As you may see from the picture above, the hand is depicted holding ki, chi , energy or prana, perhaps ready to be used for reiki purpose. So chi must interact with the hand, which is a visible object. Clearly the chi is not any more subjective than the hand, that is to say the hand is not any more objective than the chi. Therefore we must , at least in principle, be able to explain the physics at work in chi dynamics just as we can for the hand dynamics.

Chi is said to flow throughout the body. It flows through the body organs where they facilitate healing. So it is as if chi is channelled by the body. Some say that it flows through channels called 'nadis'. So chi must interact with the body just like the water must interact with the pipe it flows through. Clearly chi is not a mere dream, hallucination or a phantasm in the practitioner's mind or 'heart' or whatever. It transforms a physical organ physically. It removes cancer off an organ. If a physicist close exermines an organ being acted upon by chi, atom by atom, he must see a force that is at work, which he possibly cannot explain yet.  Therefore a good theory of physics, for the purposes of 'chi-body interaction'  (mutasis mutandis ) is absolutely necessary. Here I offer one such a theory.

Quantum Miracle State

In quantum mechanics (QM), all states are possible. Each state has some nonzero probability of occurring. State can be a location of a particle, its energy, its momentum, its spin etc. A state of a macroscopic object is a configuration of momentums, locations, energy, spin, magnetism etc of its constituent particles. This, at first may be strange. If you close exermine a liver at two different states, the sick state vs the healed state, you will find that they differ by how its particles move, are located, spin and their energies. A sick liver may simply have some of its atoms vibrating ubnormally, some of its molecules mislocated or some magnetised in a wrong way etc. 

A miraculous quantum healing will constitute a transition from the sick state to the healed state upon ' observation'. In reiki case, the 'observation' may simply be an interaction between the hand and the chi. We know that such a quantum transition does happen to single particle. A single atom, when observed twice, can be seen to have transitioned from point A to point B, even if in a 'miraculous' way such as tunneling through a wall, impossibly climbing a mountain, moving all the way to andromeda etc.

All it takes for the same miracle to happen to a macroscopic object, eg a liver, is for all of its constituent particles to transition in a synchronized manner. If all the particles of a stone moves from A to B upon observation then the macroscopic stone in its entirety will have transitioned like a quantum particle. Since the transitioning is thought to be 'random', such a transitioning is thought to be extremely unlikely because there are zillions of particles that must do the same 'accident'. But there are reasons to think that the transitionings are not random but are amenable to a control by the mind. These are amongst the few modifications we must do on QM for it to account for reiki and other 'miracles'.

A different way of putting it is that at the macroscopic level, the combined quantum state for all the particles decoherse. This quantum decoherence cancels the wave at some point, making some states seem imposible. The wave amplitude,  (possibility of finding a particle ) for instance at the other side of the wall, is cancelled by decoherence making it seem imposible for the macroscopic object to quantum tunnel through the wall. So if there is a way of maintaining quantum coherence even amongst particles in a macroscopic object, then we can account for macroscopic 'miracles' using QM. We will see this possibility next.

Bose-Einstein Condensate Of Chi

Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC) is way of maintaining quantum coherence even in a macroscopic object. So macroscopic quantum mechanics is possible, after all! There is only one catch, the condensate must be extremely cold, or so they think. Since everyday objects are warm, this is the only reason why QM is thought to be impossible in macroscopic world. Latter, we will see how chi can overcome this temperature problem and maintain its coherence. In effect, I am suggesting that chi is a type of room temperature BEC.

First remember that quantum biology is gaining momentum even in mainstream! In the past, they thought that biological organisms are 'too warm and wet' for quantum coherence to be maintained. But some researches are showing that quantum photosynthesis is possible. So how do plants maintain quantum coherence here? They have no clear answer but if they consider a new quantum field that can maintain coherence at room temperature, that would be a perfect candidate for chi, according to my theory. Also with quantum biology, a way is paved for an elaborate theory of quantum mind e.g. by RogerPenrose and Stuart Hamerof. In Penrose's theory, quantum transitioning is not random but is controled by consciousness. This is precisely what we need to argue against the idea that a miraculous transitioning of a macroscopic object is extreemely unlikely as it involves zillions of unrelated accidents. The point is simply that they are not accidents. It is only that most of us don't know how to control them.

To understand how chi may dodge the temperature problem, we first need to understand how temperature leads to quantum decoherance. Decoherent waves means that we have waves of all manner of wavelenghts and if all manner of frequencies propagating in the same medium. It is a total chaos.

In QM, the wavelength of a particle is related to its momentum via the so called 'deBronglie hypothesis'. If we have only a single wavelength in the ocean, i.e. coherence, then all the particles in the ocean have a single momentum. But temperature is also related to momentum. A hot object has its particles moving and jiggling with all manner of momentums this, according to debroglie hypothesis means that we have all manner of wavelengths hence decoherence. So the only way for all the particles  to have a single wavelenght, hence coherence is to have all particles moving uniformly, without any jiggling. This  can only happen at temperature of absolute zero.

Also note that as we think, our neurons fires in a way that appears random. This creates 'chaos' in EM field. If our mind is connected to chi, this may create decoherence in chi. This explain why meditation may increase effectiveness of reiki or why meditation leads to a feeling of connectedness to all things. Coherence means several things moves at synch as thoug a single thing.

Weakly Interacting Chi

Only interacting things are able to exchange momentums. Naively we can call this 'knocking each other' .However, particles don't actually colide with each other. They repel each other far before they can touch. So it is a repulsive force, e.g. repulsive magnetisim, that explains the appearance of 'knocking' in macroscopic objects' were it not for tge electromagnetic force, stones would simply mearge rather than 'knock'. This is because both stones are actually 99.9999% empty There is literally nothing to knock.

