Law of One

[TechAngel85]

@Mono
When I made the comments about science-minded people I was strictly speaking of you. You, indeed, have not done any of those things. I was speaking in general from my experiences. Of course as Aiyen pointed out, it is only the natural way of science.

@All
I have to be honest that I am consider calling this thread quits or at least cutting way back on my responses. This isn't because I don't desire to continue. It's solely for the following reasons:

• This discussion is taking up FAR more of my free time than I ever imagined it would. This is mainly because the topic has become solely a scientific debate which is requiring me to go back to find old research, re-watch old episodes of shows that presented the information, re-read large parts of the Law of One material, etc., etc. I'm doing this to present my side to a more appropriate standard that science warrants and yet it would seem that I'm still failing to do so properly. Seeing I'm the only one on my side of the debate, I simply don't desire to spend the amount of time it has been required of me to continue along this track. It's literally taking hours, yes several hours, out of each day. Hence why my last reply to Mono was rather short. This is yet another reason I didn't desire this to be a scientific debate. It's far more taxing than I expected. I have other things I'd rather do with my time than dig through all the past materials to formulate appropriate answers which still far short of being complete.
• I'm finding it hard to discuss the material when there isn't a full grasp of all the material from the Law of One by the other participants due to not having read said material. I am often finding myself saying in my head, "well, if you'd read the material...". I don't have time to explain the scope of the material for each and every posting, especially when some of it spans multiple sessions and each session is several pages long. This is another reason I feel like I'm unable to properly present the material. Most participants are just getting the words I post and nothing more.
• A good majority of my provided research is going to be within the realm of parascience which, as the record shows, will always be dismissed; therefore, I can see little incentive for me to continue along the path this debate has taken.
• Finally, because of the reasons above, it's very quickly loosing it's "fun factor" for me and becoming a chore. Chores aren't fun. Scientific debates aren't my idea of fun, either. Simply put, it's loosing it's enjoyment for me.

[baronaatista]

No more points to argue here, just a fun video (I don't know if you'll find it fun, but it is genuinely meant in good faith...  Neil Tyson is an animated, funny dude.  He is making some arguments here I'm sure you'll disagree with, but he definitely does so in a playful/funny way.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN33tstYB50

[Aiyen]

I understand entirely tech, and I want to take the time to thank you for putting yourself and your views out here. I still believe that this is part of the reason why I stick around this forum after this long. 

Considering the subject, the debate has been really civil, at least compared to certain other forums I have attended in my time. 

 

That said, when you present views that take on scientific aspects, it is always going to end up with scrutiny. It is not because of malicious intent, or any attempt to display you as a crazy person. From my perspective it is simply a healthy way to look at life. If anyone tells me they view the world in a certain way, I am going to ask counter arguments to their logic for having said view. Due to my upbringing I "lost" the ability to simply take things on faith alone a long time ago. 

 

One point I did not manage to compliment ya on was the meditation part, I found that really interesting. It was good to read your views on it, and it reflects quite a bit on how I do it myself... or at least did a while back. 

[MonoAccipiter]

I understand as well, Tech, and I have prodded you to my content. Thank you for a civil discussion. It has made me more aware of the points of contentment I am unable to make the leaps to accept, and if those remain unproblematic for you, I have no difficulty in accepting that.  ::

[TechAngel85]

No more points to argue here, just a fun video (I don't know if you'll find it fun, but it is genuinely meant in good faith...  Neil Tyson is an animated, funny dude.  He is making some arguments here I'm sure you'll disagree with, but he definitely does so in a playful/funny way.)

The the gist of this, for those that didn't watch it, is that there is a god until we find the answers that we attributed to God, then there is no god because we have solved the mystery. It's either you have God or you have science. He even asks the question (paraphrasing here), "why do 15% of the top scientific minds still believe in God when there is all this evidence that there is no god". The question I would ask is "why must it be one or the other?"

 

I believe I have already provided my stance but I will do so again. My belief is that science shows the method of the "how" God put it all together. We're simply discovering the methods, thus taking the mystery out of creation. This has been my believe for 10+ years (since I got heavy into Christianity at around 18yrs old), so that not recent belief. But why is discovering new science a reason to say there is no God/Creator? That's the part I've never understood about those who think that way. There's nothing wrong with that, either. Those are their beliefs.

 

He brings up very briefly in a single sentence that we don't know what there was before the Big Bang. In the Law of One, this would be the time between the 8th and 1st octave (densities). At the 8th we become one with the Creator. Once all is one, the creation starts again so that the Creator can know Creator even further. In this sense, you can take the idea that the universe will eventually contract back in on itself (I don't know if this is still a popular theory now that it's been discovered that the universe is still expanding) and say they are correct because this would be the act of all becoming one again before the next creation. That is, if you follow the Law of One material.

 

As for Neil, great guy. I've watched a lot of the TV shows he's hosted.

 

 

@Aiyen,

Yes. I do understand that now after this experience.

 

 

Thanks Aiyen and Mono for your words.

[Guest]

Summary of this thread:

 

 

 

Edit: Tech, you might like Professor Brian Cox if his vocal delivery doesn't creep you out too much. Heh. Well it does me as it's very "soft" to my ears.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Guest

[Aiyen]

"(I don't know if this is still a popular theory now that it's been discovered that the universe is still expanding)"

 

All the cosmological end scenarios are pretty bleak. Ever expanding, until everything is cold. Or collapsing... until it all heats up into a super plasma.

