Law of One

[MonoAccipiter]

I had to return to the episodes of Wisdom Teachings where this was discussed. It's been a while since I've been into that information and I'm just going to quote from the episodes. David uses one source from Richard C. Hoagland titled "A New Model of Mars as a Former Captured Satellite: Bi-modal Distribution of Key Features Due to Ancient Tidal Stress". This is not a scientific source, but is based on some of Dr. Thomas Van Flandern's (PhD in Astronomy) unpopular in "mainstream science" works. Evidence to support that Mars was once a moon of Maldek, thus being destroyed by Maldek's own destruction includes:

• Mars is much less massive than any planet that is not already being suspected of being a former moon.
• The orbit of Mars is more elliptical than any other major planet.
• The spin of Mars is slower than larger planets, except where a massive moon's gravity has intervened.
• Mars possesses a large offset of center of figure from the center of mass. Meaning the heaviest part of Mars is not in the center of the planet which is what happens with moons captured in the gravity of a larger planet.
• The "crustal dichotomy" boundary is nearly a great circle which aligns with photo evidence that one half of the planet is fairly clear of craters vs the other half that has been completely blasted by asteroids. This aligns with what would happen if it was a moon of Maldek when it exploded. (Photo evidence is shown in the episode)
• Further on the point above is the northern hemisphere has a smooth, 1-km thick crust where the southern hemisphere has a 20-km thick crust. The crustal thickness in the south decreases gradually toward the crustal dichotomy boundary as would be seen in such a massive impact or multiple, near simultaneous impacts.
• Lobate scarps occur at the boundary divide compressed perpendicular to the boundary (which apparently happens during such impacts...I didn't bother looking it up)
• Xe129, a product of nuclear fission, has an excess abundance on Mars. (this one hit major news networks) What is interesting about this is the Law of One says that Maldek's destruction was a result of nuclear war.

 

1. I'm not sure what these planets that are suspected of being former moons are, or what their mass is, or who suspects them. These are all important factors to me. If an astrologer from the 19th century suspected something of being a moon, I won't add much weight to it, for example. That would be basing science on pseudo-science, and thus making whatever science it was initially, a pseudo-science. It's important that we get the roots here, the enumeration of sources and their comparison. Otherwise the data means very little.
2. Lots of planets have high eccentricities. Mercury even has a higher one, and Pluto has a higher one, though obviously not a major planet. Planets are generally expected to develop very different eccentricities during the formation of the solar system, and there are some theories to suggest there might have been planets with higher eccentricities that were ejected from the solar system billions of years ago (though not very many, since the system is 4.6 billion years old itself). Heck, we don't even know what the earth's eccentricity was back then. Mars might very well have had a higher eccentricity before, having its orbit made more circular because of tidal forces from the sun. Eccentricity is a basic feature of Kepler's laws, where the eccentricity can depend on the angular momentum amongst other things. There are even means to determine that the eccentricity of the smaller planets in the solar system are affected by Saturn and Jupiter. The point is, that this is not evidence of anything, it is just lack of evidence against it, and that seems strange to use as a means to prove a point. The theories of Phaeton are even built on something much more reliable than assuming Mars was a moon, namely the presence of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, but that was largely superseded by the accretion model. Astronomy is very exciting, and even potential theories like that of Phaeton, though accepted as something unreliable, can excite the curiosity. But there is a long way to go from accepting that there is a slight chance there might have been another planet, and assuming a combined amount of factors about how it was destroyed, how its moon became a planet and so forth.
3. Well, when we start removing random comparisons from statistical data, we can prove just about anything. Mars barely rotates slower than the earth, and the remainder of planets to compare it to is gas giants and ice giants which are known to rotate faster as a general rule. So what are we comparing Mars to then? Nothing? Venus? Venus is larger than Mars and rotates every 243 days. Venus doesn't even have moon. This is just blatantly false, or engineered to be misleading. This would be warning sign for me regarding this show.
4. I was unable to find any data on the CF-CM offset of Mars, or a general theory suggesting the offset in satellite bodies. If possible, I would appreciate if such data was presented, rather than just the conclusion drawn from it.
5. The crustal dichotomy does not need to be proven. That is well known and interesting. What needs to be proven is the likelihood of a multiple impact hypothesis over that of other ones, as well as the fact that such impacts were caused by something like the exploding of whatever planet it was a moon of. As I've attempted to show, there are multiple problems with the idea of Mars having been a moon that need to be solved before there can be any supposed correlation between a multiple impact theory and that factor. We haven't even begun to touch upon the notion that nuclear bombs would literally shatter a planet... Wikipedia has a decent article on the crustal dichotomy, illustrating, amongst other things, some of the problems with the multiple impact hypothesis.
6. See above. The main difference here seems to be that science treats it as indications that such a theory might be feasible, whereas this show seems to treat it as evidence that it is.
7. No. ¹²⁹Xe is produced by the beta decay of ¹²⁹I, which is a fission product. ¹²⁹I has a radioactive half life of 16 million years. That means, due to the fact that the abundance is of its decay product, not the fission product, whatever caused it would have to have happened millions of years ago. Interesting enough there are ¹²⁹Xe finding on Earth too, in wells in New Mexico, and in meteorites... Does that mean there has been nuclear war on meteorites as well as Earth? Or is it more likely that this common denominator indicates a more general causation, rather than one specific causation for Mars? Scientists have several solutions that do not require ancient races to have left no trace of their existence, for the meteorites is it usually the product of a supernova, on Earth they commonly hold it is from the decay of mantle derived gasses after the planets formation. As for Mars, well, physics seem to solve that too.

