FreelanceRebel:


Guy if you are broke, I am not like you and don't generalized. Gold and silver I have the worth of it. Even bitcoin I can afford it. I just can't be bluffing just to win an argument.

and muslims, Hindus, atheists cant afford bitcoin? Only Christian's are rich abi? You are still in middle class not rich, so shut the f up

KnownUnknown:


[s]I understand your ray of light soul is disturbed.
Your waves, frequencies, and energies are discombobulated. You need to go recharge by taping into the frequency of the higher beings and perambulating through their oscillations.

Mr. Physicist who described a single photon as “ray of light”.

Let me go admire my Nobel Prize[/s].

Your posts have been noted and duly discarded.

Some comments here show the deplorable state of Nigeria's education sector, especially STEM.

These ignorant commeters obviously know next to nothing about string theories and superstring theories, and the eminent physicists in various parts of the world (including Nobel laureate Roger Penrose) that support some of the ideas I explained above must all be quacks.

Lols. This country really has a long way to go with this bunch of arrogantly ignorant people.

LordReed:


I haven't read your posts on this matter. In summary, who are these higher beings?

The answer you seek is in my earlier post you quoted.

Workch:
[s][/s] nonsense

Of course "about to permanently die" like you who have been cut off from everlasting life of goodness must hate those going to live on and on and on!

HardMirror:
and muslims, Hindus, atheists cant afford bitcoin? Only Christian's are rich abi? You are still in middle class not rich, so shut the f up

Broh

If Typing nonsense with confidence is your brand, I cannot invest in that. I have given you reasons why people are poor, you have not refute that. Matthew 5:45 is there for you to go and read.

Goodluck and stop Typing nonsense with confidence

FreelanceRebel:


Broh

If Typing nonsense with confidence is your brand, I cannot invest in that. I have given you reasons why people are poor, you have not refute that. Matthew 5:45 is there for you to go and read.

Goodluck and stop Typing nonsense with confidence

you are the one typing rubbish with confidence. I have been able to point it out that faith has nothing to do with wealth. It is self evident, but your bible makes promises as if your religion determines your wealth. And your supposed god claims different curses for those who dont serve him, which should mean only believers should be rich. And you folks gather every sunday and talk about wealth as if your god is the one that gives wealth.

You dont have an arguement, you are just whining and being stupid

A001:

Your posts have been noted and duly discarded.

Some comments here show the deplorable state of Nigeria's education sector, especially STEM.

These ignorant commeters obviously know next to nothing about string theories and superstring theories, and the eminent physicists in various parts of the world (including Nobel laureate Roger Penrose) that support some of the ideas I explained above must all be quacks.

Lols. This country really has a long way to go with this bunch of arrogantly ignorant people.

you are the educated person talking about gods and higher Egyptian beings. Mixing actual science with mystical nonsense does not make you smarter than others. You can only deceive stupid people. You are just pained that with all the Packaging you are giving your nonsense we ain't buying it. You are putting so much effort to look at actual science and wrapping actual science with nonsense in hope it sounds smart and intriguing even though it is nonsense

FreelanceRebel:


You can win arguments for the sake of it. But that would not stop realities from materializing. From the beginning of Creation, there has been rich and poor people. Why are people poor or rich is a matter of another discussion. But Paul has this to say: **he that does not workch should not eat**. This is the beginning of being poor.

The Parable of the Talents she'd more light why some are poor, and while some are richer than others. The one that has 2bit of investment won't be as rich as the one who has 5bit of investment.

Knowledge, chance, opportunity, favors, mercy, insight, risk-taking, among others are factors that influence one becoming rich. Besides the afore mentioned, being shrewd is another factor.

Your op was maliciously done for the sake of argument, but in any case THANK GOD FOR EVERYTHING. THANKS TO GOD FOR SUPER EAGLES LOSING Too.

The problem here is that there's nothing like "creation". No evidence for it.

Secondly, the Christian charlatans called pastor make their sheeples believe that they cant become rich without paying tithe of giving to God. That's the point of the Op

A001:

The answer you seek is in my earlier post you quoted.

The post I quoted did not define who these higher beings are hence my question.

HardMirror:
And your supposed god claims different curses for those who dont serve him, which should mean only believers should be rich

Red Flag... where was that written in the Bible

And you folks [s]gather every sunday and talk about wealth[/s] as if your god is the one that gives wealth.

Lies
Go church, you ne gree, even your role model Bill Gate is a churchgoer
No church gather every Sunday to talk about wealth, collect and read the Sunday School manual and glance through.

You dont have an arguement, you are just whining and being stupid

Fireshot - I don't like insult so i will leave Nairaland for today

Red Flag... where was that written in the Bible


Lies
Go church, you ne gree, even your role model Bill Gate is a churchgoer
No church gather every Sunday to talk about wealth, collect and read the Sunday School manual and glance through.


Fireshot - I don't like insult so i will leave Nairaland for today

WTF

Red Flag... where was that written in the Bible


Lies
Go church, you ne gree, even your role model Bill Gate is a churchgoer
No church gather every Sunday to talk about wealth, collect and read the Sunday School manual and glance through.


