In the name of God
The Source of our Existence

The Truth Shall

Welcome to my site

The Proof of God's Existence

For a long time Man intuitively has recognized the existence of God in the heart of this world, and he has reflected this finding in his various sacred books, and now in this short article I have proved with solid evidences the existence of an Active Conductor who Intelligently and Consciously run this Universe at meticulous details. My evidences are:   The Evidence in the Mirror Image Reflection,     The Evidence in the Snowflakes' Designs,     The Evidence in the Human Consciousness,     The Evidence in our special dreams,     A Logical Evidence,     Our Percetion of God,     A Weird Experience.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Evidence in the
Mirror Image Reflection

In this section to better follow my argument it is helpful that in to watch Prof. Richard Feynman lectures at University of Auckland in New Zealand 1979.

QED: Photons -- Corpuscles of Light -- Richard Feynman (1/4)

QED: Fits of Reflection and Transmission -- Quantum Behaviour -- Richard Feynman (2/4)

Following at the foot step of Prof. Feynman I analyze the mirror reflection phenomenon for a SINGLE photon. Since we assume every photon interacts in a similar way, then this analysis will be valid for EACH photon in the reflected image from the surface of a mirror.

Prof. Feynman in his lectures at University of Auckland 1979, mentioned that according to QED if there is no surface then there no reflection (this is very logical statement), then the reflection of a photon from a reflective surface is mostly the interaction of a photon with an electron from the material that is constructed that image reflective surface. For the mirror reflection the incoming photon to the surface of a mirror, it gets absorbed by an electron, and then this energized electron emits the reflected photon. He commented that the reflected photon is not the same photon that hit to the surface of the mirror, but rather it is a new photon, that it is emitted by the energized electron. (These comments are made in lecture #1 at 55:50 minutes and at 1:10 minutes of the video, and also in lecture #2 at 1:20 minutes of the video, and also in lecture #3 at 1:01 minutes of the video.)

Regarding the subject of the mirror reflection QED offers us three statements, as follow:

1. According to Feynman we do not know the details of how a photon gets reflected by two surfaces, but QED does acknowledge the detection of ONE photon by a detecting device. This process enables us to count the number of the reflected photons, and we express this data by the probability of the reflection from that surface.

2. In his lecture Prof. Feynman explained QED all-path integral approach (Feynman's all-path method) to be QED's answer for the mirror reflection, and the same is true for QED wave function method. These two QED methods harmonize the result from the QED theory with the result from the Optic Law for the mirror reflection. These two QED methods define a precise direction for the reflected photon from the surface of a mirror, and we are told that the reflected photon has been generated by an energized photon.

3. Regarding the emission of photon by an energized electron, QED expresses such emission falls in the domain of the uncertainty rule, and the direction of the emitted photon can only be expressed by a probabilistic method, which means we can never predict the direction that an energized electron emits its photon.

All these three statements from QED Theory are taught at physics departments at all universities all over the world. As you see for an energized electron on the surface of a mirror in the process of a mirror reflecting a photon, the Statement #2 and the Statement #3 are contradicting with each other. How can such a glaring contradiction exist within our Mighty and Beloved QED Theory? How can the explanations for such a common phenomenon of nature, that we are observing it so routinely in our daily lives, generate such a glaring contradiction in our most successful theory? It seems in this peculiar case our beloved QED Theory has deceived us big time!

QED theory has invented two faulty methods of "All-Path integral approach" and the "Wave-Function method" to hush up its failure from answering the puzzle of the mirror image reflection. QED Theory has designed these two methods to produce exactly the same result as it is produced by the Optic Law. In order to achieve this goal, right from the beginning the correct result from the Optic Law has been implemented into these QED configurations, as a result this is only natural that, regardless of any faulty arguments, these two QED methods to produce the same result as that from the Optic Law! Duh!

