tvaeli

I tried to answer every part of your inquiry. Maybe my answers were too long. You cannot convince me. I think you are looking only at one side of the Truth; and as a Buddhist I also must believe in Cause and Effect, the Law of Karma. I think your position is what is working for a while - it's the complete Yang situation, where you only want to experience the Good. In Taoist teachings, the extreme of Yang will, at some moment, at it's peak, break down. I believe in Positive and Negative. The Positive - this is like what you said, it's creation of our own reality quite freely. The Negative, or the Reason, is very far, but it will eventually break in - in addition to ethics, which is similar to yours, there is logic and deduction. Witches create their own reality, when they are not very advanced. They try to persuade people into fit of their own dream. Finally, they do something like negative witchcraft - they do not make sure that the energy others are spending to their goods would flow back to them. The positive witchcraft is more like what we experience in religion like Buddhism - you bring together the positive cycles of energy, and then, for others it's also useful to create your own dream. Somewhere there is a karmic connection that they, too, need to create positive karma and their dreams out of being your dream. Then it all works together - people co-create. Your theory is prone to the effect, where you create and create your dream, but suddenly the people involved start lacking something. Then, what you would have created as positive energy, so that when people follow the Force they also fulfill your dream, would turn into the manipulation - you give them the karmic ends to do your dream, but suddenly that karma lacks the energy. Energy is very real. In the big picture, we are not only beings of the Heavens, but we need to go to the Hells and help those beings to also achieve higher states; otherwise, one day they come anyway. You can help them if they accept this. This is more like Christianity than Buddhism, or it's a Mahayana Buddhism also, where you stay in lower realms and help them to get more enlightened. There is a hard fact, which somewhere meets your dream.

Yes revelation is a kind of proof, but it's quite personal. When many people would get revelations, they would create proofs based on that - but in our common speech, it's very important that decisions of people with very different sense abilities, truth perceptions, IQ's would understand them about the same way. When we have common notations for our basic points, we meet much less counteractivities - the revelations you get from your spiritual advancements are often misunderstood and suppressed by other people.

I have to disappoint you - I have a lot of mystical experience. In my case, the two are not opposites; this post is about a very intellectual topic - being Scientific about God, and for this topic, reliance on mystical experience would not be beneficial. I also have a lot of scientific experience. I have got a lots of wisdom in short time; but science is communicative tool - others would not always have anything to do with this experience. It's hard to answer, why I look for this scientific reality - you are very skeptical about this ..but shortly, it's bad when the material senses interfere with spiritual senses - each sense needs to come to conclusions from it's own data. To be an integrated whole, one also needs to develop an intellectual wisdom from their five senses and ability to think; this is a very communicative wisdom.

Common language includes common terms with people, who are not enlightened; when you have right speech, it includes conceptions everybody can see. Psychologist can have an ideal theory about what makes you happy, but when he gives you more and more numbers about particular chemicals in your brain, and explains situations with molecular formulas and particular numbers of your body, telling you that you have some particular neural response instead of asking to calm down - you are not very interested in their theory. Take this more easily - a person washing dishes in the bar also makes life better, but you get tired if you hear stories of all chemicals they know about. To be social, you need to work hard with your theories to sometimes give a good and short advice, how they can make their life better without talking to ghosts or exceeding the speed of light. In particular, do not promise anomalies in sciences ..when you study them further, you rather create none - there are many miracles I have seen, but not so many cases where I could really show a normal physics, psychological or social theories are broken; I could talk about similar effects in very common terms. You need to re-learn the language, so that you might see they are throwing red fire balls towards you, but you need to understand that in collective language it's simply called hate. When you silently draw a picture of person with red fire balls - you do not need to explain this as reality, but as your own metaphor; they would understand the person is angry ..but when you talk too much too literally, it's the same effect as putting on the red sunclasses and pretending everything to be red because you see it that way - it's not communicative to others. Also people have certain tendency to believe that you make anomalies to their theories when you speak wrongly about enlightenment. Psychologically, you make them feel happy with no reason, financially, you bring them money with no work, politically, you take them to ideal world where even bad people can live, or physically, you get things having better qualities - you can kind of sense similar effects, but you can be sure people misunderstand you and expect to have good results with bad karma; you are not able to provide that. You need to study, how the standard, known sciences are actually not broken. The gold rush, which comes when you are naive and talk people about everything you think would be "materialized instantly" and "changing their lives" - they believe you first, then they get extremely shameful situations, and finally they say you are mad. You might experience something like this, rise of your life quality or unexpected experiences, which is the total sum of changes in your senses, meanings you give to things and the real potential you get out from focusing to good karmic goals, but really, if you read a book of physics, psychology or economy again - you can see the theorems are not broken. You can see others have same amounts of anomalies - physicist can make things fly, and he can hardly explain in his formulas, why this works; mathematician solves some formula by magic trick you don't understand, or carmaker creates a design effect you would not believe - everybody is breaking a little bit what you expect. But do not promise the anomalies! Buddha told nothing about breaking the laws of nature - he said the law of karma is the law of cause and effect, and this is kind of all there is. Christians said about their miracles that witchcraft is "breaking the laws of nature" and thus even illegal. Study the laws and how we commonly see them and try to be realistic.

Gödels proof, for me, mostly proves that scientific theories can be both valid and contradictionary - I also result this conclusion from theory of Paradigms. This results that in scientific theories, we can not easily "debunk" people, but there needs to be ethics - models, which fit different people, can be most efficient for them - simple and explanationary -, but when we look them directly, there seem to be contradictions. The existence of God is not so simple - when you awaken, yes, you can prove there is God and you are both part and a whole. But when you fall more asleep, you can prove there is no God and you are not whole at all, maybe you are not even a part, but you don't matter at all. When you seek independence or do not create karmic bonds, but break all of them - God cannot help you, but leaves your life. This can happen for good - you take responsibility and become more independent, until you reach God again in independent way - or for bad - your karma simply breaks up; in this case life forces you to repair your karma. In quantum reality, you shift between heavens, hells and more neutral states like Earth - they form complete realities. In reality, where you do not have karmic connection with God, you link with people, who do not have this; enlightened people can not do visible miracles near you - they become easily debunked - and you cannot see or access the good karmic connection; your karma is either completely neutral or bad. You might build an atheist life, which is quite successful, but without karmic connection to God. These realities are real - when you quantum shift, you move to other, very real, and complete reality, which surrounds you everywhere, nobody can do anything miraculous you can see - it's either out of your perception, or simply impossible; people, who want to impress you with miracles, simply lose their abilities until they fix their karma. In this quantum realm, God really does not exist, and it's insane to suggest that he does - the only model, which works for you, is without God. You can still believe in God of some kind. This makes God highly subjective. God is beyond existing and unexisting, it's beyond being one or many, beyond being true or false - Buddha never told whether God exists, but he said it's a very complicated topic and you reach this as you experience. Your quantum world contains God and you can see it's true ..but it's your reality! You can live a life, where you do everything yourself, and you can never give back to the world, when God helps you - you reach the reality, where God does not exist. You can change your religion, and God would appear differently, or the time passes and in new culture, the God also appears to be higher, he has higher manifestation - in this sense, you cannot say whether God is one or many, and you cannot say definitely that he is not getting better in material, manifested reality you see. When you get much higher - you can be sure, God as you see him would simply do the same, and it would be kind of different God; he cannot help you in ways, which you cannot answer at all. There is something permanent, already enlightened about God - but also you, in some sense you are already perfect and enlightened, but in the material world you can see yourself evolving and hardly reaching this, those experiences come and go as the day and night are changing (jewish religion says day and night are changing forever). You have to see that your quantum shifts take you to another, complete reality, and the theorems there are different - by some kind of synchronicity, those worlds can co-exist in the same place. Religions learn from God, but then they have wars between each others, it's hard for God to be the same. From perspective of the world, where God does not exist, you can still have some understanding of God when you consider it's attributes - you can describe the reality in terms of appearance of God's attributes and the benefits you get when you work for those. From perspective of the world, where God does exist, you can see that when you don't follow him at all, he disappears and kind of does not exist. And, another enlightened perspective sees your mind as the whole, but it does not attribute so much to the God - it says it's your own world and you get what you create; this seems distinct theory, but it's as good as others to describe something real about the deep, underlying reality. This topic is philosophically deep and when only what you know for sure is left, and when your theory fits everybody - you are left with something, which is not so simple as binary logic. The same way, God treats everybody and everything equally, thus the same causes have the same effects - this creates appearance of the natural laws, which do not need to be explained by God. Natural Laws, they still form some union, which can be called God. When you study this evidence of the material world, you also study God; and in theory, you need this word to transcend the need to be sure, whether God exists - the attributes of God, in reality, like appearance of Truth, all exist anyway, and you benefit from them, thus they exist in sense that when you work for them, they work for you and exist; God, if he exist, would also leave you if you do not have the karmic connection - thus, if God exists, you get the same theory that he is what you create. So the theory is also that you create your own reality, and this is an aspect you can follow without "believing in God". You can apply logic to the parts and the whole. For example, you can assume that when all the parts do better, unless they harm others by doing better, then the whole also does better. You can do better by harming others, but you can do better by helping others. The whole benefits, when you do better by helping others (who deserve it?). Finally, when they do not deserve, they finally lose if you give them what they do not deserve - so, maybe you still help them by not giving what they do not deserve, but helping them further in deeper ways. But some people want to be independent and not get your help, and you could think that they do better if you help them - but they say they have right to not be your friend, then, painfully, you reach that you get better karma by not being their friend, and you are kind of dependent yourself when you constantly try to still create the friendship. Now, you know that when you create these win-win situations, you also create something for the whole - when you create lose-lose and win-lose situations, the whole would benefit less. Then, you can conclude that what Christ said that you help God and God helps you when you help others - this must be true by several possible models of what God is. Then, you have proven this and your study of Bible is a little bit more scientific - you can see that if God is born as a person, he would definitely tell this to you; you cannot see from here, whether Christ was God, sent by God, or a person with Godly character, but you can see that the story that if God is born he would tell you this and exactly this - it's true. You can show this theory to an atheist, and he would agree that parts help the whole this way, and with certain attributes of the whole you can see the force of God, the love of God, and the Wisdom and Truth of God in this way; so he might not believe in God as separate living entity, for example, or he might not believe in God in some other sense, but he would believe that by creating such model and following it this way, you are following something he could also prove in the material world - when people all apply the win-win situations, the godlike force appears in their life, and it's true that the Paradise would come to Earth as we get better in this. Heaven is a world you enjoy, and an atheists all use this term easily - when they get good marriage, good job and good friends, they can agree that they are in Heaven, even if they do not believe in everything you can say about lokas and heavens. Also, the life after death. In Buddhism, Christianity and older religions, the good deeds have consequence beyond the realm you are living in, beyond your current life. This is extremely painful statement for an atheist and he would see you are deceived to something. But, philosophically, we can show that by transcending our ethics to limits, to infinity beyond the visible results of the ethical theory - limit in mathematical sense is a function of unconstrained continuity; and when we also consider the future generations and others people, we also get something like good karma beyond our visible life. The consequences of all kinds appear, come into our lives, which we cannot directly follow that good comes from the good. When we take all those hypothesis together, we can create a neutral theory, which considers the afterlife, but gives us a model, which is quite much identical not depending, whether this exists - we can show that we lose nothing by having an afterlife model. This is more scientific by removing the doubt - where we can doubt, we have a theory, which considers all the possibilities and creates the same model of actual life. Why it's more scientific - it might be not more scientific for some people, who have memories of past lives or strong visions of future lives, or both. But science is not the force of solitude, but a force of collective - we need to speak about it. When we speak, we consider not only our own perspective, experience, wisdom or need to believe something, but we consider also others; we look for common language, which everybody can verify. We need to prove our atheist colleague that we do not make bad decisions believing that our company would reincarnate and get the money back - then, we need model, where we can be certain inwards, but we are not certain outwards; in this way, enlightened people do not talk so much. Enlightenment is not to impress others with what they cannot perceive or doing something outside the boundaries of their science - it's about uniting people and finding the common framework of actions and theories. So when you have such theory of limits, where you show why you see the ethical consequences pointing in directions, which are equal to what you would get if they point to infinity - you get rid of something philosophical, where even you can doubt a little bit, and you reach a theory, which can be verified by more people. For yourself, the "hypothesis" of afterlife might have further clarification, and you are free to have some free time to play hockey or meditate for your afterlife experience, but when you go to atheist company and start working with their afterlife full-time, you are being insane. When your words take this as certain, which they don't see, you are not doing any good ..and, finally - when you prove your own past and future lives, you cannot prove that they are not different; for example I did read a Christian text that he thinks it's very unethical to have afterlives instead of going straight to heaven - I think the potential of humans is quite free and when they have such impression of the ethics and reality, it could be their reality. Maybe someone, really, has proven that they do not have afterlife - then you are lying to them. You need to remember their past and future lives as well ..but I heard an argument that if you do not remember your past life, you are a different person living only one life - if your model is such, then in these terms you don't have an afterlife. So to be scientific, we consider all this and reach ethics, which fit to everybody, and some general sense about what you mean by basing your ethical decision, or important business decision, on theory of afterlife - some people might not want to risk with this, and they might be right in some sense of how they model their lives, who they are, and what makes you the same person. Maybe they lose motivation if they think they will do this next life? There might appear ethical considerations, which are not exactly "scientific", like believing something would make them lost and mad, not able to benefit from their models. For some people, when they lose faith in their lives and choose a different life, this is afterlife - they are interested if the consequence of past life reaches this, a new circle of friends, a new girlfriend or a new company they work in. For some people, when million years later they family gene creates the exact same combination, the same person is born and this is their afterlife; they want to know, what consequence this person would have from their lives, and are they creating memories, somehow, of their past person. For some people, they live on when their children survive, or their scientific work remains - their karma would go on. Philosophy and science is about working to have less assumptions. What you mean by God, Heaven or Afterlife - a good theory, which you can scientifically check, is communicative between people, and free of assumptions. There is a magic - the theory of ethics and logic give the same results again and again, in different realms, areas of science etc.; with everything, you can see the moving energy, the good and bad behavior, and the shared karma; from many different theories, which form on different solutions to open problems - you still reach the conclusion that ethical life is good and benefits you or the world. You reach this in different ways and means. You also reach logic - that you can create the best reality, but the consequence of future, or the others, or how you relate with your past, is not good; logic breaks some rules of the simplest good will, demanding something practical, for example giving money away is good by ethics, but you might lose it by logic. Rising into highest heaven possible is good by ethics, but working in hells to help others is possibly important solution by logic and reason. Cause and effect and acausal - do not get wrong impression about what I said. I have this connection: Cause and effect bring us closer to truth in manifested form, material realm, like material paradise / heaven on earth, or actual God in our real lives, our connection to God - in every religion you can see the past is worse and the future is better. This happens by evolution and experience. In the cause and effect, the Truth is so much more True in the Future that you would not see it in the past; the past gods like Odin and Thor - they seem like semigods, but those people could not manage better; it's weird if they went to Heaven, where they had their own best traits and not yours - but really, you do not create into heaven or hell, but in all means, in current life, afterlives and what you give to your future generations, you are moving towards the realm you create; their heaven was the world they created and they could not do better. They definitely met there the God they created themselves, or the God had the appearance, which did fit those people and their understanding. Acausal appears in Enlightened states of Mind, between two lives, or as the reality of Truth, which still has effect - this exists and sometimes it shows us the perfect harmony and reason; but sometimes it shows this also in our past experiences of hardship we overcame. God promised us the Paradise and the Kingdom of God for the future - we are evolving, or God is evolving, this is the philosophical question, but the real thing is that the past appears almost as if God was not there. Definitely, very enlightened experiences sometimes appeared, visions, feelings and moments of the Final Future, and maybe some people were able to materialize this into their lives. I call this yin and yang - yang is acausal, where yin is causal. You can see questions like "why spiritual God created material world", and in Kybalion it's also hard to explain the material life. I have really hard to read texts about this yin and yang - https://spireason.neocities.org/ - where I prove that the material world exists and is evolving from past to future. Buddha said we are working for enlightenment of all beings, and Christ said one day we have the collective enlightenment.