Fireshot - I don't like insult so i will leave Nairaland for today

ok bye

HardMirror:
you are the educated person talking about gods and higher Egyptian beings. Mixing actual science with mystical nonsense does not make you smarter than others. You can only deceive stupid people. You are just pained that with all the Packaging you are giving your nonsense we ain't buying it. You are putting so much effort to look at actual science and wrapping actual science with nonsense in hope it sounds smart and intriguing even though it is nonsense

There's nothing to take seriously about your posts on these issues, except the OP (the first post) which is spot-on.

I don't know how you think you can change my mind about what I've seen with my two eyes a number of times (that there are other realms in existence apart from the physical realm) with even theoretical backing in science (yes, theoretical at this stage, not practical).

I don't know what you feel like. Maybe you think being an atheist makes you so smart or means you know all things.

I repeat again that your problem is you're being arrogantly ignorant.

I know there would have been myopic people like you in the past centuries that scoffed at the few enlightened people in that era that predicted scientists would design an instrument some day to peer into the microbial realm or world (which is still a part of our world, the physical realm) when most people thought diseases were caused by demons.

In the future, scientists would also design a device that can see things (beings, entities, etc.) in other realms of existence.

Only someone who doesn't know much about Physics would say it as a matter of fact that ours is the only realm in existence.

In any space around, there are multiple (even possibly infinite) realms of existence, existing independently of each other.

It's even laughable to make such an assertion that ours is the only realm of existence when oceans of mysteries in the universe still lie undiscovered by scientists.

The things I stated in this post (and on this thread), as said earlier, aren't meant to be believed by anyone.

LordReed:


The post I quoted did not define who these higher beings are hence my question.

I refer to the entities religious people call gods and goddesses and worship ignorantly as God as higher beings or early/past beings or early settlers on this planet or ancestors of early humans (our forefathers) in different parts of the world.

As stated before, my approach to anything called God is agnostic.

A001:

I don't know how you think you can change my mind about what I've seen with my two eyes a number of times (that there are other realms in existence apart from the physical realm) with even theoretical backing in science (yes, theoretical at this stage, not practical).

If you've seen these realms, shouldn't you make some observations that you can relay to the scientists so that the theoretical becomes practical?

A001:

I know there would have been myopic people like you in the past centuries that scoffed at the few enlightened people in that era that predicted scientists would design an instrument some day to peer into the microbial realm or world (which is still a part of our world, the physical realm) when most people thought diseases were caused by demons.

How many realms are there according to what you've seen?

A001:

In the future, scientists would also design a device that can see things (beings, entities, etc.) in other realms of existence.

We they see it like they see the microbial realm or the way you've seen it?

A001:
Only someone who doesn't know much about Physics would say it as a matter of fact that ours is the only realm in existence.

Does Physics include theories or laws about "realms of existence"? Even the "many worlds interpretation" of Theoretical Physics doesn't talk about "realms of existence".

A001:

In any space around, there are multiple (even possibly infinite) realms of existence, existing independently of each other.

What do you mean?

A001:

It's even laughable to make such an assertion that ours is the only realm of existence when oceans of mysteries in the universe still lie undiscovered by scientists.

Do you mean beings that would make us look microscopic exist in other "realms" in this "physical realm"?

A001:

I refer to the entities religious people call gods and goddesses and worship ignorantly as God as higher beings or early/past beings or early settlers on this planet or ancestors of early humans (our forefathers) in different parts of the world.

As stated before, my approach to anything called God is agnostic.

What is the difference between gods, goddesses, Gods, and God?

What makes all these deities higher beings?

Settlers imlies they came from elsewhere. Where did they come from?

You've redefined this past Gods as "higher beings" that existed, so how are you agnostic?
It seems you've created your own idea of "God" while simultaneously claiming agnosticism about its existence.

KnownUnknown:


If you've seen these realms, shouldn't you make some observations that you can relay to the scientists so that the theoretical becomes practical?

I'm a physicist and use my observations primarily to understand the world I live in. With such an understanding, I could make discoveries in the near future.

KnownUnknown:

How many realms are there according to what you've seen?

It's not something I count. People that have had lucid dreams or OBEs would understand.

KnownUnknown:

We they see it like they see the microbial realm or the way you've seen it?

It will be seen objectively the way microbiologists view microorganisms objectively.

KnownUnknown:

Does Physics include theories or laws about "realms of existence"?

Yes. By realms of existence, I mean other worlds or universes.

KnownUnknown:

Even the "many worlds interpretation" of Theoretical Physics doesn't talk about "realms of existence".

Read about the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics in the link below (summarized in the photo below):
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

Many physicists around the world think other universes or another universe or realm might exist in addition to this universe, and some physicists assert other universes or another universe or realm of existence does exist.

KnownUnknown:

Do you mean beings that would make us look microscopic exist in other "realms" in this "physical realm"?

No need to go into this aspect. It's not necessary.