 

Well... Imagine that the Earth, as it is now, is the moon of a planet. This planet has a mass 81 times that of Earth (this is the Earth/Moon ratio for familiarity). BOOM! This planet explodes. Just what do you think would happen to the Earth? Massive chucks of that planet will be colliding with Earth at high velocities. This might not be enough to complete destroy Earth, but most of the atmosphere would likely have been blasted off along will most of the oceans vaporizing into space. The magnetic field would certainly change with such massive impacts as well. I would imagine that Earth would become a planet much like to Mars with such an event happening at such a close range. Or perhaps I simply have any overactive imagination. ::

 

I'm asking for the theory supposing that such a thing would strip a body of its atmosphere. The atmosphere isn't held by some balloon you can stick a needle to and pop. The fact that I can imagine this happening doesn't lend any reason for why it should be happening. I would like to see a theory that underlines how a magnetic field would change because of an impact, and the same for the atmosphere, what I can imagine has very little bearing on what is real. I can imagine the Sun going completely cold in a matter of seconds, that does not mean it is possible. I can imagine time travel, that does not mean it is possible. It might be, but that has very little to do with my capacity for imagining it.

 

I'm not refuting anything. I simply said that I don't trust the numbers in the Law of One to their fullest extent and meant nothing more than that. To "refute" is to prove something wrong. You should consider law school because you are rather good at turning words around to mean something else out of context. No jabs here. I'm serious. You would likely make a good prosecutor if you like that sort of thing. But also seriously, don't put so much weight on my words. My vocabulary is not near good enough for me to hide my intentions in a well worded paragraph. I'm typically straightforward and say exactly what I mean.

As for Ra's difficulty with our time/space you are missing a lot of information to completely grasp the concept, which would hopefully help you understand this a bit better. It's hard to fully discuss a book in a book club if you haven't read the book. With that said, it's actually difficult for me to fully explain without writing a book of my own... I will attempt to summarize.

 

Ra is of the sixth density. They are not omniscient in any way. It would be no different than you or I once we reach that density. Ra explains contact with us telepathically is quite challenging and accurately interpreting our numbers such as dates is equally challenging. In fact, they explain that they searched for many years before being able to find a group of the correct configuration before they were able to even make the contact. To put it simply, anyone of a higher density greater than fourth would have a hard time communicating with us in such a way because of the requirements for contact which is to be able to match our vibrational level to an extent. The higher you go in density the harder it would become because the greater the change would have to be for the contact to happen.

 

As for the numbers, I've already explained this a little, but you have to grasp time/space. In space/time we experience time by moving through space and only experience one space at a time. However, in time/space we could experience all of space at that same time. The past, the present, the future would all be available in what we currently experience as the present. Therefore, you might be able to imagine the difficulty of pinning down specific dates when all is one at at a single instance. Then there is the information that Ra experiences time very differently than we do so they are also having to interpret our "time".

 

The language is, however, a result of the telepathic contact. They are able to use the channeler's mind as well as scan the mind of the other's present in the room to communicate. During the channeling, the channeler is putted out of their body and kept in a safe place and then Ra is able to use the mind and body of the channeler to speak. This is how Ra describes it. So imagine putting your consciousness into the developed mind of a foreigner. You would likely have access to all that foreigner knows, including their language.

 

1. I'm sorry. I did not intend to twist your words. Perhaps "dismiss it" would have been a better way of putting it? What I mean is that you removed the contradiction by introducing a factor of unreliability. It's as if someone claims the Bible is a completely accurate work of history, someone presents a proof of contradiction, and then that is dismissed on the grounds of the writer being confused. I'm not accusing you of hiding anything, obscurantism is more a reference to the act of using unreliability to dismiss opposing points. For example, if I were to say the world consists of squiggly yellow lines, and someone were to say all science points to it being atoms, then I could be an obscurantist and say that we can't see down at that level, and use that as proof of my position, when at best it would be dismissing literally every form of information. 
2. I understand the difficulty in this, but I do not currently have the time to read all the context. For this, I apologise.
3. I see. My point was more that an unreliable narrator should strike both ways. If science is unreliable, but actively attempting to combat that effect, and Ra is proven to be unreliable by contradictions in its communications, then Ra remains even more unreliable, and this adds with all the other aspects, such as the unreliability of the people who claim to have been channelling and so on. There is a reason why peer-reviewed studies are the mean by which we usually measure reliability. Esoteric information grows exponentially less trustworthy with every additional effect it needs to procure (such as an unreliable narrator) in explaining its flaws, because the amount of things one had to suspend disbelief in at the start was already a large amount. It's much easier to believe that there are things we cannot explain, than that there is knowledge only provided to a blessed, but somehow always benevolent, few.
4. Yes. This is not a new concept, I have little problem understanding it (in fact, Allah is supposed to be eternal, so this is not an uncommon feature of religion).
5. This is how I understood it, and why using the concepts available in the channeller's mind would mean there should be no difficulty with language, which, combined with the fact that they experience all time at once, while having the channeller's units of measurement, should make such massive mistakes in the assessment of things like how many planets there are in the universe downright baffling. Again, this was not a minor miss, but an anomaly of at least 999.665 billion units. It basically means they missed almost 100% of the actual planets if you round up.

 

Ra will not break the Law of Free Will or the Law of Confusion. There are a ton of questions asked that Ra simply stated they won't answer because it would break these Laws for the ones present or for others that could potentially read the material. We're meant to figure things out on our own, not to be handed the keys. I can understand why. Even for something simple it could have large implications. For example, what if someone 10 years from the date the question was answered was suppose to come up with the answer themselves and that relation lead to other discoveries that defined the person's career, and eventually altered all of the world because from that one simple discovery it inspired that person to dig deeper to eventually discover the cure for all disease. This is an extreme example, but it makes the point that even the smallest of information can have profound effects.

You should take most of this information that isn't scientific no differently than you would pages from the Bible. It's a book written by man from events that may or not be true and factual. It's up to you to decided what you believe.

 

The thing is, almost nobody uses the Bible as an accurate representation of history anymore, and it never claimed things such as there being another planet that blew up because of nuclear explosions, or that there were Martians at some point. These are claims that are inherently scientific, and that are presented as part of the truth. There is no package without this included, because we either believe in the whole of it, or none of it, as long as it rest on so many assumptions. John Ruskin said he could hear the hammerings at the end of every bible verse after the likes of evolutionary theory was presented, now a lot of Christians believe in the creation as a symbolic event, and as for those that believe in it as something factual, well, they are repeatedly challenged for a reason. Most of what Christianity presents as part of a symbolism now is possible as some event that is merely symbolised in that way. As Mator pointed out earlier, there are actual proofs of God, of an initial mover and the like, which can potentially be refuted. The ontological proof of Descartes for example, is no longer held to be true after Kant dismissed it. The things about the bible that have been soundly dismissed are rarely held up as truths by people who respect reason and science. The sort of material we are suggesting however, is commenting actively on the state of the world, not just metaphysical aspects of a life after death or the design of a creator. And it makes claims as to the constant validity of its interaction with the human race. The very interaction which has produced certain statements about our current affairs. There is a difference here, for me, and it is an important one.