We call such a thing that can pass through matter as 'weakly interacting'. This is because our magnetism interact weakly with its particles, making the 'knocking' not to happen. Chi then is seen to be a weakly interacting entity. This is because it can flow through objects almost unhindered. But this means that usual objects cannot warm chi.

When an object warm another object, its particles 'knock' the particles of the other object, transferring their momentums. This makes the particles of the other objects to begine jiggling all the more, hence getting wammer. This means that for an object to warm another object, it must strongly interact with the other object. If chi is weakly interacting with the usual object ,then it cannot be warmed by the usual object. This means that chi can maintain quantum coherence even at room temperature, hence it can perform the 'quantum mirracles'. But this also means that it is not easy to use chi as it slips past the body. Some ways in which it can breifly interact strongly and then return to its state of weak imteraction is necessary. This latter mechanism is also what I suggest as the mechanism through which the 'spirit' or 'soul' leaves the body. The spirit too must be weakly interacting. But I will not elaborate on the theory here.

1. The Lion: Give me an happening that requires a cause that is beyond understanding and I will show you how the happening has a cause that is very easy to understand.

The Horse: Alright, try Quantum Spin.

Actually with quantum spin (QS) I will, amongst other things, show you precisely that: the amenability of natural phenomena to various explanations, so that claims or definitions like '...without scientific explanation...' , or '...beyond understanding...', or '...beyond the mind...' are actually silly.

The idea of 'everything is a vibration' is a very good idea. The vibration should not be reduced to a mere metaphor for some 'indescribable'.  Unfortunately, though, it has been reduced so. When someone say '...I resonate...', he often mean something that has nothing to do with resonance due to vibration. He means something like '...he likes the idea...'. It is something subjective and probably irrelevant to the universe. Consequently, when we say 'everything is vibration', some takes it to mean 'everything is subjective', ie 'as they feel'. However the original idea of realities of different frequency levels meant to be taken litteraly, not metaphorically. Consiquently, the questions that arise in usual vibrations must also arise in the spiritual idea of vibration.

Now in the day to day world, if you hit something e.g. a string so that it vibrates, soon or latter, it begines to whimper and it eventually cease vibrating altogether. So if 'everything is a vibration', it seems to suggest that everything will soon cease existing! This question must be addressed well in the proper theory of vibrational realities. Here I am going to do that. It is at this where QS should ring a bell. The subatomic particles are said to spin. However, this spinning doesn't die! The subatomic particles spins as though spinning is their intrinsic property. This makes the analogy of quantum spin very apt as we explain the multidimensional reality by first supposing that charge is a vibration.

QS has also another crucial lesson to teach us. It must show you why forming a theory of why a phenomenon happen is important even if the world may not actually work that way! This will show you why we must form an habbit of trying to understand such ideas as 'spirit', 'soul' etc by modeling something that we understand into performing what the spirit was meant to perform. We must sturbonly defy the stereotype that 'forbid' us from explaining these phenomena. Now subatomic particles are said not to actually spin. This is the crucial point. In other words it is only that we can explain some of the things that subatomic particles do by supposing that they spin when in reality, they might not be spinning at all. They might be doing something else but which brings about the same effect as 'spinning'.

In a similar way, we explain that electromagnetism is due to a synchronized vibration of the subatomic particles in a that is very easy to understand. But we can make this 'vibration' to be like QS in the sense that we don't insist that the subatomic particles are actually vibrating. Despite this fact, other features of vibrations may also be present in the electromagnetism just because vibration explains the repulsive and the attractive forces of electromagnetism. Again this is a very crucial point. Take note of it.

In QS, if we suppose that charged, subatomic particles are spinning, then we espect them to produce magnetism. So we explain the magnetism of subatomic particles by supposing that they are spinning. However, the particles may not be spinning. Despite the fact that particles are not spinning, they undergo precession as if they are spinning! Thus thinking of the particles as though to be spinning, so we may explain their magnetism, helps us to discover their other property: precession, even if the particles are not actually spinning! This is the point. By forming a theory to explain a known phenomenon , we walk way round having to know what is actually happening all the way to discovering other phenomena as though we knew what was actually happening! This highlights the importance of forming a theory evev if 'we may never know' the actual thing.

Now lets see how it works in the case of 'multidimensional reality' due to vibrations at different frequency levels. We begine by trying to understand electrostatic force. We note that if two objects immersed in some fluid both vibrate at synchronized manner, then they repel each other precisely as though they are similar charges.When one vibrates at 90 degrees out of synch, then the two objects attract each other as though they are opposit charges. So we can think of charged particles as vibrating, to explain their electroststic forcre, just like we thought of them as to be spinning, to explain their magnetism. But when we think this way, we now realize that there can be another plane of reality wherein their electrostatic forces are vibrating at a different frequency( two different frequencies cannot be synchronized). This inference we make about other planes of reality is analogous to the precession inference we made pertaining to spin. So we say that just as thinking of particles as to be spinning leads us to correctly infer that the have precession, even if they are not actually spinning, thinking of charged particles as vibrating may lead us to correctly infer that there is a multidimensional reality, even if the electrostatic force may not actually be due to some vibration.

Finaly notice that a spinning object  can also be thought of as to be vibrating. That is why in the case of QS, we have nuclear magnetic resonance and Lemor Frequency. So the analogy of QS to explain vibration is very apt.

In a nut shell, Delbruck Scattering measures auras around subatomic particles. So every subatomic particle has aura. This implies that the macroscopic objects, which are made form the very same microscopic objects have auras too. Around a living thing, the aura itself must be alife!

