A001:

Nature is actually far, far complex than what you, or anyone, can imagine. If you take a leaf and put a small hole on it, then look through that hole.

What you see is what physicists mainly perceive as all that exists: A tiny segment of reality. Our eyes and instruments can only detect a tiny segment of the vast ranges of segments of the EM spectrum.

There are tons of realms we don't even know, but they exist right around us.

There are waves that exist beyond (below) the radio wave segment of the EM spectrum that most humans aren't even aware of. These are waves of extremely low frequencies (ELFs), too tiny for the human eye or our instruments to see/detect.

What I'm talking about here is a whole new realm entirely. It's these waves religious people call the soul, spirit and the likes.

It's real, and I've actually developed the physics and mathematics, though I don't use either soul or spirit to refer to these waves.

This is a new field of physics entirely with tons of potential applications, including the design of living systems such as humans.

I am really really sorry about the actions of trolls in this thread. I am really sorry.

I believe your ongoing work will peel off a later off the scales in people's eyes on the subject of Consciousness and other side of nature. All the best!

KnownUnknown:


Absolutely, and I’m not sorry. Boy, you’re simply too stupid for me to respect.

Lol. When did I mention i needed respect from a Nairaland troll?

KnownUnknown:


Lol, stupid bastard. You ill educated jackasses around here talking about “lack of understanding” are hilarious. A pretend “physicist” and another clown presenting unsubstantiated nonsense as proof of magic.

What do you know and what do you have to offer then? We don't know anything on physics and whatnot, what do you know about the physics of Consciousness, Manifestation, Nature?

My best guess is: you only have a skull-load of trolling, jesting and insults. That's my assumption I'm sorry.

LordReed:


I have been interacting with A001 for years so don't use that excuse. If you are unable to leave your own stereotyping behind, with what mouth are you using to accuse others of being unwilling to learn? Are you not fully demonstrating you are the one unwilling to learn?

How is asking you if you've tried the techniques jesting, trolling and getting worked up? You are the one getting worked up because I asked you a question to show I'm willing to engage. I even included a detail to show you I was even reading the damn book but you are throwing it in my face for what reason?

Oh stereotyping is actually Profiling and in my case, it was an informed grouping.

You came into the thread and made a comment and the rest of the group followed jesting and trolling.

Asking me if I tried the techniques is simply your characteristic way of hoping to discredit the author's work. This is buttressed by the statement "how do you know you're not being hoodwinked" or so. Of all things your mind could go to, it went to the idea of "hoodwinking" right before going back into the book...prognosis alert!

I learnt fast and caught that antic real quick!

You showed you're unwilling to learn right from all that digging of supposed scandals of Mormons even when I made it clear I was neither promoting Mormonism neither was I discrediting them.

These seemingly small details are what I read so well my friend, so you rightly belong in the troll group. Look at the insults your friends here hurl at A 001...

KnownUnknown:


Lol, stupid bastard.

Lol

LordReed:


You are too quick to impugn someone. Run away how? You've read the book, how is asking if you've practiced the techniques now running away? I am trying to engage you and you are acting like a flower wilting under the glare of the sun. You don't seem ready to have your assertions scrutinized with this your behaviour. If you aren't ready to engage meaningfully then say it, your passive aggressiveness is getting irritating.

Take a cue from A001, when I asked him a question, he didn't reply with condescension he gave a succinct answer.

I didn't ask about the authenticity of the author's work I asked: how do you tell difference between who is trying to hoodwink you from a genuine person? What criteria do you use? What is so difficult in answering these questions?

Do not blame me at all. I am responding to you based on what I knew you and the your group. A001 is just being introduced to your group and I'm sure he'll know better.

On asking me: Most times, the problem we face in dealing with people on subject as this even when they encroach on our threads by trolling (e.g you introductory message on this thread), is the problem of establishing information parallels given a neophyte or an absolute ignoramus (no insult intended here).

So for us to tango, you must do some findings, then our interaction will be tilted towards a debate or Qs and As rather than jesting, trolling and getting worked up when the favor is returned.

So go ahead and read, the idea is not for you to understand entirely, its for you to come from the position of knowledge rather than scandal-mining or trolling.