My answer, to cover all your topics, was very long. So I write down the short points: God is the Totality of All, including the Truth, Laws of Nature, the First Cause of it's birth; it's the entity of those all - the causes and effects in action, to the last and final, in infinity, are God. It's equal to Goodness and purified mind. The opposites of these things, like the Lies, breaking the Laws of Nature (doing something with intent, which actions are later cancelled out or lost in evolutions), the badness - it's not God, but rather the Satan. In the Laws of Nature, the Truth appears, things get always better and more synchronized. So, in time, all those aspects of God appear more strongly. It's also consistent with religions that as time passes, we get closer to Paradise and the manifested God in our lives and the civilization. The Reason, indeed, in some form existed right from the beginning - I personally believe that when some future is impossible by laws of Nature, this impossibility also affects the past; from Quantum Physics I know that the light somehow moves in accordance with the future, but I believe all the laws of nature are like this. So, by the Reason, the reality without God might be impossible. I also believe that the whole is a frequency, and this appears as a God as person when some beings are born on this frequency. But the God as person - people are said to become Gods as they become enlightened; their minds become infinite and thus, they are more equal to God or rather gods. There is the total infinity, but there are also many degrees of lesser and greater infinity - when you reach infinite potential, "god" is the general word, which describes that. In material world, when a person is born with mind able to work to infinity, it's kind of reincarnation of God. There are many meanings and shades, what people mean by somebody being God or god - there is one, complete definition of God, but also what is getting closer to this, is somewhat one of a kind. Science is commutative, and thus to speak scientifically - we need definitions, which apply not depending on whether God exists. Thus, the results of the process of unification, the appearance of higher truth and goodness, the reason, which brings us closer to this and gives meaning to move towards paradise and godlike properties of our reality; all this has to be seen as God. To be decent people of modern society, we need to know that for a good leader or a good country, it's highly important that people are independent and understand the meanings of their actions, rather than simply following the orders. It's unreasonable to think that this is not beneficial to God - we expect God to be "equal" in sense that he, also, does not simply order us, but inspires and helps to understand. Being scientific, for a civilization, might be creating big and unified theories - for a person it's more a process of finding models, which are understandable to them, and help to work on their truth on their own. When you follow a theory you do not understand, or a spiritual text based on visions you do not see and senses you do not have - you are not scientific, but easily manipulated and not able to work on this truth at all; you also make wrong decisions, because you get wrong answers with formulas more complex than you can manage. Scientific personality is not a person of top science, but a person, who has based their lives on models they can understand and develop further. We need some degree of trust and authority, but even this has to be questioned. Truth is a personal thing - it's a model, which works for you; it can be in contradiction with other models, which work as well, because the essential implications of the model work very well, but there might be side-effects coming from simplicity, or the complications of not having an unified model; all the paradigms are that up to a degree. We are scientific about the God, when we have deep philosophy, which reflects the causes and effects of us in reality, as if the reality is a big creature. By natural sciences, it's similar to creature anyway - the society and it's interaction with the ecosystem has all the properties, like being able to react, to learn, etc. In such way, God might exist or not exist, but in both cases we can be very sure what we mean by reflecting the will of the God. Having good science, we can still be interested in works of reincarnations of God, prophets or people, who speak with God - but we can reflect this better and are less prone to manipulation.

