A tale of two statements

You obviously dont know much about mainstream science. It assumes methodological naturalism. Do you know what that is?
I have thirty years in biomedical science so I know how science works.
There is strong evidence the Christian God exists, there is little or no evidence those other gods exist. In addition, there is pretty strong evidence Christ literallly rose from the dead.
There is some evidence for a good God or gods to exist, to include an adversarial, imperfect “god of this world.”

The “Christian God”, namely, YHWH-Elohim is no different than the storm gods of other religions, to include, Baal. So to say there is more evidence for your god over other gods is just naive.

Then you have the Gnostic Christian God, and Jewish-Christian God, namely, Elyon, who is no different than the Good God of moral philosophers but distinct from YHWH-Elohim or Jesus because even Jesus said his Father was not only greater than himself but true God. The confusion for most people is that the Son of God is also called God because the Son of God is viceroy for God. If the President of the USA steps away from his duties for whatever reason, then the vice-President becomes acting President. In the same way True God has put his son in charge of creation so the son is also called god. The Son of God is acting God or acting Gods. the point being that multiple gods are presumed in Christianity. And one of them is the adversary to humans.

Yes, Read I Corinthians 15:3-5. Paul quotes an ancient Christian creed and says that Jesus was buried and then raised. If he was not talking about a literal body why bother to mention burial?
Because the cosmos itself has a life of its own as son of god, “in whom we live , move, and have our being.” The cosmos went from a single complex thing made of light to chaos and matter. Therefore, the present state of the cosmos is the grave the son of god is buried in. Paul is using common examples from human life to illustrate cosmic events for the son of God.

There is no evidence that the gospels are myths.
<facepalm>. The stories in the Gospels have every indication of being myths, from Jesus talking with Satan on a mountain to Superman Jesus flying in the clouds. You exhibit utter naivity.
They have much more character development and dont have overblown stories like the gnostic gospel of Thomas which is a myth like a giant cross that follows Christ out of the tomb.
The Gospel myths have more character development for immersion in order for you to FEEL as if you were there. That is the point of it, but it worked too well because some people like you took them literally as historical events.

No, the gospels are too realistic to be allegories,
see above
you can tell by comparing them to the gnostic writings which are strongly allegorical and mythologized
true, but many of the gnostic writings were never intended to be taken literally. the authors were not shooting for immersion as much as trying to describe abstract ideas regarding God’s divine nature, power, and attributes involved with creation. I concede that some of them are too complicated for daily use. Whereas, reading the Gospel of John, for example, is relatively easy to get through because of the human details for immersion and the general moral teachings.
which is one of the reasons they were rejected by the early church as non-canonical. And there is no evidence Paul allegorized the story of Christ.
Except he allegorized everything from scripture and never provides any biographical data for the Gospel Jesus and never names Jesus of Nazareth. To Paul Jesus is only the inner spirit or moral consciousness of the good human. And when the good human suffers then so does the inner Christ Jesus because humans and god are metaphysically connected through life of cosmos.

He is referring to the Jews because of their rejection of Christ, they dont see the relatively clear markers of the Old covenant pointing toward the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ.
He is condemning the Jews for the same thing you do, that is, for looking to a fleshy Messiah or national Messiah to save them, when the Messiah is nothing more than an anointing of the Holy Spirit upon any real human being with a moral consciousness. The Spirit is the moral consciousness.

“we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once [as a Pharisee] regarded Christ according to the flesh [expecting a national Messiah], we regard him thus no longer.” (2 cor 5:16)

Paul’s Messiah is saving souls through virtue (aka, spiritual Isra-El, meaning, the one who sees God), not meaning a fleshy human who saves nation Israel to rule Palestine. The earthly meaning is merely an imperfect copy or shadow of heavenly realities, eternal truths.