In all-path integral method, QED calculates the summation of the amplitude vectors for all the possible paths that a photon can take from the photon source to the surface of the mirror, and from the surface of the mirror to the photon detector. Directing the reflected paths from the surface of the mirror toward the photon detector is absolutely a false assumption, and this is where the QED all-path integral approach makes its mistake. This is absolutely a wrong assumption, because QED had discovered that the emitted photon by an energized electron is a multi-directional probabilistic process, then the probability of the emitted photon from any point on the surface of the mirror to reach to the photon detector is very slim, and almost negligible, so, this negligible probability does not contribute any significance value to the related amplitude vector from that point on the surface of the mirror to the photon detector, and this makes the process of the "all-path integral approach" faulty and wrong. Of course when QED has made this wrong assumption in its configuration it is only natural that it causes to produce that glaring contradiction between statement #2 and statement #3.

Let me show the falsehood of the QED "all-path approach" in another way. Let us apply QED's "all-path integral approach" for a source that it is on the left side of the mirror and it sends ONE photon to the surface of a mirror and the reflected photon is detected by a photon detector at Point A on the right side of the mirror. QED's "all-path integral approach" reports that its technique for this scenario is in harmony with the result from the Optic Law. Now, I add ten more photon detectors to the right side of the mirror. Amazingly QED's "all-path integral approach" produces amplitude vectors for each one of these detectors, and it cannot distinguish which one of these results is a valid result, and which ones are wrong results. For sure claiming that in this scenario all the eleven detectors, each one receives a photon, cannot be acceptable by anybody.

Let me show the falsehood of the QED "all-path approach" in another way. Consider a mirror is placed flatly on the surface of a table, and a photon source is placed at the left side of the mirror, and a photon detector is placed on the right side. The photon source sends ONE photon to the surface of the mirror and according to the Optic Law the detector detects the reflected photon. Optic Law defines the point that the photon gets reflected from the surface of the mirror. Let us label this point on the surface of the mirror as point A. I cut out a circle from the mirror, centered at point A with a radius of one millimeter. Optic Law predicts, no matter what is the value of the summation of the amplitude vectors for the rest of the mirror, the photon detector no longer detects any photon. The critique would charge that the little gap in the mirror has eliminated the significant part of the amplitude vectors which were lining up in the same direction, and they were contributing a major value to the summation of the amplitude vectors. My answer to this critique is, still the strips of the mirror which run from the left side to right side of the mirror, and the gap in the mirror has not affected these strips at all, and their amplitude vectors are lining up at their midpoints, and their contributions are as significance as before.

Actually, with that gap in the mirror, the incoming photon to the point A will never get reflected, no matter how we manipulate the value of the summation of the amplitude vectors for the rest of the mirror! The value of the summation amplitude vectors for this case is a bogus value, and it represents nothing. We reach to this conclusion because of the result from the Optic Law. And the Optic Law for mirror reflection was realized by examining the mirror reflection numerous times. And even QED all-path integral approach is designed to be in harmony with this stated result from the Optic Law.

Now, that I have shown the falsehood of these QED methods, then still the mechanics of the Mirror Image Reflection remains unanswered. So far, we have learnt that the phenomenon of mirror image reflection materializes from the interaction between photons and the electrons at the smooth surfaces (because as far as we know these are the only particles which are involved in that process), and the smooth and flat surfaces reflect the incoming images without a noticeable distortion. This is a very plausible assumption that we have discovered through QED Theory.