KnownUnknown:


What is the difference between gods, goddesses, Gods, and God?

The difference depends on a person's religious views.

KnownUnknown:

What makes all these deities higher beings?

Our ancestors are higher beings being our progenitors.

Also, I hold the notions that life on earth is both due to intelligent design and evolution, though evolution is the established concept in science as of now, and that early humans (our forefathers) were molded by these first settlers on this planet long, long in the ancient past as stated in oral histories in almost all cultures of the world.

(Though those first settlers are deified and worshipped as a god, a goddess, or God in these cultures.)

The Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, yet recorded histories only account for less than 5% of that time.

I posit most historical details about life on Earth are lost and unknown, and we only know few aspects of them.

KnownUnknown:

Settlers imlies they came from elsewhere. Where did they come from?

Space.

KnownUnknown:

You've redefined this past Gods as "higher beings" that existed, so how are you agnostic?
It seems you've created your own idea of "God" while simultaneously claiming agnosticism about its existence.

I don't believe in or worship a god, goddess or God and find the agnostic position about God convenient due to the limited scientific understanding of the universe at this period, but the atheistic position doesn't make much sense to me, and it looks too simplistic.

What I believe in is myself.

Then, that these gods are deified humans or beings is even glaring when one considers their human-like traits in religious texts.

A001:

I'm a physicist and use my observations primarily to understand the world I live in. With such an understanding, I could make discoveries in the near future.

Everyone makes observations to understand the world and science goes further than mere observation. What branch of physics is your expertise? Can you enlighten us with a couple of your favorite physics equations and put them in layman's terms?

A001:

It's not something I count. People that have had lucid dreams or OBEs would understand.

I have had lucid dreams but I don't understand. Dreams are just activities of a functioning braining similar to thinking, except one happens when you're asleep and is mostly uncontrollable. In the same vein, OBEs are activities of a malfunctioning brain.
Also, you mentioned that these "realms" are independent of each other, so how would a lucid dreamer and OBE experience these realms that are independent of the physcial realm where the dreaming/OBE is taking place?

A001:

It will be seen objectively the way microbiologists view microorganisms objectively.

That's not saying much though because microorganisms exist in this world.

A001:

Yes. By realms of existence, I mean other worlds or universes.

So, there could exist a multiverse. Why don't you say that instead of realms and worlds?

A001:

Read about the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics in the link below (summarized in the photo below):
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

I read parts of it and skimmed through the rest, but I don't see anything supporting what you claim.
e.g.
The MWI consists of two parts:

A theory which yields the time evolution of the quantum state of the (single) Universe.
A prescription which sets up a correspondence between the quantum state of the Universe and our experiences.
Part (i) states that the ontology of the universe is a quantum state, which evolves according to the Schrödinger equation or its relativistic generalization. It is a rigorous mathematical theory and is not problematic philosophically. Part (ii) involves “our experiences” which do not have a rigorous definition. An additional difficulty in setting up (ii) follows from the fact that human languages were developed at a time when people did not suspect the existence of parallel worlds.

The mathematical part of the MWI, (i), yields less than mathematical parts of some other theories such as Bohmian mechanics. The Schrödinger equation itself does not explain why we experience definite results in quantum measurements. In contrast, in Bohmian mechanics the mathematical part yields almost everything, and the analog of (ii) is very simple: it is the postulate according to which only the “Bohmian positions” (and not the quantum wave) correspond to our experience. The Bohmian positions of all particles yield the familiar picture of the (single) world we are aware of. The simplicity of part (ii) of Bohmian mechanics comes at the price of adding problematic physical features to part (i), e.g., the nonlocal dynamics of Bohmian trajectories.

A001:

Many physicists around the world think other universes or another universe or realm might exist in addition to this universe, and some physicist assert other universes or another universe or realm of existence does exist.

Do you mean Theoretical Physicists because the works you keep citing are not the province of regular Physicists.

A001:

No need to go into this aspect. It's not necessary.

Why not go into it when you introduced the microscopic world to support your claims?

A001:

The difference depends on a person's religious views.

I'm asking you specifically

A001:

Our ancestors are higher beings being our progenitors.

How further back in time does one have to go to identify these progenitors?

A001:

Also, I hold the notions that life on earth is both due to intelligent design and evolution, though evolution is the established concept in science as of now, and that early humans (our forefathers) were molded by these first settlers on this planet long, long in the ancient past as stated in oral histories in almost all cultures of the world.

Okay, clear enough.

A001:

(Though those first settlers are deified and worshipped as a god, a goddess, or God in these cultures.)

So these settlers molded the first humans who then deified and worshipped them. Where did these humans get the idea of deification? In order to worship them as "gods", these people had to have a concept of "god". No?

A001:

The Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, yet recorded histories only account for less than 5% of that time.