A good, critical answer. But my opinion has rather a lifetime of work behind it and it's able to go through that I don't know how to split your answer into parts in this forum, so you must connect yourself my answers with yours. I agree that scientists are equally deceived, in more refined way. But when you are deceived in more refined way, you have got somewhat further. Also I do not equate science with scientists, and for me, sciences made up from feelings of some sensitive or religious work by Augustinus etc. are sciences as well, I do not equate science with empirical perspective - but the material sciences of empirical perspective are important ones and it's hard to do without the qualities of those sciences. What is important about science, when we do not equate it with scientists, is the perspective of making the knowledge your own, instead of being based on authority - these kinds of liberties bring the motivation from the center to the whole, from top to the whole pyramid, and this makes the things much more evolved and effective and gives people personal meanings in their lives. I think everything we have or can have is far from perfect, but I think the "liberal" values of society, like being critical yourself, is important. Science is not equal to scientists, because they are supposed to present the truth in such way that people can check it personally; also I think many people around understand things, which are very hard for average scientist - for example, spiritual people have several truths, which all of us have experienced and concluded logically, and when we talk with each others, we are being scientifical; but we are not being scientifical for many scientists. Indeed, to be presented and communicated, to be a "real science", which is collective and not personal wisdom, we need to present these truths in a way, which involves more than our own understanding. But spiritual people can see directly, and verify some truths, and thus they are doing science, but not being scientists in all cases. I think an average scientist has failed important points, which are commonly know in many circles, and we find them only in more advanced theories like quantum physics and transpersonal psychology - but not in average science known by average scientist or skeptic, who is debunking people commonly in forums based on some 18'th century theories, which they can check in home. From such skeptics we can only understand that we are not communicating in clarified and useful ways, which does not lead people to confusion - they cannot be so skeptical about Buddha, for example, who does not take bold claims of creating anomalies in physics, for example -, so we can communicate better, but those skeptics, often considered equal to scientists, are doing less science than spiritual people in some areas. That God is the totality of everything or the truth. I think to research something scientifically, in this case the will of God and whether you should follow this, we need some definitions. Definitions I gave you, you can find them in https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kybalión, a book containing some oldest theorems, which do define God in some way, which is metaphysical and looks like logic or science. When you research the Everything, you are researching the Everything and your results are true for the Everything, so when you define God in such way, you are definitely researching the entity you are researching, and you can call this God. Scientifically, Everything definitely exists and it's a good topic for research - for this research, you get answers about many things commonly attributed to God. If God is an omnipotent force behind Everything, being concerned about Everything, which would be more Christian definition - the results you would get would not differ in important points. To research the will of God in a way I am suggesting, you need some definition - your theory then holds about what you defined, and you can prove, how it's important to follow this. I think there are multitude of aspects of God, and things you can call God, and you can do science about whether those things exist, how they are relevant, and what is their nature - these theories hold whether or not you can call this thing "God". But I think the definition given in Kybalión really is enough to explain the words of Christ or stories of Brahma and Shiva, or behaviors of God in old testament, and thus you can get quite far with something, when you do the research based on this. I think I can speak about totality and split it into fragments. There is the fractal nature of reality, where the structure of totality is repeated into the parts; and there are many other attributes, which help you to speak about the totality. Most general words like "goodness" define something, which is totality, but you can somehow apply and verify them in your own life. "Truth" itself is totality of something - when you find out more of it, it would change the light you gave to your previous truth; but it's still an approximation. By science I mean, most definitely, the view of the world, which you are able to verify, and which allows you to find some general truth or formula from many separate stories and cases. For example, the pagan religions are not very different from new religions - given that the ethics was also less developed, and the culture and behaviors, so the cases of very good behavior of them would not satisfy us -, but the pagan religions are split into many separate stories, whereas in newer religions there is some common formula instead, by which you could invent similar stories yourself - so the newer religion is more scientific. Yes like the mass hallucination of money. I am Buddhist and I have given some thought about the Buddha's words that he does not want to tell that God exists or God does not exist, because the reality is more complex. I think in reality, when people need to be independent or they do not have positive karmic connection with God, they can be atheists and this reflects the whole totality of the world, their world is completely coherent with the fact that God does not exist. When you believe in God, you definitely create a reality, where Godly things appear, especially when you co-believe. In ideal reality, God as defined by unity of all and truth and love, would definitely exist, so when the people live out their ideals, it appears so strongly that God exists, that they cannot deny this. Philosophically, we need to leave open the existence of God, as we shift our quantum realities. For different cultures, God needs to be different, and different understandings of God create different appearances - so it's also open, whether there is one God or many; each religion, for example, which believes in one God, also sometimes fights with another, which believes in one God - fundamentally, they are fighting about the same God, but it's also not wrong to say that they have separate gods, which serve them separately. The God, in my opinion, exists in such theme, for me, but when I explain my personal God to an atheist, I might try to give him a picture, which is completely wrong in the whole totality of their world. So I think the reality itself is "philosophical" about whether the God exists and what it is, and when you are trying to conclude something, you are being partial - in sense of God's totality, the "existence" or "non-existence" are probably conceptions, which are too small and limited to describe this thing. "Yes" or "No" usually are not enough in Godly matters or spirituality in general, the real answers transcend this binary logic, like they transcend the good and bad. This is the Buddhist and Taoist view, which is not very binary about neither the logic or good and bad, for example you would be wrong by thinking that your enemy is completely bad, or you would be wrong by thinking that God only wants to destroy the Satan or the evil angels - they are doing something more complicated than a simple binary battle, which is obvious even in Bible, which is quite close to defining things as good and bad (even if it denies the highest good in this conception in the story of Eve, telling that the raise of such binary truths was the great fall, but it's also a great fall to think that story of Even and the garden of eden itself is completely bad). I am not identifying evolution with God, but it's very simple to see, how in evolution, the parts are approximating towards creating a stronger whole. God is said to be manifested and this is, then, the manifested God - in Christianity, it's said that by living good life, you help God to manifest, or the Paradise to reach the Earth. The other part, that Wholeness is simply true, exists rather in ideal, in Heaven, or in some higher realms. The manifestation is very material and it's commonly concluded that this is a thing-in-progress. In buddhism, your Mind is already enlightened and in it's final state, but you resonate through the states of Mind and the material, mundane world - there is also dukkha, the incompletness of the material world. I do not want to say that God is a product of evolution, but I do want to say that it's the ideal evolution theory is destined to achieve, to bring closer the unity and the truth; I think this materialized God is definitely growing, as God appears more in our lives when we follow the more godly thought. We can see the evolution of conceptions of God, and people definitely lived those conceptions - the manifestations of God as universal whole also evolves as those conceptions change; we can also speak of one God appearing differently to sychronize with the evolutionary state of those people - in some sense, such hypothesis form the same thing, and it's deeper than being one or many, for example are Christ, his Father and the God of old testament one or many persons, it cannot be answered completely. "Totality of everything", also, exists in ideal state whether in Mind, the ideal realm, or as the existing real truth, which approaches anyway and cannot be broken very much. I do not want to make complete assumptions about God - I think the Ethics and Logic, which appear in systems of energy, are mathematically very definite and they transcend, what God is, by definition. There are different hypothesis and possibilities, which hold up to some degree - but when you work through them, you can see that the theorems of Ethics and Logic you reach are just the same. Evolution, for example, definitely makes the appearance of Godly properties stronger in the materialized, manifested world - and it's one of the weakest assumptions about God, most easy to prove. You can get much further and prove much more complete God, but you have much less evidence in this. Existence of something is not only whether it exists in reality, but also whether it's beneficial to you - when something is beneficial to you, you are bound to create it, and it exists in a sense; something might exist very strongly, like stupidity, but as it's not very beneficial, this existence is not very stable and complete; finally, stupid people hardly have any word to say. To see that God, the unity and truth, is beneficial, is to see both the reason for God and the process, which inevitably brings it closer and closer to reality; also the case that in human activity, it's useful to create such attributes and when you do, they are quite real; when you don't, it's equal to have bad karmic relations to God - so if God as the unity of things is beneficial, you have the possibility of quantum shift towards existence and non-existence of God in your sphere of life; you either create good karma, so that God helps you, or you ignore God and he cannot help you. Philosophically, those possibilities differ so slightly that you can create a base conception out of it. You can work towards uniting people, aliens, the physical forces - then you are moving towards reality, where God exists. But if he exists without you, you do this to serve God, and he appears in your life. Philosophically, you cannot find the difference in these, so the existence of God becomes very subjective, but the basic truth is quite objective. From the cells, the humans and natural forces you guide towards God, probably the body gets some intelligence; which, in turn, can be born in human form (this is another complicated theory, but I'm not very interested in this - by cultivating Godly properties, you get closer to expressing God, and thus closer to being God; when you are infinity yourself, it creates the Godly karma - I think to be scientific about reincarnations of God, you need to do the science about how much their ability to express the higher truth helps you, and as God is bound to Karma - either by free will or by nature of being God -, you can see that they would not start to eat you out of your money). The Symbol of God is very real. When you approach God as ideal force - people help others when they need it, the physical forces evolve to help you, you organize the inorganic matter, etc. - when people take this wholeness as the ideal, they also make it real that you don't see separate people helping you, but one unified force. You can argue, whether this force would get a consciousness of it's own, but probably it does; in religion, as well, when we live out the ideals of God, we bring God to our lives. When something behaves like God in all the matters, you can call it God - otherwise, the philosophical matter that you cannot be very definite about the existence or non-existence of something, becomes hard. In organized society, synchronicities and good luck appear, or what is otherwise called good luck, and nobody is doing this personally - such force you can call God, because then there is no more God, and what you speak about God, fits naturally with what we know as God. About scientific fantasy of God - we never reach much further than a fantasy, but a personal philosophy of things, which exist anyway, is better than only searching for a teacher or a god, which would guide you. In modern, democratic and scientific, liberal world - this is more legal way of doing this. The scientific scrutiny helps to avoid cults, and the people would not behave in a way in which their Gods would be killed for breaking the laws; there comes the legal penalty of living in ancient, paganistic ways, when we do not bring our consciousness of God to the modern-day ideals. Humans are not perfect, but humans, who think on their own, are known to be good for the wholes - if God is a dictator, he is enjoying something far from goodness (a godly property - a god without goodness would be Satan), and it would not be beneficial for us to follow God. We can see that the countries, small wholes, are moving towards more democracy and liberty of thinking, and this is good for those wholes; when we go to the end with this - if God is the last level of unity, he must only enjoy when we are democratized and scientific. For some people, indeed, their scientific theory could really prove that they speak with the real God - but when they do not apply philosophy and doubt to what they are being told, their understanding of this would still be limited. My scientific theory is not about being scientific in sense of learning the science some scientists are doing. You cannot learn all of it and when you learn too much and cannot understand it any more, you are moving farther from being scientific - in science, you need to learn a simple model you can verify and develop yourself, and which allows you to repeat the experiment. Then, you are on your senses ..when you make demands based on more developed scientific models people cannot understand, you can be very scientific - but they are not. Indeed, such scientific people are imperfect, but I don't see what is perfect - God must manage this imperfection himself Being scientific is about having your personal theory, which you can verify, but also the general models for communication, it cannot be so personal that nobody would understand you - you must also have some more general models to explain yourself, and they are probably material, as the five senses are very communicative - when you talk in sense of the sixth sense, you are talking nonsense to someone. Thinking and IQ also creates some kind of sixth sense, as you can see more in the same thing, but you cannot communicate only based on this - these are rather like philosophical speculations of yourself. I very often express, what I have directly sensed, as being philosophy people can doubt, because only when they understand my original experience, they can get something out of it, otherwise it's only a speculation. About learning the old religions - I think when you have philosophy about God, you understand much more and see it in different perspective. I am quite sure that in old times, they were really able to be scientific about God and express the truth, and the scientist of these times cannot achieve much higher and more understandable general explanations than Christ. About whether something is science, I am not interested at all - it makes me rather angry, when people are making the bias of taking truth as something, which must be equal for different people. Truth is a very personal thing - which model works with your senses, experiences and personal understandings. Being scientific is not accepting one theory over others, or thinking that the fact that I have this theory would make it somehow mandatory that you have the same theory - this is rather dogmatism and leads to war, or destroying lives and attributing people false insanity. We have to live in the world, where truth is different for cultures, paradigms and people, and this process of science is much more similar to ethical behavior towards others than trying to be the others. The process of science is more about philosophy, doubting, skeptics and personal verification of truth, and good manners in communication and having different viewpoints - it's very important, when it's truth or absolute truth for somebody, and others can be inspired, but it's not mandatory that it should then be the absolute truth for everybody. There are different gods, like judaist, christian and muslim God - but they are the same God. The same way it's not a paradox that there are different theories and paradoxes, but they are the same - it's a religious war if you go to fight with your truth, and when science wants to achieve something final and ideal, to be believed by everybody, it instantly becomes a religion or cult in a bad sense. Science must make us able to live together with our different truths, stages of development and abilities to sense the world. Really, when we create stronger models of cooperation and truth, we do not necessarily create God, but the appearing thing - something, which is probably whole and bigger than the sum of the parts - is consistent with the definition of God. When all the people follow the Bible, then definitely the "miracles" defined in the Bible, such as Paradise themes, would more probably appear in their lives. Then, some entity exists, on which you can apply the model of God - you can see in your life that some kind of God exists. We can choose to be atheist or theist, or something, which integrates the both - but in all cases, we need the common language to speak with each others. When you are a theist and speak about God, an atheist would have some ideas, critics etc. - then, by this philosophy, which transcends the doubts about existence of God, they can follow, whether you agree with the basic ethics, and thus criticize your God and verify that you are not a cult. You are more communicative - all the people need to discuss their matters, and then the sentences and the words should mean something to both spiritual and atheistic people. When the abstract entity, which appears as people do good things to each others, as a sum of all their behaviors, as a whole of their thing, is called God, and the abstract entity, which happens, when all people to bad to each others, is called Satan - then, in these terms, an atheist would measure, whether the ethics is correct, and be able to discuss deeply about the God with you, without believing in God - in terms that God would intervene and do miracles. Of course, miracles do not break the natural laws like less advanced witchcraft would do, if possible (more advanced witchcraft also leads to ethical results - in Fairy Tales, good always wins, but in advanced Civilization it would not even fight to win), but miracles make the laws of nature into effect more strongly; but they break the known laws for less advanced minds, or what they can do with the laws. Things, which are not possible in less advanced societies, do happen in democracy, etc., thus they are kind of miracles - miracles of economy, miracles of technology etc. Some of the biggest miracles are Life and Love, and there at least some scientific theories exist, existence of such miracles is entirely scientific, but when you see them as miracles, you give them some deeper meaning. Less advanced religions, paganism and witchcraft, easily fall into a trap of trying to break the laws of nature - get more money than you earned, control the people in bad ways, or believe that politics would somehow get rid of all troubles overnight; more advanced religions see the hard work you need to do for miraculous result, and do not promise the Paradise in five years; they also cooperate with people with good ways - it might be magic effect on people, but it follows the laws of nature that they also want to get something back and follow the good energy; so from successful witchcraft people cure themselves in psychiatric hospitals, to change their behaviors so that it would not be affected that way; but with religious effect on people, they would follow those energies even more, as they bring the energy back. Energy is important thing, the positive and negative energy - energies creating good and bad results in our lives -, and it applies to people's relations with other people, natural forces, gods and other creatures. Theories of ethics and logic (which is used to see the borders, where you cannot promise more energy or energy coming from nothing) apply in all those fields - when we read the Bible carefully, ethics is so universal that we can also explain the God's will in terms of normal ethics in people's lives, which can be studies materialistically. As you follow the God, it starts doing things in your life - as many people follow the God, the union of them does good things. With natural laws, there are also some better or worse events, and eventually theorems of Karma hold. In old times, people were able to contemplate on ethics, and the ethical theories are very advanced - the Bible, for example, is very advanced. I am a Buddhist and I do not believe that scientist of today has any better means to watch their mind than Buddha - he had all the means and history to develop an advanced theory, and he was so careful to not make big words and explain only the basic things he could see critically, that he does not make stupid mistakes and blunders against the science of today. In sciences of the old times, when the authors were careful to explain only the things they knew, not the things they imagined, they hold today as well; the religious leaders do not appear every day, strong leaders like Buddha or Christ - those specific people or reincarnations of God made very strong contributions, and scientists of today cannot easily create grand, but simple and easy to remember theories, which would apply to both materialist and spiritualist person - materialist, researching theories of Buddha by science, finds many correlations, which are useful for handling their mental and life problems; they do not have to believe in miracles. Theories of Christ are the same - very important statements about society, yet simple, and understood often even by very stupid and limited people, who would benefit from them. When you do your scientific work, you can find more evidence, but it's hard to create theories so useful; also, it's possible that God has really spoken his words - with science, you can understand it better and do your own contemplation, but for deeper understanding, you now benefit from such great works. I am Buddhist, and thus I take Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto and Bön very seriously - Buddhist did not try to conquer them, but achieved a common understanding; Buddhists met Christians, Jews and Muslims later, but naturally it's a Buddhist idea to be very serious about such reincarnations of God or appearance of his Prophets, and I also think West is very efficient in metaphysics - every religion adds some important aspect to completeness of Mind. I am Buddhist, because this theory works for me, is not oversimplified, and mostly explains all the facts. I also believe in older religions, such as shamanism, but I know that with original works of those religions, it takes much more effort to reach advanced ethics; in modern times, the work of decent religions and ethical and other theories are taken into account and thus the modern Pagan is normal, ethical and civilized person - it's very interesting how they can explain those things with simpler and more primitive basis, and also how much more they know about natural lifestyles, living in forest and maybe situations, where civilization is not going to help - the grand theme of countries themselves is not so civilized and the big wars are more like fairy tales than Christian stories. The modern science has developed something very similar to religion - advanced psychology, political and economic theory - and to keep the language communicative, you can see that in civilized world, compared to paganism, some hidden entity comparable to God is helping you more. Theory of God should not depend so much on the existence of God - you need to discuss your things also with atheists, and thus they need to know what they mean by God when they do not believe in one. There is a way to prove God or Godlike creatures. The probability of God being born and killed like Christ - it's a disaster. God must follow an ethical and scientific knowledge, which extends the ethical and logical theories into infinity. When human mind is infinite, Gods mind must be infinity, where human mind is very small. When your theoretical and practical aspects deal with consequence of actions or situations, where infinite consequence is taken into account, you are a godlike creature. For example, when a scientist follow scientific theory of ethics, where the consequences are taken into infinity in space and time, and the theory provides many guts about those infinities in real situations, that scientist is also a godlike creature. For God, karma is important - God must be good - and they do not want to abuse you, thus, you can be very realistic about this person, how much you win and how much you give them, how much you respect them etc. - even if they do miracles to help you, the miracles have manifested physical forms and you can understand this even on basis of materialism, that they are successful in their doings - in the end, miracles are about food, housing, synchronicity and other simple things, and this is measurable when people have good energies, good psychological conditioning with you. This is questionable, whether someone is God, and also they can feel God is they are simply very developed; people say they are gods when they have reached some level of illumination. You can see the consequence of actions of such people are very good even when they are complex, and there are scientific, material models to understand that. When you behave with them on normal scales of such consequences, and think that God of modern world is not a dictator, but a person like you, you can be safe about people, who discuss their godlike properties or hide some. When god wants to behave like barbarian king ..well, it's Odin or Thor coming back, and you rather educate such disaster. Goodness is a word, which can be used for good Karma, and all the miracles - even in business and politics, the new technologies and better forms of government -, they come from good karma somehow. Person being a god or the God must be related to them being valid in infinity, being intelligent not locally, but more universally, and as you follow your consequence further, from simple search of your own good you reach ethics. People today call themselves gods or God in many different meanings and ways, but we need to validate, what this actually means in our society. We create normal relations with such people, which take into account their real, mostly visible abilities - everybody has some invisible abilities - and we are completely off the track if we think that some God wants to put us into slavery, abuse girls and demand large amounts of money - rather, if God created democracy and all it's rules - if God is Truth, he must also be a Democrat, because the Truth itself has managed to make democracy stronger than older forms of government -, God must also follow the democracy. What is good is good for me? I constantly work to synchronize myself for higher good, and I believe in this process. I cannot take this statement as definite final truth - and if it's a theorem, you cannot avoid that. When people have philosophy and their own freedoms and minds, they can manage to reach states of higher good alone and together. About smoking ..I think there are still extremes, where you do not smoke to avoid some pain or a problem. It's possible that God has some addictions or weird attributes, but I think if they are not reasoned somehow, they slowly disappear. In old societies, really the wholes did things not beneficial to parts, and the parts followed laws less - as it develops, it emerges that truth, which holds and does not die in time, is that the whole and the parts share the common good. Also you can smoke, but you do not want to cut your finger or punish your hand so easily, you rather work in union - your example is a small case. And once I left smoking, but then I started to feel that I have some deeper reason for it Quite unexplainable, but this was my strong feeling. About idols and semigods - I think that the manifestation of God is constantly evolving, and which was the real God in the past, is less in the future. We call people, who follow God in manner of primitive society, as forming cults - but in those primitive societies, such direct themes of punishment and reward were really the only way; a modern people see the punishment and reward in much grander themes and tends to generalize the ethics into infinity, and thus follow some principles, instead of punishment and reward. In more advanced societies of future, the ways we follow God today, might also seem as slavery, or cult, or following the idols. Thor, in his own time, was not an idol - but who follows him today in identical way, would really do something insane, it's equal to fighting with axe in the forest. Also, God in the past needed things, which are considered crimes today. For example, nowadays God would, in many scenarios, definitely tell you to go to court with a person and treat them legally, instead to secretly kill them; in some older society, where many things were handled by murders - it was normal for God to do the same. You can have a psychological problem if God appears telling you something about a person, and you carry on the thought until you think he demanded a secret murder; legality of today is more scientific and you need to follow this, but it's possible God can inspire you to find a criminal. About equality of God. There are many ways of equality and naturally, God is more productive than normal person, and higher. But, there are different terms of equality. Spiritual equality is said to connect all beings, high and low - God, being ethical, is definitely not telling you he is outside of this equation. Legal equality is equality in terms of the laws - you do not lose anything if you are not higher by law. Equality in science is that you get the arguments, not simply orders for life - God of the past would give you orders, like any other man, but God of today would not have permitted democracy or hospitals, where some relations about God are treated, if he would not talk with people like an equal being. In old times, it was a virtue to follow someone without questioning, but today it's a sin. When the leaders work hard to get people more independent, and the states lose nothing from it - why would not the God be the same? I know that by many personal experiences as well, and from holy books and science; but this end result is more or less completely scientific, as much as I can do. I like to describe God, if at all, in terms of causes and effects, consequences and ethics, and not by telling people his words directly - unless I see the deep meaning in those words. If I don't see the meaning, I would talk nonsense anyway - if I follow something I don't understand, I probably do it wrong. About what is God, there are several things, which you could believe: He is behind the reality, and his well-being is dependent of well-being of reality. Then, it's like being a being, who unifies all the different agendas into one. He is the basic Truth, the basic Law of Nature. When God treats every person and thing equally, natural laws would appear, and we can measure his will with scientific experiments, taking the chains of consequence into infinity - into principles. Omnipotent creator God cannot easily be anything other than the Laws of Nature, and the Truth behind them as motivating force. He is the Truth, Love and Power. God is as those Forces appears, and when they disappear - God is not present, but there is rather a devil, or something neutral permitting you live an atheist life. With positive qualities of God, he cannot be Lies, Hate and Powerlessness - rather, those are the shadow of God, some complex consequence he cannot avoid, not his prime personality. To follow God means to strengthen those things, until they bring miraculous new qualities into our lives - when they commonly form, and create a whole larger than the sum of it's parts, the speak, where you talk about such presences and actions in totality, is the speak about God. For common language, an atheist would need to understand the material karmic theories of such appearances, to point out the God; for example, if the infinite consequence of your actions is proven bad by science, this science is also telling you that God does not want this. You can speak directly with God and find out differently - but you don't know who you are speaking with, and the philosophical and scientific clarity brings you much closer to such understanding; treating all entities equally you can find out, how beneficial this entity is, or how correct the signs you follow are, and treat it accordingly. Truth, Love and Power are not Truth, Love and Power if they are not those things in complete, total reality. He is the totality of everything, the All - this is an equivalent theory. Why I say it's important that God also appears in evolution - evolution is a process of approximation towards Truth; and when Truth partially holds right from the beginning, as otherwise is impossible, it gets stronger and stronger in evolution. In religion, people in time get closer to God and Paradise - thus, in other terms, they have better God and better Realms to live.