 

Now as for the law of confusion and the law of free will. I am aware of them, and without bringing up the numerous challenges to free will, such as the moral challenge of Schopenhauer, they can be accepted. However, they are also the easiest way of evading any form of challenge to their supposed knowledge. If I went into the woods one day, came back to my village and said I met an alien that provided me with knowledge, but I cannot share that knowledge because it is dangerous, that would be acceptable within the confines of my presented reality, but it is also the easiest way for me to avoid being put in an awkward spot by a question I cannot answer... Moving on, this was the very reason I mentioned a paradox we already have solutions for, such as Zeno's rows. The idea behind this is simple. It would show that the channellers have some interest in finding out whether they are hearing the truth. The fact that they refuse to endeavour on any such attempt at verifying whoever they're talking with is wildly suspicious to me. It would prove nothing, because, as I've said, we know the answer, and they could have used that to fake it, but it seems too big of an factor to ignore that they show virtually no interest in testing it. What actual scientist would not attempt to find some method of verification of what he is hearing? At the very least, the questioner should be aware that he could be mislead by the two other individuals involved.

 

Wow... That is very interesting. It's the first time I've heard of something like that during mediation and is not what I was thinking of. Are you shifting your focus to the hallucination once you get a image of it or is it something that seems out of your control?

It seems very out of my control. Sometimes it turns so huge it feels like it sits on top of my lap and makes it hard to breathe. It gets hard to focus on my breath because I lose a sense of how large my body is, whenever I think of some part of my body it just grows like everything else. I've tried imagining it is a curtain that I open and step past, but it just reappears on the other side. I've also tried imagining that I turn in the opposite direction, or that it grows smaller. The latter sometimes, though very rarely, works, and only early on, before it has grown to a certain size.

 

@SparrowPrince 10/10 Community-GIF 

Edited April 22, 2017 by MonoAccipiter

[TechAngel85]

Haha!   Always the comic relief!

 

 

*EDIT - was not trying to associate you - at least not directly - with a ****** tough guy.  Again, that was genuinely only about the ease of believing you know a thing without having to actually test it's validity, and how when applied to the real world the truth shakes out.

 

baronaatista, on 19 Apr 2017 - 1:24 PM, said:

You truly believe your assessment is equally as valid?

You truly believe that you aren't just choosing to believe what you want to, and only reading or thinking about material in a way that supports that?

Is there any new evidence or new view/explanation of the evidence that could change your mind?

Is it not possible to take benefit from the spiritual/philosphical teachings without buying the stuff that contradicts modern science?

Are you certain that you are even accurately and completely interpreting this work in the first place, and not just making your own version of it (ie. practicing exactly the same confirmation-bias that you are already doing with the 'facts' directly to the 'teachings' themselves)?

Yes.

Yes, I've read quite a bit of material that contradicts and has alternative views.

Possibly, but I have yet to discover any.

This would be something personal which would differ from person to person, but on the possibility alone...Yes, it's certainly possible.

I will answer by saying much of what an individual interprets will be based on that individual's own mindset and the way he/she thinks, therefore, two separate individuals could provide two separate interpretations. The thing is, when we are talking about the spiritual neither interpretations are necessarily wrong.

 

Perhaps I've misread you but it seems like I asked if you thought your assessment of scientific subjects was equally as valid as those of a scientist, and your reply was yes?

 

This is the point you keep talking around.  You say on one hand that you respect the knowledge of people in specific disciplines... and then in the next sentence say 'I've had over a year to research topics unfamiliar to me' .... 

I mean just a couple pages back you're debating Mono about astrophysics...  Those numbers physicists arrive at are not in any way guesses, and to think that you are aware of variables that they're not taking into account... ?  You might as well explain to Mator how he could optimize the coding of Merge Plugins!  And I imagine he would admit he knows less about that than astrophysicists do about astrophysics.

Or the age of the Earth?  Dinosaurs co-existing with man?

These are not subjects that science has little to say about.

 

Anyway.  I think I've really said everything I have to say and I'll butt out of this.  Didn't mean to mess up the party, lol.

 

Yes, you've misread the meaning of my words. I never meant that my knowledge on the subject was as good as accomplished scientist. Perhaps, I was the one misreading you. ::

 

In all of my replies I have only meant that I've had time to familiarize myself with certain subjects unfamiliar to me, listened to both sides of the arguments with their individual evidence presented, and drew my own conclusions based on that. This doesn't, in any way, imply that I know as much as accomplished scientist in their respected fields.

 

Don't read any more into that than those words. As I was telling Mono, I'm straightforward and say what I mean. You don't have to try to read between the lines with my replies. It only means just that. I'm not saying I'm right and they're wrong because I never wrote those words. I'm not dismissing their views, because I never wrote those words. Their views are just as valid for them as mine are for me. You've been reading too far into my replies to find things that simply aren't there. I've only presented my views and defended them as anyone else would.

 

So again, I've simply come to my own conclusions based on the information I've seen from both sides of the arguments. It's not usual that someone of a more scientific mind (you and Mator) would side with the mainstream science views while someone of a more spiritual mind would side with the parascience views. Then we have SparrowPrince who has no views...

[baronaatista]

'Their views are just as valid for them as mine are for me.'

 

This is what I was trying to get at with my martial arts comparison earlier.  The fact is, no they are not.  You can believe whatever you like of course, but that doesn't mean your beliefs are as valid.  Just like your opinion on the coding of Merge Plugins is not as valid as Mator's, your opinion (or those of 'parascientists') on scientific papers is not as valid - and if you had to sit down and talk to an actual scientist studying one of the areas that have been brought up so far you would find yourself out of your depth.  Or worse, if you had to take whatever cursory knowledge you have and apply it to a practical test or implementation.  