The earth been 4.5 billion years doesn't mean recorded histories should cover a significant amount of that period or that snetient beings capable of making records would have existed for a significant amount of time. 4.5 billion years doesn't mean that the earth was habitable during all those times. According to geologists, there was time when the world did not have the oxygen that our form of life depends on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

The Great Oxidation Event (GOE), also called the Great Oxygenation Event, the Oxygen Catastrophe, and the Oxygen Crisis, was a time interval when the Earth's atmosphere and the shallow ocean first experienced a rise in the amount of oxygen. This occurred approximately 2.4–2.0 Ga (billion years ago), during the Paleoproterozoic era.[2] Geological, isotopic, and chemical evidence suggests that biologically-produced molecular oxygen (dioxygen, O2) started to accumulate in Earth's atmosphere and changed it from a weakly reducing atmosphere practically free of oxygen into an oxidizing atmosphere containing abundant oxygen.[3]

The sudden injection of toxic oxygen into an anaerobic biosphere doubtless caused the extinction of many existing anaerobic species on Earth.[4] Although the event is inferred to have constituted a mass extinction,[5] due in part to the great difficulty in surveying microscopic species' abundances, and in part to the extreme age of fossil remains from that time, the Oxygen Catastrophe is typically not counted among conventional lists of "great extinctions", which are implicitly limited to the Phanerozoic eon.

The event is inferred to have been caused by cyanobacteria producing the oxygen, which stored enough chemical energy[6] to enable the subsequent development of multicellular life-forms.[7]

A001:

I posit most historical details about life on Earth are lost and unknown, and we only know few aspects of them.

There's nothing farfetched about that. Even human history is mostly unknown.

A001:

Space.

Space is unfathomably huge. Can you be more specific?

A001:

I don't believe in or worship a god, goddess or God and find the agnostic position about God convenient due to the limited scientific understanding of the universe at this period, but the atheistic position doesn't make much sense to me, and it looks too simplistic.

The concept of God has never depended on a scientific understanding of the universe so why does your agnosticism depend on it. Science is not looking for anything called God so what does it have to do with the atheistic position?

A001:

What I believe in is myself.

What do you mean?

A001:

Then, that these gods are deified humans or beings is even glaring when one considers their human-like traits in religious texts.

Have you considered the fact that these religious texts may be similar to Hollywood scripts i.e. the mere creations of the writers, and that these gods are just characters in a story and not even deified people.

KnownUnknown:


Everyone makes observations to understand the world and science goes further than mere observation. What branch of physics is your expertise? Can you enlighten us with a couple of your favorite physics equations and put them in layman's terms?

My area of specialization is Theoretical Physics, especially in Astrophysics/Cosmology.

This thread sheds more light on the other questions: https://www.nairaland.com/6690123/all-science-key-facts-researches

KnownUnknown:

I have had lucid dreams but I don't understand. Dreams are just activities of a functioning braining similar to thinking, except one happens when you're asleep and is mostly uncontrollable. In the same vein, OBEs are activities of a malfunctioning brain.
Also, you mentioned that these "realms" are independent of each other, so how would a lucid dreamer and OBE experience these realms that are independent of the physcial realm where the dreaming/OBE is taking place?

I don't have the luxury of time to talk much about this. Sorry. I've a lot at hand at the moment.

KnownUnknown:

So, there could exist a multiverse. Why don't you say that instead of realms and worlds?

Yes, multiverse is the right word. But it's not the exact term. I don't want to discuss these things further because of time constraints.

KnownUnknown:

Do you mean Theoretical Physicists because the works you keep citing are not the province of regular Physicists.

Physics is broad, and there are lots of research areas (and they keep increasing now and then) in just the field of Theoretical Physics alone without considering the others.

KnownUnknown:

Why not go into it when you introduced the microscopic world to support your claims?

This sort of arguments takes a lot of time, which I can't afford at the moment. Since I'm not selling any ideas to you or anyone here or seeking to convince people, I don't have to go into details about them.

KnownUnknown:


I'm asking you specifically

The entities religious people call gods and goddesses are those I regard as the early settlers on this planet or aliens. But I posit God is unknown or unknowable.

KnownUnknown:

How further back in time does one have to go to identify these progenitors?

If I'm to do justice to this question, I should create a separate thread for it and take my time to research well about it so I can give proofs backing my points and assertions.

Perhaps I'll do so when I'm less busy.

KnownUnknown:

So these settlers molded the first humans who then deified and worshipped them. Where did these humans get the idea of deification? In order to worship them as "gods", these people had to have a concept of "god". No?

My position (not a scientific fact, at least yet) is that early humans were molded and brought to life by the first settlers on this planet based on oral histories (and documented ones) in various cultures and traditions around the world, and these settlers that colonized Earth designed and programmed the humans primarily as their slaves.

That's how religion began. That's why Allah and Yahweh would call their worshippers their slaves in the Qur'an and the Bible respectively.