I used to say "I know everything and nothing", because on some level of me, it seems everything is already known, but in some level of me, I think it could be known in much more enlightened way and *all* my knowledge sometimes transcends and changes, the whole world image shifting - it's the inner paradigm shift, by which every thing gets enlightened in a different way. I think in Buddhist terms Socrates was pointing to the ego-consciousness, as he was critizising the old men, who lived traditional lives punctually and knew about food, marriage, building the house etc., but they did not think this all could have a deeper meaning. Such people sometimes seem meaningless, and you can question their truth. When you get enlightened, this all shifts it's meaning and as you feel it more deeply, you slightly change all those things. But this happens more and more. Socrates was western intellectual, so he probably meant you should do this by western philosophy - to question your values. This is a very basic level of ego-consiousness, where you know all the "good things" in life, and all the "responsibilities", and you follow them all the time as a fact stated a long time ago - then, slowly, you start doing things, which are against deeper meanings of the very same things.

These three words are seemingly quite unrelated in western and eastern terms, but some magic of words has made that they actually have the same underlying concept. In west, the terms are collective and intellectual - intellectuality is the way to think collectively, intellectuals share their thoughts and create something bigger out of it. In east, the same terms are individual and introspective. Meanings of the three words: Meditation. In West, the meditations of Descartes and similar ones, like the ones of Marcus Aurelius, are made to create the philosophical scrunity about the world as the science sees it - the shared, collective world. It starts from "I am", and then proves the existence of the world and the people - when you are philosophical, skeptical about all this, you have reached somewhere with your meditations. The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell, is also about the philosophical questions about the world you need to solve to be skeptical and thus, scientific. The common, shared mind is created through those meditations, where you contemplate on intellectual ideas your intellectual mind can reach. The intellectual knowledge is shared. In the Buddhist meditation, you contemplate on your inner world, your mind, and reach the same kind of skeptical attitude about this. The inner and outer world, both solve the whole - as you know your mind, you know also about the objects your mind can see. Enlightenment. In west, this is collective. Emergence of Science, Democracy and other such things are the way out of Dark Ages, and those processes are called enlightenment in western terms. This is where the people come out of darkness. In East, the enlightenment is personal, it happens to each person individually. Superpower. In west, superpowers appear from the collective good karma reached by civilization. Superpowers - for example, when I was born, Soviet Union and United States were called superpowers - appear when the collective work has purified the karma of the people. When the architecture and the common habits are such that people can not easily create bad karma, and when the tax system is making every person to give some money to the poor, the effect of the good karma appear. It's not personal, thus the enlightened being is hidden somewhere in the government corridors, but it's not the government itself - it has connections to aliens, psychic powers etc. Government of US told that they are fighting to get some access to alien data - so the superpower must be a different entity of any person; it appears somewhere in the collective and identifies with all the people together, but it has a typical signature of enlightened person - as the law makers fight for people to be civilized, an individual don't do much to this, but they cannot exercise bad karma so much, as it's effects are neutralized - good karma appears. In east, similar things like connections with aliens and psychic powers appear personally. I think the superpowers are all friends. The governmental superpower is very understanding to the enlightened person, even when the government is not - it can understand the "magic", which comes out of good karma. The miracles come from good karma - it's the basic essential, which gives rise to all the siddhis. I don't think the natural laws are broken, rather they are made stronger - but we see there is a lots of progress achieved from good karma in all the fields; one superpower of a civilization is advanced technology, which inevitably appears where the masses have good karma. They cannot easily exercise the effects of the bad karma. Christianity and the Advanced Civilization are western collective exercises of karma. There is the saviour - either the Church or the God is going to save your soul, or the government is saving you, like educating and protecting from evil; evil itself gets better karma as it's being kept under some control and supervision. The general conception is that people, collectively, are reaching the state, where the individuals are being saved from their bad deeds, and they have much more than would come from their personal efforts. You can say a person is lost in this, and this is bad - but also, they are saved from many things. This is the yin aspect of a person, and the yang aspect of the government. In east, nobody is going to save you, but you have to work up your karma and it's directly having the effects on your life. Here, the state is having somewhat a yin aspect, and the person is being yang about their lives. In China, you can see the buddhism is somewhat mixed with the civilization and they have a different authority - you can see the buddhists are learning the enlightenment in west, for example they are interested in scientific results about their work. From the history of war you can see buddhist countries have been conquered and civilized by the west. I think the true buddhist has not been under attack, but the pagans, which they could not civilize, were civilized by others. This creates some constant feeling in eastern buddhists, who show a lots of respect towards the powers of civilization and science. They cannot win this, unless the science and civilization are corrupt - but the west, also, learns a lot from the buddhist teachings of the personal level, as the personal level of the west was quite underdeveloped. The christ wanted to bring heaven to earth, where all the people get something, whereas the buddhist help people on earth closer to heaven - in first case, you live in a grand reality and unify this under a greater good; in second one, you make yourself a person from who the world can benefit more. Real power is connecting the yin and yang into one unified power. The intellectual knowledge, which leads to science, needs to be connected with the individual wisdom, which leads to personal enlightenment. The power of politicial and financial theories and the systems of many people they create need to be unified with individual goodness. I call the western superpower the "reason". It's not going to better place by personal journey, but it's going to worse places and making them better, it's trying to find solutions outside this personal sphere. The spiritual people in west, lately I see the enlightened people, indigo children and others, who are seeking personal enlightenment or achieved some level or gene, they are very often left on streets, losing jobs, unable to marry and get children, or they are considered insane or mad, or with some psychological problem of community living - they have a lots of personal problems, which are supposed to be solved collectively. The personal enlightenment makes you a better person for everybody, for the collective - but you are not specifically a collective thinker, who "saves" others and guides them to better life with authority; you only want them to understand the reasons and work on themselves. The government and the church make karma of people better not by them understanding this, but by analyzing the actual process of karmic consequence and controlling the environment so that the consequence is better. Thus, the person cannot achieve enlightenment, but the collective soul can - the person does not identify with his better karma, but it appears higher than the sight of the persons, as a collective evidence we can see when we talk about governments having contacts with aliens and entities, which create psychic powers. We can see some grand power is protecting a civilized person quite entirely from witchcraft - they can live in safe, material surroundings. The witchcraft actually becomes a problem for a person out of civilization. The reason is another superpower of the mind, and it's needed by any person with psychic powers as well. They can meditate on better politics, economics etc., but when they do not reason, the normal material causes and effects block their work; you don't win much when you just create good feelings in people of business and politics, or the nation - you have to create good and rational feelings, and those people need to work together. The material process is very real and I do not think that the spiritual process actually breaks the material law - as with any science, spiritual people can reach some effects and consequences, which are not covered easily by theories of physics, economics or politics, but any specialized field does this - it finds something specific not covered by general theories very directly. Once the spiritual people have found this anomaly, it's fixed - there is no effect of psychic powers, which constantly breaks the natural laws and does not become a part of developed science; in terms of modern psychology and quantum theory, the effects of magic and spirituality, or enlightenment, are not exactly outside of theory. With models of enlightenment and spirituality you can reach effective and easy to work with models to make yourself more effective - but when the theories of good karma are applied to scientific work and the material processes, they also invent new technologies, which were not there, and the material knowledge of the world gets "broken". I don't think the reason behind any spiritual theory is to find anomalies in physics, economy and politics - those will not become miraculously different, but still go with their slow progress and definitely develop the sciences further, with the help of spiritual people or without. This is the thinking of naive atheist, who thinks that their science would be debunked in case some spiritual person proves their claims - the usual claims are quite normally expected from science. People get more sensitive, effective, and calm, and they definitely see the life appearing richer than before - this is the way up, but it's not breaking the things we know as science. By this, spiritual theories goind with resonance with science - to be more intellectual, spiritual people need to talk about what they really do in shared, material world; for example, more sensitive girl can be more effective in social relations and they can prove this efficiency by it's material effects; it's stupid to claim that they break the natural law - a good psychologist with good attitude towards people and work would break the same "laws", which appear in the lives of the worse people. A model of mind, which is directed to pure results in something - definitely it leads to better results and sometimes, you can not easily understand, how the science would reach those results. But what is really in effect, is the good karma and the logic, and it creates similar theories and results everywhere - in physical and in mental aspects of the world. What we can all communicate, is the material process, and we can see the material laws are very clearly followed when we are efficient - from having psychic powers, you reach some extra points in efficiency, but to be a social person and enlightened in western way, you need to explain those extra points based on evidence, and you don't need to talk spiritually - with material theories you also reach the claims that you "are in the heaven", when you have much money etc., and in normal communication, you should hide your psychic talk into these normal parts of the sentences nobody would notice much. Otherwise, you are really insisting people that you are doing anomalies in the theory - when a meditative enlightened person meditates on the well-being of the nation, they get some extra feeling and energy finally, you resonate a better thing when you communicate with them, but the natural causes and effects are still there, you cannot explain their better results without considering these. So, really, you need all this collective effort and IQ to do this.