QED theory tells us that the photons in the incoming image are absorbed by the electrons on the surface of the mirror, and then these energized electrons emit their photons. QED also tells us that an energized electron emits its photon in all probabilistic directions, and this behavior is not in harmony with what is happening on the surface of a mirror, and instead we have the Optic Law. This is a peculiar behavior by the energized electrons on the surface of the mirror that it produces the Optic Law. The energized electrons on the surface of a mirror do the image reflection with an amazing integrity and accuracy, for all the incoming images from all directions that are in front of the mirror. How can these electrons know that they are on the surface of a mirror, that they are supposed to emit their photons in a specific direction? These electrons are registering the directions of the incoming photons, not based on their own internal coordinates, but rather based on the coordinates that it is related to the surface of the mirror. This peculiar behavior it gets even more bizarre; the probability of the reflection increases as the angle of the incident increases! (For glass the probability of the reflection at 0 degree angle of incident is 4%, and at 70 degree angle of incident is about 33%, and these probabilities of the reflections are acquired by counting the reflected photons, and the result of this counting fluctuates between different studies, which we have no clue why this empirical data fluctuates. The length of the amplitude vector is designed to be the square root of these empirical results. By averaging these empirical results, we are overlooking another puzzle within these statistical results.) For sure these complex behaviors of electron indicate that the surface of the mirror plays the paramount role in the mirror image reflection, and of course QED all-path integral methods tried to create a relation between the surface of the mirror and the reflected photon, but as I showed QED all-path integral approach by using a wrong assumption, it has tried to fudge its result to reach to the same result by the Optic Law. We should not deceive ourselves by fudging our argument trying to reach to the desired result. This is totally forbidden in our scientific studies. Deception has no place in our scientific analyses.

Then how can we grasp any notion of the mechanics for the interaction between a photon and an electron for the mirror image reflection? This is abundantly clear that the mirror image reflection phenomenon does not fit within QED theory at all. And we do not think that an energized electron possesses the awareness to differentiate between different situations; to emit its photon in random directions, versus to emit its photon in a specific direction when it is located on the surface of a mirror. This change of behavior by the energized electrons on the surface of the mirrors presents a conscious act. The evidence of such conscious behavior is undeniable. This conscious characteristic differentiates this phenomenon from all the other established scientific analyses, this conscious behavior is so foreign to our current scientific studies.

Of course we can build devices that they act in a conscious way, things like a sensor switch that turns on the light when it gets dark, but none of the scientific analyses of nature presents us with this kind of peculiar behavior. Since an energized electron cannot possibly be aware of its position on the surface of a mirror, then, we are FORCED TO RECOGNIZE the existence of an intelligent conscious being within the fabric of the Nature, who in this peculiar case neutralizes QED's uncertainty rule and instead, deliberately produces the fabulous phenomenon of the mirror reflection, which we express it by Optic Law, where the direction of the emission is precisely defined. Knowledge of QED for the energized electron was needed in order that we recognize the existence of this agent in this peculiar process of Nature. This essential influence should have been recognized from the moment that we had discovered the pattern of the emission of a photon by an energized electron.

Since the early time that Man reached to some sophisticated intelligence he intuitively recognized the existence of a supreme powerful force who was dominating his environment, and now, at least for this peculiar phenomenon, our advanced scientific studies is pointing to the same conclusion! This is the kind of the evidence that we have been searching for, trying to prove the influence of a dominating intelligent being within our environment that is influencing our existence in minute details.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Evidence in the
Snowflakes' Designs

I got the following passage on snowflake's formation from Wikipedia. "The exact details of the sticking mechanism remain controversial. Possibilities include mechanical interlocking, sintering, electrostatic attraction as well as the existence of a "sticky" liquid-like layer on the crystal surface. The individual ice crystals often have hexagonal symmetry." "Most snowflakes are not completely symmetric." "Empirical studies suggest less than 0.1% of snowflakes exhibit the ideal six-fold symmetric shape." "The most common snow particles are visibly irregular, although near-perfect snowflakes may be more common in pictures because they are more visually appealing." "A non-aggregated snowflake often exhibits six-fold radial symmetry. The initial symmetry can occur because the crystalline structure of ice is six-fold. The six "arms" of the snowflake, or dendrites, then grow independently, and each side of each arm grows independently." "Since the micro-environment (and its changes) are very nearly identical around the snowflake, each arm can grow in nearly the same way."

The snowflakes' symmetrical formation is another case that science has totally failed to understand the root cause of the phenomenon, and it has fudged its analyses to fit the KNOWN result!