Kirlian photography was once correctly understood as a photograph of auras surrounding objects. However, thanks to the foolish definition of 'spirit' that merely take science out of the picturesque without telling us what 'spirit' is. All a sceptic had to do is link the Kirlian photograph to some known science. Then he effectively move the goal post away! One such a kirlian photograph showd a 'disembodied spirit' surroundind a Leif. Then they did the experiment again but without moisture in the area around the 'disembodied spirit'. When they found no picture of the 'spirit', of course they concluded that the earlier on image was not of 'spirit' but of water. They use the 'spirit-matter' dilema that the 'new agers' hammered it so firm. 

So you may think that had they found out that pictures of 'auras' are found even when we take a picture of 'vacuum', they would eventually conclude that auras indead exist around objects. However, Delbruck Scattering shows that this would not be the case! Even if we found images of auras in vacuum, there would still be scientific explanations! What we must do is simply cease using the 'inexplicable by science' definition of 'aura' and other 'spiritual' phenomena. Such is not what the ancient people who coined the word 'aura' meant. They simply meant 'invisible entity surrounding objects'. So to them, Kirlian Photographs proves their point. Delbruck Scattering is a bonus.

Literally Delbruck Scattering is a reflection of light off a light body that surrounds every electrically charged subatomic particle. It is a 'light-light' interaction. We can understand light as ephemeral separation of ekectric charges that is propergated like a wave in vacuum. Such is how James Clerk Maxwell understood light. When the charges 'snaps back' is what he termed as 'displacement current'. So space is understood not as 'emptiness' but as to be compossed of particles of opposite charge. In case of Quantum Field Theory, we call such a vacuum 'matter-untimatter potential'. That is to say that at any moment, should energy be absorbed in space, a pair of matter and untimatter will be created at the spot. Should the pair unihillate each other, the energy will be released from the spot. Such is how light energy gets propagated through space. So we can easily call the ephemeral seperation of matter and untimatter 'dynamic light' and the permanent seperation of matter and untimatter as 'static/frozen light'.

Delbruck Scattering is then possible because, surrounding every subatomic particle (hence surrounding every object) exists a 'frozen light'. Essentialy, the vacuum surrounding objects is 'polarized'. It is a litteral light body. When the light body surrounds a living thing, it must, itself, be also living. This is because this body mirrors the visible body. Wherever there is charge, let us say cell membrane potential, there is corresponding charge in 'vacuum' due to 'vacuum polarization' surrounding every charged particle forming the membrane potential. For the whole body, there would be a pattern of charges in vacuum that are mirror symmetrical to the pattern of charges in the visible body. Since the body is just a pattern of charges, the vacuum polarization aura around a living body is also a living body on its own!

But the most interesting case is 'disembodied aura'. Here, i will draw for you an analogy. Consider the technique of recording sound using the magnetic tape. Literally the tape is a matterial that enables an 'aura' to develope around the writing head of the tape recorder. The sound exists as a pattern of magnetic poles. So rather than 'electric charge polarization', which is the vacuum potential, we have 'magnetic polarization'. The tape is a 'magnetic potential' in that at every moment, we can create a magnet in the tape. Vacuum, on the other hand is the 'electric charge potential'. Sound is recorded due to the simple fact that once we form a magnetism in the tape by 'polarising' it, the magnetism persist even after we remove the polarizing head. In other words the recorded sound is the 'disembodied aura' of the writting head. But it is not that difficult for this phenomenon to generalise to every polarization. It may be the case that any polarization persist even after the polarizer is removed. Such is the working principles of memory. The 'empty space' surrounding neurones might be what give rise to 'neural plasticity' hence our memory. 

Israel was a war monger right at the start. In the womb, he bit his brother's leg. In other words, even while still in the womb, he was already at war with his twin brother! The very name 'Israel' mean 'to wrestle with God'. So wrestling is hard wired into the very nature of Israel. He fights with children, women, animals and even with God!

The story begins somewhere in Iraq. An old man is promised the land of Hittites, Amorites, Jebusites and Cannanites as a reward for his willingness to kill his own son as a sacrifice. They would latter storm into that land via a genocide commanded by Yahweh! They killed everything on their way, from children to animals. They boast about this as a great triumph of Yahweh! Latter, they would be vacated off the land all the way back to Iraq by the Assyrians.

Israel's god  (Yahweh) is often depicted as a biased, war mongering authoritarian. I guessed Israel curved out this god in his own image. Remember that he was actually wrestling with a stranger whom he presumed to be Yahweh. Yahweh is depicted to love others and hate others of his own creation. Right at the start, he loves abel and hated cain.Then the same depiction is made of the patriarchs. We have these pattern of fathers and mothers who love some of their children more than others. Noah blesses some of his children and curses others. Abraham blesses Isaach and chases Ismael to the desert. Isaac loves Esau more than Jacob. Rebecca loves Jacob more than Essau. Rebecca colludes with the latter to robe the former his birth right. Jacob loves Joseph more than the rest. On and on, we see the fruits of this today: Palestinian-Israeli apartheid 

Israel latter had an ambition of rulling 'the whole world' like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians etc. This would constitude 'kingdom of God'. By this time, they had forgotten that Yahweh had never, at the start, endorsed 'Israel's King'. So 'kingdom of Yahweh' (as lead by worldly messiah) is actually an oxymoron. It means 'a denial of Yahweh where in Yahweh is the king'. Despite this, the Jews are still waiting for 'kingdom of Yahweh'.