KnownUnknown:

The earth been 4.5 billion years doesn't mean recorded histories should cover a significant amount of that period or that snetient beings capable of making records would have existed for a significant amount of time. 4.5 billion years doesn't mean that the earth was habitable during all those times. According to geologists, there was time when the world did not have the oxygen that our form of life depends on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

The Great Oxidation Event (GOE), also called the Great Oxygenation Event, the Oxygen Catastrophe, and the Oxygen Crisis, was a time interval when the Earth's atmosphere and the shallow ocean first experienced a rise in the amount of oxygen. This occurred approximately 2.4–2.0 Ga (billion years ago), during the Paleoproterozoic era.[2] Geological, isotopic, and chemical evidence suggests that biologically-produced molecular oxygen (dioxygen, O2) started to accumulate in Earth's atmosphere and changed it from a weakly reducing atmosphere practically free of oxygen into an oxidizing atmosphere containing abundant oxygen.[3]

The sudden injection of toxic oxygen into an anaerobic biosphere doubtless caused the extinction of many existing anaerobic species on Earth.[4] Although the event is inferred to have constituted a mass extinction,[5] due in part to the great difficulty in surveying microscopic species' abundances, and in part to the extreme age of fossil remains from that time, the Oxygen Catastrophe is typically not counted among conventional lists of "great extinctions", which are implicitly limited to the Phanerozoic eon.

The event is inferred to have been caused by cyanobacteria producing the oxygen, which stored enough chemical energy[6] to enable the subsequent development of multicellular life-forms.[7]

These theories have their limits and scopes. And when reading scientific papers, words like suggest, can, may, and the likes are crucial so you don't get surprised when new discoveries are made and some theories are either modified or abandoned altogether.

Some aspects in that excerpt are active areas of research in Geology.

KnownUnknown:

The concept of God has never depended on a scientific understanding of the universe so why does your agnosticism depend on it. Science is not looking for anything called God so what does it have to do with the atheistic position?

It depends on what you mean by God. God is a philosophical or religious term.

If it means the origin or source of the universe or the first cause, then astrophysicists and cosmologists are interested in that.

KnownUnknown:

Have you considered the fact that these religious texts may be similar to Hollywood scripts i.e. the mere creations of the writers, and that these gods are just characters in a story and not even deified people.

No, the historical facts about them don't support that notion that they're mere characters.

You can't tell me as a Yoruba man that gods like Orunmila, Oduduwa, and Ogun are mere characters in a story or fable when I know the history of these gods (as they're called by their worshippers) and how they existed as humans in their time and were deified.

In many parts of the world, the first human to speak a language naturally in a place (all the languages in the world today came naturally with some humans in the past), the first person to build a house with a brick, the person that established a place, the first person to forge a sword with a metal in a place, and many other firsts, or heroic/memorable acts were deified as gods and goddesses by their people.

That's real history, not a mere claim.

But while past humans or religious people call(ed) these entities gods and goddesses, I prefer the term higher beings because some humans are more gifted by nature than others.

It's a matter of intellect to decide to call a gifted person a god and worship him/her or just respect the person as a human like yourself.

But when a person (the early humans) is molded by another, then he/she will naturally act based on the purpose behind their design. That, as far as I'm concerned, is the origin of religion.

A001:

There's nothing to take seriously about your posts on these issues, except the OP (the first post) which is spot-on.

I don't know how you think you can change my mind about what I've seen with my two eyes a number of times (that there are other realms in existence apart from the physical realm) with even theoretical backing in science (yes, theoretical at this stage, not practical).

I don't know what you feel like. Maybe you think being an atheist makes you so smart or means you know all things.

I repeat again that your problem is you're being arrogantly ignorant.

I know there would have been myopic people like you in the past centuries that scoffed at the few enlightened people in that era that predicted scientists would design an instrument some day to peer into the microbial realm or world (which is still a part of our world, the physical realm) when most people thought diseases were caused by demons.

In the future, scientists would also design a device that can see things (beings, entities, etc.) in other realms of existence.

Only someone who doesn't know much about Physics would say it as a matter of fact that ours is the only realm in existence.

In any space around, there are multiple (even possibly infinite) realms of existence, existing independently of each other.

It's even laughable to make such an assertion that ours is the only realm of existence when oceans of mysteries in the universe still lie undiscovered by scientists.

The things I stated in this post (and on this thread), as said earlier, aren't meant to be believed by anyone.

you are an incredibly dishonest person. You started by talking about gods of Egypt, the higher beings and you mixed in string theory later on to distract us from the actual nonsense of gods of egypt you were talking about, because you can quote string theory does not make you smart, anyone can do that and it in no way give credence to your Egyptian higher beings nonsense. You are just pained we are not buying your buuullshit

HardMirror:
you are an incredibly dishonest person. You started by talking about gods of Egypt, the higher beings and you mixed in string theory later on to distract us from the actual nonsense of gods of egypt you were talking about, because you can quote string theory does not make you smart, anyone can do that and it in no way give credence to your Egyptian higher beings nonsense. You are just pained we are not buying your buuullshit

You're simply a foolish person; I don't know which lie I told here now that you're crying about. That you call yourself an atheist doesn't automatically mean you're smart.

When next you want to make a fool of yourself saying gods and goddesses of religions are mere fictional characters, I encourage you to go to Osun state and tell the worshippers of goddess Osun their ancestor called Osun or Oya never existed.