 

There is a real world, with real laws that govern it, and a real history that preceded it, and real facts about it.  You cant get around that with 'spirit-testing'.  

 

Again, in the real world only science has been able to provide us with any concrete answers to any of these questions, and we can see and feel the results of their progress everywhere.

Edited April 21, 2017 by baronaatista

[TechAngel85]

Again, I'm not going to pay $100 to gain access to a few papers so I will rely on articles that cite them and other material.

Most of David's stuff came from here: https://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.htm (it's lengthy and all the citations are at the bottom)

A clever search on google found this stuff:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/04/did-marss-magnetic-field-die-whimper-or-bang
https://www.universetoday.com/15262/two-faces-of-mars-explained/
https://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/11/mars-missing-magnetic-field-was-it-destroyed-by-a-massive-asteroid-impact.html
https://oeta.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/npls13.sci.ess.earthsys.marsdesert/how-mars-became-a-desert-nasa-planetary-sciences/
 

•  
• I see. My point was more that an unreliable narrator should strike both ways. If science is unreliable, but actively attempting to combat that effect, and Ra is proven to be unreliable by contradictions in its communications, then Ra remains even more unreliable, and this adds with all the other aspects, such as the unreliability of the people who claim to have been channelling and so on. There is a reason why peer-reviewed studies are the mean by which we usually measure reliability. Esoteric information grows exponentially less trustworthy with every additional effect it needs to procure (such as an unreliable narrator) in explaining its flaws, because the amount of things one had to suspend disbelief in at the start was already a large amount. It's much easier to believe that there are things we cannot explain, than that there is knowledge only provided to a blessed, but somehow always benevolent, few.
• This is how I understood it, and why using the concepts available in the channeller's mind would mean there should be no difficulty with language, which, combined with the fact that they experience all time at once, while having the channeller's units of measurement, should make such massive mistakes in the assessment of things like how many planets there are in the universe downright baffling. Again, this was not a minor miss, but an anomaly of at least 999.665 billion units. It basically means they missed almost 100% of the actual planets if you round up.

I can't refute your reasoning.

As further explanation, take calculus. Now I've never taken calculus so I have no understanding of it besides perhaps very basic concepts that I can gleam from my knowledge of other maths. Now I inhabit the mind of a calculus genius. All the information about calculus is there, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the I would have an understanding of the material as well as the genius would. It would be more akin to reading a book. I can read the book, but understanding what I'm reading is another story. This is all hypothetical here so I'm simply providing a possible scenario. I have no idea how the inter workings of such a consciousness transfer would actually work.
 

The thing is, almost nobody uses the Bible as an accurate representation of history anymore, and it never claimed things such as there being another planet that blew up because of nuclear explosions, or that there were Martians at some point. These are claims that are inherently scientific, and that are presented as part of the truth. There is no package without this included, because we either believe in the whole of it, or none of it, as long as it rest on so many assumptions. John Ruskin said he could hear the hammerings at the end of every bible verse after the likes of evolutionary theory was presented, now a lot of Christians believe in the creation as a symbolic event, and as for those that believe in it as something factual, well, they are repeatedly challenged for a reason. Most of what Christianity presents as part of a symbolism now is possible as some event that is merely symbolised in that way. As Mator pointed out earlier, there are actual proofs of God, of an initial mover and the like, which can potentially be refuted. The ontological proof of Descartes for example, is no longer held to be true after Kant dismissed it. The things about the bible that have been soundly dismissed are rarely held up as truths by people who respect reason and science. The sort of material we are suggesting however, is commenting actively on the state of the world, not just metaphysical aspects of a life after death or the design of a creator. And it makes claims as to the constant validity of its interaction with the human race. The very interaction which has produced certain statements about our current affairs. There is a difference here, for me, and it is an important one.

You are correct that much of the material likely has science attached to it in one way or another and I will try my best to provide the sources for the material. The material that does not, will require some personal decision whether to believe it or not.

As for Christian beliefs, I've always been of the opinion that science is simply the way of explaining how God did most things. Once our science is advanced enough, I'm sure this will be even more true. For example the creation story of 7 days. I've never believed that 7 days were an actual series of 7 24hr periods. My Christian views are not mainstream.
 

Now as for the law of confusion and the law of free will. I am aware of them, and without bringing up the numerous challenges to free will, such as the moral challenge of Schopenhauer, they can be accepted. However, they are also the easiest way of evading any form of challenge to their supposed knowledge. If I went into the woods one day, came back to my village and said I met an alien that provided me with knowledge, but I cannot share that knowledge because it is dangerous, that would be acceptable within the confines of my presented reality, but it is also the easiest way for me to avoid being put in an awkward spot by a question I cannot answer...

Moving on, this was the very reason I mentioned a paradox we already have solutions for, such as Zeno's rows. The idea behind this is simple. It would show that the channellers have some interest in finding out whether they are hearing the truth. The fact that they refuse to endeavour on any such attempt at verifying whoever they're talking with is wildly suspicious to me. It would prove nothing, because, as I've said, we know the answer, and they could have used that to fake it, but it seems too big of an factor to ignore that they show virtually no interest in testing it. What actual scientist would not attempt to find some method of verification of what he is hearing? At the very least, the questioner should be aware that he could be mislead by the two other individuals involved.

Again, I can't refute your reasoning.

I don't think the books ever say if or how they verified the contact, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't either. It's simply an unanswered question at this point. I'll also say that reading the Intro would give you a basis of who these individuals are. If the information is accurate, these are not people who would attempt to trick each other. Don and Carla knew each other for nearly ten years and when you know someone and work closely with them for that long, you tend to know their ins and outs. I'm not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely.
 