”It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” (John 6:63)
 
Last edited:
There is strong evidence the Christian God exists,
There is no evidence of the Christian god.
there is little or no evidence those other gods exist. In addition, there is pretty strong evidence Christ literallly rose from the dead.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of a literal bodily resurrection.
Yes, Read I Corinthians 15:3-5. Paul quotes an ancient Christian creed and says that Jesus was buried and then raised. If he was not talking about a literal body why bother to mention burial?
Paul provides a caveat to his claims by saying: " He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures," He is not referring to ancient Christian creeds, but explicitly referring to the same aforementioned scriptures from the Hebrew bible. Those are the only scriptures that existed. Your task is to present those scriptures to document your claims.
There is no evidence that the gospels are myths.
There is plenty of evidence which has been around for well over the last 100 year and is even now being taught in seminaries and schools of theology which documents that the gospels were written down only after the schism with Judaism in order to preserve the Church's contribution to the JEWISH LITURGY. They are not historical narratives, but liturgical narratives.
No, the gospels are too realistic to be allegories,
There is nothing realistic about walking on water being led by the devil to parapets, feeding 5000 people with a couple pieces of bread and a few small fish, suddenly appearing and then disappearing from within locked rooms, etc. etc. etc.
 
@El Cid
Paul is not an eye-witness to a human who reassembled his decomposing body but instead Paul is a sage, prophet, or mystic who perceived with his mind’s eye the life of the cosmic son of god dying 13,7 billion years ago, then coming to life in us as a moral consciousness. He looked forward to the bodily resurrection of the cosmic son of God translated to the cosmos returning to as it was before it died, in this case a singularity made of light.

Since the Jewish-Christians recognized Paul as a sage then the voice of Paul was considered the voice of the rising son of god. Therefore, they canonized his epistles by writing the Gospel myths as the personification of the inner “spirit of Joshua/Jesus” that Paul wrote about in his epistles.

If you take the moral consciousness of every good human throughout all generations and have them all sing a chorus about the supreme good in perfect harmony then ten thousand angels would be singing with one voice, namely, the voice of Jesus. Think of Paul as someone teaching us the words to the chorus that we all sing in harmony. In that sense, he is the voice of Jesus for us to emulate as one voice.

The three days represent the three voices leading the chorus for different generations. Paul was the second of the three voices after the first identified in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the Teacher of Righteousness who founded Jewish-Christianity. They expected a third and final voice, aka, “the last day“, to lead the harmony once again. These are individual voices singing the same chorus in harmony as one voice, namely Jesus. Three individuals or “days” or loosely, generations, but one harmony. Theoretically, the beginning of the new world follows the the third voice leading the angels to sing in harmony about the Supreme Good across time and space to the Source of everything. Simply, the three days are the archangels leading the heavenly host in a chorus to Elyon, the true heavenly Father.

The Gospel stories elevate the chorus of all the angels as one voice in the person of Jesus. And they sing with one voice in harmony about the Supreme Good manifest as a moral consciousness.

It is a cosmic life being brought back to life in the good humans, —the rising son of God in us. And Paul did everything in his power to describe that through his Jewish personality. Consequently, the rising son of god is arbitrarily called Joshua but it could have been called Wisdom or Reason (Greek: Logos) as the moral philosophers called it.
 
Last edited:
Ok where did the universe come from?
It might be better put if you asked, why is there something rather than nothing, because your question assumes the universe "came from".

Whatever, the simple answer is I don't know. I think the rational thing to do is go by the evidence and so far the evidence isn't there for why there is something rather than nothing.

On the Christian side there are arguments such as the Kalam that purport to show the universe had an absolute beginning so must have a creator, but I think these arguments are simplistic because they are not based on evidence, but rather common sense intuition and logic. There is so much we don't know about a universe that the more we find out about the more we find it goes against our common sense intuitions that the Kalam is based on, relativity and quantum mechanics giving good examples. I suspect that the reason there is a universe is something way beyond our current understandings, lying in that area of things that we find counter intuitive such as relativity.

An example, if time and space began at the precise moment expansion started, then there never was a time that the universe didn't exist. Part of the point here is that time is tricky, there is a reason it took Einstein a while to realise it was the joker in the pack as as far as relativity is concerned.
 