LordReed:


Have you practiced the techniques in this book? Have you used the algorithmic sequence to produce a desired object in the world on demand?

Also as an aside how do you tell difference between who is trying to hoodwink you from a genuine person? What criteria do you use?

I knew you will run away

This 'Naysay' condition comes from the high propensity to rather troll than learn.

You don't ask someone for a taste of a pudding, you taste it.

On the authenticity of the author's work, he could have quote the Bible with "As a man thinketh, so is he", and he would have taught you how to manifest anything from the ethers via thought and some little sunshine within you (which people like you will doubt exists anyways).

Don't ask me questions. Read up and we'll talk.

LordReed:


Oh good that would save me the trouble. Give a link to download.

There you go

Something from No Thing:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:55693b26-ca36-4a80-b73e-f20fb8474dc

I will recommend you prime up with this which is a Short for the above: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:38a7c1a5-1ba4-47ef-b668-55457bcc70e

LordReed:


You realise this is not a published physics paper right?

We'll see...

LordReed:


Oh don't worry I have my ways but I'd rather not get into it, I prefer civil discussion without any of that baggage.

Lets keep this behind us and focus on civil side of things then. I can help with the book for free if FX is an issue.

I really want to see the looks in your face when we're done with the book. At least you and company will see how science had merged with religion, with God.

LordReed:


Link the published paper.

I have not impugned your person so this descent into insult just take note that it is you who started it so when I give it to you don't start crying.

Okay sorry about that and I apologize...although it was 90% prognosis and 10% yab...
The person behind this keyboard doesn't cry. You don't have what it takes please...

On the work of physics: You will search for the book "Something from No Thing by AR Bordon Lulu.com"

Please prove me wrong (about understanding) and open a thread for us to see what you read. I need to eliminate that stereotype (of lack of understanding) I have on you, Maynman, knownunknown, and others.

LordReed:


How does this CIA document make Joseph Smith not a fraud and the Book of Mormon not a product of fraud?

I initially summarized your line of reasoning earlier where I pointed out your rather simplistic and unclever antics of digging up so-called scandals as justification for any reasonable work done by people.


Google "Albert Einstein Fraud", then go ahead to convince us Einstein isn't a real scientist. More grist for your mill at least.

LordReed:


I can't wait for when science shows us how water turns into wine just by saying or wishing it. LoLz.

Oh the science actually exists. It's an elaborate work by a physicist who not only explains why it works but how. As in: He explained the physics of not just turning water to wine, but raising the dead!

I am sure your troll and highly I-dont-know skull never thought this was possible and existent.

This is what we've been saying all along, you lack information and knowledge yet make too much noise and intimidate people who are miles ahead...


Let's say I oblige to point you to the research work, do you have the head to understand it? I don't think so! Why do I think so?

The e-rat life you and your colleagues here lead is symptomatic of an emptiness--a lack of intelligence. You troll to fill up this space which only proper education can take care of.

A001:

I don't like to get involved in arguments about God. God is a highly subjective word. What I'm after as a scientist is objectivity.

The gist of that link isn't about God...

A001, the issue with LordReed and company is that they mostly are not even abreast with science beyond the archaic text books talk more of latest development in science judging from his statement that science and religion (God) don't meet.

This was how I referred one of them to CIA's (now obsolete) finding on how Consciousness can be used to create Miracles. The person i referred simply dismissed it as the CIA being a paid actor.

Here is the link to the resource and others:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/The%20gateway%20process

Note that CIA's findings on the subject is yet at the kindergarten stage comparably to what mystics have discovered and used for over 10,000 years back.

tctrills:


With science, there is hardly a conclusion. We keep learning everyday.
So just because a religious event does not rhyme with the accepted science of today does not mean it can't be found to be absolutely correct in 10 years time still using scientific Indicators.
That's where faith comes in.

And likewise spirituality. Infact Spirituality declared a 'always-One-step-ahead' phenomena to truth. It states there is always another level. Infinity!

LordReed:


LoLz. Dude there is a big dichotomy between the 2 whether it is acknowledged or not. Science deals with facts, religion deals with spirituality. Spirituality doesn't need facts and facts don't need spirituality.