It seems very out of my control. Sometimes it turns so huge it feels like it sits on top of my lap and makes it hard to breathe. It gets hard to focus on my breath because I lose a sense of how large my body is, whenever I think of some part of my body it just grows like everything else. I've tried imagining it is a curtain that I open and step past, but it just reappears on the other side. I've also tried imagining that I turn in the opposite direction, or that it grows smaller. The latter sometimes, though very rarely, works, and only early on, before it has grown to a certain size.

I was hoping to gleam some information from this that might be of some help, but I've honestly never heard of anything like this before during mediation. It sounds almost like you are being blocked from going any further in your mediation.

 

EDIT:

I forgot to say. You mentioned the asteroid belt. The material about Mars being a moon of Maldek hypotheses that the asteroid belt is the remains of Maldek itself. It didn't exist before Maldek's destruction.

[TechAngel85]

'Their views are just as valid for them as mine are for me.'

 

This is what I was trying to get at with my martial arts comparison earlier.  The fact is, no they are not.  You can believe whatever you like of course, but that doesn't mean your beliefs are as valid.  Just like your opinion on the coding of Merge Plugins is not as valid as Mator's, your opinion (or those of 'parascientists') on scientific papers is not as valid - and if you had to sit down and talk to an actual scientist studying one of the areas that have been brought up so far you would find yourself out of your depth.  Or worse, if you had to take whatever cursory knowledge you have and apply it to a practical test or implementation.  

 

There is a real world, with real laws that govern it, and a real history that preceded it, and real facts about it.  You cant get around that with 'spirit-testing'.  

 

Again, in the real world only science has been able to provide us with any concrete answers to any of these questions, and we can see and feel the results of their progress everywhere.

At this point, I'm simply going to have to say that we agree to disagree because you appear to be very stuck on the science view and what can only be proven by science without even entertaining other possibilities. Whereas I see science as only half the picture. We'll never get beyond this point in the manner of which you and I are going back and forth.

 

This is mainly because you are, again, reading what is not there. Perhaps it's the vocabulary:

 

"Their views are just as valid for them as mine are for me."

• Views - a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.
• Opinion - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

Perhaps it's my use of the word valid because it would imply sound hard facts.... I could replace it with reasonable or sensible because what is reasonable or sensible to one person may not be to another.

• Their (opinions) are just as (reasonable/sensible) for them as mine are for me.
• I hate the language arts....I really do.

 

It comes down to this. They based their opinions on what they know (purely extensive science knowledge and what the data says). I based my opinion on what I know (evidence presented from both sides of the arguments and my spiritual beliefs). Who's right? Who knows! Much of the science around this material is hypothesis and theory. That's part of the problem because there aren't that many grounded "facts" around this material that have been proven without a doubt of other possibilities being a possibility.

 

I'll leave it at that and this will be my last post attempting to explain what I meant in my wording. I apologize if my wording has led to any confusion. In my opinion, my vocabulary sucks.

[baronaatista]

Its not about the wording, that's your assertion.

 

I think I've made it pretty clear that I am indeed open to all sorts of possibilities.  I honestly believe it's possible that at least significant parts of the writings in 'Law of One' are true.  I doubt that they are, but I'm certainly open to the possibility.

 

The problem, and agreed Mono is making this case better than I have - is that the level of openness required to believe what you have stated, the tactics of reasoning you have used could be used to 'prove' or give credence to almost anything, and as such how are you to distinguish these beliefs from any other?  My guess is your answer here is your spirit, but of course that is recursive reasoning, as Mono has pointed out.

 

'Much of the science around this material is hypothesis and theory.'

Yes, but those theories are supported by VAST amounts of evidence.  There are real solid testable reasons scientists claim the things they claim.  Just because you are not aware of the evidence or understand it properly does not mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not going to spend the time finding the proper evidence to refute your claims, as that would take quite a while and yeah - probably purchasing access to a database.  Plus, the 'reasoning' you've used so far to assert your claims suggests that no evidence will sway you.

 

'That's part of the problem because there aren't that many grounded "facts" around this material'

Around the age of the Earth?  The timeline of evolution?  The number of stars in the universe?  This is a preposterous statement for someone who suggests that they've reviewed the material.

[baronaatista]

When talking about validity;

 

A couple highly questionable carvings / paintings / statues that somewhat resemble dinosaurs is NOT equally valid evidence of mans co-existence with dinosaurs as the fossil record, and to suggest otherwise - I mean really, anyone here?  Is foolish.

[Guest]

Tech I came back and read your replies, understood them and then saw that there were a novels-worth of text cropped up overnight. Haha!

 

I'd like to know what you think of vestigial traits in humans and other animals. Does it bring anything up on this?

 

If you are going to talk about cave paintings of dinosaurs again, I'd like you to do what I suggested (if possible) and see if you can find any with depictions of feathers. That would be interesting as it is a much more modern find/view.

[TechAngel85]

I'd like to know what you think of vestigial traits in humans and other animals. Does it bring anything up on this?

 

If you are going to talk about cave paintings of dinosaurs again, I'd like you to do what I suggested (if possible) and see if you can find any with depictions of feathers. That would be interesting as it is a much more modern find/view.

No, the Law of One doesn't, but conspiracy theory does. If that can of worms is going to be opened it should be done in another thread.

 

I'm not, I said my peace with Baronaatista and meant it. I will say the main dinosaurs that we think had feathers were smaller in nature than the mainstream image of dinosaurs. The art mainly depicted the larger species.

[Guest]

Well I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory because I don't think we do need wisdom teeth, for example. I was just wondering if it says we were created as perfect being like in the bible. I'm not aware of how The Law of One perceives us, but it sure does seem like our mortality is expressed quite a lot of the time (death, reincarnation ect.). I'm not bringing it up in the name of science, I would have just been interested to hear any thoughts or if it mentioned us as imperfect.

 

Personally it would have made the conversation more interesting if you were open to the opinions of others a bit more. I understand it can get tiring, but it seems like you are going to fly off the handle with something like this:

 

 

and then tell us it would be a huge possibility. I mean, I wish it was as it's cool as feck, but meh. :P

Edited April 22, 2017 by Guest

[MonoAccipiter]

When talking about validity;

 

A couple highly questionable carvings / paintings / statues that somewhat resemble dinosaurs is NOT equally valid evidence of mans co-existence with dinosaurs as the fossil record, and to suggest otherwise - I mean really, anyone here?  Is foolish.