Ok where did the universe come from?
Keep in mind these facts.

#1 The universe we currently live in exists for a single reason (Greek: Logos) or Cause. (see Cosmological Argument). All matter, and all souls come from a single source of extremely complex light or energy. This fact completely supports the claim of a sole creator. Please note how atheists avoid the subject of a single cause, instead they say things like,

"the reason there is a universe is something way beyond our current understandings,"
or
"Why does it [the universe] have to come from somewhere?"

#2: Only intelligence can initiate motion from rest. As observed in our universe, rocks do not move themselves unless acted upon by something else (it ties in with the cosmological argument). Therefore, the Cause of our universe would have to be intelligent to have initiated all causes in our universe. The atheist will say the single cause of our universe was acted upon by an infinite number of causes precluding the presence of intelligence but of course they lack any (zero) evidence for their claim because nobody knows what came BEFORE the single cause of our universe.

Based on these two facts alone the evidence appears to be weighted on the side of theists, IMO. I could add to these two facts other arguments for an intelligent creator, for example, the moral argument, but I think you get the idea.
 
It might be better put if you asked, why is there something rather than nothing, because your question assumes the universe "came from".
There is no "assuming" that the universe came from a single cause. It happens to be the predominant theory based on all current evidence that explains our universe. A single cause for everything which happens to support a creator.
 
There is no "assuming" that the universe came from a single cause.
Isn't it more accurate to say that the current state of the universe looks like it came from a single cause? That single cause could be a particular state of the universe before it became our particular state of the universe. If so, then we still don't know if the universe came from anything in the first place.
It happens to be the predominant theory based on all current evidence that explains our universe. A single cause for everything which happens to support a creator.
My understanding is that we know about the universe right up until a microsecond after the expansion started. Before that we just don't know what was going on. There is a Roger Penrose video where he argues the big bang wasn't the beginning.

The only way the universe supports a creator is by inference, not hard evidence.
 
Atheists should only answer that question if you're willing to answer where God came from.

Since God is the Creator of everything, He would have to be the creator of wherever He supposedly came from, which rules out His having come from somewhere, since His existence must precede His locale.
 
Isn't it more accurate to say that the current state of the universe looks like it came from a single cause? That single cause could be a particular state of the universe before it became our particular state of the universe.
Agreed.
If so, then we still don't know if the universe came from anything in the first place.
I think you are missing the point. You stated the point previously when you said,

“That single cause could be a particular state of the universe before it became our particular state of the universe.”

IOW, everything in the PRESENT universe was caused by the PAST universe in a different state. Science suggests that our PAST state was extremely ordered made of light, whereas, the PRESENT state is chaotic made of a denser material, namely, matter or flesh.

Forget trying to scientifically sort out what came before the PAST state of our universe. Just concede that the PAST state of our universe was extremely ordered, and that extremely ordered Cause, arguably creator, created or caused us. Is that enough to say that there might plausibly be a single creator of all things who existed in a pristine state made of light? I am not asking you give up your skepticism but to concede that IF there was a creator of all things then the PAST state of our universe would be associated with it, if not actually be the direct creator of THIS universe or world, aka, “the god of this world” (2 cor 4:4)

If true, then logically, we are that god spread out into many individuals. iOW, “the god of THIS [Present] world” is us or in us.
* Logically, we have always existed potentially in the creator or cause of all things.
* Logically, we are the creator creating ourselves, in the sense, that my wife and I have created three more souls which would never have existed otherwise, and so on.
* Logically, the cause of causes is emanating himself into many, not only physically into stars, matter, and flesh, but also into intelligent souls with reason, wisdom, and moral consciousness.
* Logically, whatever that cause was in the PAST, it has PRESENTLY become us, and will in the FUTURE, exist eternally.

What I am describing above is no different than what a mystic wrote about the Cause of all things?