The reason why, unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism theocracy did not take of is that though Israel peddled monotheism, their god who was supposed to be the one and only creater still nevertheless was fashioned like any other tribal God. Yahweh was just an highly esteemed baal- type tribal god. Such a god, unlike Allah, could not reasonate with anyone else except a Jew. Hence Judaism remained just a local, tribal religion. Same went the 'kingdom of Yahweh' which was supposed to be a worldwide theocracy. Others like Persians succeed because they were polytheists, respecting all other 'gods' as equally valid.

Israel actually went into the dustbin of history. The illusion that Israel is still alife and kicking is entirely due to Islam and Christianity. It is these latter religions that refused to bury the corpse. Were it not for Christianity and Islam, no one would know of Judaism and Israel! The ancient Jewish kingdom was infact a tiny cocoon of semiautonomies. Their kings were often mere puppets rulling nothing significantly bigger than a village. Ancient Israel is nothing like the big name we have today. Their tiny kingdom, together with their ridiculous, temple religion was eventually flattened to the ground, never to rise again!

The modern Zionist nation has nothing to do with the ancient Israel. Infact by the time Jesus came, they could not call the land 'Israel'. They knew better. This word 'Israel' did not have any meaning any more. Assyrians had utterly destroyed it. The word that captures the then Palestinians is 'Jews', not 'Israelites'. Jews did not leave in one area that could be called 'Israel'. Instead, the land was divided into Judea, Samaria and Galilee. There was no 'land of Israel' any more. The concept 'Israel' differs from 'jew' in that the latter is more like a religion than a lineage. Anyone can 'become a Jew' , by learning and adopting the language, the culture and the religion.

Same thing goes to the modern Palestinians. They ceased being 'Jews' and then became 'Arabs'. These labels, 'Palestinians' vs 'Jews' has nothing to do with ones lineage or genetics, contrary to how the ignorant people tend to believe. Infact a native Palestinian's resembles the gene of an ancient Israelite than the gene of a Russian Jewish immigrant!

Can the world ever return to the dark ages? Specifically, can Governments once again return to religious persecutions? The answer is yes it can! Just some few years back it was unthinkable that US can ever go back to civil war era. However it is now seen as a possibility, thanks to trump and other so called 'populists' leaders all over the world.

To appreciate that world can go back to dark ages, ignorance, uncivilization, barbarism etc. We must scrap off the false story of how human civilization evolved. Specifically, many people have the false idea that the method of governance evolved from anarchy to dictatorship,  to democracy for a few elite, then todemocracy for all. This ridiculous story places US as the oldest democracy! In reality, human civilization begun with democracy then dictaorship then back to democracy. In other words human civilization can make a U turn. It is not a steady motion as if towards some fixed destiny. So just like the world returned to democracy, it can return to the periods of religious intolerance and persecutions.

But why did the world went from democracy to dictatorship? The answer is 'security', and especially security from 'external enemies'. Thus we sell our freedom in exchange for our 'security'. This might be how pope will once again threaten us! When Europeans discovered America, pope must have trembled. Latter, the pope's nightmare came true. The imigrants to America went ahead to demonstrate that governments lead by people other than the 'vicarius filli deis' was posible. So the popery had its days numbered. He knew that his conspiracy to rule the whole world has encountered a new can of worms. But he had an idea: if we remove the bubble gum of 'liberty' off the mouths of Americans and then shove the bubble gum of 'security' to the mouths, then we might eventualy step in.

You will see election results being challenged more and more across the world. Then people riot, defeated leaders abusing millitary in the guise of fighting foreign enemy. Pope knows that if the world is thrown into chaos and wars, soon people will say we are tired! We don't care who is the president is anymore. After all who can compromise his 'security'? All we want is peace and order. Then the pope will step in and say 'you see, man cannot govern himself The whole reason for all reason for chaos is that men forsake the government of God and chose to govern himself'.This message will resonate with world disperate for peace and order.

The pope may hijack scientists to claim that they have proven that the Christian god exists. Then 'god' will be imposed as they do so 'science facts', like impose vaccines, climate science etc to people without caring whether or not the 'facts' are proven to them. Like coronavirus, 'disobedience to God' is a threat to 'national security'. Then pope will be elected as the 'Ayatollah Khamenei' of the new 'Christian' world.

Welcome to dark ages ii!

Conspiracy theory has become yet another 'the devil did it'. A human being need the devil as a scapegoat for his own shortcomings. A human being is too proud to admit that he is the one causing troubles. Also, he can't see an 'angel'  without seeing a 'demon'. A human is not that comfortable with the idea that problems are happening but there is no one planning them. This denies him, among other things, the oppotunity for him to say: 'as for me, I belong to the light'. So eventualy he created 'demons' from amongst his own fellow humans. A human needs a devil that he thinks he can overpower at some point.

Unfortunately, though, the devil creators ended up abusing a once fairly good concept: 'conspiracy theory'.  By saying 'everything is a conspiracy' it gave some people the justification they need to say 'nothing is a conspiracy'. The media, leaders etc wants now to insinuate that a conspiracy can never happen  at all. The pendulum that was swang to the extreme end gave them opportunity to release it hopelessly all the way to the other extreme end. Now they try to make you look silly by simply believing that a conspiracy theory might be true, after all. But conspiracy does happen. The CIA, for instance does proven, shocking conspiracies, from plotting to overthrow democracies to creating mind numbing false flags, including bombing the very America itself! We cannot aford to spoil the word 'conspiracy'.

Nowadays the mainstream wants to use the lazy, cheap short-cut of bashing some idea by calling it 'conspiracy theory'. Infact, they do it even when the theory is not suggesting that any conspiracy is taking place at all, it is just challenging the mainstream. Thus electric universe theory is 'a conspiracy theory'. But electric universe theorists are not claiming that scientists are conspiring to hide the true facts about the universe. They are saying that the maistream scientists are simply incompetent in cosmic, plasma phenomenon. 

