical discussion or hypothetical thinking. I briefly attended a christian college and my favorite class was the religious philosophy class because of the fascinating ideas it presented (such as the cosmological argument). Also, for your information, I don't identify as athiest, agnostic, or under any major religion.

 

I like intellectual debate with those that can do it. Most seems to just get offended or are too rigid to have a meaningful debate. I will admit that I do get amusement whenever the science minded individuals start discussing on such material simply because of how rigid most are in "show me the proof". :^_^:


I don't mind spiritual discussions, but when you start claiming there are things like ghosts or UFOs flying around, that you can get your soul to leave your body, that is when we leave the realm of what is "real" and go to a magical fairy land with no basis in reality. Put simply, I believe in the supernatural, but doubt any alleged experience of it. I don't think it's impossible for something "supernatural" to occur, but that it is extremely unlikely, and if it did happen I doubt we would ever know because the world is drowning in false supernatural information or accounts.

 

I will say that your statement here is suggesting that you are not likely open minded. "While it's true that people are susceptible to things such as this, it's still concerning." Who is to say who is right or wrong until it is proven or disproven? Does God or a higher power exist? Who knows! A higher power can't be proven or disproven with science and tools so are you going to tell 84% of the world population they are wrong in believing in such? Those that don't believe are in a great minority, but no one can proven who is right and who is wrong. I would also ask how is believing in the supernatural any different than believing in a higher power when there is nothing but anecdotal evidence of either? That last question is some food for thought.


The burden of proof lies on the believer, not the skeptic. I believe I have sufficient reasoning to believe in a higher power, and that's why I believe in it. This hoo-ha, however, is ridiculous.


Edited by Mator, 07 April 2017 - 09:06 PM.

  • 0

#10 Mator

Mator

    Thane

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 09:03 PM

Also, I have to ask, are you trolling?  My roommate thinks so.

 

EDIT: Or maybe a late April fools day joke, asks his girlfriend.


Edited by Mator, 07 April 2017 - 09:13 PM.

  • 0

#11 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 09:39 PM

No, not trolling at all. :^_^: I'm 100% serious and can get far more into the spiritual side of the topic which is the meat and potatoes of the Law of One. This bit about ghosts and UFOs and Bigfoot is just a bit of a side topic.

 

David backs up all his claims and "pseudo-science" with real scientific studies. In fact, a lot of his "work" on Wisdom Teachings is just bring to light other scientist's work to let people know this stuff if backed by real science from real scientist who have done the science work, published the results, and gotten repeatable independent results from other scientists. Like I said, the information is out there if you look for it. I simply suggest Wisdom Teachings because David's done the hard work of pulling it all together to present it. Now, I will openly admit that he needs to refresh himself on the Law of One books because he miss interprets or misquotes them from time to time. I only know this because the information is more fresh in my mind from reading them.

 

I totally agree with your approach to the science side. It's 100% valid and a strong point of view that many share. Seeing that we're dealing with more philosophical, "what ifs", and faith here, I have no more proof to provide you for my believes any more than you have to provide me for your belief that a higher power exists....and that's sort of my point here.

 

Sense, as you stated, "the burden of proof lies on the believer, not the skeptic" please tell me what the difference is between the belief in ghosts vs the belief in a higher power is. To me, a logical point would be that you can not discount one without discounting the other sense there is no proof whether either exists or not. To science, they are equal concepts besides in the mind of the individual so I'm curious as to your belief in one but not the other.

 

Just to state the information, I identify as Christian, but my beliefs are far from the typical Bible pusher.

 

PS: Ben needs to lay off the cocaine or switch to decaff. ::D: I used to watch a lot of TED until I heard they stopped letting more controversial speakers on the show.



#12 Mator

Mator

    Thane

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 07 April 2017 - 10:06 PM

Sense, as you stated, "the burden of proof lies on the believer, not the skeptic" please tell me what the difference is between the belief in ghosts vs the belief in a higher power is.