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who WAS and IS and is TO COME!”…
“Worthy are you,…
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” (Rev 4:8)

”I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who IS and who WAS and who is TO COME, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8).

“I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore,” (Rev 1:17)

And then there is this,

”making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Eph 1:10).

…to include “all things“ Past, present, and future.

Therefore, the UNIVERSE is the creator “who died, and BEHOLD I am alive” in you, in us, “in me” (Gal 1:16). The revelation and/or mystery is that the creator or cause is alive in us because the universe is alive in us. Everyone looks for god outside us but the truth is that he is inside us, in our very being itself.

I will conclude with this.

Gospel of Thomas #77
Jesus said, "It is I who am the light (that presides) over all. It is I who am the entirety: it is from me that the entirety has come, and to me that the entirety goes. Split a piece of wood: I am there. Lift a stone, and you (plur.) will find me there."

My understanding is that we know about the universe right up until a microsecond after the expansion started. Before that we just don't know what was going on. There is a Roger Penrose video where he argues the big bang wasn't the beginning.

The only way the universe supports a creator is by inference, not hard evidence.
 
Last edited:
Great.
I think you are missing the point. You stated the point previously when you said,

“That single cause could be a particular state of the universe before it became our particular state of the universe.”

IOW, everything in the PRESENT universe was caused by the PAST universe in a different state. Science suggests that our PAST state was extremely ordered made of light, whereas, the PRESENT state is chaotic made of a denser material, namely, matter or flesh.
Nowhere have I heard that before the Big Bang the universe was made of light. I'm not sure I agree that the present state of the universe is all chaotic. For example, all the basic particles we know of are exactly alike and behave in exactly the same way.
Forget trying to scientifically sort out what came before the PAST state of our universe. Just concede that the PAST state of our universe was extremely ordered, and that extremely ordered Cause, arguably creator, created or caused us. Is that enough to say that there might plausibly be a single creator of all things who existed in a pristine state made of light?
This is speculation I'm afraid.
I am not asking you give up your skepticism but to concede that IF there was a creator of all things then the PAST state of our universe would be associated with it, if not actually be the direct creator of THIS universe or world, aka, “the god of this world” (2 cor 4:4)
Ok, but that's a big if.
If true, then logically, we are that god spread out into many individuals. iOW, “the god of THIS [Present] world” is us or in us.
* Logically, we have always existed potentially in the creator or cause of all things.
* Logically, we are the creator creating ourselves, in the sense, that my wife and I have created three more souls which would never have existed otherwise, and so on.
* Logically, the cause of causes is emanating himself into many, not only physically into stars, matter, and flesh, but also into intelligent souls with reason, wisdom, and moral consciousness.
* Logically, whatever that cause was in the PAST, it has PRESENTLY become us, and will in the FUTURE, exist eternally.

What I am describing above is no different than what a mystic wrote about the Cause of all things?

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who WAS and IS and is TO COME!”…
“Worthy are you,…
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.” (Rev 4:8)

”I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who IS and who WAS and who is TO COME, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8).

“I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore,” (Rev 1:17)

And then there is this,

”making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Eph 1:10).

…to include “all things“ Past, present, and future.

Therefore, the UNIVERSE is the creator “who died, and BEHOLD I am alive” in you, in us, “in me” (Gal 1:16). The revelation and/or mystery is that the creator or cause is alive in us because the universe is alive in us. Everyone looks for god outside us but the truth is that he is inside us, in our very being itself.
Again, this all seems like speculation to me.
I will conclude with this.

Gospel of Thomas #77
Jesus said, "It is I who am the light (that presides) over all. It is I who am the entirety: it is from me that the entirety has come, and to me that the entirety goes. Split a piece of wood: I am there. Lift a stone, and you (plur.) will find me there."
I think you are concluding a lot from a Bible passage with a vague correlation to your ideas.
 
Great.

Nowhere have I heard that before the Big Bang the universe was made of light.
The PAST state of our universe contained no matter but was solely made of extremely ordered energy or light. Light is radiated energy. Light transmuted into matter at the Big Bang.