Conspiracy theory indead can be very silly! To the conspiracy theorist, there is an allmost omnipotent, omniscient devil of cabal who must succeed in everything they plan. We are told that 'every war is planned'  etc. Thus America, for instance, planned ISIS all the way back in 2002 when they invaded Iraq! To the conspiracy theorists, the end results only reveals the original plan! Thus we know that the  cabal was planning to create sectarian division in Iraq, just because that is what happened!  This is silly! They could not have planned what would empower Iran beyond their capacity to subdue.This gives the mainstream a cheap way of bashing every idea that there was a conspiracy in iraq war. By only saying 'that is a conspiracy theory' he aims to bring to mind all the silly theories. He lumps together all manner of ideas into one basket and assigns them the same characteristics written on the surface of the basket. 

Human being is lazy. So he shuns analysis of individual concepts. He likes grouping several of them and then gives it one characteristic. This drasticaly reduces the number of characteristics to close examine. Human want to simply read the can that someone else has written on it. He doesn't want to open the can and check the stuff inside. He just want to read 'this is salt', 'this is sugar', this is coffee' etc. Then he cooks. Nothing tires more than having to open the can and check to see that 'this is 80% salt, 10% sugar, 5%coffee, 3% iodine'. Some people have unwittingly noticed this human weakness. So they sell to us ideas in lumps that 'they themselves can open'. The 'this is conspiracy theory' is the exellent example. Shockingly, the maistream guy sees no need to talk directly pertaining  to truthfullness of a claim. When debunking a claim, we expect to see logical arguments like 'US could not have, at least intentionaly, created ISIS because it hopelessly complicats their, and Israel's fight with Iran'. Rather the 'this is a conspiracy' is thrown in as though it is 100% enough to make his poin't. Somebody is saying that this powder can kill an insect, but another objector replies by saying 'this is salt'. The unwitting insinuation is that 'we have proven all conspiracy theories are false'. So we don't  need to exermine this particular claim on its own and in details. All we need is to gloss over for earmarks of 'conspiracy theory'. We need to check words like 'globalists', 'elites', 'cabal' etc. Then we drag the whole theory into the 'conspiracy theory' folder! But as you may see, we can debunk a claim without even having to mension 'conspiracy theory'. It is the truthfulness of the claim that we are interested with, not the category it may belong. It is only those who targets morons who use such concepts as 'conspiracy theory', 'socialism', 'science', 'religion', 'pseudoscience' etc as a way of debunking a claim.

Conspiracy theories can be silly because they insinuate that the whole world id governable by a few people in Washington. Thus coronavirus is something planned for the whole world. Perharps there is a reason why some leader in Washington may be forced to follow the lead. But why should someone in Iran follow the dictstes of a cabal in Washington yet we known Iran often defy and win against US! We see US is unable to beat the so called 'terrorists' even in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. It is very clear that US does not control the world. So what cabal can have possibly conquer the whole world? How did he do it? How does cabal able to enforce their plans without there being a single global government? If alshabaab cannot take orders from US, but resist and fight it with remarkable success, why would all leaders around the world bow to an armsless, invisible cabal somewhere in Washington? Why doesn't the leadership in cabal break down due to internal politics? But this does not mean that conspiracies cannot happen. It means that conspiracies can only be localy successful. The conspiracy to creat a nuclear bomb succeded because it only needed a control of some few leaders in Washington. However, a conspiracy that needs to control all leaders around the world is impossible. So things like corinavirus better not be thought to be conspiracies.

Cronspiracy theories ended up being about pointing fingures and defaming politicians. This diluted conspiracy theories till it is possible to simply lump them together as nonsense! It now became the usual political BS. If you don't like this candidate, then 'he is a cabal'. If you don't like this policy, then 'it is a conspiracy by the cabal'. Thus all manner of policies by the other party are lumped together as 'conspiracy by cabal'. Even good ones are 'conspiracy theories'. NGOs, immigration policies, international cooperation, fight of racism, concern of refugees, socialism etc all became 'conspiracies' just because they are policies of 'the other party'. Conspiracy theory earned a bad name. This helped the cabal to wade off any criticism as 'conspiracy theory' and he takes the beer.

I dropped a comment on a certain blog post but it disappeared. So let me write here.

What has been going on in US over the last few years is amusing. After decades of roaming around the world with raving lunacy, participating in every war, coup, election riggings, plundering, racism etc,  The US is now depicting itself as a victim of the world, the minorities and refugees! When you close exermine, you find that the military empire have, infact, milked the country dry!! Everything is now blamed on some ghostly entity dubbed 'globalist'. Get it very well!! Ask the devil's advocate on who is 'ruling the world' and he will tell you that it is the 'super-power'. Thats it! They have no clue what 'superpower' means! A global super power is necessarily a globalist. It is a beast trying to push its own ruling oversees extending way beyond its own boarders. So in effect, the Americans are saying that they are proudly the globalists and are also sadly, the victims of the very globalists! The beast is now eating itself!

Now sometimes read websites like khamenei.ir or president.ir so you may get the 'great satan' from the so called 'adversary' point of view. What I get is that the 'adversaries' are less interested with the outcome of US elections than Americans think. The reason is that it doesn't matter! US works, for purposes relevant to them, like a sham democracy.

