Текст книги "Children of the gods"

Just in case, let me remind you that the only “competitor” for God to occupy the position of Creator of life – proposed case (inanimate matter by chance gave rise to life). It was shown above that even the possibility of assumption of a “random emergence of life from nonliving matter” is completely excluded based solely on indisputable facts, logic!!! Well, for those who like to build scientific theory against all logic, facts and simple common sense, I highly recommend to listen to the mathematicians, miscalculated the ability stubbornly pushed the point of absurdity.

So here, ladies and gentlemen! To be impartial (not to nenravitsya you stubbornly deny the facts), it was logically to prove the existence of the Supreme Creator God – very easy! Even easier than to prove that “every house someone built”! Easier – because even the most complicated house is a sign of a living being, arranged infinitely easier the elementary living entity is the cell. The only thing that can move those who, contrary to logic, facts and just even common sense stubbornly clings to a stillborn atheistic theory is just utter unwillingness to admit the obvious and to know the truth!

This stubborn reluctance to admit the obvious – there is, so the missing atheistic science, the link! saying all this, Andrew, as in the Institute at the Department the students who stood at the head of the table and eagerly argued and waved his hands, highlighting the desired points of the lecture intonation. Having finished his speech, he picked up a bottle of wine and pouring himself a glass, drank to the bottom.

– The assertion is fundamentally wrong. There are RNA. Is proven that first RNA is able to “organize” the synthesis of proteins and DNA. Do the same RNA can emerge from simpler inorganic compounds. Well, when there is RNA+DNA+protein synthesis – the evolution of a trick. Additionally, the assertion that all life comes only from life just because somebody’s not watching other variants, is logically incorrect. Approval of community, that is, (∀x ∊ X) P (x), we prove by example, only if X is of course. In this case, the fact that you, or anyone else, did not observe the origin of living from non-living does not mean that this never happened.

By the way, if the fact that the origin of organic compounds from inorganic as a result of the experiment, you will try to include in its “slim” logic, they say this same person experiment spent, so it is still a living has created a living, this is a misunderstanding. I recommend to study, what is process modeling.

Assume that the statement “born alive only alive” – is true. In this case, it is obvious that there was a certain primal alive, which gave life to everything else living. Logical. However, from this statement, despite your desire, it is not necessary that this initial living God was, especially with such a tough set of characteristics. Just offhand I can suggest a hypothesis of the original RNA. So initially there was a kind of RNA, which gave life to all living things. Where did it come from? And where did God? She had just been. Or is she just appeared out of nowhere. No! Brilliant! She samzareulos! It is generally fully consistent with “proved” you statement, that the living is generated by only live. The first ever RNA samzareulosi, live live spawned. Everything came together and without God. – Olga looked triumphantly at her husband.

– I really liked the concept Efimova on this issue. – interrupting their argument, said Eugene. That’s what it is. Any attempt to prove that God is absolutely futile and meaningless. Any attempt to prove that there is no God – they just totally futile and meaningless. Neither logical by some means unprovable. So treat this not on the level of reasoning and theories. You just need to observe and understand and test it all by yourself.

The structure of the universe? The universe is the biggest mystery, which is hidden from mankind. It work very big money. Intelligence in the Universe is hierarchical. And there are some discrete levels that don’t communicate.

Starting from scratch. Now, if we take the conditional axis of the intellect, at the bottom, we note the zero level is the mineral life, that is, stone, asphalt, etc. They are unable no information to perceive from the outside and to do something with them. If we take the next level – plants, then it is not a stone from the point of view of conditional intelligence. Under the conditional intelligence we mean the ability to perceive some information from outside and in accordance with this information to change some settings. Any plant it reacts to the weather change. If the sun is shining – it turns a piece of paper to him. If dry, the roots deeper, if raw – the roots higher. So plants have the opportunity to read some information from the outside and in accordance with this information to take certain actions. The next level is the animal world. That’s when the goat comes to the cabbage (for example) and lifts the leaf, then the head of cabbage is a divine intervention. Imagine yourself cabbage: there is a certain perception of the world, there is the perception of moisture, air, sun, whatever. And this is all you understand about the world. And suddenly, time! Do you like everything is normal, and the leaf was gone. What happened? Goat, it turns out. But the cabbage in principle there can be no vision of that creature as the goat. Because she is from a higher level of organization intelligence. From the lower level to a higher level, in principle, unknowable. This property of the universe.