I'm not sure I agree that the present state of the universe is all chaotic. For example, all the basic particles we know of are exactly alike and behave in exactly the same way.
The second law of thermodynamics states that any spontaneously occurring process will always lead to an escalation in the entropy (S)** of the [PRESENT] universe. In simple words, the law explains that an isolated system's entropy will never decrease over time.

** Entropy: lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

This is speculation I'm afraid.
It is supported by everything we know about our universe. IOW, there is no better explanation.

Ok, but that's a big if.
It is a logical explanation based on current evidence.

Again, this all seems like speculation to me.
…based on evidence. That is how right reason or wisdom works. Take what we do know and learn from that.
I think you are concluding a lot from a Bible passage with a vague correlation to your ideas.
I am demonstrating that the religious consciousness two thousand years ago perceived a single cause of the universe made of light, subsequently died, then became alive in us.

It begs the question how they could have known the history of our universe as a single thing made of light transmuting into matter or flesh unless there was a source of knowledge preceding humans to aid them in this life, and to give them hope for the next.

”For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.” (1 cor 13:12)
 
Last edited:
@El Cid
I wanted to demonstrate from scripture what I claimed above. I did a brief search of Paul’s epistles for the word “resurrection” and came up with the small list below. Please note that no where does Paul describe a decomposing human reassembling his body and walking, climbing, crawling, or teleporting out of an earthen grave.
No, read Acts. Paul saw the resurrected Christ and even the men with him heard His voice. Only physical bodies can produce sound.
Instead, resurrection is always interpreted from scripture and associated either with a moral consciousness arising in humans or a bodily resurrection of Christ as a culmination of the “third day” (1 cor 15:4) which according to the Dead Sea Scrolls is not solar days. The ”days” of creation signify something entirely different, specifically, incarnations of YHWH-Elohim on earth throughout human history, sometimes referred to as angels, prophets, or kings. At the time of Paul’s writing five of the days had already come, one was, presumably, in Paul, and one more day yet remained.
No, Christ had scars and ate food. Only real bodies can do those things. I Corinthians 15:3-5 is an ancient Christian Creed that predates Paul and his letters to within 5 years of the resurrection. Even many non-Christian scholars believe this.
“they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.” (Rev 17:10)

Everyone takes the “three days” literally as solar days but Paul is describing heavenly events, angelic movements on earth, the plan of God unfolding in the universe. It cannot be seen with the human eyes but perceived by the mind alone via wisdom, right reason, or spiritual insight.
There is absolutely no evidence for this.
But set the meaning of the “three days” aside. I only mentioned it to demonstrate that Paul was describing three incarnations of YHWH-Elohim that must take place BEFORE the new beginning of heaven and earth per the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There is no evidence for this.
As I set out to do in this post, here is the list of resurrection verses. Again, please note how no human crawls, walks, flies, or teleports out of a human grave. It is always tied to the allegorizing of Hebrew scripture, frequently, with the mythical Adam or primal Man. This too is not referring to any human but the universal Son of God also found in prechristian literature, and again, subsequently suppressed by orthodoxy.

