DNA and Souls

[Govert]

You keep on trying to frame the discussion in terms of "belief" or "religiousness".

If you cannot prove it, it's based on belief, isn't it? And it is, you are probably right, mixed with hope.
If you cannot prove something, what is then the difference between hoping that something will happen and believing something will happen?

If you cannot prove you have a soul what is the difference between believing you have a soul and hoping you have a soul?

Do you btw believe in the wave? Will the wave save you when you become a good person (trying to do sto), when you gather information and believe some of it to be true (without being able to prove most), if you believe you have a soul?

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't? And some of it is credible, but unless you can really say 'it is maybe so' and make clear you cannot prove it it's nothing more than belief. Knowledge is often nothing more than speculation.

Can you prove that by knowing it you can get out of the trap? No, it's based on belief and hope. Hope cannot get you out. Anticipation cannot get you out.

The question is, what will get you out?

 

[Govert]

I just want to point out again that it has been explained to Govert many times that nothing here is about 'belief' - yet, he still uses this word.

of course, because you cannot prove

- that by becoming a good person (trying to do sto) you will get out
- that by gathering some information and believe it you can get out
- that if you believe that there is a higher power who is eating you, influencing your thinking and trying to hold you prison in the matrix, you can get out
- that if you don't obey a person who is in your opinion (or really) trying to manipulate you, you can get out
- that the system of mouravieff is the method to get out
- the true nature of the existence
- that you have a soul
- that there is a wave on the way that will get you out.

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't? And some of it is credible, but unless you can really say 'it is maybe so' and make clear you cannot prove it it's nothing more than belief. Knowledge is often nothing more than speculation.

Can you prove that by 'knowing' it you can get out of the trap? No, it's based on belief and hope. Hope cannot get you out. Anticipation cannot get you out.

The question is, what will get you out?

 

[Art]

For the hundreth time, it is not about belief, it is about knowledge.

There is knowledge behind the idea of the Wave: The source was PURE KNOWLEDGE.

Answer what Ryan has repeatedly ask you to answer.

And yes, the question is: What will get you out indeed.

 

[Govert]

For the hundreth time, it is not about belief, it is about knowledge.

There is knowledge behind the idea of the Wave: The source was PURE KNOWLEDGE.

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't? And some of it is credible, but unless you can really say 'it is maybe so' and make clear you cannot prove it it's nothing more than belief.

If you cannot prove you have a soul what is the difference between believing you have a soul and hoping you have a soul?

Why don't you call 'Pure Knowledge' 'pure speculation' unless you can prove it for a 100%?

 

[Ryan]

If you cannot prove something, what is then the difference between hoping that something will happen and believing something will happen?

Quite a big difference. One involves being open to what the Universe is willing to show us (hoping). The other involves expecting that the Universe will conform to a particular outcome (believing).

Do you btw believe in the wave?

No.

Will the wave save you when you become a good person (trying to do sto), when you gather information and believe some of it to be true (without being able to prove most), if you believe you have a soul?

No.

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't?

It is about gathering data and being open to revising one's approach as based on that data. It is about sharing data and networking. For instance, Laura's "Secret History of the World" contains references to scientific studies and data that suggests global climate change may be in this planet's near future. Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" contains data that suggests that there is a "type" of individual that is genetically incapable of conscience, and that these individuals have infiltrated most of the positions of power within global governments, militaries and industries of significance. And one doesn't have to be Albert Einstein to read the news and look at the American and Israeli wars of aggression and note that THEY are certainly on a mission to do "something". So there is a lot of data.

Of course, if you think that the work of Cass and SOTT is based on nothing but "channelling", then no doubt you will think that none of it is provable. If you do think this, not only are you wrong, but it suggests that you are here to "teach" us where we have all "gone astray" and show us all how smart and rational you are. Such an attitude is akin to walking into a person's home and demanding that they take down all their curtains because they cannot "prove" that they match the wallpaper.

And some of it is credible. Can you prove that by knowing it you can get out of the trap? No, it's based on belief and hope.