Take the next level. Man this is a different level of intelligence and perception of reality. Even if ten dogs come together – they will never understand the man. They will still perceive at their level. Who is dog man? How could she think someone is feeding me, outside displays, etc. the biggest mistake and misfortune that dominates our unconscious levels of the psyche is that in this hierarchy, man is the pinnacle of the universe. Here we are, here and all! And more intellectually nothing is impossible. This is the greatest misconception! From basic logic it is clear that this is a misconception. Why? Yes, because much that happens in the world, we do not understand. How is everything created? What is the universe? What is infinity? Etc. etc. So, for any sane person it is clear that the above person has a different level, which is called in our terminology as a “Supreme intelligence” or “God”. But it is more correct to understand it as the Supreme intelligence, because “God” is a vicious stereotypes, intentionally embedded in our consciousness that we don’t understand how the universe. Now, this Supreme intelligence he reaches out to man through messengers. The number of messengers include Moses, Buddha, Christ, etc. At different times they were given the same information from the same center. If the Bible is clear from the debris that was brought into it later, you know she copied many times, then it is quite reasonable. It is known that Christ acknowledged God three hundred years after his death at the first Council of Nicaea. In his lifetime such things were hard to push, and after three hundred years, please.

People will be able to achieve happiness in different aspects of its activities if he or she comprehend their place in the universe. If he perceive the world with those levels of intelligence, you will be able to establish a dialogue with Higher Intelligence. It worked through small skills. Man is given the opportunity to communicate directly with God. The prophets exist to sometimes throw information. But for people failed at this relationship – he shoved the surrogates. What is the Church of all faiths? All churches are intended to hide the true ideas of man about the universe and a Higher Intelligence. People stretches from birth to something. He understands that somewhere something is. He’s trying to comprehend. The Church is the brokers that the idea of God to make money and nothing more. The nearer to Church the further from God. If a person really wants to understand something about the universe – he must seek it outside the Church. Can’t be that people believed God, and it has belonged to some Church hierarchy. This is the antithesis. The apotheosis of atheism is the Church!

To ensure that people do not understand what is God – he has slipped a false alternative. The truth is that there is some Higher Intelligence that is above us and he the same for all living on Earth. And a lie is that not the same for all living on God’s Earth. It’s the truth for the initiated. What about the rest? As for the other two alternatives: the first is that there is no God and Higher intelligence, but there is only body and all. Man is so, ate, slept and all. No there is no soul. This materialistic atheism. The second one is the idealistic atheism. He is that one slipped of Christ, to others Allah, third someone else. For what? In order to push people to each other. The Church exists in order to pit people for their own purposes. For the conquest of land, resources, etc. Divide and conquer!

If you will have an understanding about the structure of the universe, then prayer is nothing but an appeal to this Supreme Intelligence. you can access it anywhere. It is neither some kind of memorized thoughtless canonical texts, then your prayers come true. The Church brings to you egregorial level, but not in any way to God. The existence of the Supreme Mind to each individual. God talks to people in the language of life circumstances. As soon as there was some kind of accident – you need to sit down and think, what is this randomness. And then you’ll avoid the unpleasant consequences.

Any prophet, only then “becoming” a prophet, when you do some development of those who own money in this concept.