It is said the initial symmetry can occur because of the crystalline ice structure is six-fold. Let us examine this claim closely. Let us imagine that "The hexagon shape of the crystalline ice structure" is formed, and vapor water molecules start to attach themselves to the six-corners of this hexagon shape structure. The hexagon shape structure of ice crystalline is way too small to be able to direct the macroscopic design of the snowflake, just at the tiny center of the snowflakes there are over ten million billion (10^16) of such hexagon shape of crystalline ice structures, that they are piled up together, without showing any preference for any direction that the snowflakes' arms should grow. Besides, some snowflakes' shapes have different shapes other than the six arms.

The thickness of snowflakes indicates that the vapor water molecules get attached to the hexagon shape structure in directions of x, y, and z-axes, which z-axis presents the thickness of the snowflakes. The thickness of the Snowflakes is the result of many trillions of water molecules that they are randomly piled up on top of each other to produce the thickness. With the same absolute freedom vapor water molecules randomly get attached to the hexagon shape structure in the directions of x and y-axes. There is no known force to impose any artistic symmetry on this process, and as far as our science is concerned this process is purely Random. So, the development of various artistic symmetries around the x-axis is a total mystery. This mystery gets deepened further when the other arms of the snowflake develop a very similar pattern. Furthermore, this mystery gets deepened even further; because at the same time the arms in the neighboring snowflakes are getting developed in totally different patterns, this outcome gave rise to the notion that "no two snowflakes have a similar shape." Just this notion that "no two snowflakes have a similar shape" shows how diverse and how random this process is. And if the process of developing arms is so diverse, then it makes no sense the arms of a snowflake which are developing INDEPENDENTLY to form very similar symmetrical shape. Unlike the flowers which they have genes to produce their symmetries, the snowflakes lack any such mechanism to control the development of its arms, there is only Randomness, and Randomness does not create harmony and symmetry at all, it creates disorder and chaos. The absolute Randomness that exists in this process totally rejects the formation of any symmetry, especially when the structure possesses such huge number of water molecules. When the arms of the snowflakes are forming a CONDUCTOR is needed to implement various artistic symmetries to the random formation of this large number of water molecules. This Conductor is present at the fabric of the Nature that demonstrates his existence with such clarity, that no fair-minded person would deny his existence.

Even though the ancient man from very early stages of his intelligence was inspired to recognize the existence of this mysterious force who was influencing his environment and his life, but our advanced scientific discoveries were needed to confirm the validity of those early confusing assessments! And for us, science has been and it is our best arbitrator.

With unimaginable successes that our science has produced our amazing technologies, it is hard to stand up and challenge our science for being faulty and wrong. I hope that you focus on the logic of my arguments and judge them rationally, with an open mind, and without much prejudice. I am sure with further investigations we can prove the function of this Conductor in many other phenomena all around us, we only need to pay close attention in order to recognize them. And of course, we need to understand the corresponding scientific methodologies in order to see the influence of the Conductor in those processes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Evidence in the
Human Consciousness

Consciousness is an elusive phenomenon. There are much debates and discussions about the nature of our Consciousness. In a nutshell, our Consciousness is our awareness of our existence and about our activities. Our awareness presumably emerges from the activities of the components of our brain. But, our glorious science yet to be able to recognize the existence of this emerging awareness! Science has interjected that our Consciousness might be an illusion. Perhaps science is right, and the examined activities of our brain do not produce our Consciousness. Maybe the source of our Consciousness is yet to be discovered. I think I have found the Source of our Consciousness, and here I am going to prove his existence and his activities. I intend to show that our Consciousness is provided to us by the Conductor who is at the fabric of this Universe, and he is directing all events in extreme details.

In order to establish the validity of a claim, we need to move our argument from the realm of a philosophical discussion into the domain of testable scientific experiments. On PBS brain series program with Dr. David Eagleman, he talked about "Iowa Gambling Task experiment". By this experiment and some other testable experiments scientists have proved when the activities of our sub-conscious mind are realized by our Conscious mind, that information is already old news. This means there is a time delay between the activities of our sub-conscious mind and the comprehension of those events by our Conscious mind. Just this point indicates that our conscious mind has nothing to do with our conscious decision making. And our intelligent conscious mind is not the source which generates our intelligent actions. Now, let us observe how our intelligent decision making is formed by "Iowa Gambling Task experiment". I think this experiment reveals something far more fundamental, it reveals the Source of our awareness and our Consciousness. Let us review "Iowa Gambling Task experiment" more closely, then I will explain my reason for the ramifications of this revealing discovery.