Or tell those in Ogun State the deity called Ogun is a mere fictional character or an object of myth.

When you don't know history and know very little about your traditions, you're nothing but an ignorant fellow who lacks knowledge about his roots.

Those of us with a real working brain don't just post foolish comments on Nairaland about these things to sound smart.

We conduct investigations offline to learn history of these entities that people worship as a god or goddess to reach conclusions on their nature/existence.

Only a silly person relies on what he read somewhere online or in a book and merely reproduces everything online like a parrot because it looks logical and reasonable without first making his own findings offline in the appropriate places to establish the truth.

There are a number of things or claims in life that look logical and reasonable on the surface, until one looks deeper and sees they're bogus.

Once I read your posts and you call the local deities fictional characters that never existed, immediately your ignorance and folly becomes glaring.

In the future, your descendents will also call you a fictitious character the same way you call your ancestors (the local deities in your place of origin) fictitious characters to look like a civilized person.

Ignorant mofos with deep-seated inferiority complex, regarding the local cultures as barbaric and primitive while they glorify the foreign ones.

The actual smart atheists and agnostics investigate things offline and relate with the old people that worship these entities to learn some wisdom from them about their beliefs.

Learning about the local cultures and beliefs is a good way to preserve our cultures and language, and that doesn't mean one will start practicing the worship of the local deities.

I'll simply ignore your ignorant posts on this thread henceforth. Posters that are foolish and arrogant like you don't deserve a further response from me.

Just continue to wallow in your ignorance.

A001:

The entities religious people call gods and goddesses are those I regard as the early settlers on this planet or aliens. But I posit God is unknown or unknowable.

You've classified the gods as aliens while holding on to your idea of an unknown or unknowable god. It's similar to Christians who classify other gods as demons while venerating their god as the one true god. So, you are an Ancient Alien theorist as well as a deist. Agnostics say they don't know if there is a god or not while deists say there is a god that is unknowable.

A001:

If I'm to do justice to this question, I should create a separate thread for it and take my time to research well about it so I can give proofs backing my points and assertions. Perhaps I'll do so when I'm less busy.

Sure

A001:

My position (not a scientific fact, at least yet) is that early humans were molded and brought to life by the first settlers on this planet based on oral histories (and documented ones) in various cultures and traditions around the world, and these settlers that colonized Earth designed and programmed the humans primarily as their slaves. That's how religion began. That's why Allah and Yahweh would call their worshippers their slaves in the Qur'an and the Bible respectively

Okay, science fiction is always interesting.

A001:

These theories have their limits and scopes. And when reading scientific papers, words like suggest, can, may, and the likes are crucial so you don't get surprised when new discoveries are made and some theories are either modified or abandoned altogether.
Some aspects in that excerpt are active areas of research in Geology.

All theories have their limits and scope. The point was to illustrate how there is nothing peculiar about human history being an insignificant part of a 4.5 billion year old planet.

A001:

It depends on what you mean by God. God is a philosophical or religious term.
If it means the origin or source of the universe or the first cause, then astrophysicists and cosmologists are interested in that.

No, science is not looking for God. How would they go about investigating a philosiphical or religious term? Science seeks the how while philosophy asks itself why, which some philosophers answer as "God". Then they give the God all the attributes they can think of.

A001:

No, the historical facts about them don't support that notion that they're mere characters.
You can't tell me as a Yoruba man that gods like Orunmila, Oduduwa, and Ogun are mere characters in a story or fable when I know the history of these gods (as they're called by their worshippers) and how they existed as humans in their time and were deified.

It's not either or. Some will definitely be historical characters while some will be fiction. The supernatural aspects are nothing but embellishments for one reason or the other. Take Emperor Flavius Vespasian of the Roman Empire. After defeating the jews he went back to Rome to take over the empire. According to Seutonius, on his way back he stopped in Alexandria, Egypt, and went to the Temple of Serapis Christus. During his visit, he was approached by a lame man and a blind man who said Serapis sent them to Vespasian to be healed. Lo and behold, they were healed. Do you really think the Roman Emperor healed anybody thereby showing himself to be divine like Julius Caesar or do you think it is an embellished tale?
Sure some humans were deified in the past, but the gods they were being syncretized with would be the various personification of nature that formed the people's spiritual beliefs. e.g. the Egyptian God-Kings being the personification of Amun.

A001:

In many parts of the world, the first human to speak a language naturally in a place (all the languages in the world today came naturally with some humans in the past), the first person to build a house with a brick, the person that established a place, the first person to forge a sword with a metal in a place, and many other firsts, or heroic/memorable acts were deified as gods and goddesses by their people.
That's real history, not a mere claim.

No, it's a claim like most of everything you've said. Language doesn't even develop the way you claim. It would have evolved slowly as new words and expression take root amongst a group. Same with most other things you claim.

A001:

But while past humans or religious people call(ed) these entities gods and goddesses, I prefer the term higher beings because some humans are more gifted by nature than others.