– In terms of discrete levels of the mind rather controversial, because I think the person the following question arises: how many levels? And at what level God? And if it’s the last level? In mathematics there is the concept of “limit tending to infinity” and “infinite magnitude” that would put everything on the places. Namely, that GOD is this infinite value, but this is not infinity in the plane “level of rationality”, and in infinity vertically. – said Nikita, who had listened, then told the father.

– Everything seemed to be logical, but do not agree that Higher Intelligence wants us solely good. – added Tamara. – Animals eat plants, people eat animals. Most likely Higher Intelligence also feeds on the energy of people, their emotions, energy animal, or something else. Maybe they have greed and they kill each other. The Highest Mind in the hierarchy is possible and wishes all existing groups of good intelligence, but it is unlikely that the Higher Mind is located immediately after the hierarchy of people.

– Some information is, of course, quite true, but there are two initially incorrect claims. First, there is a Supreme intelligence, the second – we cannot know because we are on different “levels of intelligence”. Moreover, in the beginning made a serious logic error, so simple that people with poorly developed logic won’t even notice. The whole theory about the intellectual levels is that no one level can’t take another, because if we do not see God, it doesn’t mean that he’s not, he’s just on another level. But the mistake is that even if we take those levels, then somehow these levels come in contact with each other. Since the level of animals is not only a contact of levels, but also an awareness of contact. Then there are animals, depending on its development, realize the contact with other objects in the world. The dog understands that she sees the man, understands his actions and some even able to predict, based on external information and their experiences. Thus logically is not something that a person never knows God, and God is unprovable, and the fact that people should be able to observe God. That is, if there is a God, there is the possibility of this fact to detect direct or indirect observation, experiment. Thus it is logical that while God’s existence is not proven, it makes no sense to say that he is. There is no God. This is logical. – concluded Olga.

She got up from the table and walked over to the Cabinet against the wall. With a little digging, Olga pulled out a book and finding the page, began to read aloud: Carl Sagan. The dragon in my garage. From the book “World of demons”. In my garage lives a fire-breathing dragon! Suppose (I’m following the approach of group therapy, the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously interest you in this statement. You will want to check my words. There are countless extant through the centuries stories about dragons, but no real meetings. What an opportunity!

– Show me, you say. I lead you to my garage. You look around and see a ladder, empty cans of paint and old tricycle. Dragon no.

– Where’s the dragon? you ask.

– And he’s right here, ' I reply, waving in the air arm. – I forgot to warn you that it’s an invisible dragon.

You propose to scatter on the floor of the garage flour to detect the traces.

Good idea! I say. But this dragon is always hovering in the air.

Then you decide to use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

Good idea! But the invisible fire is also nigus.

You want to spray paint the dragon and make it visible.

Good idea! But it’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.

And so on. On each of your proposal for a physical experiment I answer with a special explanation of why it will fail. Now, what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon, the fire which does not burn, and no dragon at all? If there is no way to disprove my contention, no feasible experiment that could testify against him, what do we mean by saying that my dragon exists? Your inability to refute my hypothesis is not the same as the proof of its veracity. The statement cannot be verified, approval is being protected from rebuttals, completely useless, regardless of their ability to inspire us or to bring a thrilling sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to faith in my allegation with no proof. The only conclusion you can draw from my assertions that I have in the garage lives the dragon is something interesting going on in my head.

Now you wonder – if physical controls don’t work, what convinced me? You can come to mind that perhaps it was a dream or hallucination. But then, why am I talking so seriously? Maybe I need help. Finally, I may have seriously underestimated human weakness, prone to errors. Imagine that, despite the absence of even one successful experience, you want to remain completely unbiased. Thus, you do not reject the go with the existence of a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You keep this version in mind. Today’s evidence is completely against it, but if there is new data, you are ready to consider them: maybe they can convince you. Certainly be offended by your unbelief, or to criticize you for thinking callousness and utter lack of imagination for the one reason that you rendered the Scottish verdict – “not proven”, it would be unfair on my part.