No, it is not based on belief or assumption of any sort. You are putting words in other people's mouths. This is manipulative behaviour, and is not tolerated here.

Hope will not get you out. Anticipation will not get you out.

The question is, what will get you out?

What makes you think I even want to get "out"?

And now that I have answered your questions, I again ask you to answer my previous one, which you have consciously ignored:

You seem quite sure that others here are responding in a "contemptuous" and "offended" manner. Can you prove this?

I feel that it is fair to warn you that failure to answer will indicate that you do not wish to participate in sincere discussion here, and you will probably be banned from the forum in order to ensure a comfortable environment for our other forum members who are here for sincere discussion.

 

[Govert]

If you cannot prove something, what is then the difference between hoping that something will happen and believing something will happen?

Quite a big difference. One involves being open to what the Universe is willing to show us (hoping). The other involves expecting that the Universe will conform to a particular outcome (believing).

My dictionary says that hope is a wish that what is anticipated or expected will occur,
which is different than being open for information. Belief according to my dictionary is the feeling or confidence that something is real or true.

May I ask you that regarding having a soul which you cannot prove (I presume, if you can please say so), Do you believe or hope that you have one or do you have an agnostic meaning about it?

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't?

It is about gathering data and being open to revising one's approach as based on that data. It is about sharing data and networking. For instance, Laura's "Secret History of the World" contains references to scientific studies and data that suggests global climate change may be in this planet's near future. Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" contains data that suggests that there is a "type" of individual that is genetically incapable of conscience, and that these individuals have infiltrated most of the positions of power within global governments, militaries and industries of significance. And one doesn't have to be Albert Einstein to read the news and look at the American and Israeli wars of aggression and note that THEY are certainly on a mission to do "something". So there is a lot of data.

I agree with you that Laura did a very good job with gathering information about psychopathy, terror, higher evil powers and the NWO. Much of it is probably true. And I don't care if it's channeled or not. It is very credible. Some information is however rather speculative and goes unproved, for example the information about souls, fulcanelli and the almost certainty that the system of Gurd-Ousp-Mour can get you out alive.

My point and question is (and I know I sound sometimes rude the way I state things) can this kind of knowledge and speculation (not everything can be proved) get us out alive? In my opinion, until now no one could give a satisfying answer to that question. I think that for many persons it has become a belief, but even if that's so or not everyone can do and believe what s/he wants. My question though remains.

Btw, regarding your last question. I use my free choice not to answer every question. You can use yours of course to ask the same question in all your posts.

 

[Art]

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't? And some of it is credible, but unless you can really say 'it is maybe so' and make clear you cannot prove it it's nothing more than belief.

Clearly you have not been reading SOTT work. Here you talk without what this site gives. It is not about 'prove', but about validity, probability, corroboration of facts, gathering of data, after the which we are all after, because not all the questions have an answer. That is what 'to seek' means. This is a spiritual/scientific experiment. The spiritual science being developed here gives what you don't with all your divertimento: A working hypothesis. A healthy actitude towards knowledge. An invitation to discover one's self. And insights such as the which all your posts do not manage to even guess.

Prove to that: You belive in your posittion.

If you cannot prove you have a soul what is the difference between believing you have a soul and hoping you have a soul?

I do not belive, neither hope that I have a soul: I know that I have a soul. Your 'logic' is not a factor on this certainty I own.

Why don't you call 'Pure Knowledge' 'pure speculation' unless you can prove it for a 100%?

Becausa a 100% would render the matter into belief.

Speculation is an elelemt of the scientific methode. Many things starts by speculation.

you cannot prove

- that by becoming a good person (trying to do sto) you will get out
- that by gathering some information and believe it you can get out
- that if you believe that there is a higher power who is eating you, influencing your thinking and trying to hold you prison in the matrix, you can get out
- that if you don't obey a person who is in your opinion (or really) trying to manipulate you, you can get out
- that the system of mouravieff is the method to get out
- the true nature of the existence
- that you have a soul
- that there is a wave on the way that will get you out.