Dinosaur fossils are not my strongest point, but from what I can gather, they are dated through determining the formation time of the sedimentary rocks they are found in, which is done through radioactive dating. So refuting that kind of data would either require explaining how fossils mere tens-of-thousands-of-years-old ended up in several-million-years-old rock formations, or they would require refuting the whole fundament of atomic physics, and that would require some impressive reasoning, as it would also need to explain why the current models are accurate in virtually every other form of application. I don't think cave paintings are reliable enough for us to jump to such conclusions.

 

 

Most of David's stuff came from here: https://www.enterpris...n.com/tides.htm (it's lengthy and all the citations are at the bottom)

The fact that I was able to refute several of its claims make me very sceptical of this source. How many collapsed houses do we need to see before we start entertaining the idea that the building plan might have been at fault? More to the point, how large a portion of a theory can be built on falsehood until we dismiss it entirely? It also does not have the problem of needing the explosion to be as recent as Ra suggest, and thus the problem with the ¹²⁹Xe is an artificial problem that exists when this paper is used to support an adapted theory. 

 

The thing is, this theory is well and good, but it is not in itself something that supports something. There are theories that say there are erosion evidence on mars, but until we find evidence that suggest there is water, they remain mere theories, because that erosion evidence might as well be proof of something else. The study says the following: "It is the authors’ central proposal in this paper that it was this verifiable 'Mars tidal lock relationship' with Planet V that accounts for a host of previously inexplicable and even contradictory Martian surface features, that otherwise will remain perpetually mysterious." It is a theory working from the fact that there was no other theory at the time suggesting solutions for the surface features, now there are, and there are even surface features unaccounted for by this very theory. It has been dismissed for several reasons, one is that other theories have surfaced that presuppose less factors (Occam's Razor) and thus are more less reliant on chance, another is that evidence it predicted has not been found, such as frozen water remains on the surface, another is that problems have arisen that the theory does not seem to account for, as was highlighted in the article. The theory of Maldek has the curious capacity of making even more presuppositions and thus shifting an even heavier burden over on chance, while still not actively dealing with the problems of the former theory, or predicting any new evidence that can be used to determine its likelihood.  

 

I'm also still very uncertain about the supposition that nuclear explosions can literally shatter a planet.

 

 

As further explanation, take calculus. Now I've never taken calculus so I have no understanding of it besides perhaps very basic concepts that I can gleam from my knowledge of other maths. Now I inhabit the mind of a calculus genius. All the information about calculus is there, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the I would have an understanding of the material as well as the genius would. It would be more akin to reading a book. I can read the book, but understanding what I'm reading is another story. This is all hypothetical here so I'm simply providing a possible scenario. I have no idea how the inter workings of such a consciousness transfer would actually work.

 

By this logic, should they not be using their own grammar when speaking in English, since they are merely able to look up the words, while not understanding the rules for how they are used? Try using Google Translate to translate a french page, or even better, Japanese, it does not look very pretty, and that even attempts to alleviate some of the grammar issues...

 

 

The material that does not, will require some personal decision whether to believe it or not.

If we are talking about the material that does not have scientific components, I can agree, but should not the parts that do have scientific components lend us an indication of the truthfulness of this whole narration?

 

 

Once our science is advanced enough, I'm sure this will be even more true.

If it is true, it will be true, if it is not, it will not. What we suppose it will indicate, should hopefully have no effect on what it ends up indicating. I mean, if there is a creator, then obviously science would reveal how the creator made things, that is kind of inferred from the term creator. 

 

Most mainstream Christianity in Europe, at least where I live, does not teach a literal interpretation of the Bible. Partly because that has been effectively disproved by scientific methods which are deemed accurate by most people because the logic behind them is both available (viz. contestable) and sound (viz. generally uncontested).

 

 

 

I don't think the books ever say if or how they verified the contact, but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't either. It's simply an unanswered question at this point. I'll also say that reading the Intro would give you a basis of who these individuals are. If the information is accurate, these are not people who would attempt to trick each other. Don and Carla knew each other for nearly ten years and when you know someone and work closely with them for that long, you tend to know their ins and outs. I'm not saying it's impossible, just very unlikely.

As I tried to demonstrate earlier, I believe the main interest of the para-sciences should be in proving the truth of their claims, thus it is alarming that they seem uninterested in verification, even to the extent of very simple methods. This, combined with the contradictions in the text, seems like a strong indication of foul play. The narrator is both unreliable, and communicating with people who have no interest in providing adequate verification of its actuality. Thus we have no way of knowing if it is real, if it is what it says it is, while being aware that certain things it says are definitely unreliable (either based on misunderstandings regarding communication or actual falsified information). Thus the chance of the information it presents being of value seem to drop rapidly.

 

Probability tells us that the chance of getting a coin toss right twice in a row is 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4, three in a row is 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/8 and so forth. Imagine the likelihood of the information this entity presents being accurate. We have to first toss the coin of whether the channellers are reliable, if that passes, we have to toss the coin of whether the entity is a real non-deceiver (this could be divided into two categories, but the real part could be applied to the part about the channellers), then we have to toss the coin of whether it made a mistake or not. We have a chance of 1/X * 1/Y * 1/Z, and these factors seem to grow with every addition of evidence that relies even more so on possibility. The fact that the channellers hesitate in making any test of its reliability makes both factor X and factor Y grow, the fact that there are contradictions in the text makes factor Z grow, and also factor Y since it could be intentionally misleading us. Science works by reducing these factors, by leaving as little as possible left to chance. This sort of theory seems to work by having the number of factors grow into infinity, Z was not a factor until I pointed out the contradiction for example, which is basically the opposite of progressing towards a probability, namely regressing into the unknown.