No wonder

LordReed:


Then religion should stay in its lane and not cross over to making bogus historical or scientific claims. Fact is fact, a religion should not have the leeway to attempt to manufacture bullshit and call it fact.

Not at all.

From the distance of pre-information (aka "ignorance" ), science and religion are apart. Scientist today who have known and chew their onions find it hard to create a dichotomy between science and religion in all it's tributaries as history, belief and even dogma.

They both wine and dine at a particular joint in town.

KnownUnknown:


You have emotions! Riveting.

This cracked me up. Who said I don't?

I mentioned you to provide information not check whether I have emotions or not.

It seems it's an addiction the heavy reliance on digging up " scandals" from the web...is that the new flex?

LordReed:


Let's examine a bit about the Book of Mormon.

1. It claims to have been ori written in reformed Egyptian, a language that has no evidence of ever existing.

2. It claims to be from ancient American natives yet extensively quotes the King James version of the Bible. Ancient native Americans had the King James Bible?

3. The book claims there were horses and elephants in America at the time it was written but these animals were in fact introduced to America by Europeans. Horses were brought to America in the 16th century, elephants much later.

4. The book claims native Americans descended from Abraham but no genetic study has ever found genetic link between native Americans and people from the Middle East.

5. No archaeological findings has ever supported anything the book claims about ancient native Americans.

There is a whole lot more but most of it is of academic interest because you need to really invest in understanding some things before you know why the Book of Mormon cannot be what it says it is. These ones I have written here I think are sufficient to put pause to any claim that it is some kind of historical or accurate record of real world events.

You will recall the famous paragraph "C" in my earlier response and marry that to the substance of the gist of this thread where I said I was not endorsing nor debunking their book.

Although its entertainment watching your discomfort that despite the alleged fallacy in it, I had a supernatural encounter. I further liked how you came home earlier that everything being supernatural and natural at the same time.

LordReed:


A: If everything is supernatural then everything is natural since nothing is special.

B: You see? This is the whole point and you did a great job in catching it (although inadvertently and I will say why later)!

C: Everything is supernatural and natural at the same time, it depends on who is viewing and their well being--that's their and state of (respective) biokind (animal or plant), and the space-time index (earth, another planet, another dimension, etc). This is why it's entirely subjective as far as this domain (of physics) is concerned.

Back to B above, initially you were mocking how someone could experience the 'supernatural' reading Joseph Smith who to you was scam. Today you officially became the genius who decoded that yes, seemingly stupid things could be supernatural after all...

This reminds us of the biblical scripture: "God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"

You are the one who needs to to go further since I already agreed that all experience is either partially or wholly subjective. And also quote which textbook and obsolete science you think my viewpoint comes from.

Please refer to C above in this would you? Show me you get that science or not. Cheers!

LordReed:


Great so you do accept that profound experiences can be had without anything that claims to be supernatural.

Profound experiences can be had with anything at all because everything is supernatural. Everything from the Spaghetti Monster, the scrotum of Zeus up to the table spoon of Jehova!

And this is so when you marry the best of today's science with religion out of necessity because both are not really separate.

I agree all experiences are subjective (partly or wholly) however certain experiences are produced/reproduced by objective stimuli, such experiences are not purely subjective. Your particular experience with the book will not be reproduced just by reading the book or else everyone who has read it would be claiming the same thing you did.

When you're working with the viewpoint of text book and obsolete science, you indeed would accept the possibility of objectivity. Go further...

KnownUnknown:


Which experiences of the conman Joseph smith did you relive? The real experiences or the tall tales. Lol

Don't let the knowledge of semantics let you down:

Basically the word "relive" means to put one's self into a memory or experience to re-experience it. It doesn't matter if it was a real experience or not.

To dumb this down, this is why people watch movies and cry. Movies are essentially tall tales most of the time.

LordReed:


I accept those sources because they are corroborated with real documents. All the things I said about Joseph Smith have documents backing them.

There is no person who hasn't done something wrong so I don't expect any saints anywhere however some people's own is too egregious to ignore like Joseph Smith.

The book is a product of a fraud so whatever you experienced is entirely subjective to you and has nothing to do with such a book.

I have watched fantastic movies and had that flow I described. A movie is essentially a work of fiction by the way...

