None of this is new, we have heard and read all of these pathetic arguments before StarSeed.
What you fail to understand is that it is all just made up.
None of it has any scientific backing, it is made to sound scientific, but it does not have on iota of scientific proof.
I don't believe that it is made up. I believe that science and exploration will eventually prove it correct, the same way many other things have been discovered and proven, such as the round earth theory, sub atomic particles, dark matter, ect.
The only reason these concepts seem plausible to you, is because you have no knowledge of science.
I do have some knowledge, and did take the standard classes back in high school, i.e., chemistry, physics, biology, and even planned on a career in science originally.
Getting a degree in physics would not disprove LOA, so I disagree with you. And how do you explain the scientists who are spiritual in some way?
If pressed to give an explanation of your thoughts vibrating, and the universe vibrating, i bet you would say something like;
"everything is energy, and vibrates, and when you vibrate at a good level, the univerese brings you goodness." or something equally inane.
The thing is, this is not an explanation. It gives no proof or real explanation of the claim. You are not describing the mechanisms of vibrating, or giving evidence. This is simply because the science ignorant target market for this rubbish does not require proper scientific explanations, they simply require that it sounds scientific.
Well, if I had better explanations, I of course would give them, but the fact is at this point, that intricate knowledge of the LOA mechanism is not necessary to work with it, anymore than combustion engine engineering knowledge is required to drive a car. I would like to see the same things the skeptics would on this: Evidence. And I am working on it in my personal life, but it takes time like anything else.
This whole concept has one very large flaw. If positive thoughts attract positive things. What determines which is positive?
Well, I say that's essentially a human definition. We define what we like and the reasons why we like it. Positive things generally lead to happiness at some level, negative things lead to unhappiness at some level.
Now how could a knife vibrate positively, and negatively? A knife is an inanimate object, its molecular structure and therefore "vibrations", do not change. So which is it, negative or positive?
As I understand it, vibration is really referring to the overall consciousness of the object, and I know that's a stretch on top of a sretch for skeptics, but the idea is that all components of the universe, and in turn the systems they are a part of, have consciousness of some level, and choose to play a role in some way.
The knife, or more specifically the atomic components that it is comprised of, have chosen to play the role of 'elemental material', or building blocks at this point in time. The 'knife system' is not complex enough to understand concepts like ethics. It is simply playing the more generic role of 'the building block'. In this role, it is essentially open to any and all vibrational patterns.
So you see for The secret not to be rubbish in relation to this story, we need to place the object into a context, in which it can become negative or positive.
So, how does the universe to create a whole series of events made up from objects vibrating differently, to respond to these peoples vibration? The situation as a whole needs to correlate to the persons vibrations, not the objects. And this would require a very intelligent source to do this. The one negative subconcious thought of a person is clearly not capable of doing this via vibration alone, because the context contains far to many elements each with their own vibration. For it to be true, it requires an intelligence to assemble and arrange the situation, and then impose it upon the individual.
I agree with some of what you are saying here, although I understand you are just speculating within the idea, and don't really believe it. You're pointing to a superior intelligence, or what I would call God, the god force, or new agers call Source or the 'All That Is'.
Yes, it is infinitely intelligent. We are all born from it, and Source knows its' own body and components very well. It is a master of itself and everything born of itself. So intelligence isn't a problem. LOA is merely the core mechanism in the god source.
What science has discovered thus far are the macro-systems of the universe. These complex systems, by the nature of their complexity, combined with the limitations of science, can easily appear to function a certain way based on certain rules, but when we have theories that seem to work most of the time, or can be proven most of the way, but never all the way, this is a potential indicator that there are more basic systems and rules at work underneath the macrosystem.
I beleive that LOA, and other things yet to be discovered, will ultimately better explain how the macro systems work, and will patch all of the holes and inconsistencies that science is presently hung up on.
While the idea of LOA may seem far fetched compared to the conclusions of modern science, the idea by itself is really not zany, implausible, or unethical. It basically says that 'like attracts like', speaking from a consciousness point, not from the macrosystem perspective. Simple as pie, relatively speaking.
It's not unethical, as some would see it, because it gives every conscious unit the free will and power to control its' own destiny, including the power to allow someone else to seemingly control their destiny for them. Iow, once mastered, no one can harm you. No one can starve you, enslave you, kill you, or deprive you.
The system we believe in now, more or less, is one where the innocent can not only be made to suffer now, but for as long as the universe exists. We have a system where the unlucky are just flat out of luck, and at the mercy of politics, or some hairbrained group of nuts, or what have you.
Ethically speaking, LOA actually is fair and equal. For those that seem to desire a universal mechanism that protects the innocent from harm, well, you know what that requires: A god, and we're all atheists here, right?