Where do you read that by bgecoming a 'good person' would get you out?

Gahtering information is to fight 'beliefs', and this would give you knowledge, and this will not get you out.

It is childish that you will get out by beliving that there is a higher power eating you and influencing you. Here I read your juvenile comprehensions.

Not obeying to a person who is trying to manipulate you will not get you out -it will remove you from such a manipulation.

Where do you read that the system of Mouravieff is the methode to get out?

You are not providing anything to deepen out knowledge of the true nature of existance. This is because you are not interested on the true nature of existance. You are only interested on your little game.

The Wave will not get you out.

... whatever you mean by 'out'.

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't?

Wrong.

Knowledge is often nothing more than speculation.

You have a severe prejudice against knowledge. Perhaps if you start to speculate about your self, you might even get somewhere.

Meanwhile, please stop tickling the forum with your idiosincratic petulance.

 

[Peam]

News flash just in.
Discussion between Columbus and Govert.

Govert:
Hey Columbus, just heard about you're belief that the earth is round and you're going to attempt to sail all the way around it. You must be joking. I believe that we can never prove that the earth is round. Our brains can't handle such stuff. You're wasting your time.

Columbus:
I never said I believe the earth is round Govert. Based on my extensive research it's very likely though. If I come across evidence that refutes it, I'll take it into consideration and alter my hypothesis if need be. I'm just going to set off and see where my journey takes me.

Govert:
But you can't prove the earth is round. It's impossible. Prove your belief to me.

Columbus:
I just told you, it's not a belief. It's a working hypothesis based on a lot of evidence.

Govert:
So you believe if you set sail and keep going east you'll sail all the way round the world. You believe that. You can't prove it so it's a belief. All this evidence you've got is just speculation.

Columbus:
Then show me where I ever said I believed it. And isn't your statement that "all evidence is just speculation" a teeny weeny bit like a belief?

Govert:
I have the right not to answer that, just as you have the right to ask it.

Columbus:
It appears that it's you that's stuck with beliefs then, not me.

Govert:
I don't believe that.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

You keep on trying to frame the discussion in terms of "belief" or "religiousness".

If you cannot prove it, it's based on belief, isn't it?

It is not black and white. Everything does not fall into either being an absolute certainty or a totally blind conviction or speculation. You keep ignoring probability.

It is all based on information you cannot really prove, isn't? And some of it is credible, but unless you can really say 'it is maybe so' and make clear you cannot prove it it's nothing more than belief. Knowledge is often nothing more than speculation.

It is not black and white. Everything does not fall into either being an absolute certainty or a totally blind conviction or speculation. You keep ignoring probability.

Can you prove that by knowing it you can get out of the trap? No, it's based on belief and hope. Hope cannot get you out. Anticipation cannot get you out.

It is not black and white. Everything does not fall into either being an absolute certainty or a totally blind conviction or speculation. You keep ignoring probability.

The question is, what will get you out?

And the answer is knowledge. Truth shall set you free.

P.S. - Peam, did you notice how Govert turned into Covert in the middle of your analogous anecdote? I don't know if that was intentional, but as Govert would say, sure makes me enter into some wild/baseless speculation about some unprovable possibilities about Govert's reasons (direct or indirect) for being here...

 

[Govert]

... whatever you mean by 'out'.

The title of Laura's book is Secret History of the World and How to get Out Alive.

It seems, reading the book and other material that she believes that there is a method that takes you out alive.

Laura did a very good job with gathering information about psychopathy, terror, higher evil powers and the NWO. Much of it is probably true. It is very credible. Some information is however rather speculative and goes unproved, for example the information about souls, fulcanelli and the almost certainty that the system of Gurd-Ousp-Mour can get you out alive.

My point and question is if there is really a way out. I doubt it very much, The more you struggle and trying the deeper you sink into the quicksand.

Until now no one could give a satisfying answer to the question if there is really a method to get out alive. It is, I think, a very important question.
Probability is imo not enough for this kind of question, as it is a matter of getting out alive or not.