 

The problem with this is that such criticism of knowledge works equally harshly on the points it defends as it does upon science, and it is not really a better solution to the problem of science (absolute verification). It's a sort of knowledge-nihilism, which declares that there is no difference between a high and a low probability, ignoring the fact that such guidance has without a doubt lead us towards important knowledge. The thing that is most odd about that kind of reasoning, however, is that it seems to assume that low probability outcomes benefit more from questioning the validity of our knowledge, when they don't do that at all, proper knowledge-nihilism should reject every factor of knowledge, not defend that which is by nature, unlikely and esoteric. There is no moving of all factors into the a levelled playing field, there is rejection of all factors, or no such rejection at all. Either we abandon science, and rituals which we have even less reason to trust in, or we abandon nothing, and consider its reasoning until a proper philosophical argument for its supposed deception is provided. 

 

That is my point of view, at least, on why the lack of complete assurance is a poor excuse for dismissing scientific tradition and the need for scientific verification through probable solutions (and reduction of improbable factors).

 

EDIT: Forgot some of the articles.

 

First off, thank you for providing sources. I was genuinely unable to find that information myself.

 

My main problem with this is as follows: most of these theories rely on the solar wind stripping Mars of its atmosphere, they merely explain the magnetic field being blown away by comets/ateroids. Their benefit is that they can say this happened millions of years ago, and thus the solar wind had plenty of time to do its thing. If there were Martians 75000 years ago, then the time frame is change significantly, and the asteroid impact would need to rid it of its atmosphere too, which these theories do not seem to suggest it did. Otherwise the process would need to be much less developed. 

 

-----

 

Thank you for attempting to help with my meditation hindrance. It is annoying me greatly, but I suppose I can only continue working around it.

Edited April 22, 2017 by MonoAccipiter

[TechAngel85]

Well I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory because I don't think we do need wisdom teeth, for example. I was just wondering if it says we were created as perfect being like in the bible. I'm not aware of how The Law of One perceives us, but it sure does seem like our mortality is expressed quite a lot of the time (death, reincarnation ect.). I'm not bringing it up in the name of science, I would have just been interested to hear any thoughts or if it mentioned us as imperfect.

They don't say anything about us being perfect beings. Just the opposite, in fact. For example, our lifespans are suppose to be several hundred years to grow spiritually, but due to different factors over the ages they've been shortened to what we have now. Nor are we generically pure.

 

Personally it would have made the conversation more interesting if you were open to the opinions of others a bit more. I understand it can get tiring, but it seems like you are going to fly off the handle with something like this:

 

 

and then tell us it would be a huge possibility. I mean, I wish it was as it's cool as feck, but meh. :P

What opinions have I not addressed?

 

And no, it was never that advanced but they did have Cadillacs back when the dinosaurs were around. I know because I watched a TV show of it when I was a child.

[TechAngel85]

Myth #1
Therefore, any time you see that radiocarbon dating was used on rocks, they've used the incorrect method because this only goes back 50,000 years and gets into the "ify" stage around 20-30,000 year range. The most common method used is Relative Dating and this is what you are describing. They take the dates of the rock layers around the fossil to get an estimate.

To answer the question as to why we don't find human bones would require us getting into the Honeycomb or Hollow Earth hypothesis. The Law of One does say the Earth is honeycombed.

 

The thing is, this theory is well and good, but it is not in itself something that supports something. There are theories that say there are erosion evidence on mars, but until we find evidence that suggest there is water, they remain mere theories, because that erosion evidence might as well be proof of something else. The study says the following: "It is the authors’ central proposal in this paper that it was this verifiable 'Mars tidal lock relationship' with Planet V that accounts for a host of previously inexplicable and even contradictory Martian surface features, that otherwise will remain perpetually mysterious." It is a theory working from the fact that there was no other theory at the time suggesting solutions for the surface features, now there are, and there are even surface features unaccounted for by this very theory. It has been dismissed for several reasons, one is that other theories have surfaced that presuppose less factors (Occam's Razor) and thus are more less reliant on chance, another is that evidence it predicted has not been found, such as frozen water remains on the surface, another is that problems have arisen that the theory does not seem to account for, as was highlighted in the article. The theory of Maldek has the curious capacity of making even more presuppositions and thus shifting an even heavier burden over on chance, while still not actively dealing with the problems of the former theory, or predicting any new evidence that can be used to determine its likelihood.

It's "dismissed" because there are now "other theories" that you like better. Sorry, but that what I got from that. ::
 

By this logic, should they not be using their own grammar when speaking in English, since they are merely able to look up the words, while not understanding the rules for how they are used? Try using Google Translate to translate a french page, or even better, Japanese, it does not look very pretty, and that even attempts to alleviate some of the grammar issues...

True, but I was merely providing a possibility. Like I said before, no one knows how communication like this would work so all we can do is make assumptions.
 

If we are talking about the material that does not have scientific components, I can agree, but should not the parts that do have scientific components lend us an indication of the truthfulness of this whole narration?

I was talking about material that does not have scientific components.

 

To answer your question, yes but only to the degree that our science is accurate. Most of what we're providing as indication of truthfulness is only hypothesis and theories; which are nothing more than the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another to form a plausible explanation. Even the dictionary calls theory an "unproved assumption". This is why I have such a hard time debating with scientific minded individuals because more often than not, in my experience, they often take theory and turn it into fact as proof of their correctness before cleansing their hands of the debate. They rarely open themselves to the possibility that a different, less popular "theory" could be correct simply because it isn't mainstream or it has less supporting facts that build its theory. The science community is cut throat in this regard and is why I prefer to stay away from it.
 

If it is true, it will be true, if it is not, it will not. What we suppose it will indicate, should hopefully have no effect on what it ends up indicating. I mean, if there is a creator, then obviously science would reveal how the creator made things, that is kind of inferred from the term creator.

The Law of One has it's own "theory" of how this was done, but of course there's no way for science to measure it.
 

As I tried to demonstrate earlier,....

I'm not even going to touch this due to lack of energy and that there's the probability that I could see my neighbor washing all the resident's cars today in the nude (joke). Probability, in this sense, deals with too many arbitrary values to be of any use here in my opinion, and, as you mention, deals harsh blows to both sides of the fence so I see no benefit of even getting into....that and because I dropped by statistics class in college.
 