To be in politics, spiritual people need to valuate material aspects of well-being, money and civilization. In west, enlightenment means building the civilization and meditation means going deep with philosophical skepticism - there are meditations of Descartes, and the scientific awakening itself is called enlightenment, there were several times of enlightenment. Those activities have very similar effects to buddhist enlightenment, but you can see enlightenment is rather collective - the collective karma went a lot better by democratization, introducing the science etc., which were coming out from dark medievial times (dark = not enlightenment). The meditation of Descartes is a materialist equivalent to buddhist meditation; one looks neutrally at mind (Buddhist), the other at matter (Descartes). Meditations of Marcus Aurelius have also mostly to do with building a civilization. Getting to understand that there is very similar or same concept behind - but in west, you use the rational part of your brain, whereas in east, you create a holistic view ..how those are two important powers, and how both get enlightened over time, this is very important part to understand. Politics, it should become enlightened - I don't know what other you mean by "spiritual" -, but the process of enlightenment of west is wery well fit to politics, and it spreads similar messages. French revolution was the biggest act of western enlightenment. By building a civilization, west creates good karma for big groups and this is very spiritual activity kind of, but achieved through the rational process. It also spreads love, brotherhood and equal rights, gets people out of slavery etc. It works with mechanisms of civilization, scientific brotherhood, etc., and through very materialistic thinking - but it generates good karma so much that a Buddhist cannot fight this down with their enlightenment, as we see in history. Buddhist enlightenment activates a different "chakra" or part of our brain. As you can see western work with buddhism, Plato and others have similar systems of natural elements to buddhist system etc., you can see how they can differ in west. You can see Buddhists work hard to become friends with the western science and understand, where the two meets; west has also worked a lot to create scientific papers about the buddhism, there are rationally reasoned introductions to buddhism. How Buddha works, gives access to certain truths and thus, proofs of something. How the west works, gives proofs of a different kind. I see this as very important process to find the western civilization-building reasoning from the mindsets of Buddhism I have developed; to integrate the rational thought and philosophy with the thought and philosophy buddhism has to offer. Unifiing those two processes of enlightenment is the way we need to take. I am a Buddhist, but I am also from Christian family with long tradition of building civilization, and for me - I want to activate this inner knowledge, what buddhist has, but I also want to activate this reasoning, "mechanical enlightenment", the view of the west - I think, where those two meet, there resides the actual superpower of the future. So to find political, spiritual people - those people, who are spiritual, need to work hard with the western enlightenment and meditations, to catch up this modern time - they have not much to do in government unless they have "invented it", by catching up with the western thing. West generates it's good karma and life miracles of high development of cultures collectively; western enlightenment was basically a series of updates to government machine. You need to understand this enlightenment - it created the base, collective values, and a system which can provide it's people this good karma. This karma is hard to fight for spiritual person. Buddhist, or a spiritual person, works rather on personal karma, but however good this level of enlightenment is, it's not able to create such organizations like collective enlightenment, and thus those people are also unable to participiate. To think what the collective enlightenment is, and what is the reasoning, the force of the west, and how this relates to underlying force of enlightenment and meditation - to achieve better karma and clarity. Meditations of Descartes achieve the karma you need for your collective work, and then, enlightenment of the west is creating collective superkarma, which used to conquer the world. I don't give it up by being a Buddhist, and the eastern buddhists also have high interest and respect about this. To have only your personal development and try to become a part of the government - this is hard. Sense this energy, the western superpower. Civilization, science, etc., they create a huge superpower of collective karma, and the philosophy creates a mental framework for this, and the meditations of descartes give you the mindset of this science. This is all collective thing achieved through material thinking, and it cannot easily be won by having a personal, mystical enlightenment. You must eat the fruits of this tree and the spiritual people need scientists and west-enlightened people in the collective to specify their models ..the west uses proofs by falsification - it sees, where your holistic and spiritual models get idealistic, where you need to work with matter and logic; you can have very good energy, but you need to connect it with reality, and understand how much work on business models etc. there is to build a paradise. Paradise is the collective enlightenment, and christ is more or less reasoning kind of a person. So to reach the high ideals of the future, you need to connect the superpowers of Buddha with the superpowers of Christ, who spoke about the collective thing. Buddhism creates a collective thing, but this needs constant input - the heaven of christ, in turn, is a machine and works with much less creative input; it's stable and reliable like a machine ..to be a spiritual person with a collective, you need to create these situations all the time, you don't have a machine or the mind automation.

I think the biggest challenge is that when spirituality comes to politics, it starts bringing money, and then the materialist people are there to talk spiritual things to get money, because the spiritual model would get more income and thus be materialistic.