The khamenei Of America

Now if you follow all the US presidential candidates, they agree on some key issues:

1.Fear of Russia

2. Hatred of Iran

3.Uncritical and unconditional support for Israel

4. Jealousy over the rise of China

In other words US presidential candidates only disagree on how to agree!  US is lead like by some unseen devil as its supreme leader, the khamenei of US. As you may agree, better a visible devil than an invisible one! No one said 'wait a minute, is Iran realy that an enemy?' That will be moving beyond the fence of the prison! May be you think that 'it should be obvious' that Iran is an enemy. But it is clearer that this tiny country with no jet fighters cannot possibly be a threat to a 'superpower' distant away by the two of the largest oceans on this planet.

It is one thing for many people to agree on a realy smart idea. It is an entirely different thing when they all agree on something stupid, like the war on Iraq. That is when you will know that US is a sham of democracy! Americans disagree over anything, even the seemingly obvious: from whether the earth is flat to whether the earth is realy warming. So why are they not disagreeing on whether or not Israel, widely seen as an apartheid state, deserves its unconditional support? Or even worse, disagree o whether or nit to support extreemist tyrants in middle east such as the Saudis.The answer is that US politics does not represent the (diverse) views of Americans . In other words US's democracy is a sham!

The election came and we only hear of 'better ways to be tough on Iran', 'better ways to hold back china', 'better ways to contain russia', 'better ways to help Israel' etc. In other words different candidates only offers different ways of doing the same thing! The candidates are tightly constrained by an invisible devil! And this is the precise reason why Iran, China, Russia etc won't care much who is the US president. Apparently they have mustered all the tactics of 'democrats' and 'republicans' . They know what weapon to pull out when what party is in power. So they have no business in rigging the US elections!

You have probably never heard of 'sexual selection'. That is quite understandable because it is a card hiding behind the sleeve. When the advocate of the devil is cornered he releases it and for amoment, you are like wow! I Thought I know everything about Darwinism. But if you were to think further, and more carefully, you will realize that it doesn't conduct electricity. Infact, 'sexual selection' is unconscious nod at the inadequacy of Darwinism in explaining the origin of life.

If you were carefully, you will notice that some things in life realy cannot be explained by Darwinism. But many people just say 'scientists know' and then go on to preach Darwinism as an answer-it-all. They are like Christians who just say 'it is written in the bible'  but can never tell you where exactly nor have they even read! Latter you will realize that the scientists are actually like the fake magician who stealthly swap the hats and then pulls out the rabbit. The hat of 'natural selection ' is exchanged with the hat of  'sexual selection' and then the rabbit of 'evolution' is pulled out. Then they try to convince you that it is still Darwinism that is at the explanation. Here we show that it is nothing of the sort. Infact 'sexual selection' and 'natural selection' are two mutualy exclusive theories. So biologists are like physicists when it comes to the shell game of actually using many incomparable theories to explain natural phenomena and still say it is just one theory'.

'Sexual selection' infact attempts to reintroduce the mind through the window, after they threw it through the door. But the mind in question is now the one of the very creature it is supposedly evolving. So in effect, they are saying that the creatures infact create themselves using their own minds. After that, they tell you that evolution proceed in an entirely mindless way! We were created, so they say, via a series of accidents. So you realize that 'sexual selection' is actually never used. It is just left there as a stand by in case the going gets too tough. Darwinism will try to explain everything through natural selection and series of accidents. It is only when cornered do he release the 'sexual selection' joker card.

Of course Darwinism cannot explain many things. Lets take an example of shapes of leaves or flowers. The purpose of a leaf is just to trap light and to loose water. So any shape could just serve the purpose. However it is clear that some shapes are carefully selected. All leaves are shaped  like 'love' symbol. If leaves shapes formed by accidental mutation, followed by natural selection, we would see all manner of shapes and leaves would be extremely irregular. It is at such juncture do a Darwinist say ' we realy should not explain everything via natural selection'. However, this is a fat lie because 'natural selection' defines Darwinism.

The beauty of peacock is often explained by 'sexual selection'. Indead neo-Darwinism cannot explain such! Any colouring of feathers should serve the purpose equally. Darwinism would tell us that had a bird been colored other than the way it is coloured, it would have died hence 'selected away'. Of course this is ridiculous! The purpose of feathers are just to cover the bird. Colouring doesn't matter. However, when you close  exermine birds, you see a pattern if colouring. Two distant bird species are often colored in a closely similar pattern (also you can consider zebra and tiger or leopard and giraffe  ). If colouring of birds etc were due to random mutation, followed by natural selection, then the colouring would be extremely irregular and it would be a miracle for two different species to be colored in a closely similar pattern, much like two different people randomly typing  100 digit numbers that are both similar!  Another example is flowers. Why do almost all flowers have 5 petals? What 'evolutionary advantage' do 5 petals have? Why not 8 or13? So Darwinism is naked! They opt to cloth it  with a 'sexual selection' garment. But this garment doesn't hide the ass that well. 

The crucial point against 'sexual selection' is the explanation of where the trait that make the specific selection came from in the first place. Darwinism is just telling us 'ask the mate where the bird coloring came from'. He has just kicked the ball somewhere else. There is some inexplicable 'bird psychology' that selects a certain coloring. How did this psychilogy evolve in the first place? You realize that Darwinist have realy not explain anything. He has just wave an hand like a numbskull. We just take the battle ground from feathers to the mind. If peacocks evolved randomly, we would expect also their minds to evolve randomly. Thus we should have all manner of 'peacock psycologies' and hence all manner of choices of colors. Sexual selection demands that a specific psychology of the animal already exist without explaining how the psychology in turn was selected for.

Human mind is lazy. That is why it opts to the easier task: generalization rather than analysis of individual concepts. At some point some people wanted to do away with the ideas such as souls, God, ghosts etc. At the same time, some other people wanted to rationalize the undetectability of these entities. The idea of 'material' vs the 'immaterial' proved to be handy for both groups. So instead of arguing why a certain entity don't exist, simply instill a belief like 'material' is all there is and then categorize the entity under 'the immaterial'. At some point, though, it became clear that what they call ' material' cannot possibly be all there is. So they invented the 'physical' to push the goal post further . The concept though is too broad to be meaningfull.