I prefer Aliens because that clarifies what you're claiming. Were these Aliens humans?

A001:

It's a matter of intellect to decide to call a gifted person a god and worship him/her or just respect the person as a human like yourself.
But when a person (the early humans) is molded by another, then he/she will naturally act based on the purpose behind their design. That, as far as I'm concerned, is the origin of religion.

Okay.

A001:

My area of specialization is Theoretical Physics, especially in Astrophysics/Cosmology.

This thread sheds more light on the other questions: https://www.nairaland.com/6690123/all-science-key-facts-researches

That thread does not indicate that you're a Physicist or that you possess any expertise in Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics, or Cosmology.
The thread is filled with memes and articles from popular science magazines. Sorry, just expect more from a Theoretical Physicist.
Where do you do your research?
Which universities are you associated with?
Have you published any papers?
Can you post some of your equations and what they prove?
Are you leaning toward Quantum Loop Theory or String Theory? Why?
Do you do this Theoretical Physics in Nigeria?

A001:

I don't have the luxury of time to talk much about this. Sorry. I've a lot at hand at the moment.
Yes, multiverse is the right word. But it's not the exact term. I don't want to discuss these things further because of time constraints.
Physics is broad, and there are lots of research areas (and they keep increasing now and then) in just the field of Theoretical Physics alone without considering the others.
This sort of arguments takes a lot of time, which I can't afford at the moment. Since I'm not selling any ideas to you or anyone here or seeking to convince people, I don't have to go into details about them.

Sure.

Its Obvious You Are Not A Christian Just As Your Post Is Unnecessary. The Word Christian Means 'Christ Like'. If You Want To Know The Gains Or Benefits Of Being A Christian Then Read The Bible But Know This: Rev; "Behold I Come Quickly And My Reward Is With Me To Give To Everyone According To How His Work Shall Be" You Have Forgotten That Money Is Manmade Using Gods' Natural Resources And That Anybody That Has Money Making And Printing Machine Can Have Money In Abundance. You Can Also Have Money As Long As You Have The Trade To Barter I.E An Exchange For Money.Your Post Is Borne Out Of Ignorant Of The Bible And The WORD Of GOD. IN All Your Getting Get Wisdom And Dont Forget That The Fear Of God Is The Begining Of Wisdom.The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil. Read The Beatitude In The Bible As Well And You Won't Find Blessed Are The Rich Because They Would Inherit The Kingdom Of God.Dont Be A Fool;Be Whatever You Want To Be And Serve Whosoever But You Would Judge Accordingly.Jesus Christ Is Lord.Selah!

KnownUnknown:


That thread does not indicate that you're a Physicist or that you possess any expertise in Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics, or Cosmology.
The thread is filled with memes and articles from popular science magazines. Sorry, just expect more from a Theoretical Physicist.
Where do you do your research?
Which universities are you associated with?
Have you published any papers?
Can you post some of your equations and what they prove?
Are you leaning toward Quantum Loop Theory or String Theory? Why?
Do you do this Theoretical Physics in Nigeria?
Sure.

My career in Physics is in the budding stage (MSc/PhD). Sorry, I can't disclose more personal information about myself on an anonymous online forum.

I'll address the other questions when I'm less busy.

KnownUnknown:


You've classified the gods as aliens while holding on to your idea of an unknown or unknowable god. It's similar to Christians who classify other gods as demons while venerating their god as the one true god. So, you are an Ancient Alien theorist as well as a deist. Agnostics say they don't know if there is a god or not while deists say there is a god that is unknowable.

That means you don't understand what agnosticism is all about. An agnostic says there may be a God or not, meaning the nature of God (meaning the source of all things) is unknown.

Deists believe in God, but I don't.

KnownUnknown:

Okay, science fiction is always interesting.

This simply shows you're not widely read.

KnownUnknown:

No, science is not looking for God. How would they go about investigating a philosiphical or religious term? Science seeks the how while philosophy asks itself why, which some philosophers answer as "God". Then they give the God all the attributes they can think of.

It seems you don't know science itself has its roots in (natural) philosophy and that many principles and concepts in science today started as philosophical concepts and arguments before the Age of Scientific Enlightenment.

Philosophy is the mother of science, of all disciplines. That's why every student of Physics in universities takes courses in Philosophy.

As said earlier, scientists (astrophysicists and cosmologists) conduct research on the source or origin of the Universe.

Maybe you should do a quick Google search to check the meaning of cosmology.

God, as defined by some, is the origin of the Universe. Some others take the Universe as God.

But God isn't a scientific term and even if scientists discover an origin of the Universe in the future, most likely, they won't call it God.

It's all semantics. And based on the current understanding of the universe, it's possible the Universe has no origin but arose from nothing.