Got to admit that having cosmology was one of the few courses that left me a bit depressed/impressed. No happy ending what so ever. But a real stress on the whole live life while you got it. 

Good thing that there is most likely more between here and the end of the universe, than we currently know. I personally hate unhappy endings. :) 

 

As for the whole god/creator part. I guess that is largely due to simple human ego. It is after all better to believe you got somewhere due to yourself, rather than having it given by some creator. It just make us feel special...which I can relate to. 

[Guest]

@Aiyen

 

https://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/100000000000000

 

Well that and the fact that they also explore leaving the universe finding a giant killer space rock that feeds on "rift" energy. That was a really good episode actually. Lol

[Aiyen]

Yeah I remember that episode!(s) 

It was a good storyline! :) 

 

I should get to watch that show again... if only I did not have such a huge hate for darleks.... I just cannot take them seriously as bad guys!

[MonoAccipiter]

Good old Ten.

[Nebulous112]

@Tech

 

I agree 100% on "why must it be one or the other?".

 

I have never understood why there is a conflict between science and organized religion. How could science disprove "God" or vice versa? It is a non sequitur. Science explains how the universe works, nothing more and nothing less.

 

For example, who is to say that evolution wasn't God's tool?

 

However, this hinges on an assumption that the Bible (or whatever religious text you hold dear) is not meant to be taken literally. I have always held the view that such things are more metaphorical in nature than literal. In the ages before literacy was common, you needed interesting stories to be able to make your point -- that way the storyteller could more easily remember it, and the listener could get more out of it.

 

 

That being said, I am not a Christian or any other denomination. Nor am I an atheist. I consider myself agnostic, but my belief in a higher power (the Earth itself? The universe? Who knows...) has only become stronger with age.

 

Anyway, sorry for the ramble, but that comment about science and religion not necessarily being diametrically opposed really resonated with me, Tech.

[MonoAccipiter]

@Nebulous112: There are definitely religious claims that science can disprove, but it is not beyond the means of religion to accept those developments and still retain their faith. It is to be remarked that philosophy has thread upon the grounds of such assumptions on numerous occasions though, with varying results. Theoretically, it could be possible to prove the existence of God within the framework of logic, it has just not been attempted with enormous success. Descartes famously asserted that to be the most perfect, something would have to exist, thus God needed to exist, but he supposed that existence was a trait, which led Kant to point out that if a pair of brown trousers no longer exist, then they are not brown anymore either. This sort of scenario seems to repeat, but it does make for interesting reading. 

 

There is a challenge for believers in adapting their faith to reality when they have been given to think of it otherwise, John Ruskin once said: "If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful Hammers! I hear the clink of them at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses," but it is no impossibility, and so long as that is attempted, co-existence should be well within the means of both sides. I'm not much fond of the view that some atheists seem to hold, which boils down to any belief not founded on affirmable evidence being dangerous. There is a clear distinction between different kinds of belief as I see it, and for each that teaches hate, a dozen that preach harmony.

 

@Ayien: The whole concept of "doing something only by our own merits" seems like a very modern deception. It is not very uncommon even for atheistic philosophical doctrines to believe in such a thing as absolute free will, let alone suppose it just for the benefit of our merits. See Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre etc. I think you give too little thought to why people abandon religion; supposing that they merely want to satisfy their ego seems like a very demeaning remark to make about people...

 

@Sparrowprince: It took me far too long to realise that was a character...

Edited April 24, 2017 by MonoAccipiter

[baronaatista]

lol Sparrow beat my funny video for sure.  That girl is hilarious, never heard of her before.

 

I do really like the part in the Neil Tyson vid though;

'what's that going on there between our legs?  A sewage system directly in the middle of an entertainment complex?  No engineer would EVER design this'.

 

Oh god the last line of Philomena's 2nd vid;

 

'maybe one day we'll evolve eyes that can see evolution, and that'll prove it's real'.  

incroyable.

Edited April 24, 2017 by baronaatista

[Guest]

I should get to watch that show again... if only I did not have such a huge hate for darleks.... I just cannot take them seriously as bad guys!

But without the cheese it wouldn't be as good. I think they are bringing the 60's Cybermen (the original Borg before Star Trek ripped them off to anyone else) back this series which look like they are duct-taped together. I find it quite charming.

 

Good old Ten.

Pretty sure it's an 11 episode, but if you mean generally I didn't get into it until season 6 of the new show. I am not a fan of 10 actually, he did too much gurning for me. :P

 

lol Sparrow beat my funny video for sure. That girl is hilarious, never heard of her before.

Well I found your vid entertaining too. It's kind of pretty similar to our TV science guy who I mentioned above. I think she is mocking his documentaries:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udefAsZem98

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eet7vX9dfM4

 

Neil is in that too actually. :)

 

'maybe one day we'll evolve eyes that can see evolution, and that'll prove it's real'.

It seems silly but I bet some people would actually need this before they were able to accept it. ;) Edited April 24, 2017 by Guest

[MonoAccipiter]

Was referring to the link, which mostly concerns the episode Utopia.

 

Daleks were easier to take seriously before Moffat decided to practically make them gunfodder. Can't remember the last time I actually saw them accomplish something. He even made them (supposedly the most terrifying beings ever made) beg for mercy just to make River look badass. In the first episode of the new series we were once again treated to a Dalek that was incapable of doing anything of worth, never mind the fact that it was suffering from an obvious case of Storm Trooper Syndrome.