'Physical' has grown into a misnomer. But it would have remained meaningful if it were not redefined over and over. Lets take example of the so called 'electromagnetic field'.  A mathematical physicist will define 'field' as 'the force that a unit pole will experience in a given region'. From this definition, it is clear that 'field' here resorts to an abstract concept, and never a stand alone object. Without a mind to try to imagine how a tiny magnet will behave in the vicinity of another  far bigger magnet, it is not clear at all what 'field' rifers to in an entirely empty space around the bigger magnet. Despite this, they 'spray' this concept 'field' with another perfume called 'physical'. At this point, it should be clearer that 'physical' has evolved into a quite meaningless label.

Now there is no reason why they say 'electromagnetic field is physical' except to distance themselves with the 'non-physical' which has been associated with spirits and the like. They create an illusion of understanding. It is like 'we know what exist around a magnet' and guess what, 'it is physical'. In reality, no physicist have a clue of what is happening around magnets. When we use words and categorizatinons, we often fool ourselves that we know what we realy don't. Rather than saying that something non-physical is affecting a magnet, they simplify redefine 'physical' to encompass the phenomenon. 'Physical' now resorts to abstract concepts.

In effect they are actually defining 'physical'  to include everything that can affect matter. They are defining 'physicality' to always agree with experiments, rendering it meaningless! To be clearer,  say 'soul' should absolutely affect matter if soul is 'us'. Your decision to move your hand must be a soul affecting matter, the hand. Same case in you seeing something. The light getting to your eyes then to the brain, then to awareness will constitute light affecting and being affected by soul! This means that if soul is unseen and we were observing matter, we would observe matter, at some point we must see matter being affected by something invisible. In other words 'soul-matter interaction' must appear to be exactly like the way a magnet is affected by something invisible. So why would we not say that 'soul' like 'magnetic field' is also 'physical'? This is just to further highlight how meaningless the label 'physical' is.

Ironically the group which have spearheaded the 'physicality' misnomer is the 'spiritual' camp. They are oblivious to the fact that they are thus undermining themselves. The lazy ' spiritual' camp want an easy way of rationalizing their views. Rather than painstakingly explain what a soul is and why it is invisible, they opt to a label: the soul is 'non- physical'. By this we easily get into the illusion that they know what they are talking of. However, they don't! Infact they don't know what 'physical' realy mean. Indead it is meaningless!! It is just a way in which the 'physicalist' camp   brashes aside the 'non-physical' . This is because by definition, the 'non-physical' wont affect matter and hence the explanations by the 'spiritual' camp will always be contradictory! So it is realy ironocal that the 'spiritual'  camp buy into this 'physicality' concept that actually undermines them! How foolish!!

Originally, soul or spirit was never defined as 'non-physical'. Indead the concept 'physical' did not even exist when the concept 'soul' etc was formed. The concept 'spirit'  exists even in cultures and in languages that don't have the concept 'physical'. Therefore it is very un-wise to define 'spirit' as 'non-physical'. It forces someone to negate another concept: 'physical' which is, itself ill-defined and too malleable. What exactly are we saying a 'spirit' is not? Is a wave-packet 'physical'? Is a one dimensional string 'physical'? Is spacetime 'physical'? Is a 26th dimension 'physical'? Is a stone 'physical'? Just what does the word 'physical' resorts to if it can label all such wildly different notions?

Take bible for example. Jesus, when talking to Niccodemus said that 'the wind blows wherever it pleases, you hear it sound but you cant tell where it is comming from nor where it is going to. Same is the case for anyone born of spirit'. Nowhere in the bible do the word 'non- material' used in conjunction with spirit. Indead the word 'material' don't have any counterpart in ancient Hebrew , like in many languages. How bad is it that modern man shoves concepts to the minds of ancient men and insinuates that 'this must be what they meant'. Jesus never meant 'non-physical' when he said  'spirit'. Jesus strictly meant 'unseen'.

Some people naively say 'bible should not be read like a science book'. However, by 'science' they only have in mind the modern science which was unknown to the ancient. This is the real reason why bible don't read like science:it doesn't read like modern science for understandable reason . It is not that the bible is asking us never to use science to try to understand its concepts. Wind is scientific concept. If Jesus lived in our time, he would tell us that electrons flow wherever they please, we can see them make things glow but they themselves can never be seen. Then the bible would now begine to sound like 'science' to the naive people. Then also we can now see that jesus could not have meant ' the immaterial' or 'the non-physical' when he said 'spirit'. He just meant 'the unseen'. Indead if a spirit moves a particle inside the Large Hadron Collider, a physicist would discover it. However he will understand it as a discovery of a new 'particle' hence as something 'physical'. In other words the concept 'physical' has been so expanded that it perfectly includes what Jesus called 'spirit'!

People originally wanted to understand how something like 'spirit' can exist without been visible, tangible, testable etc. But they realy could not understand the seen. They nevertheless amuse themselves that they did understand, afer inventing the word 'matter'.  The illusion is that 'matter' is something that they know it to be necessarily tangible. In reality they had no clue why a stone etc is visible. The 'stone is matter' was a stupid, stop-gap explanation of why a stone is visible. Same is true for 'spirit is invisible because it is not matter'. Indead calling a stone ' matter' adds zero understanding to just what it is that we see. Consequently the 'immaterial' or 'non- physical' adds zero understanding to conceot 'spirit'. These concepts only creats an illusion that we understand. So if we have no clue of what we label it as matter, why do we still exclude it a priori from 'spirit' by defining the latter as 'immaterial'? We should stop this definition! 