Because there are rational, logical arguments for a creator.  Some of the most prominent are the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the teleological argument.  There's a whole field called Natural Theology dedicated the rational, philosophical study of the existence of a creator upon the basis of natural experiences.  My personal justifications for believing in the existence of a creator extend a bit further than this and I really don't care to get into them here, the long and short of it is I follow Deism.  But this topic isn't about what I believe, it's about the wacky idea that some quacks channeled an 11,000 year-old alien consciousness in their backyard using a religious text, some incense, and a pitcher of water.


Edited by Mator, 07 April 2017 - 10:33 PM.

  • 0

#13 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 08 April 2017 - 12:18 AM

Because there are rational, logical arguments for a creator.  Some of the most prominent are the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, and the teleological argument.  There's a whole field called Natural Theology dedicated the rational, philosophical study of the existence of a creator upon the basis of natural experiences.  My personal justifications for believing in the existence of a creator extend a bit further than this and I really don't care to get into them here, the long and short of it is I follow Deism.  But this topic isn't about what I believe, it's about the wacky idea that some quacks channeled an 11,000 year-old alien consciousness in their backyard using a religious text, some incense, and a pitcher of water.

I see I will not be able to really discuss much with you because it is too much "New Age Woo", but allow me to send you over the edge here...  ::):

 

Ra is lot older than 11,000 years. Ra is a sixth density social memory complex originating from Venus approximately 2.6 billion years ago. They visited Egypt and other areas of our planet approximately 11,000 years ago to teach the Law of One; however, the teachings were twisted from their intent and they were worshiped as Gods by many peoples. This was against their wishes and teachings. Ra stresses that the teachings on the Law of One is not a religion, that they are not Gods, and anyone teaching the Law of One should not be worshiped as such. They view their manner of teaching the Law of One in Egypt, particularly, as a nativity on their part and desire to correct the teachings. Hence the purpose of the channeling. They go into why it was with this group in book 3.

 

They also explain the purpose the Bible, the candle, the chalice of water, and incense but I can't remember them all. The Bible represents the Law of One, the incense is an energizer, the candle represents the love/light light/love of the Creator, and the water is the one I can't remember. I know the channeler drinks the water after the contact has ended to help renew her energies.

 

 

@Spiritual Aspect

 

The Law of One is essentially the basis of all religions. In it's most simplest form is says that all things are one, that all beings are one. Ra explains it more as thus:
 

You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every situation.

You are unity. You are infinity.

You are love/light, light/love.

You are.

This is the Law of One.

 

In the Law of One it is explained that there is one Creator through which all things were created from. We are all individualized parts of the Creator learning to know ourselves and "other selves" until we eventually become one with the Creator again. There are two paths to take: service to others or service to self. Service to others is what we would call the positive path. Service to self is what we would call the negative path. Ra points out there is really no positive and negative here but as third density beings, this is how we would define it.

 

That brings up densities. In a nut shell, densities in the Law of One are levels of consciousness of which there are eight. These densities actually line up with the chakras of the bodies, as we would call them.

  • First density is the density of awareness. This is basically the elements earth, air, water, and fire. On earth, first density took about two billion years.
  • Second density is the density of growth. This is basically the planet and animal life. Second density on earth took about 4.6 billion years. For those of you doing the math that's make's today's Earth about 6.6 billion years old. Today's estimates say the Earth is around 4.5 to 4.6 billion years so, according to the Law of One, they're only measuring for second density.
  • Third density is the density of self-awareness and the first density of consciousness. This is our (human beings) density. In this density we choose the way (service to others or service to self) in which we will reach our evolution to the Creator. Third density typically only takes about 75,000 years to complete. An interesting note is the Ra says our lifespans were suppose to be much longer. The Bible talks about some living for hundreds and years and this is more in line with what the Law of One say our lifespans should be in third density. Various actions of our peoples have lead to shorter lifespans and this has made it far more difficult for us to graduate to fourth density.
  • Fourth density is the density of love or understanding. It is the density in which we come together as one people to pursue the path we chose, either loving self or loving others. Fourth density lasts about 30 million years and Ra says fourth-density lifespans are typically 90 thousand years.
  • Fifth density is the density of light or wisdom. Fifth-density entities are beautiful, by our standards, because they can consciously shape their physical forms.
  • Sixth density is the density of unity, in which love (fourth density) and wisdom (fifth density) are blended together. Those who chose the service-to-self path change to a service-to-others path in this density because they cannot successfully master the lessons of unity without opening their hearts to others. Ra is sixth density.
  • Seventh density is the gateway density, in which we once again become one with all.
  • Eighth density is also the beginning of the first density of the next Creation. It is "both omega and alpha, the spiritual mass of the infinite universes becoming one central sun or Creator once again. Then is born a new universe, a new infinity, a new Logos which incorporates all that the Creator has experienced of Itself."