The Brain with David Eagleman on PBS | How Do I Decide?

Iowa Gambling Task experiment

Task structure
Participants are presented with 4 virtual decks of cards on a computer screen. They are told that each time they choose a card they will win some game money. Every so often, however, choosing a card causes them to lose some money. The goal of the game is to win as much money as possible. The decks differ from each other in the number of trials over which the losses are distributed. Thus, some decks are "bad decks", and other decks are "good decks", because some will lead to losses over the long run, and others will lead to gains.

Common finding
Most healthy participants sample cards from each deck, and after about 40 or 50 selections are fairly good at sticking to the good decks. Concurrent measurement of galvanic skin response shows that healthy participants show a "stress" reaction to hovering over the bad decks after only 10 trials, long before conscious sensation that the decks are bad.

The winning incentive in "Iowa Gambling Task experiment" is an abstract incentive. As far as we know only human conscious mind has the capability to comprehend the meaning of an abstract incentive. And now we have discovered that our Conscious mind acquires this intelligence from the activities of our sub-conscious mind. How is this possible? Our subconscious mind is not supposed to have this capability at all, but Iowa gambling experiment proved that our sub-conscious mind not only it has this capability, but it possesses this capability far better than our conscious mind does. This should not be the case, but strangely it is! We always had assumed that our conscious mind had the best thinking power in Nature, and it was supreme. Our conscious mind is supposed to be the source of our comprehension, and here we have discovered a far inferior system performs the abstract comprehension far better than our conscious mind does.

Now the question arises since our sub-conscious mind which is supposed to be far inferior organ compared to our conscious mind, how does it acquire this capability which is far superior to our conscious mind? We have to conclude that this observation points to the existence of an Intelligent and Conscious Being deep within the fabric of our Nature, who is intentionally feeding this intelligent comprehension into our system.This is similar to the function of Time which it is woven into the fabric of our Universe, and all our scientific discoveries have not been able to identify how Time progresses only in the positive direction. And all complex functions of our world exist because of this peculiar property of Time.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Evidence in
our special dreams

Sometimes we wake up and we vividly remember the dream that we just had. Some of these dreams make sense, and we can relate to them, but most of the time we cannot make any sense out of them. On Dec 30, 2017, I had a dream just before I woke up, actually I woke up couple times, and I looked at my watch, and I decided still it was too early to get up so I stayed in bed, and I dozed off and while I was half conscious I had another dream, or it was the continuation of my previous dream! It was so strange, while I was seeing this vivid dream, I felt that I was not totally unconscious, or not totally asleep. In my dream I was walking with a woman in the streets of downtown Tiburon, this is a small town in the suburb of San Francisco. My companion mentioned that she wanted to tell me something in private, but there were too many people on the street around us, so I tried to walk toward more isolated alleys in order that we could have some privacy, I tried three alleys one after another, (after I got up I knew there was only one alley in that vicinity instead of the three alleys that I saw them in my dream!) In each alley that I tried there were some people around, in one alley there was a worker who was working in a ditch that was for a utility company, and the worker tried to explain to me the purpose of their work! I cared less about what the worker had to tell me about the project, all I was interested to hear what my companion wanted to tell me, and I was trying to avoid the worker, and I wanted to get away from him politely. In this aggravating search for finding a quiet place I woke up, and I wondered what this dream was all about!!??