KnownUnknown:

It's not either or. Some will definitely be historical characters while some will be fiction. The supernatural aspects are nothing but embellishments for one reason or the other. Take Emperor Flavius Vespasian of the Roman Empire. After defeating the jews he went back to Rome to take over the empire. According to Seutonius, on his way back he stopped in Alexandria, Egypt, and went to the Temple of Serapis Christus. During his visit, he was approached by a lame man and a blind man who said Serapis sent them to Vespasian to be healed. Lo and behold, they were healed. Do you really think the Roman Emperor healed anybody thereby showing himself to be divine like Julius Caesar or do you think it is an embellished tale?
Sure some humans were deified in the past, but the gods they were being syncretized with would be the various personification of nature that formed the people's spiritual beliefs.

Of course, it's not all the historical facts about them that are true, and most are even exaggerated tales concocted by their worshippers.

And also, it's not all of them that really existed.

KnownUnknown:

No, it's a claim like most of everything you've said. Language doesn't even develop the way you claim. It would have evolved slowly as new words and expression take root amongst a group. Same with most other things you claim.

I don't have the time to argue much about this. When I am discussing with someone that knows a lot about human history and language development, I'd know from the depth of their takes on issues.

KnownUnknown:

I prefer Aliens because that clarifies what you're claiming. Were these Aliens humans?

Yes, if someone is existing today, but dies later on in the future, they become an alien to this planet.

A001:

My career in Physics is in the budding stage (MSc/PhD). Sorry, I can't disclose more personal information about myself on an anonymous online forum.

I'll address the other questions when I'm less busy.

Budding stage?
You claimed to be a Theoretical Physicist, now it’s budding stage.
You don’t have to disclose any personal information to display your expertise and qualifications.
Budding stage or flowering stage, that thread doesn’t evince that you are a physicist talk less of a theoretical physicist.

A001:

That means you don't understand what agnosticism is all about. An agnostic says there may be a God or not, meaning the nature of God (meaning the source of all things) is unknown.

Deists believe in God, but I don't.

You are not an Agnostic because you have created your own concept of God and claim it’s unknowable. The gods the agnostic say may exist or not is any god presented to them; the same gods you refer to as ancient aliens. The God you claim you don’t know exist is your own creation, so how are you not a deist?

Agnostic aren’t speaking about the “source of all things”, they are expressing skepticism about claims made by others. They certainly don’t reclassify Gods as aliens so they can call their own concept of “God” unknown.

It’s similar to Christian’s who claim other gods are demons but their god is the real one.


Why should the source of all things be “God”. If you call it “God”,you’re making a huge assumption already about its singular nature.

A001:

This simply shows you're not widely read.

But I’m widely read enough to recognize science fiction influenced by religious fables.

A001:

It seems you don't know science itself has its roots in (natural) philosophy and that many principles and concepts in science today started as philosophical concepts and arguments before the Age of Scientific Enlightenment.

Philosophy is the mother of science, of all disciplines. That's why every student of Physics in universities takes courses in Philosophy.

As said earlier, scientists (astrophysicists and cosmologists) conduct research on the source or origin of the Universe.
Maybe you should do a quick Google search to check the meaning of cosmology.
God, as defined by some, is the origin of the Universe. Some others take the Universe as God.
But God isn't a scientific term and even if scientists discover an origin of the Universe in the future, most likely, they won't call it God.

You could have saved yourself some time (which you don’t have much of) by just agreeing that god isn’t a scientific term and science isn’t about looking for the supernatural.

A001:

It's all semantics. And based on the current understanding of the universe, it's possible the Universe has no origin but arose from nothing.

What is nothing?

A001:

Of course, it's not all the historical facts about them that are true, and most are even exaggerated tales concocted by their worshippers.
And also, it's not all of them that really existed.

No dispute here.

A001:


I don't have the time to argue much about this. When I am discussing with someone that knows a lot about human history and language development, I'd know from the depth of their takes on issues.

There is no argument because you are just making claims that can be categorically dismissed because they are your assumptions about early history.
e.g. you claim that it was singular individuals that came up with language, which is absurd because language evolved/evolves and it most likely wasn’t created by singular persons. Unless we are talking about fictional languages created by linguists but those are still based on extant languages.

Explain how one person would have come up with Tagalog.

A001:


Yes, if someone is existing today, but dies later on in the future, they become an alien to this planet.

Aren’t they just dead?!! What do you mean by they “become alien to this planet”?

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/alien

3. ADJECTIVE
If something is alien to you or to your normal feelings or behaviour, it is not the way you would normally feel or behave.
[formal]
Such an attitude is alien to many businesspeople. [+ to]

5. COUNTABLE NOUN
In science fiction, an alien is a creature from outer space.

A001:

Your posts have been noted and duly discarded.

Some comments here show the deplorable state of Nigeria's education sector, especially STEM.

These ignorant commeters obviously know next to nothing about string theories and superstring theories, and the eminent physicists in various parts of the world (including Nobel laureate Roger Penrose) that support some of the ideas I explained above must all be quacks.

Lols. This country really has a long way to go with this bunch of arrogantly ignorant people.

Guy this your string theory picture na wash.

Can you imagine the scale of what was described? It sounds worse than the trash you find from the Bible.

Scientists still have to prove this claim.