#14 baronaatista

baronaatista

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 08 April 2017 - 01:09 AM

I'll start by saying I haven't read the material.  I opened the link and read the first couple pages... I'll also say that I pretty solidly line up with Mator here.

 

The one thing that I feel hasn't been stated (and often goes unsaid in these type of debates) - the scientific basis of these books (or lack thereof) doesn't place a qualitative judgement on the value of the words in them.  In my opinion.  

 

If you, Tech, or anyone else has found these books to be all the things you stated; inspiring, thought-provoking, spiritually powerful... That's great.  I don't personally see anything wrong with religious or spiritual belief, inspiration, whatever... wherever it comes from.  There really is a vast unknown, perhaps unknowable 'region' of the universe and just about any kind of weirdness would fit pretty comfortably in that space.  Every person on earth is dealing with this mass existential crisis; what the **** is happening?  why?  And our absolute best modern science just cannot truly grapple with these concepts, at least not yet.  So I say put whatever you want in there, whatever inspires you (so long as, ideally, it serves to make you a better person *ie. a better member of the global (or local) community).

 

That's also not meant to be patronizing, like 'good for you buddy!  glad you were inspired by this nonsense'.  I have a very rationalistic, science-minded brain.  Yet, I also absolutely love yoga and was completely obsessed with it (specifically Ashtanga yoga) for 5 years, until a bizarre injury turned me off the path.  Yoga is a 'spiritual' discipline which has every bit the cuckoo, woo-woo nonsense behind it all that this 'Law of One' book does... supernatural origins, claims about the nature of the universe, of consciousness, of amazing powers one can gain from sufficient advancement in the practice, etc.  Now I'm not saying I buy all that stuff *EDIT*(though I did learn a lot about it)* - I don't, essentially none of it.  However.  The practice of meditation (any type of yoga is a meditation practice) IS something that is being scientifically validated in the modern world, as well as some specifics about the nature of consciousness that have been taught by various groups for hundreds/thousands of years which line up quite closely with the science.

 

*This talk of densities you just posted.  I love it.  What a beautiful, poetic view of the universe, and one that elegantly incorporates bits of modern science, all while illustrating worthwhile philosophical / spirtual concepts that one can apply to everyday life.

 

However.  Any claim about the scientific or evidentiary basis for all of this... is purely false.  

 

More, understanding the difference is really important.  I believe this exact issue is a major issue that we are facing in the modern world, and one that is growing worse in the current climate, where the sheer amount of misinformation out there, combined with the ease of access to it and humans' natural confirmation-bias is creating this monster of ignorance and confusion that is...difficult to grapple with.

 

Mator has already done a pretty good job of pushing that point so I won't go too deep here, but I'll give it a shot;

 

'One of the great puzzle pieces for us was the question of how UFOs could materialize and dematerialize. The phenomenon seemed to posit a physics which we had not yet grasped and a being capable of using this physics.'

 

...I mean I almost feel like the horrifying lack of scientific thought in this sentence is self-evident, and doesn't need to be pointed out - or how anyone who could write such a sentence must clearly not be an adept scientific practitioner.  