With scientific argument, which is told to be safe, people are left without work and homes, without their lives and social spheres. When their life sciences are "proven" to be false, they can be considered mad. When scientific argument spreads, this can be seen as war - taking away the freedom of mental health, the academic positions, government careers and business profiles. All those things are guaranteed by human rights, for righteous at least. These things, when they are result of scientific argument, such as disproving, debunking, making a scientific experiment (with a person claiming supernatural powers, for example), are all with life (and death, at least on some level and in some time) considerations and should not considered as safe as "neutral scientific debate" is supposed to be. Properly, those arguments go somewhat out of scope of the law after scientific revolution - the still-present causes to people and their potential diagnosis of not seeing the world objectively, or not having a proper personality and social connections (people claiming to have been lived higher realms in previous lifetimes are accused in social disorder of misusing this fact or hypothesis, even if they take care to use their actual proven abilities in life situations and follow the material verification of life truths; people believing God are suspected in following the wrong argument of a Pope, even if they believe God is equal to logic and life sciences, his "punishment" or more neutral law of karma provable in experiment and logic, and subject to philosophical thought). When we meet scientific arguments, which have consequence to human lives, we should consider whether the existence of several near-to-truth models, paradigms and their apparent contradictions, applicability of different types of axiomatic systems to similar life situations, or optimism of a person with "sixth sense" and the lack of philosophy of questioning the strength of their own senses is considered. As in material world, we apply philosophy to our senses, in spiritual realm we should do the same - this is claimed in Buddhism, saying it builds up a method for neutral, scientific study of the mind. We should doubt in our spiritual senses and do all the meditations of Descartes, starting with proof of "I am", followed by proof of spiritual realm or consistence of that kind of mental imagery, etc. We should repeat, do we achieve the same results in the material world - if the sixth sense is true, we should be able to verify it in material world up to high degree, where we can be a little bit wrong by trusting our senses, but not completely off-track; our model is at least up to some degree true. These verifications and verification of integrity of material and spiritual realm, and deep philosophy, which also considers that others have less senses, but must be able to repeat the results in the material world to gain basis to their own sensible views, and avoid becoming mad - these all should be used to guarantee the equality of people in sense that with their limited knowledge and ability to connect the facts and reason, they can still practice philosophical or scientific lifestyle of verifiing their life matters and that people around them are not completely mad. For this, a religious person must follow each source of knowledge, including the five material senses, and to include all those realms so that they are scientific in each method of perception. This integrates and unifies our realms, opening all chakras from down to up, and when the final integration is done - taste of one -, there is an unified and balanced model, which does not seem mad (or actually, really is not). This has to be done by spiritual person to meet with scientific argument and to allow all those people to live together with them, being able to trust their senses and instincts, so that people with limitations to their world model can still be philosophic, doubt and check the facts. They also, up to some degree, trust in their higher sense - when they have emotion like fear or hope, they follow it somehow without reasoning about every cause and effect. With some limitations, each one of us has some higher senses and each one of us, even a complete skeptic, has at least a little trust to those mind activities; they won't do it if they have a really strong feeling against it, like strong and unreasoned fear. But they cannot see the higher realms. When we balance our minds and senses, we are just like them; we allow all the positive and negative processes of our mind, doubting in the positive and resolving the negative, then we look just like other people. When all philosophic clarity, every doubt and possibility to view it in different ways is introduced, and when we give every sense and sphere it's philosophic food, we become into unity; our ideas, when completely balanced, sound also to skeptic, and little degree of spiritual notions integrated with their material counterparts and verifications, or proof that they do not change the ethics and logic very much, but only add some slight quality, which is at least not dangerous, we can flow along with scientific truth. For me, when I sense something in irrational, subconsious ways, I also take the challenge to find out the facts in physical realm, without being too suspecting and creating a self-proving clairvoyance; the effects of higher senses, then, create so small effects in my natural activities that those are safe to ignore to skeptic - there are no fundamental contradictions. Other things, I live them only in world of people with similar senses and abilities to reason, so that the spoken part of this relates to co-occurring, synchronized information in material world, and proper notions of doubt are included, for example I notice that this is not a strong proven claim, in material world, which I sense only by gut feeling. This integration makes the difference between science and spiritual realm very small - but by using those insights from spiritual realm, you can still have a lot of benefit, but equal benefit comes from strengthening your material instinct. Now, when scientific argument still comes to debunk us, or when we show them that they do something wrong, resulting in "conspiracy theory", there can be danger to human lives; in case the opponent paradigm is not viewed objectively and given a degree of truth, so that they could continue their scientific work or use their arguments for their lives, there is a scientific violence. This can be outside the scope of laws, which otherwise protect our wealth and mental well-being. Scientific arguments debunking a theory can make really bold accusations, where the possibility of bad mental profile arises; whereas, who trusts the God or their visions properly, with every measure about a danger, for example following a grand religion, which has been made safe in time, has their protection against mental illness - so it's only a slight degree difference in the views, where a whole contradiction is shown. To do our scientific argument without endangering people's lives, we must respect and give all honor to the aspects, by which their model is still relevant in reality and not making them mad. I give the examples: Scientific and spiritual realms are different, but ethics as a theory, talking about energies, their effects and conditions and their height, still applies. We can apply, in all cases, the theories about whether we are harming a person, making a gift, lie or speak truth. Buth realms consist of people having the energies, applying them for good and bad, and winning and losing, etc. Spiritual realm claims only more subtle and powerful ways, which guarantee and execute the same ethical causes - so there is no relevant contradiction. Logical limits exist in both spiritual and scientific realms; it can be seen that resources are limited and you have to do something to receive positive synchronicity or help of God, all those realms must have their ends connected to ends. So, ethics and logic, and all their implications, apply in similar way in spiritual and scientific realms. When people do good to each others, they are empowered, when they do bad, they lose their collective power. This gives rise to theorems of ethics. Very often, science and religion reach different results despite the underlying theory of causes and effects is different. God still helps the people, who help others and life good lives; but in science, you also receive positive feedback, equal to good karma, from society. Terms of good and bad karma, in the end, are equal - spiritual theories claim that this result is very fast and direct, having an influence on the situation, but from complete balance of all the instincts and work on the conditions, and the total balance of the mind, the scientific theory must assume similar integration, where you see good ends making raise to more good ends, but you cannot exactly reason about every line of consequence - so this law itself is somewhat higher than logic, it still appears somewhere, where you cannot say exactly, who and by what would help you for applying this line of ethics, and where and how big is the benefit, when this ethical work is done. Scientific theories must also be calculated to their limits, to infinities, as by pass of generations, long chain of situations, where the ethics has to reappear, they give some estimated complete direction, which expect that in unexpected ways, the total theorem of the positive effects of our actions must come back somewhere, even if it's the life-quality of our descendants, which is our interest as well. The good karma we create comes back somewhere, when we look it from higher perspective than our lives. When science sees this unity, it's enlightened, this is the sixth and sevent chakra of scientific thought, when we see those limits in infinity of our ethical theories; where we must apply similar reasoning even if the effect is not direct, reasoned and immediate in our lives - they can be such in lives of the others, and make our complete chains of causes and effects better, people might trust us more. The claim that ethics is continued in past and efterlifes, either in heaven or next life, also calculates such limit - we calculate our ethical reasoning past the line, where it meets the last reward we can see. We avoid lies, because however clever we are, an unreasoned lie would create a contradiction in complete chain of events, causes and effects in our lives, and fill us with paranoia for the rest of our lives. We would not do more because of fear of God or karmic consequence. In religion as well, for example in Buddhism we do the mind science to see these karmic chains ourselves and be critical about them; in enlightened religion we become equal to God - we reason about God's ways, still seeing in our yin aspect, that the society and thus the reality we live in, sees some more than ourselves. Now, when all this makes the different between believing in afterlife or believing in honour and need to think about the consequences of our actions to others, very small, and also the ethical reasoning is applied over the direct fear of punishment, we see that by proving or disproving claims about these serious philosophical differences of underlying reasons, we do not prove very big differences in applied life sciences. We can help science become more ethical and religions or people with higher senses become more philosophical and skeptical and set their words so that it is synchronized with material evidence. Scientific argument should be synchronized with limits of the ethics - where we do not see the reward and punishment directly, but know that ethical theorem goes on and on in the complete chain of causes and effects of lives of the individuals, groups and civilizations, and our little work on ethical situation, which has no visible proof or reward, is reasoned by all that. Spiritual understanding, trust in God, and higher senses must not contradict with material things, and often they must surpass the verification many times to become clear - how we interpret a dream or energy feeling, there can be so many nuances that if we do not involve all other senses, we get off track in the reality and this becomes a visible mistake; often the dreams and hopes combine with our higher sense data, or exceed of the idealism combines with our trust in God, and then we have misinterpreted in our data; we have disappointment. When we interpret our dream, we do not notice another force behind the reality, which we could verify by material observation. Or we do our material observation selectively, not being complete in material world. Always, the basic principles of science and even that the material world should be important to us, are very important in the spiritual realm, senses of deeper relations, where we cannot even see, whether it's our subconscious thought getting very far with it's instinctive reasoning, or is this a direct sense higher than our material senses - we get some feeling about the situation and it's source is irrational. But these sources need to be verified in material life, and the material life should be followed properly, not only verifying our spiritual sense, but following the material reasoning of what and when to verify; we can prove the spiritual realm, but the material realm as well can be proven. The higher senses are very complex to understand and they are distinct from material plane, so that direct observation and honest life in the material realm would give much added value, and clarify them much further - after this philosophy of life, living the doubt, we also trust those senses better, as we have seen the stronger fact and removed the noise; this is an ever-lasting process. When we try to make important decision based only on what we have felt, we get the same way off the track as with normal feeling, biased or unobjective; when we do not enrichen our feeling with philosophy, it's a very vague sense, but when we do, we can see the right place of feelings in our life, and how they are objective about the surroundings - we also start to feel the need for philosophical doubt. Creatures of the material world are very objective and they can harm and endanger the less developed spiritual sense very much; their doings to organize the material world are very real and relevant to us, and the power of mind, when used for a wrong reason, will be found out in material reality and measures applied there with scientific method, if done by good karma, are very efficient against your spiritual senses. Material beings and their sources of objectivity can not be underestimated. When a materialistic person, who cannot have any gut feelings or higher senses of will and purpose in their environment, get their reasons from separated situational truths to higher visions, to visions of civilizations, applied ethical norms and principles behind historical events, successes and failures, they can be very objective about applying the ideals, which are directly felt when your third eye and crown chakra are opening. You cannot even be completely, philosophically sure that this is not what is exactly happening in your brain when you see visions and deeper meanings of reality - your brain could be understanding the causes and effects of the life around you, and thus showing you the most probable data as a symbolic imagery; brain can do this as we know from existence of dreams and feelings. In a sense, visions of higher senses contain this probabilistic element, and only with skepticism and verification of facts can they be properly applied - hopeful thinking completely kills them otherwise. Material people in material world can measure these overall feelings very much, and when they get together the theorems about ethics of the karma, they can measure these tendencies in material world. When good wins in the end, bad can go a long way before it loses, or before the society gets rid of it - this is also visible in religion, where you wait for something higher. This is the yin element, and yin, by nature, is material. Spiritual life completely leads to material realm. In spiritual realm, the deeper, underlying principles get much further in their direct effects - in material world, these principles still exist and they are very relevant in complete chains of causes and effects, of past and present or of actions of other people. In ideal ethics, you carry them to the end, and then, you get visions of symbols related to them, which brain creates so closely in the same logic with the spiritual visions, that the material person would also draw a blue sky or red glow around a person, where the spiritual person would envision those very same material symbols. So the material logic of the spiritual realm is similar, and there are similar chains of causes. Thus, we can see that there are variables, which change, and their balances are to be corrected, but those are really only the variables, which apply to some higher model, which is neutral to whether God is operating, laws of karma in effect, or whether the evolution is getting rid of the bad ethical behavior, or the city government has given us such means that we cannot break the possibility of better karmic activity and obstacles on the way of the wrong. So we are discussing the material of those models, whether one or another kind of force is doing that, but as we get more ethical and evolved, we are not discussing so much the real consequences of the models; and when we are more philosophical about the material, giving the possibilities that it works in different way - for example, that our symbolic dream means that we got so many signals from the society and the material world that our brain formed those resulting symbols for us, which we can understand instinctively. I think a sensitive with not so much high IQ, however sharp their senses, can not completely prove this; I have seen many sensitives with lower IQ, who I completely trust in their general meaning, and who see very subtle forces, but who are not philosophically so advanced to say for sure that it's not simply an instinct and the result of their material experience, visualized naturally by the ability of brain to form dream symbolics. The auras they see, they can be such dream-language representations of their brain, which they see very vividly. A material person, definitely, when they go to the end in generalizing and unifying the model, will be able to execute them with more or less only the senses of the material world, and then they are enlightened - they are a perfect fit to our spiritual enlightened world. But our language must be not very our-own-senses thing, but language is communicative and it must be careful to include the words, connections and sounds, and the visible causes and effects, which form in the material world. Realms are so synchronized that what we believe by our intuition of truth, this is a kind of nuance, and philosophical possibility enrichening our tone and adding some extra words and hints, which would not even sound to material person very much. This is our introspection, the way our internal senses work. Forming our language completely from words like "frequency", "energy", "will of God", "law of attraction", etc. - those all form conceptions achieved by non-common, non-communicable thinking or perception, and to be social, a person must listen carefully and connect the facts about how others perceive and verify the surroundings, and how long they reason from their direct senses; the sound, letters in our words, structures of sentences and sounds of subtones, they must be integrated to these models; material person also connects wisdom with "light", corruption and loss of power of societies with "darkness", hate and love with "red", etc., and we can somehow create sensible sentences about the visions we see, not being so sure about how our senses physically and biologically work. We can be sure that material people are sensible enough to tell us properly, which brain activities and neurochemistries are measured to be aspects of the same forces, and it's quite probable that when we see a higher vision or prophecy about society, the same brain activities are electrically charged with a scientist proving a higher theory or vision about the society, and that it's applications would change the world for the better; we can be quite sure that in material and spiritual plane, we all thus agree what is "changing the world for the better", "getting less wars", "making people more understanding" etc. Speaking with very spiritual terms, where the sound and structure of our language is not synchronized with physics, is like a scientist talking about our brain chemistry and physical properties of the objects, instead of expressing their emotions and speaking of the work we have to do. When the language is profound, we do not understand much, whether it's materialist or idealist speak, and the "will of God" does not seem very bad to materialist when we simply state that "getting less wars is a will of God", but it sounds out-of-balance to everybody when we empathize it too much or do not leave space for interpretation, where it's simply a parallel or metaphor; our philosophy rather supports that it could be. When we organize our society very high, we indeed see many unexplainable synchronicities and unexpected good ends, and when we get visions of them in unity, it's like vision of God or supernatural synchronicity - the word "God" as being a base truth itself, it's then materialistically not very off-topic, because it's the overall effect of all causes and effect, and there are too many to be specific about it; as this kind of God is what we need to build in life, we can see how the concept of God can still be seen as a source of this life energy and united flow. So we must be philosophic about what we mean by God, and give people, who are in their own stages of development and always need to check facts by themselves, even if they are very stupid and cannot understand, how we measured something - we give them their own inspiration and explanation of facts and we make our language profound, so that it does not make off sounds when we listen with different paradigms; this united symbolics exists - for example, materialist would also associate "swimming", when talking about adapting to situations in life, and when we get a vision of water element, we should consider that in natural language, it could be a "metaphor". Balanced personality does not make off-sounds in different paradigms, notes, which appear as unharmonic frequencies in our tone - in the same way as a person, who has finished the work with sciences of ethics and physical life, has high visions and does not sound off for a spiritually enlightened person, who has a direct sense of some higher ethics or underlying principles. Ideally, they both sound more or less the same and use similar imagery, the same sets of colors for different emotions, the same animal pictures for similar characteristics, and they would draw their ideal worlds with much similar physical constitution as we draw heavens. Thus, there would be two equal cityzens and their language would be used for communication, not for abstract or hard-to-understand technical talk in their own disciplines and neurological conditions; I might see a vision of fire when I see an angry or passionate person, but I rather express it as a metaphor of fire than try to be objective about the structure of my senses, and describe the specific attributes of an object - then, we have common language, and this is a very important part of understanding. We have to do the same work for other people to still survive, when we make a scientific argument. A sensitive girl really describes what they see, and this is a long way to be philosophically mature; the same way the materialist speaks of brain chemistry and connects many facts of life with this, and might seem mad for a spiritual girl. A materialist woman might not know much and not find the complete explanation of what they are doing, they might not be able to prove democracy or capitalism, or find a solid foundation for their ethical theory. They are all living in an introspection, and there, the worlds of different people are very different. When they make an argument, see "contradictions" between their visions, senses and understandings of implications, when they are not very sure that another person can also be human, and live a sensible life, with completely different basis, different senses and length of how far their reasoning goes - we are scientifically violent and we might have bad effects on life of other people. Some people execute these bad effects very fast, and then they are double-alert when someone criticizes their world-views or assumptions, and fight this subconsciously like a real battle, where they had to be right in the very beginning. Such unhealthy people must still be respected, but they cannot execute all the life consequences very much, and the laws of life and death are there in those consequences. Scientific debates might end up being real wars making life impossible for some, when they don't respect that others, also, have some degree of verification for their truth. For example a scientist might have a spiritual model of how water behaves - be correct or wrong, but this is an important hypothesis for many people, and they should be able to study this further, even using the taxes of those people; in the end, this would be proven or disproven, but their progress is very important for those people to see, how the principles they see would be applied to material world; they have to study the patterns, which seem to be relevant in this. In the end, ethics or what we call the world of God, somehow they must be present in the material process and it's laws, and this science is not very fast, but it helps these people to find the solutions in their own terms. By "sound of language" I speak it should be profound of material experience, philosophical and spiritual insight, feeling, etc., and all those aspects should be in healthy balance and serving their own ends, integrated completely. Then, different people with particular senses and understandings, can feel it's still familiar and reasoned, not becoming off-track and not making those awful sounds, which break the connections between people. People on different levels of knowledge, mind, senses and associative connections of them with symbolic imagery, they can feel it's a safe language not being distant from their experience, prone to insane activities or suggestions. For example, if you have a high blood, your life must prove it; if you have good past lives on other planets, your cultural integration and elevation must prove this; if you have strong connection with God, the actual flow of events must show it's a deep connection with life, not something else - and your particular interpretation of those underlying principles must resonate well with other particular interpretations, paradigms, which hold in parallel and all explain the world; each sense is very important, and in each sphere you must go from beginning to the end, so that this aspect of your experience is strong and convincing. We must not expect too much from people, who do not achieve all that, who only measure your ethics by their feeling, or give a value to a situation based on higher principle or a vision, or want to see a material constitution of the thing you are talking about - all these people experience a limited life with only some aspects, and all of them are in some part of the spiral of development, and cannot integrate all their aspects; those limitations are very natural and we must work on the consequences, making different people closer to each others and to avoid the fears; if your relation to your subconscious mind about the underlying causes of society is to channel messages from God, which suggest you bless and love, then materialistic people would have hard times to understand that you simply want "bless and love", not a satanistic message from pope or similar entity; those people can be very narrow in thought and limited with expressions of their introspective nature, and then not very connected with society of different people - I read those things seriously even if I sometimes do not like a tone of such people; sometimes I do not have an experience to verify spiritual claims - but I see some philosophical principles, which are still there, for example that my lifestyle has effects on my health. This is a bad communication if you can not create more neutral messages explaining, how all those things are related to different views about the reality, but still, a scientific person can come with whole bunch of numbers we do not understand and say that this is our situation, or a person with scientific views and low IQ can still give explanations based on Newton's theories, not quantum theory, string theory or theory of relativity; they can have very vague explanations about what they are doing physically, and they might make claims based on external authorities - overall, they are not able to fix the machine they use, or have funny explanation about how it achieves it's means; we give respect with people with all these different limitations and they all exist. We must know how we live with them, for example with a sensitive, who explains our life only through colors and shapes, and does not use common words like "hate", "love" or "greed". Another can speak of destiny for good people, where we only see the good activities bringing some reward. Another might solve the raise and fall of civilizations with game theory, not with bible or Buddhism or I Ching. All these results are appropriate solutions of life problems, when applied correctly, and all those schools of thought have warning about the improper use, they have survived for centuries and millenias, solving central problems of life. All of them have some uncertanty of their philosophies as philosophy, by nature, is uncertanty of very close correlations and very obvious implications. Also, a sensitive can have very low IQ, but they are not completely incorrect with the most important matters; they might fall off to the interpretations, which have to be seen as "symbolic" - whereas another sensitive has checked all the realities behind their intuitions, and form many connections with their levels of uncertainties by using the words "gut feeling", "hypothesis" etc. Their senses are not closed to particular models, which often have slight mistakes and incoherences obvious when measured with other models. We cannot completely "debunk" all those people, but we have to find a common language and trust in other people's abilities in somehow solve their situations, even if they use bizarre words and correlations; when we are criticized by other kind of model, they are often right, but it's hard to integrate and position in our own model. They all have to go through their own philosophical process, search of truth and good lifestyle, and not of ours; when they trust our very personal senses and views, they go wrong anyway as they cannot understand the basis they are using and they can not develop this - by this, spiritual persons should be healed by spiritual doctors, who can talk about chackras and energies, but also the connection with material root; material people should be healed by material doctors, who can speak of the same things in material terms.