Resurrection per Paul

By spiritual insight: “according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, (Romans 1:4)​
Yes, the HS rose Him from the dead.
By simile: “if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:5)​
No, read verse 6 it refers to our old sinful nature being crucified to bring about our new life in Christ where we are no longer enslaved to sin.
By allegorizing scripture: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,” (1 cor 15:3). IOW, as allegorized from scripture..​
No, if it is an allegory then it is irrelevant if it is in accordance with the scriptures.
By allegorizing scripture: “For as by a [Primal] man came death, by a [Last] man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 cor 15:22)​
There is no evidence this is allegory.
By allegorizing scripture: “But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (1 cor 15:35)…If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (V. 15:44)​
If He was just a spirit, Paul would not have added body to the term. Plainly this means he is referring to a physical body that is transformed by the spirit. Verse 44 also calls it a spiritual body. Life giving spirit is just the type of spiritual body that Christ became with his resurrected body.
By simile: “that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,” (Phillippians 3:10)​
If none of it was physical then there would no need to mention sufferings. Non physical entities dont suffer and dont die.
Please note, no eyewitness account of a decomposing human climbing or teleporting out of an earthen tomb. The resurrection according to Paul is always by interpretation or simile or spiritual insight of a meaning found in scripture. The only time he mentions witnesses in 1 corinthians 15 is using the word for mental perception or spiritual insight of Christ in association with an abortion (15:8) as if the witnesses perceived Christ’s cosmic body expelled lifeless from heaven into matter as part of the cosmogenic processes, also found in early christian literature, and yet again, subsequently suppressed by orthodoxy.
Verse 8 does not refer to an abortion. It just means one born at the wrong time. He was born again at a later time so He didnt see the resurrected Christ at the time all the others did.
Over and over, the meaning of resurrection by Paul has been suppressed by orthodoxy in preference for a literal, historical interpretation of the Gospel myths. We were all fooled but no longer. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Ng Hammadi are a paradigm shift in understanding what resurrection actually means. Resurrection begins with a moral consciousness rising in humanity from a lifeless universe (the “abortion”) and culminates in a new heaven and earth on or after the last “day” of Jesus. At the time of Paul’s writing one “day” remained.
The Nag Hammadi was written much later than the NT so that it is not historically accurate and is just esoteric mysticism that has little or no connection to reality. Gnosticism is much more exclusive than orthodox Christianity. Why would God limit those with some esoteric knowledge that no ordinary person can understand to salvation? Even a child can understand the way to salvation in orthodox Christianity.
 
The PAST state of our universe contained no matter but was solely made of extremely ordered energy or light. Light is radiated energy. Light transmuted into matter at the Big Bang.
Can you give any evidence that shows that pre big bang, the universe was light?
 
Can you give any evidence that shows that pre big bang, the universe was light?
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe. (Wikipedia)

E = m c*c. (Einstein). iOW, c*c = E/m
 
No, read Acts. Paul saw the resurrected Christ and even the men with him heard His voice. Only physical bodies can produce sound.
You are taking a third hand account of an event over the first hand account. Paul explicitly says Jesus was revealed “in Me” (Gal 1:16). No voice from heaven, no light show. ”Acts of the Apostles” was written long after Paul was dead by someone who wanted to glorify Peter equal to Paul. It has no historical integrity because it contradicts Paul in his letter on numerous occasions (see Baur, “The Church History”). Frankly, you have been misled.
No, Christ had scars and ate food. Only real bodies can do those things. I Corinthians 15:3-5 is an ancient Christian Creed that predates Paul and his letters to within 5 years of the resurrection. Even many non-Christian scholars believe this.
You have put a mythical story of an event over the the epistle written by Paul. You are unable to separate two different and distinct genres of literature: a revelatory discourse and a letter defending the faith.

For example, Paul explicitly says that flesh and bone will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 cor 15:50), yet what does the mythical story say, “see here my hands and touch here the scar.” (John 20:27) They are completely incompatible but you ignore Paul’s letter in preference for the mythical Hollywood story.

Why do you do that? Why do most Bible scholars do that (Except the critical thinking ones, eg, Baur)?

Because everyone has been told that since the fourth century CE under penalty of death, exile, or prison. Nobody was allowed to critically question the Bible until the last few centuries. Therefore, you just happen to be listening to those who are behind the times of critical thinking and who are probably employed by those who hold the traditional view started by the Roman church in the fourth century CE.

If all the assumptions you make are wrong then all your conclusions will be too. You need to start over with actual history not the distorted one promoted by those who imposed their religion on others.
 
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe. (Wikipedia)

E = m c*c. (Einstein). iOW, c*c = E/m
I'd prefer a physics article or some respected physicist saying this to establish this as true. What you've given looks like your speculation only.
 
Back
Top