It demonstrates exactly the type of thinking that is the basis of many texts of a similar nature; A claim is made in the first part; (*EDIT - actually 2 claims - the first being that UFO's exist!) UFO's 'materialize' and 'dematerialize'.  The next part, rather than addressing that claim, pushes on to create hypotheses based upon it; they must use a physics we are unaware of, AND there must be a being behind it capable of manipulating this physics.  To sufficiently prove just this sentence correct would likely take studies and experiments, math... the corroborative evidence would outweigh the content of the five books of 'The Law of One' 1000x over.

 

I'm certain that these books are littered with real scientific references, studies, etc.  I would bet all my money however that the theories (or conclusions) the authors draw from the evidence they are using goes far beyond what is actually proven by said evidence, and then creates whole frameworks of 'information' on top of that - or is simply misinterpreted.

 

Anyway.  There's nothing wrong with seeing value in this stuff and I'm certain there are some really worthwhile ideas in these books; I'd even go so far as to say that it wouldn't surprise me if aspects of what its describing accurately line up with reality, whether we can prove it or not.  

But it's not science.

(*EDIT - and it's irresponsible for the authors to claim otherwise)


Edited by baronaatista, 08 April 2017 - 01:23 AM.

  • 1

#15 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,786 posts

Posted 08 April 2017 - 09:57 AM

'One of the great puzzle pieces for us was the question of how UFOs could materialize and dematerialize. The phenomenon seemed to posit a physics which we had not yet grasped and a being capable of using this physics.'
 
...I mean I almost feel like the horrifying lack of scientific thought in this sentence is self-evident, and doesn't need to be pointed out - or how anyone who could write such a sentence must clearly not be an adept scientific practitioner.  
It demonstrates exactly the type of thinking that is the basis of many texts of a similar nature; A claim is made in the first part; (*EDIT - actually 2 claims - the first being that UFO's exist!) UFO's 'materialize' and 'dematerialize'.  The next part, rather than addressing that claim, pushes on to create hypotheses based upon it; they must use a physics we are unaware of, AND there must be a being behind it capable of manipulating this physics.  To sufficiently prove just this sentence correct would likely take studies and experiments, math... the corroborative evidence would outweigh the content of the five books of 'The Law of One' 1000x over.

This group works under the assumption that UFOs are real and do exist. I truly believe we're on a cusp of a disclosure of information from our governments about the existence of intelligent alien life. I've believed this for a couple years now, but recently the governments have been releasing more and more drips of this information they've been sitting on for years and years. NASA seems to have more "new" discoveries in the past couple years than in the past 50 years combined. This isn't due to them just making these discoveries, imo. It's because they've been aware of these things for years and are seeding information in preparation for a type of disclosure event.
 

I'm certain that these books are littered with real scientific references, studies, etc.  I would bet all my money however that the theories (or conclusions) the authors draw from the evidence they are using goes far beyond what is actually proven by said evidence, and then creates whole frameworks of 'information' on top of that - or is simply misinterpreted.

Actually, there is not. The books are solely over the channeling sessions and nothing more. David Wilcock has independently validated most of the Law of One books with actual science that was preformed by independent scientists not connected to the books. For example:

 

First, to set this up you need to know the Law of One teaches reincarnation.

Now, planet life is of the second density. To ascend or graduate to the third density plant or animal life must become self-aware of its own existence. The Law of One says this is most commonly achieved in the animal life we take as pets because we are helping this animal life to become self-aware. In the plant kingdom this is most common in trees and house plants. For the purpose of this example imagine, if you will, that a plant becomes self-aware and ascends to the third density since that is the only criteria for graduation: being self-aware. To ascend one by die and be reincarnated into their new density.

Now, you ask where is the science to back up that plants are aware of themselves and their environments?

David Wilcock brings to the table the scientific research of Dr. Cleve Backster who proved that plants have a measurable reaction to their environment and the actions that we not only do to them, but also the thoughts we have towards them. That they are even aware of our presence in the room. More can be found on the subject which has been done by others with a very quick Google search.

 

So that is just one example of the science that David attempts to back up the data from the Law of One with: Second to third density graduation requires self-awareness. Dr Cleve Backster (and others after him) have proven plants can be self-aware. The rest of whether the ascension happens is a matter of faith since what happens to the consciousness after death can not be measured by current science.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users