One question is, whether your war is justified - completely another, whether you can avoid it. When you are younger, your battles might be justified - but when you are older, you are able to avoid them (in similar situations).

I think they are just quite young religion - Islam is 1400 years old, christianity some 2000 years, judaism 3500, buddhism some 2500, but now with many connections to older religions, hinduism some 5000-6000 (but Buddhism has a strong connection to this, and took this experience into account). As a youngest religion, relatively Islam is 600 years younger than christianity - at that age, christianity had crusades, the first pope was starting his job, and the inquisition was about to be established. We can see there were no atheist ideas, not much philosophy and it was very radical following of God. Judaism seems to have less problems, around this age they were fighting free from slavery and building their first systematized codecs. Still I think it was more traditional and dogmatic period; Kabballah was emerging around this time, which is probably their newer and more enlightened form?

To put it into other words, the laws of Cause and Effect of Buddhism, my favourite "theory", are the Karmic Laws. The karmic law, simply put, is that when you get all the ends of the positive energies connected, you reach a cycle of positive energy and this cycle breaks harder than the one, which connects negative energy. With science it has none to do, when the science talks about "neutral" energies. Buddhist powers have nothing "neutral" - an energy either supports or does not support life force, or other principial truth, and like a business project, it must create a whole circle or ecosystem of this positive energy, which then is principially it's Law of Nature. Most spiritual theories work like this. Material evidence is completely irrelevant. We have a lots of chemistry, like smells and other chemicals, we have subtle signs of body and the language of eyes, and many other things connecting us with the world - they all work together, and when you get them balanced and strong, you have telepathy. Whether there is an anomaly of laws of physics is irrelevant, as irrelevant it is to break the laws of physics with radio, TV or satellite connection - probably the atoms or brains somehow react and when the effect becomes more common, it would be measured and the scientific model would not change much. People, who positively think, that a new idea or spiritual theory would create anomalies in laws of physics, laws of finances or politics, and create them insanely positive outcomes; or that they would make people unconditionally move against their own good and bring money to their pocket - those people are insane. Their expectations, rewards and punishments are very bad and break the whole karmic ecosystem, often leading to debunking. When the karmic cycles are broken, for example the financial system is not effective any more - spiritual person might have made change for the worse, but all those causes and effects are seen by financial people, other people are corrected and the witch would run out of energy, their karmic cycle turn negative and the type of energy they use would not work any more. When such "witches" become very effective, positively affirming too much money and looking for all causal cycles, which can produce that, then the things get hard. People let themselves rather be "manipulated" towards their own well-being, noticing changes for better and supporting them with their own will. Here, the "magic" works quite well. And you really should not talk too much about physical anomalies or break-up of the material world; material laws have their own reasons and turn out to be there in one or another way. It's a bad thinking to connect spiritual laws with material anomalies and that is a serious bias; rather the spiritual laws work well with many material constitutions. Such, the "telepathy" should not be measured by degree of material anomaly, because the material theory is irrelevant for the theory of communication - it just needs to work somehow. Rather, we need to find good energies arising, whatever their constitution. Spiritual person is not someone to break some laws completely, they are there to create better karma.

When I was young, I got very exited about new ideas in different areas of life and I expected fast success. In time, I learnt that the progress is slower, the people's abilities to really make them work is not so big and there are confusions and misunderstandings. I see in history and the world that people, when they meet spiritual perspectives and financial possibilities or potential changes in government, they think that small theory with some practice would immediately lead them to paradise or unbelievable success. This positive thinking is a major problem happening with people, where in reality, millions of problems come. This is a common bias in human thinking that people are looking for some sensation, something exceptional. People, who start some spiritual practices, they are talking that they are doing something very high, but in reality, the effect of such practices is moderate. I think this mass sensationalism, which makes them move money and power in insane ways when they hear about different theories, is a thing to be cured - who is responsible, is not always a beginner with their undeveloped theory, but also the people around, who expect something for them. I explained someone some psychic abilities I have developed and she asked me to prove it in ways, which would break my karma. I practice Buddhism and my abilities are entirely based on laws of karma - I can have good energy for processes, and it's much deeper than what I could achieve by plain material techniques easily, but it's insanity to ask me to break the laws of karma and I cannot prove anything such way. I can only flow with the nature, aligned with the force, because it's an intelligent law I'm using. I understand that she is looking for some different powers, helping to manipulate people, rob the money, control her life and get good results from evil deeds - for some reason, I really cannot help her. I can understand people are constantly running around all the theories with their bad karma and trying to make it active, but even with the business or governing, people would rather see the bad karma and not want to give them anything, or they would be so stupid that they would mess up your thing. When I use my abilities to create some good energy, then intelligent people would catch it up and generate different kinds of similar good energy, and it would do the magic - hard to say, whether it's psychological or magical, but it definitely works that way, good ideas, energies and materials spread and generate more of these results; this law of energy inevitably happens in social communication, be it conscious, unconscious or telepathic and mystical, and the karmic laws of ethics together with logic always appears. However good your psychic ability, but when you apply it with bad intentions, the spirits, God, people, magic or material entities - it's hard to even count, which things, or to measure, how you actually communicate with them, because we constantly send and receive subconscious signals of all kinds and brain definitely creates some holistic model out of it -, all these entities turn against your bad intentions and you fail, or if you do not, the energy circle would not get it's ends connected and it fails anyway, with more disappointment and mistrust generated. When people see others using energies, ideas, communication or even money and power - they come with their bad intentions, expect fast success, and use all means for "motivation", reward and punishment. They want to see their own money. It's hard to say but all those things work better with higher missions and complete models, with social and ethical aspects. Brain itself fails, as it's connected with reality, and gets into dark modes if it cannot get the good karma, energy, together around this idea. This positive thinking is a madness of people, which should be worked with, so that people with different ideas can experiment and live also their high hopes of the youth, until they see that in all areas of life, the real success is slow and moderate, and that they need to moderate themselves in speech and actions to any effect at all; and in all realms, which have power, the laws of karma also apply. Also there are usually scientific theories, which would explain their activities through different terms, and for example common theories of magic can easily be explained with personal and social psychology - the magic nature of force has much potential, but it does not get very far from what you would expect from those theories; when it gets, the intent has to be very pure, and probably more advanced versions of those theories would explain all this when it gets more common. To repeat an experiment, you do not need one person with ability, but many persons for many generations, who would be able to show something in labor settings - rather you would measure the outcomes of life and show, whether those theories are able to be healthy and support good lives. So the masses, who run into insanity, are also responsible if people cannot practice their ideas. Otherwise, very often a scientific language of a witch, magician, spiritual person etc., they are very poor; and especially with witchcraft and magic the ethics should be questioned - there is black and white -; in spiritual theories the ethics is good, but it applies in life and less in laboratory settings or about concrete facts, the laws hold more about the wholes, not their parts and connections. The language of people of all those fields is very vague and often filled with hardships of logic and scientific facts - still, if a person develops a theory of feelings, or rather practices advanced feelings, they get a kind of "social theory", which is not scientific, but is a science; and when you read such different people - I am usually skeptical about many concrete facts, but I get some important points from their general thinking, and I am often later able to prove them in my own life. But I do not see any laboratory setting, I cannot really prove that more people are smiling to me today than yesterday, and in laboratory they would probably smile just as much as they want But as people with weak scientific background, from experience, they get just enough theories and principles to survive and get better - I do not trust that you "debunk" a person, when you disprove a specific claim; rather they are not very scientific, but they can have very good science about something. I am very skeptical myself, but also very open-minded - a wrong idea would not kill me, I do many different things with it until I understand, what I can do with it and how to live with people with such ideas. The society, instead of fearing new or undeveloped ideas, needs to develop more complex social practices to accept the diverse world. When we completely kill an idea, it will attack from outside - suddenly, even if we did not get rich before, we have ran out of this idea and that really kills.

And, also, maybe the science in my case would not be a verification of facts. For example, somebody might just live by feeling ..they do some verification, for example they feel disappointed when they are wrong, but their axiomatic system might not give this any special meaning - they follow the feelings and make them more pure. They reach a different type of talk and speak with their friends, who also follow the feelings, and they make up ways to communicate with different types of people, who respect them, and manage in the world. Then, the "scientific theory" is not scientific at all, but humans can live that way, and find out very pure and advanced feelings.

The case is not messing with the words "me" and "you" - the case it's my theory does not make it to be your theory, if it's valid as my theory, it could be incorrect as yours, and when I say I believe and have faith in this theory, it does not result that I say that you should believe and have faith. It's simply a model, which fits my mind, senses, IQ, experience etc., and it does not make you responsible of anything if I manage to prove it to people like me, who have achieved similar states. Somebody would live just perfect with materialist theory, somebody might believe in God, and somebody live spiritually, but they do this on their own - if it's true that I should notice the synchronicity, and in my language it can also be that synchronicity is simply true and scientific, any listener of me can repeat my experiments, then for others, it does not relate in such way that they instantly have something to do with this "neutral science", in case they prove they cannot repeat this experience, the facts do not fit them and it's their personal case that the unified theory and facts are different. One should just live and let live.

For example, you might not believe in theory of synchronicity and you might "debunk" it, but the fact that people, who believe in it, still behave human, is enough scientific evidence to claim that you should let them survive and do their things.

No, I don't mean this. I mean two scientific or non-scientific paradigms, which let people to live; the other paradigm can be spiritual, not scientific, and the person must just somehow manage to live. Ethics is that you do not bring your argument in a way, which would destroy the well-being of this person; you do not get any evidence - they get evidence themselves, by their deep understanding and proper senses for their own theory. You just let it live. "Debunking", for example, is thought of as if it was a scientific debate, absolutely high ethics in terms of people not attacking each others with violence, listening carefully and bringing precise arguments. So nobody is harmed and the world becomes more enlightened after every debate. But in reality, when people have their personal ideas and they are debunked, they social circles and financial well-being is harmed, and this brings them closer to death, they are less alive in the result, it's not a full life any more, but partially a death. People can think really bad of them. Just because there is a contradiction. Ethics is that you let those different theories, which contradict, to live in the common world without harming them. As long as a spiritual person with their weird terms and understandings manages to be human, they just are - they are just humans with limited understanding. You can help them clarify their lives, but you cannot destroy them in terms of doing ethical science. A girl talking with ghosts somehow, they do not have to have any evidence - the case that they do some work, do not attack others and speak more or less nicely makes them nice persons and you really do not know what comes out from their talking with ghosts.

I was born in Soviet Union - in Estonia, which was part of it 6 years of my life. It is really painful for me that in communism, you cannot become rich and get the money in case you really work much; but you can manage to be an average middle class or part of a government. Otherwise, people are really safe, they help each other by means of food, etc., and there are none of many financial danger feelings you get in capitalism. Anybody would have cookies and tea to offer to visitors, and in Soviet Union, the science was respected and average intelligence in many areas was higher for common people. Today it starts to annoy me how stupid some worker might be, as they really can make bugs like programmers - they turn out to be bugs in longer time; in soft sciences, you also need to be something. In Soviet Union, many areas of human development was respected a lot and popular science was very advanced. The food was more natural and the machines worked longer. You cannot be rich in communism, but you cannot be poor neither. In capitalist countries, you would live on the street or work hard for your apartment - in communism, having a place to live is very normal and your pension fonds do not disappear magically. There is also some money and if you save, you can be quite well with this. Sometimes I think it's higher pleasure than having some few people being rich; but it's also very useful if some people learn to live higher classes, richness somehow spreads and the experience they get, and when people, who manage the money better, can manage larger amounts of it. I think many people are not neutral when speaking about communism, they talk only about a bunch of people killed in the beginning, some wars, and the lack of some freedoms; but in capitalism, people do not have the freedom to have some money and apartment without doubt. They always do doubt, something can happen and nobody is going to rescue them - it's the normal statistics of financial accidents. It the yin and yang - capitalism is yin, building the model from bottom-up, small to big, and communism is yang, building from top-down, big to small. In reality, you need to unify the yin and yang, not choose, and the experience of two systems is something really valuable in the world; the experience of yin and the experience of yang - until we learn to combine them perfectly, we need people to experience this all. You cannot become rich, but you can be hard working, and guarantee for sure all the "luxuries" of the middle class, and have friends and good ambient. With all this guaranteed to many, you have a fair competition with the case where a lot is guaranteed to a few - maybe you are even richer in total. I like the good feeling when people feel safe. They get a different feeling out of the life, not such hurry, fear and struggle, and hate of the poor. You need to be really neutral when talking about these experiences, because what communists talked about capitalist is as true as what capitalist talked about communist; you need to leave aside the crimes and death punishments and work with the life of common people - maybe you can do this without all that punishment. The system itself is deeper than this karma, and it's worth the study; we could also speak of America only in terms that it used to have slavery - but modern people know nothing of it. People of my time also did not know much about those punishments, those were a century ago, and where I fear the case when being religious is somewhat illegal, it happens here, to - it's financially illegal sometimes, or your psychology is not considered correct. If I see all this "freedom of word" and other things in capitalism, they are comparable, so there is something deeper to develop. You are also somehow spied, government might not like all the things you do and they have their means to pressure you. In communism, also, a normal rebel just had some pressure - and when you pressure the country, usually it pressures you back, a rebel must work hard with reasons of those pressures and complain less; when I have a great idea here, in capitalism, I feel a lot of pressure and this is normal. When you work with food, you also feel pressured to not cut off your hands. So, do a neutral research of these yin and yang, and find out, how in capitalism you can connect all ends to safeguard common people, who want to work and live