I need to mention this so you don't feel my experience with the book where I mentioned the Life Force flowed within me was a moment of 'too good' for your stance.

The book is a product of a fraud so whatever you experienced is entirely subjective to you and has nothing to do with such a book.

What experience isn't subjective psychologically speaking?

LordReed:


Oh sure, I don't make my statement lightly.

First off, he claimed he had the power to find hidden treasure but after many attempts never found any.

Next, he claimed he found the golden plates but never showed those plates in the open. Then after claiming to have translated the plates, suddenly the plates are no where to be found.

He also created a joint stock company, called the Kirtland Safety Society, to act as a quasi-bank; the company issued banknotes partly capitalized by real estate. He encouraged his followers to buy the notes, in which he invested heavily himself. The bank failed within a month. A warrant was issued for his arrest for banking fraud but he ran away.

After declaring that only he had the power to make church doctrine, he began to secretly marry multiple wives, a doctrine called plural marriage but he only spoke of it to close associates so that kasala will not bust. When one of his main men started using the doctrine, he had that one excommunicated.

He latter created a secret council that was to declare him Prophet, Priest, and King and create an independent state within US territory.

It was when he started secretly trying to seduce his close followers wives that the final kasala that would lead to his death busted.

There are other details to this story that taken all together will show he was indeed a massive fraud but these I think are the most cogent to any honest person reviewing his story and should point to that conclusion.

I will make a separate post for the Book of Mormon.

Catch this drift swiftly before it escapes:

1: All your assertions above are derived from certain sources.

Drift: Why do you trust and believe them hook, line and sinker?

2: Experientially, you rely heavily on focusing on the negative sides of people gleaned from sources you would have dug negative story about if the subject was your target...

Drift: This is giving us a clear image of an acute Contraria host...

3: If your read up, I am not for or against the Mormons (God bless their Souls), I merely reflected on the experience with their book.

You seem to think it was an Ad for Mormon and is out to characteristically de-market. I don't get ...

LordReed:


Joseph Smith was a massive fraud so is the so called Book of Mormon or whatever those golden plates he purportedly found is called. His tale matches nothing in reality.

The Bible is NOT a history book, it's an anthology of Jewish myths and legends possibly interspersed with Greek ideas.

When I wish to deal with people, I get turned off with those who make blanket allegations and whatnots without proof.


What are your sources and proof? Let's dissect and have a close objective look.

LordIsaac:
Oh malaria!

Knownunknown , itiswell22 , lordreed LordIsaac

Can I know your alternative the principle, ideology, practice, etc you object to individually?


Let's start from there.

Next is: The book in question and my thread deals with History and not necessarily religion if you deduct.

The Christian bible too is history majorly, where people fling their hopes, expectations and perceptions on and clinging into that to form beliefs and religions.

Question: Which part of the historical side of the two books fo you dispute please? Thanks.

Let's not make an error of judgement here though, indeed like the Bible said, specials beings from heaven came to earth, so much that their kids and relatives fancied human babes for themselves (Gen. 6:1-4).

Note in the scripture above, their is a clear distinction of race and bio-indentity. Their word for it however was not "ET" or "Alien".

They used the word "Sons of God".

The thing is: man at the time calls anything in skirts "God" and worshipped or revered it.

Think "the bushman" in the movie "The Gods must be Crazy", then think how it is indeed apt the paragraph above.

Slap you observation to the plethora of "Gods" available in the past and even today.

You will see that indeed the ancient humans had a thing for any sentient thing that glitters.

You have read of the "flying horse" in the Book of revelations, especially also the "Chariots of fire" of Elijah which took him to heaven.

Those are terms used by those who have not heard of aircrafts before.

Our word for it today is "UFO". Those ahead of us will speak of the folly of calling them "UFO"

Moses, Elijah and the prophets who were mostly servants and emissaries of these beings who from the skies came equally related their interactions with these "Gods" and "Angels".

Gradually the stories got digested, and became vintage--vintage truth. So much that you can't think those beings not being God or angels.

You have no other book telling you otherwise. Even if you do, the possibility becomes a heresy or sacrilege to think of, or the crystallized information from your accepted source fights back.

This is how religion, culture and belief operates and feels for the host.