It seems you believe that nothing can take you out, but I might be wrong. If you have an answer and are prepared to tell me I would be very much obliged.

 

[Govert]

You keep ignoring probability.

The title of Laura's book is Secret History of the World and How to get Out Alive.

It seems, reading the book and other material that she believes that there is a method that takes you out alive.

Laura did a very good job with gathering information about psychopathy, terror, higher evil powers and the NWO. Much of it is probably true. It is very credible. Some information is however rather speculative and goes unproved, for example the information about souls, fulcanelli and the almost certainty that the system of Gurd-Ousp-Mour can get you out alive.

My point and question is if there is really a way out. I doubt it very much, The more you struggle and trying the deeper you sink into the quicksand.

Until now no one could give a satisfying answer to the question if there is really a method to get out alive. It is, I think, a very important question.

Probability is imo not enough for this kind of question, as it is a matter of getting out alive or not.

If you have an answer and can prove that knowledge (which you say is often linked with probability) is the answer and are willing to tell me I would be very much obliged.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Probability is imo not enough for this kind of question, as it is a matter of getting out alive or not.
If you have an answer and are prepared to tell me I would be very much obliged.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The answer was already given to you - it is a matter of probability and constant ongoing research and accumulation of data that helps determine the probability. Take it or leave it.

Everything in life is a matter of getting out alive or not. Driving to work is one such thing. You have no certainty or proof or guarantee that you'll safely make it to work at any given day. You just have your experience and your judgement of which actions are more LIKELY to be safer than others, which actions are more likely to get you to your destination. The same applies to this work. If probability is not enough for you, go join a group that claims to have certainty. Good place to start would be any of the organized religions, each being absolutely certain in being right.

My point and question is if there is really a way out. I doubt it very much, The more you struggle and trying the deeper you sink into the quicksand.

Whether you "doubt it very much" is irrelevant, the data is what matters, not your assumptions due to incorrect analogies. Your quicksand analogy is false. Knowledge protects and helps free us from the traps that only exist because of our ignorance and mechanicalness. All experience, logic, and all the evidence shows the direct opposite of what you say - that knowledge PROTECTS, that it liberates, that it empowers and frees us from all sorts of traps and distortions of reality. But since you think the opposite, that seeking knowledge will cause you to sink deeper, this forum is clearly not for you.

P.S. - From this moment I will no longer reply to any of your posts. It is clearly a senseless waste of time and energy. And no, I won't provide proof of that statement - the proof is in the pudding.

 

[RflctnOfU]

I would like to suggest that Govert is deflecting all energy in his direction (black hole? hmmm). In reading the various suggestions and counter accusations, I get the impression that regular forumites are trying to convince a 'wall' of the significance of 'algebra'.

No, it is not based on belief or assumption of any sort. You are putting words in other people's mouths. This is manipulative behaviour, and is not tolerated here.

The behaviour has been identified, nay, displayed like a neon sign. He is obviously not here to learn in the group sense, but to teach the only truth, namely, that we can't get out, there's nothing we can do, we must give up etc etc.

Can something be done about this impediment to growth?

Thank you

Kris

 

[Peam]

P.S. - Peam, did you notice how Govert turned into Covert in the middle of your analogous anecdote? I don't know if that was intentional, but as Govert would say, sure makes me enter into some wild/baseless speculation about some unprovable possibilities about Govert's reasons (direct or indirect) for being here...

Oops. Thanks Scio, I've edited that mistake out now. I did notice the simillarity between the two words a while back, probably reinforced by Govert's beliefs and circular illogic. But the mistake was unintentional. My subconscious thoughts manifesting through the keybord?
BTW, the black hole analogy that came up had me thinking of the way water swirls down the plughole, beliefs preventing escape from the innevitable hole suction.

 

[Vulcan59]

Peam, your "news flash" really gets the point across and sadly if Govert cannot understand that, then this forum is definitely not the right place for him.