Imagine now that made things different. The dragon is invisible, it is true, but the paw prints appear on the spilled flour. Your infrared sensor rolls. Sprayed paint reveals in front of you hovering in the air a serrated crest. No matter how skeptical you feel about the existence of dragons – to say nothing invisible about their breed – you have to admit that there is something that fits the description of an invisible fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: suppose that not only I, but several people from your surroundings, including those who are not familiar with each other, are telling you that in their garages bred dragons but in each case the evidence is extremely weak. Each of us recognizes that stunned his strange conviction that in the absence of appropriate evidence. None of us are sleepwalkers. We talk about what it would mean if invisible dragons really are hiding in garages around the world. It would be better if it was a mistake, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons are not myths at all…

Fortunately, finally reported found on the floor the traces of the dragon. But they never appear when watching a skeptic. An alternative explanation: with due examination it appears that fingerprints could be faked. Another dragonman shows his burnt finger, explaining the burn in the fiery breath of a dragon. But we remember that to burn your fingers, can not only breath of the dragon of darkness.

Such “proof” – no matter how important it is for supporters of the existence of dragons is far from convincing. Again: the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to be interested in why so many like sane and sober people exposed to such a strange illusion. – Olga closed the book and continued:

According to statistics, religiosity and education of the person are in inverse correlation. The same pattern and with IQ. The lowest percentage of believers among academics (especially in our country where most academics have become such in the times of the USSR, and, whether they are religious, they would hardly have admitted to the Academy of Sciences). This is not surprising as in uneducated circles of the population in the role of teachers are the same uneducated parents, which leads to delayed development of children and the conservatism to which religiosity is to load almost always, for tradition. Although a clear inverse correlation and no correlation is quite strong.

Control shot:

Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and Britain – are among the least religious on the planet. According to the United Nations in 2005 these countries also are the most healthy is the conclusion made on the basis of indicators such as life expectancy, literacy, income per capita, level of education, gender equality, homicide and infant mortality. In contrast, most of the 50 least developed countries in the world are very religious. However, not all developed countries of atheistic: for example, in Ireland a high standard of living, good by the standards of Europe, the birth rate, and only 7% consider themselves non-believers. And absolutely they distort the statistics of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other United Arab Emirates, where almost embracing Islam population average citizen lives on a level Russian official. The subsoil of the country belongs to its people and not some other. However, it is possible that this will continue only as long as the oil flows. Moreover, the standard of living this refers exclusively to citizens, and countless migrant workers live disenfranchised.

Man without God is a simple animal, a relative of the monkey. For the person who trusts God, his own life and death have meaning. This does not mean that it must be something to blame on God, because everyone is responsible for what he is doing. If someone is indifferent to the meaning of his life, the person lives like ordinary animal, satisfying its instincts. If people understood the meaning of his life acquires a meaning at least for him, his life may become focused if he’ll try to match the meaning. And the illusion (Maya, as the Hindus call her) is sleeping consciousness of a man who lives by instincts. – Andrew pulled out from the pack and lit up a cigarette.