To win a battle, you must also lose it. You need to learn about Konfucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, and how you break the rules Chinese probably trust more or less. You need to come our from the state, where you are criminal in their sense, so that they cannot attack you with the valid part of their philosophy. Thus, by giving up, you create yourself some chances to win - either to win your probability of survival when they invade you, or to produce higher philosophy, which releases the tension so much that they cannot attack you by their known law of nature. Also the communism is not so much more evil - giving a visitor a cup of tea and the cookies, having more natural and better-tasting food very often, with people helping each others and being poor resulting only from major sin, these are things hard to learn by a capitalist. If you manage to have more of those values, you are less in danger that they suddenly really hit you to some point, where you have bad karma. I think the mistake of positive capitalist is being so sure in their complete victory forever - in the Law of Karma of War, as long as we do not transcend our battles, so that we are beaten psychologically long before being beaten in war, the war would go on forever and each side reaches a point, where the truth they perceive is weak in the world and thus they achieve power and victory in war; if you give up all those battles, or rather wars, even with enemies you truly dislike, and you reach better understanding in their powers, things they accuse you, this circle of war becomes weaker, and it becomes a circle of spiritual or psychological war, which really defeats and not enslaves - by being defeated, getting rid of this positivity and greed, you avoid being in slavery of the fact you did not understand. As long as capitalist does not give up to communist, and a communist to the capitalist; a jew does not surrender a muslim God and a muslim to the jewish God - the bad karma of war exists, the tensions are balanced by war, and wars happen constantly, all sides winning for a period, as each side wins a war when the truth they represent is weak in the world and the other countries. As you listen to their critics, you give up, you give up to those shadows, you rise again and you integrate, what you have learnt - by this giving up, in your mind, the wars go on in their infinite cycle, but there are no real wars. Rather, the enemies, learning from the lessons, reach trust and love with each others and celebrate that they are keeping the different truths and living the different aspects of God.

This materialist view that they can debunk spiritual theories by facts like the world is round and the planets rotate around the sun; this really does not hold in this century. The scientific view introduced many new concepts about more neutral and efficient observation, and for many spiritual people, who cannot be cutting edge in every field, it's still to be learned - I somewhat pain about the girls, who really talk in ways, which do not fit into all the facts, based solely on their intuition, but the same time, I learn new things from them, ignoring the mess with material evidence and exact scientific terms - but the materialist girls, the make same kind of mistakes, following their feelings more than rational thought, and many materialists hardly understand anything after Newton, telling me that Theory of Relativity has three, not four, dimensions, and things like that, which really do not fit my spiritual views. For spiritual people, they knew before materialists, that there must be parallel dimensions etc., and we have people to who we need to attribute the original theories we use. Materialist does not believe easily that the theory of Schröedinger Cat and quantum shift does extend to the case where, in our perceived world, the history unfolds in ways similar to the future, and what we have not measured, has some space for probability - in our senses, we see that we tune into some kind of world and then, it appears. The quantum physics hardly goes that far with the fact; anyway, the perception and it's connections with the facts are still a hard science and these effects so subtle that they are hard to measure. Also, we give different meanings to the facts based on the future and there are more effects doing similar things, which we could really explain with the newton science. A whole model is so large that we cannot see, how the thing goes together with material sciences - spiritual people measure many things as we perceive them, and give higher meaning to perception and lower meaning to material processes involved; because our brain alchemy, it shows a different picture based on meaning and relevance of the fact, and we see it in different colors when the underlying reality is different - it's another model of the world, which looks at the consitution of psychological facts, and the relevance in the life, so we use some dream symbolics to explain our reality, and pay attention to perceived effects we see, like sudden feeling that somebody is watching from the place, where there are nobody - it is psychologically important fact when realized properly, but in materialistic sense, it's so subtle that it's not even a hallucination, it's just a noise in perception. We need not to mess the models together, and it's more healthy to understand the material reality and it's causes and effects and use different words for such perception, but in the spiritual model, it's a process of brain decoding the reality, and when it's not messed with material models, it shows it very well - dreams definitely come from our unconsciousness and meaningful connections, not from some unnatural, disproven source, and definitely, when we have psychological problems, we cannot trust our dreams so much, but when our psychology is healthy, they bring us some clarified conclusions about our lives, and we cannot reach conclusions so good with other processes of our brains. It's better to be complete and give meaning and significance to all our natural processes, and think also in terms of evolution and instincts - if you can explain feeling of danger with evolutionary instinct, you can also explain fear of God with the same thing, and in both cases, you can also be sick and disoriented, with weaker perception of reality, and in all cases, when you solve your experiences properly and talk with such people in meaningful manner, understanding that they simply cannot understand the solution, and they are still humans, you have chances to bring them back to their minds. I think having philosophy about the will of God, doubting and looking for personal understanding, instead of following it blindly, it's the modern solution for the believers, as they have to grow more mature. Blind following of God is lack of philosophy, and it should not insult God if his word is clarified with deep doubt and philosophy - rather, we grow up, and God is spiritually equal to us, as higher and lower entities are equal, in true sense of equality. So He is also to be doubted, and the philosophy, skepticism and scientific means are to be applied, so that we get a clarified message and grow with our own speed, not blindly believing in something higher than us. Everybody has this space for following the models they can somehow understand, and not the ones, which are far more complex and superior - this does not bring you closer to truth, but it brings you closer to the personal truth, and away from madness, which is following the more complex model than you are able to. We give only some respect for authority, like scientist saying something in their own area is probably more trustworthy than the one saying something about different area, even if you cannot understand every nuance. Pope probably knows more about God than an atheist, so an atheist could deceive you more in this area, when you listen to their perverse image of stone-age God looking for inequality and power; barbarians, in their way to follow the God, probably created such force in their lives so that they could not escape.

Actually, I think the end of the world is coming soon: One possibility is the war, which ends the world as we know it, leaving us to world depleted of resources, which possibly cannot give rise to new civilization with equivalent strength and outlook. This is the negative scenario - end of the humankind and it's ego as we know it. Other possibility is a grand sociopsychological shift, a rise of new consciousness, which is able to avoid this war. This is also end of the world, because our social superego as we know it would not exist any more, and so this personality would die and then, rise as Phoenix or the legendary Viking god, who died on the battlefield, but did not give up. This is, we transcend our philosophy and give rise to a new society - an old society would be dead; this is the positive end of the world as we know it. Without something being brought to the end, I cannot see the future any more. It's either the hell of a paradise, where we then end up, but it's not "the earth" any more, as we know the earth. It would be also the fire coming from the sky etc., as bombers really do this. Materialist thinking tends to perceive that there will be dramatic change in the material sciences, when the spiritual sciences are true and the visions really hold; I am spiritual person and I really live every day in the world, where my spiritual views really hold, but the measurements about the materials are about the same. I speak within the spiritual metaphors, I see the spiritual higher truth holding in all the politics and life, but it's another model of the same laws materialists are talking about, I do not see a dramatic change in material measurements of the matter, where spiritual or religious theories hold - it's still the same, old, world and continues it's habitual, boring patterns; I have seen many miracles, but if I really want, I could explain them in terms of psychology, material laws, evolution etc. This materialist theory that spiritual and religious people are talking about completely different world, which would change their material laws - this should be debunked. A spiritual girl, where being spiritual and being girl makes one follow more emotions than rational truth - they might really talk about dramatic things, which happen, and they might lose track with material events. In reality, if there is the end of the world, most probably it has to do with either tanks or natural disasters; the only end of the world Bible talks about, the story of Noah - it has nothing unnatural, it's simply a natural disaster and one man with good intuition. I always follow different theories and I like the material theories, and I often fix my spiritual sciences with these material observations and facts, because I do not see any reason, why a spiritual, higher principle would break any material law; this is a grand illusion coming somehow from history, where the Pope really could not connect the existence of God and roundness of Earth, but from existence of God it's hard to really prove that an Earth must be flat. If we see something with our senses, rather it's there and it does not go away if it really turns out that yang in extreme breaks and becomes yin - this happens in entirely different plane. Even the principles of Karma, when you follow the theories of business or energies to the end, you must see it's simply the same with the material laws. So my case of being spiritual, it's simply spiritual and I do not expect I would do a major breakthrough in material sciences with some spiritual fact - rather, spiritual fact exists in our world perfectly synchronized with it's material counterpart, like activity of brain is really synchronized with activity of thought, making the thoughts not false and not claiming that by proving the validity of some of your thoughts, you would disprove your brain. I think spiritual principles hold and by following these, you can be much more efficient in some aspects of the world, because for you it's simple what other people see as complex, composed of many different principles. You feel energy because you see the positive outlook of your spiritual activities - materialist also feels energy, when they have been eaten, are not sick, and are not depressed and have positive outlook in their life; with all their materialist theories, they feel energy and they say energy. When you make all this with your spiritual theory, you also feel energy. I'm not surprised if a man, following the game theory, materialist mathematical theory of life, into the end, would simply reach good karma and create some kind of heaven around him, thus also reaching this loka. This being said, I do not understand, why this would not be the same end of the world the spiritual people are talking about, when our world ends in the material laws. The material scientists telling that spiritual principles break their laws and must talk about different world, they must be debunked - it's the same world with the same laws, and scientific criterias are quite enough to believe that a miracle does not break material laws. Birth is a miracle, life is a miracle, rising sun and spring are miracles - none of them breaks a material law. Sometimes, really deep and grand miracles happen to me, but I cannot find any specific material law being broken; rather, it's my spiritual view, which makes it a miracle - it's some great positive outcome of my life, which follows from my advancement in following the spiritual laws. If they manage to create climate on another planet, an ecosystem, materialist would also feel the miracle and draw heavenly pictures. The spiritual theories came from careful observation of the material world, it's real facts and hidden meanings, and when one observes, they see just the same world; if you observe it scientifically, it's just the same world. Spiritual theories did not come from somehow breaking the natural life cycle and then observing this result. Somewhat it's true that you transcend the world and then, your spiritual theories are slightly more beautiful than materialist would see - but when materialist gets rich or brings better laws and rules, they also transcend the material world and cannot speak of completely the same laws they spoke about before. I think this is nonsense that many of the described miracles somehow break the natural laws of materials and brain alchemy - if the miracle is, you see the world in different light, as in enlightenment, and you start living a different life, or you manage to provide this to someone else; very materially, it's not very different. Materialist, also, when they generalize their lives and get new experiences, they become enlightened - times of Renaissance and enlightenment in Europe, those happened in rational terms, with politics and ecosystems, but they were enlightenments, and also changed the material courses of events in lives of people; the change was great, but no material laws were broken. I also experience some miracles, which I cannot explain with materialist laws, so the principles of spiritualism hold to the end; materialists also speak of events they cannot connect to all the known general laws; all the time they see something they have to explain. This does not break the method of science that it has not measured this yet, it's rather normal for science that in every area, there are open problems. In area of spirituality, there are open problems as well, but most of the things completely fit with theories of psychology, physics and chemistry. From spirituality, no way that it comes out that your senses about the material world and it's principles are completely wrong - we invent better models to live, and we see more general underlying principles, but this also applies to all sciences. Why we like spiritual views is that they give special value to life and that they are more natural to our personal psychology, but they do not disprove our five senses. Sixth sense does not disprove the five senses, it only transcends the experience; and very advanced logic and life vision is also a sixth sense and does the same, so this also happens to materialist that they transcend. And, in the end, spiritual sciences definitely are the cutting edge in their own area of research, and they make conclusions materialist cannot make merely with their theories alone - but the same way, you cannot explain every process of chemistry in terms of physics of particles, every branch of research takes it's principles to the cutting edge. So, despite the material law holds, it's really hard to explain the realm of perception and the sharp ends of the spiritual theories and principles; but it's also quite impossible they totally debunk a case carefully observed by the other. This materialistic view, it should be debunked So the end of the world is the end of the world, no bells and whistles - a normal war or a catastrophe. And, there are the spiritual causes and effects spiritual people have seen in their visions, and cannot explain in their material terms; more probably, somebody would later explain them with game theory.

The original poster wanted to point out this is what we mean by an end of the world. It's not much worse. When nuclear war depletes the resources of humankind so that we cannot get up any more, it's an end of the world as we know it, what we used to think when we said "humankind" and "the world", it is dead, and has another, lesser life in the hell. This is the material evidence ..spiritual people, indeed the closest archetype, they see they are endangered with the end of the world.