That afternoon still I could remember that pointless dream, and I started to dissect my dream. When we are up and conscious of our actions, we do react to our outside environment, if the weather is too hot we wish that it was cooler, if there is loud construction noise from cross street, we wish the construction to be completed soon, if we get stuck in a traffic jam that we might miss our appointment we get upset, and so on. All these outside elements are part of our environment and they are out of our control, and we try to respond to them accordingly. But if we could choose and change these elements, then we would have changed them the way that we liked them to be. Now, for healthy people, if everything in our dreams is under the control of our brains, then why should we create these kinds of disappointing scenarios for ourselves!? Why do we get teased and disappointed by our own brain!? By nature of self-interest we are a selfish being, then why in our dream do we intentionally displease ourselves? In our dreams why don't our brain activities bring us joy and more pleasure, which it should be our natural self-interest, versus creating aggravation that diminishes the joys of our asleep? Those teasing and disappointing activities in our dreams go totally against our natural self-interest. This does not make any sense. Some of these elaborate dreams come with amazing details, but all these memories fade away so fast that we have a hard time to revive their contents when we get up. At this point, this subject is very primitive, and it requires far more relevant data and analyses in order to form a plausible and universal thought, that could generate some revealing elements about the nature of our existence.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A Logical Evidence

Assume somebody gives us a small pamphlet, something like Lincoln Gettysburg's Address, and we are not told how it was produced. Based on the specific words that it is used and the sentences that it is constructed I confidently can claim that the pamphlet is INTENTIONALLY produced by a highly intelligent being, either by a sophisticated person or by a sophisticated computer program. I strongly prefer this conclusion, versus somebody else's claim that those words in the pamphlet are piled up quite by random by a computer program. Like the words selection in the pamphlet which I strongly prefer to be constructed INTENTIONALLY by a highly intelligent being, the elements of this universe also have been calibrated with extreme accuracy, and they needed to be configured PURPOSELY by a highly intelligent being. So, in my mind, there is no doubt that an extremely intelligent and capable being has been involved in the development of this Universe. The scientists who are opposing this unique intelligent design for our universe, they have been forced to accept the formation of multi-verse which each universe would have various properties, and our universe with these specific properties would be just one amongst many other universes. You see, in order to avoid accepting just an obvious observation, they have to come up with the existence of the multi-verse, which there is no way to be detected, except in their wild mind speculations.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Our Percetion of God

Fundamentally there is a serious flaw in the concept of God who is sending us prophets to give us his messages, and claiming that miracles were produced to support the validity of those messages from God. If we believe that there is a God, whose power is unlimited, that there is no barrier or limitation for his power, that he is so close and so intimate with every one of us, that he knows our deepest thoughts, then this is too absurd to think that God introduces Messengers to disturb and to distract his ONE TO ONE intimacy with every one of us, and allow these religious fanatics to dictate their narrow visions on how people should behave and worship God. We should think that God should be much smarter than that, to make such a stupid mistake. This contradiction and antilogy in our concept of God, guide us to be rational and to correct our concept of God. In this aspect, we have the same intimacy with Allah as anybody else. People like Muhammad that claimed they had a special channel of communication with Allah, they are the charlatans who are taking advantage of the people's venerability and stupidity. I believe we are deeply connected to God, but not of the kind that can be marketed it by such MAN-MADE childish stories.

In the final analysis, similar to the young children that they get stimulated with fairytales, so far the adult people also have been stimulated with the religion stories, and it seems now is the time that our naive notion of religion to get updated, and we have reached to the maturity to grasp the glory of God in much different perspective.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A Weird Experience