My main problem with this is as follows: most of these theories rely on the solar wind stripping Mars of its atmosphere, they merely explain the magnetic field being blown away by comets/ateroids. Their benefit is that they can say this happened millions of years ago, and thus the solar wind had plenty of time to do its thing. If there were Martians 75000 years ago, then the time frame is change significantly, and the asteroid impact would need to rid it of its atmosphere too, which these theories do not seem to suggest it did. Otherwise the process would need to be much less developed.

Even if the solar winds did the stripping, the problem I have is the assumption that it would take millions of years for the atmosphere to be stripped away. For all we know it might only take a few thousand.

[Aiyen]

"They rarely open themselves to the possibility that a different, less popular "theory" could be correct simply because it isn't mainstream or it has less supporting facts that build its theory. The science community is cut throat in this regard and is why I prefer to stay away from it."

 

If theory A has more supporting facts than theory B, then by definition theory A is the better at explaining the observed phenomenon. 

 

So this has nothing to do with science minded people being malicious of intent, it is simply because the sum of evidence for A is greater than B. 

 

Great examples of this is gravity. There are numerous theories that all try to explain it, yet general relativity still has the best track record to date when it comes to explain the vast majority of the observed phenomenon.  Yes there are theories that explain discrete phenomenon much better and more accurately, but then fail utterly when a different observation is presented. 

This is why general relativity has the special status it has, not because scientists think that the people who propose something different are all crazy people (though some of them are). 

 

I have often found that this view that scientists are narrowminded etc. is often perpetrated by people in the scientific community who have had their hard work discredited because it was simply not up to the task of scrutiny. I can understand why it must be annoying to be able to create something truly remarkable, and think you are the next Einstein... and then have it all torn away because nature just decided to do something different. It is after all easier to blame the people than to blame nature. 

[MonoAccipiter]

Myth #1

Therefore, any time you see that radiocarbon dating was used on rocks, they've used the incorrect method because this only goes back 50,000 years and gets into the "ify" stage around 20-30,000 year range. The most common method used is Relative Dating and this is what you are describing. They take the dates of the rock layers around the fossil to get an estimate.

 

To answer the question as to why we don't find human bones would require us getting into the Honeycomb or Hollow Earth hypothesis. The Law of One does say the Earth is honeycombed.

 

I never mentioned radiocarbon. I mentioned radiometric dating. It does not need to use carbon, it uses uranium amongst other things. Carbon dating is for human finds.

 

Hollow earth hypothesis? Really? Are we gonna refute the entire law of gravity now? How do we explain away the average density of the earth? Does seismic waves work in a different fashion than what we presume? Or is there some machine slowing them down when they travel through these honeycomb caves? 

 

It's "dismissed" because there are now "other theories" that you like better. Sorry, but that what I got from that. ::

 

There is no "me" in this. There are other theories that rely much less on presupposed factors that we are unable to pass judgement on, that cover more ground in terms of the problem this theory faces, that predict more evidence that would allow for verification, that align with other theories accepted for the same reason, such as the accretion theory for the meteor field between Mars and Jupiter. So, yes, it is "dismissed" because other theories are deemed immensely more likely, that is how the scientific method works. Theories that rely on untestable phenomena whilst failing to predict the nature of future evidence, are gradually eliminated as potential solutions because they need to stretch their own definitions further and further at each instance. Probability is very useful here, in fact, it is one of the most reliable guiding factors we have when it comes to the enumeration and assessment of theories. When a theory presupposes that we change other theories for it to work, such as in the case of the hollow earth theory, then it is expected to provide a model that accounts for both itself and all previous cases under the same umbrella. It's not enough to say "this will work if physics are wrong." You need to find a theory that can supplant what we currently work from, and continue to explain all the factors it has explained previously.

 

To answer your question, yes but only to the degree that our science is accurate. Most of what we're providing as indication of truthfulness is only hypothesis and theories; which are nothing more than the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another to form a plausible explanation. Even the dictionary calls theory an "unproved assumption". This is why I have such a hard time debating with scientific minded individuals because more often than not, in my experience, they often take theory and turn it into fact as proof of their correctness before cleansing their hands of the debate. They rarely open themselves to the possibility that a different, less popular "theory" could be correct simply because it isn't mainstream or it has less supporting facts that build its theory. The science community is cut throat in this regard and is why I prefer to stay away from it.

I've never assumed that the theories I rely on are guaranteed to be correct. Then my line of argument would be: "this is wrong because science explains it otherwise." That is not how I have argued. I have however, identified common threads between theories in terms of the factors they require as a presupposition, and the need for any alternative theory to supplant the theories it dismisses with something equally adequate. When an "unproven assumption" fails to do that, it goes from being an "unproven assumption" to a "a very unlikely, unproven assumption." When the "very unlikely, unproven assumption" fails to explain how it would itself work, then it threads dangerously close to being an impossibility. Such things are dismissed by science not because they take the time definitely eliminate each and every one of them, but because the alternative is intellectual death. Complete stagnation in the development of our knowledge about the world. 

 

It is very hard for me to prove definitely what the solar system looked like 75000 years ago, but as I demonstrated, we either rely on the methods that were founded upon reason, or we abandon all methods. There is no picking and choosing amongst what we follow. Openness is not believing in anything, it is being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I have tried my very best to do this with your evidence, which you have been more than adequate in providing, and I thank you for that, but it has lead me to contradictions, to the need for introducing additional unreliable factors, to the need for dismissing theories which there has been presented no alternative for (the laws of gravity) and bending every correlation into the most extreme aspect of itself. There are no indicators of truth here, there is a possibility with no evidence pointing to it besides the lack of evidence affirmably denying it, that is, if you do not mistake correlation for causation. When things like the Martian dichotomy can point to alternatives A, B, and C, it stops being evidence for C alone. This path seems to wind on down that road forever. There is a Martian dichotomy, and it could mean a multiple impact scenario took place, and that could be an exploding planet, or it could have been something else entirely, and if it was an exploding planet, it could be another planet than Maldek, which the evidence seems to suggest since most theory on this assumes it happened millions of years ago to account for the stripping of the atmosphere. .. and so forth ad nauseam.