– That man without God is an animal? And I think Vice versa: a man with God testirovanie animal. Let me explain. When a person asks a question about what’s going on that makes his mind? Starts to expand, and when it finds the answer becomes calm. Right? This is the usual process. Now look, when a man thinks that what is happening is all from God, what’s going on in your mind? The mind narrows, goes no further, not know the truth, the essence of what I was looking for. For example, one hundred percent something from God. Do you think you will ask the question, why and how did this happen? Of course not! Because the mind is conditioned, it is blocked when any authority directs him to something. For example, the authority of rights. Got the answer to the question, what happens next? Nothing. The mind accepts other people’s opinions, takes, until, until he will explore. The difference in what you say? The answer is the answer!? Here’s the thing: when they tell you something, no matter how correct the answer is, it’s not your answer, it’s not your mind, it’s not you found, it wasn’t you realized it’s not the final answer, because you believed someone in authority, tomorrow may be a different authority, and you say: I was wrong, I, I… You know? So you don’t accept the answer, and the one who said it. Archimedes had solved a difficult problem (he had to determine the amount of gold in the crown). Much time he spent searching for an answer and when the time came to give the answer – there was no answer. Archimedes then went to the bath to wash. Plunged in a barrel and About!!! A miracle!!! The problem was solved!!! Eureka!!! And Archimedes running naked from the bath and shouting with happiness at all of Syracuse: “Eureka!!!”. He was calm when he found the answer? Remember Isaac Newton under an Apple tree. He was calm when discovered the law of universal gravitation? Of course, no. What happens in that moment when a person discovers the Answer? What is the Answer? Remember how you found the answers to difficult questions and tasks. And then you will understand everything else. Osho has repeatedly led the Buddhist parable: “the Buddha pointing at the moon, says to his disciples, look at the moon, not my finger. If you look at my finger, not the moon you see.” Do not try to repeat someone’s life. “Moon” not to see. Need to acquire and use IN THEIR LIVES, as a pointer. We are here on Earth to evolve and ascend in their intellectual development up a notch. Here I agree with Olga that reincarnation exists. That would be logical. Eugene poured himself a glass of whiskey and took a piece of sausage.

– I about it like the statement of Konrad Lorenz, the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine. Here, look, – Olga has found in laptop the right page and began to read: “to Erect an absolute and declare the crown of creation of the modern man at this stage of his March through time, it is hoped that this stage will pass quickly – it is for the naturalist the most arrogant and the most dangerous of all unfounded dogmas. Considering man final likeness of God, I’m wrong in God. But if I don’t forget that almost yesterday (from the point of view of evolution) our ancestors were the most common monkeys from closest relatives the chimpanzee, then I can see some glimmer of hope.”

Not to believe in God is also faith. And why is evolution still a THEORY? Many famous scientists believed in God. – Andrew brought from his room some the leaves. It was a record of lectures which he delivered at the Institute. – That these DEEPLY religious people have to convince you, at least you have them weak-minded is unlikely to be called. It is only Christians and not all, and there are also representatives of other religions:

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473—1543), Polish astronomer, Creator of the heliocentric system of the world.

Paracelsus (Philip Theophrastus Aureol Bombast von Hohenheim,1493—1541), Swiss naturalist, doctor of medicine (Ferrara, Italy), the founder of jatrohimii.

Girolamo Cardano (1501—1576), Italian physician and mathematician, author of solving cubic equations (1545), the inventor of the suspension – type propeller mechanism.

Francis bacon (1561—1626), English philosopher, founder of English materialism, the author of the classification of Sciences and the slogan “Knowledge is power!”

Galileo Galilei (1564—1642), Italian mathematician, physicist, astronomer, discovered mountains on the moon, 4 moons of Jupiter, phases of Venus, spots on the Sun, condemned by the Inquisition (1633), he was rehabilitated by Pope John Paul II (1992).

Johannes Kepler (1571—1630), German astronomer, discovered the laws of planetary motion.

Rene Descartes (1596—1650), French philosopher, mathematician, founder of a dualistic anthropology.

Blaise Pascal (1623—1662), French physicist and mathematician, discovered the fundamental law of hydrostatics.

Robert Boyle (1627—1691), English physicist and chemist, one of the founders of the Royal society of London, author of the gas law (law of Boyle-Mariotte), the founder of chemical analysis.

Isaac Newton (1643—1727), English mathematician, mechanic, astronomer, physicist, founder of classical mechanics, member (since 1672) and President (since 1703) of the Royal Society.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646—1716), German philosopher, mathematician, physicist, linguist, founder and President (since 1700) Brandenburg scientific society (later the Berlin Academy of Sciences), one of the creators of differential and integral calculus.

Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688—1772), a Swedish naturalist, astronomer, engineer, inventor, author of how to define the longitude on the moon, an honorary member of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

Benjamin Franklin (1706—1790), American educator, statesman, one of the authors of the Declaration of independence (1776) and Constitution (1787) United States, the author’s unitary theory of electricity, the inventor of the lightning rod, honorary member of Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1789).

Leonhard Euler (1707—1783), Swiss mathematician, mechanic, physicist, astronomer, member of the Berlin Academy of Sciences (s), honorary member (from 1742) and an academician (from 1766) of the St. Petersburg Academy.

Carl Linnaeus (1707—1778), biologist, President of the Swedish Academy of Sciences (1739), honorary member of Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1754), the author of the most successful classification system of plants and animals (1753).

Albrecht von Haller (1708—77), Swiss naturalist, one of the founders of experimental physiology, honorary member of Petersburg Academy of Sciences (from 1776).

Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711—1765), Russian physicist, chemist, astronomer, poet, academician of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1745).

Immanuel Kant (1724—1804), German philosopher, Professor at the University of Konigsberg, honorary member of the St.-Petersburg (from 1794), by the hypotheses of the origin of the solar system from the original nebula (1755).

Dmitry Sergeevich Anichkov (1733—1788), philosopher, Professor of Moscow University (since 1771).

William (Friedrich Wilhelm) Herschel (1738—1822), English astronomer, built a model of the Galaxy, set the Sun’s motion in space, discovered several planets (including Uranus), foreign honorary member of Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1789).

Andre Marie Ampere (1775—1836), French physicist, a foreign member of the Petersburg Academy of Sciences (from 1830), one of the founders of electrodynamics, discovered the law of mechanical interaction of currents (1820), created the theory of magnetism.

Robert brown (1773—1858), Scottish botanist, discoverer of “Brownian motion”, member of the Royal society of London (1810), head of the Linnaean library (1810—1820), President of the Linnaean society (1849—1853).

Hans Christian Oersted (1777—1851), Danish physicist, discovered the magnetic effect of electric current (1820), foreign honorary member of Petersburg Academy of Sciences (since 1830).

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777—1855), German mathematician, foreign corresponding member (1802) and honorary member (1824) St.-Petersburg:

Gemini Davy (1778—1829), English chemist.

Jens Jakob Berzelius (1779—1848), Swedish chemist and mineralogist, discovered cerium (1803), selenium (1817), thorium (1828), determined the atomic weight of 45 elements (1807—1818), introduced the characters of chemical elements (1814), a foreign honorary member of Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1820).

Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789—1857), French mathematician, a foreign honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy (1831), one of the founders of the theory of analytic functions.

Michael Faraday (1791—1867), English physicist, founder of the doctrine about the electromagnetic field, foreign honorary member of Petersburg Academy of Sciences (since 1830), author of many discoveries in the field of electricity and magnetism.

Charles Lyell (1797—1875), an English scientist, foreign corresponding member Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1871), adhered to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

– Yes I and so know that they were all believers! – Indulgently looking at her husband, said Olga. – This is the favorite argument of religious people to cite the example of all these scientists. Of course, you need to take into account that in those days, it is impossible and even dangerous to deny the Church but nevertheless, these scholars fought. Galileo cited the example? Yeah it’s really funny. It’s the first of rebels against Church dogma. Lomonosov and generally created a new movement in religion, the so-called “deism”. Because he was aware that the Church has nothing to explain in the world. So no need to overwhelm me with piles of names. You better study modern statistics. For example, what about albert Einstein (Nobel prize in physics for 1921): “the Word God is for me nothing more than a manifestation and product of human weaknesses, the Bible – a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish are. No, even the most sophisticated interpretation will not be able to change it for me”. “I don’t believe in a God who rewards and punishes in God, which coupled with our human goals. I do not believe in the immortality of the soul, although the weak mind obsessed with fear or absurd egoism, found refuge in the faith”. “Ethical human behavior should be based on sympathy, education, and public relations. No religious basis for this is not required”.