On Saturday, March 31, 2018, around 4 PM on West Pueblo Ave. in Napa California I was walking home from the junction of Redwood Road and West Pueblo Avenue. This is about 0.9 of a mile and it takes me about 15 minutes to walk home. After about 3 or 4 minutes at a distance in front of a house, I noticed a box on top of a brick pedestal next to the sidewalk, I was about 100 -150 feet away from it. Somehow my mind was drawn to this un-important object. I thought maybe the owner of the house had forgotten to take the box inside the house, as I got closer to the box, I was curious why the box was left out there, when I reached to the box, I saw about 5" by 8" by 4" cardboard box, and it contained 7 or 8 lemons, the lid was left open, and on the lid it was written "Free". I thought I could use some lemons, but I did not need that many, so I took three, and I left the rest for somebody else. I got home and I warmed up my meal and I used one of the lemons, it improved the taste of my stew a great deal. I thought maybe I can go back and take the rest of the lemons. I said to myself, nobody is going to take those lemons, tomorrow on my walk I would look for that lemon box again. Next day when I reached to the West Pueblo Avenue, I reminded myself to look for that lemon box, I kept walking and keep looking, when I got close to home, to my great surprise still I had not seen the lemon box, I wondered how could I miss the lemon box or that brick pedestal even though I was looking for it, while yesterday I noticed it without even looking for it? This puzzle loomed large on my mind and it aroused my curiosity. I was wondering that it was quite possible that somebody had taken the lemon box, but that brick pedestal was a fixture on the front yard, I should have seen the brick pedestal. I asked myself, how did I miss the brick pedestal? At that point, I was at the end of my hour and half walk, even though I was tired, but I wanted to know how I missed the brick pedestal, so I went back, looking for the brick pedestal. I went all the way back to the intersection of the West Pueblo and the Redwood, to my great surprise I did not see the brick pedestal. On the walk back still I was looking for the brick pedestal, thinking the pedestal might be more visible from this direction, but no brick pedestal could be found. Now, in my mind the mystery became larger, I thought maybe the thing that I recall as a brick pedestal, maybe it was just a box, that it was placed there to make the lemon box more visible, and after the lemon box was taken the owner of the house had taken that pedestal away, so it was not a permanent fixture on the front yard, even though I was so certain that it was a brick pedestal! Next day I tried to find the house with the front lawn, the walkway, and the driveway to its garage, the way that I had recalled in my memory. I found four houses that were close to what I had in my memory with some differences.

This experience baffled me a great deal; I wondered how could my very clear and vivid perception be that faulty? If my perception of this simple visual observation was that faulty, then my rational thoughts also could be that faulty too, as a result, none of my reasoning could be trusted! Reaching to this realization, then I thought no wonder that my utmost clear articles on "Moses story" and on the "QED mirror reflection", which they do sound so logical and so irrefutable TO ME, they have not been acknowledged or resonated by ANYONE else! So, am I living in an illusional world that it makes perfect sense to me, and only to me, with utmost clarity, and nobody else can see any validity to it!? What a strange world this is!? It is meticulously tailor-made to satisfy the mind of each individual! Wow!!! And this passage only makes sense to me, because I did experience it so vividly! And how such an experience is possible if there is no interference from an outside source!? Well, it sounds that I am provided and privileged with one of the deepest secrets of our existence, but what is the use, that nobody would believe me!? Not only this knowledge does not bring me any benefit, but paradoxically it makes me a lunatic in the eye of my readers! So, this knowledge does not look like a gift to me, and for all the practical purposes it works like a curse! Even though it made no sense to expose my weird experience to the public, but I thought since the experience loomed so large on my mind, then, it has to be published regardless of the damage that it may cause undermining the validity of my other material.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thanks for reading my material,
May God Bless Us All.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The material of this site may be reproduced in any medium, without applying for permission. (Provided they are unedited, and retain the original author/ copyright information.)

Moses Story is just a self-evidenced Fiction and a Hoax

Flaws in Holy Books

A list of over 100 flaws in Quran


God and Reason

QED All-Path Challenge

Bahaullah's Claims

Christianity in Crisis

Adam and Eve Story of Paradise

Ancient Jewish Communities

Jesus Life and His Beliefs

Jesus Message and Jesus Miracles

Jesus and Judas Plan

Jesus Resurrection

Jesus Movement after Jesus Crucifixion

Apostle Paul and Brotherhood Communities

Destruction of the Jewish Temple and Start of Christianity

Paul's Vision on the Road to Damascus

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The following links are some discussions that I had in few forums.

the proof

Physicist, PLEASE answer this puzzle

QEDs "All Path Argument" for Mirror Reflection is false, phony, and deceptive.

God and Reason

Jesus Body

How far is Heaven?

Does Jesus have any limitation?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Persian Translation


Unes Gollestani