SPIRIT: the unseen.

Nothing more!

The growth of your visible body can be seen as a steady conversion of that which is not part of your body (such as food) into part of your body (such as cells ). The growth of your spirit, light body or etheric body or whatever need not be different. In latter, the food is the unseen aether, chi or prana or whatever.

Let us begine by supposing that your consciousness is caused by your visible body. Then what does it cause your particular awareness? In other words why did your body generate the awareness of Jane and not Janet? As you will see, this is the crucial question that leads to understanding of soul! Contrary to the popular belief, a soul can be as well understood as the body, and as un-derstandable as the latter. Did the exact type of matter formed your awareness? Of course not. If you swap an atom in Jane's head with another similar atom in Janet's neither of the two will loose  their awarenesses. But this means that we can go on to swap atoms between their heads until we exchange their entire brains without exchanging their awareness. So what does it cause the particular awareness? We will see.

The a priori exclusion of the visible body from 'soul' and immortality is also erroneous. Same is the insistance that an 'immaterial' entity is absolutely necessary for the survival of consciousness after death. People jumped into these conclusions without thinking extra carefully. Then they form doctrines about 'the immaterial'. However, if we begin by supposing that awareness is generated by the visible body,  we are still naturaly lead to an idea if soul and immortality, that is even more understandable!

Your body crew from a single cell all the way to the huge object. Before  your cell divided, that cell was indispensable to you. In other words if that cell died, you would have died. However once you grew significantly, that single cell became dispensable. In fact it died long ago and yet you did not die! So what it takes to generate your awareness changes from time to time. This means that if your awareness is generated by your visible body,  it must be possible to convert matter from a 'not your awareness' state into 'your awareness'. This happens when the matter that is in the  'not you' state comes close to the matter that is in the 'you' state. It is much the same way a piece of iron turns into the 'magnetized' state when it comes into contact with the already magnetised material. In otherwords magnetism grows.

This leads to an harmonious understanding of growth. The body crows by turning the 'not cells' matter in the surrounding into the cells. All that is neaded is for the right matter to be there. Same will be true for the 'growth of awareness'. This solves the difficult question of the identity of Janet even after we exchange her whole body with another body. This leads to a different understanding of incarnation, one that does not require an 'immaterial' entity to actually move from body to body. Your awareness simply propergates through bodies just like how the to and fro motion is propegated through a material in what we call 'waves'. But things will be orders more interesting when we consider the unseen, all pervading medium that surrounds our bodies. A different understanding of a disembodied spirit will unfold. 

Notice also that we easily do away with the absurdity of two bodies generating the same awareness so that a single person seems, to himself, to be in two places all at once! The awareness is another dimension of matter that is irreducible to the other properties eg shape, charge etc. A body that appears to be perfectly similar to yours, is still not you because we excluded awareness when judging similarities between objects sinse we think that awareness is not an intrinsic property of matter. However the other body can still become you, should it get in contact with your body. So there is no 'bi-location'. Thus we see that a proper understanding of how your body generates your particular awareness naturally leads to possibility of reincarnation! Scientists don't drive this up to its end. They merely assert that 'the body causes awareness' and assumes that this does away with any notion of 'soul', 'reincarnation' or 'afterlife'. They are totally wrong!! As wrong as the people who, not understanding gravity, insists that a round earth necessarily means that we will 'fall down' if we travel far to the other side of the globe. Gravity is to awareness in this case.

In physics we have come to understand that the space that surrounds our bodies is not empty. Rather it is filled by mediums that can potentially generate all the that we see around. If awareness is the property of matter, it is also the property of 'empty space'. So to understand how we can survive after death, we realy needed not to say that consciousness is caused by something else other than the brain. This was bad logic that have needlessly made 'soul' the more irrelevant the more we understand the brain! Alternatively, we could say that our owareness can 'incarnate' into the 'empty space' in much the same way energy 'discarnates' from the lamps and 'incarnates' into the 'empty space' as light. In other words for energy to exist even after we putt off the lamp, we need not to posit that the energy in the lamp is generated by something 'immaterial'. We only need to say that the energy is transferreable to something unseen, that surrounds the lamp.

As we have seen, all it took your cells to transfer the 'you' into another matter, as you grew was for the matter to come in contact with your cells. We say you grew into the matter. But 'empty space' also have hidden properties of matter; therefore it has hidden properties of your awareness as well. Sinsce your body is always in contact with the unseen you grow into the unseen. Once your body grows to encompass the unseen, the visible body becomes dispensable just like the single cell than once was all that you were latter became dispensable.

The Lion: tell me, how did they release demagorgons in CERN?

The Horse: They teared time.

The Lion: I guess the particles there are travelling faster than Wednesday.

The Horse: Or perhaps you are using your mind to try to  understand something beyond understanding.

This is the kind of language they use nowadays. They were told 'God is beyond understanding'. Then they did the half assed reasoning that so something that is 'beyond understanding' must be God. Unfortunately though, even nonsense are beyond understanding! Non illustrate this than the use of the word 'time'. This word resorts to both a concept and a physical object! It is both straightforward and also impossible to understand!

It must have been a chilly day when men converted the concept ' time' into a road. No! They said you are a 'bedbug' trapped hopelessly in a cosmic toilet paper. Your motion along the tissue paper is the 'passage of time'. Then they said that you are moving only along the toilet paper only in one direction: the future. If you tear the tissue paper, demagorgons can come from the future and mess with you. If you don't understand these, it is because our minds are trapped in the 3d. These are 'beyond understanding'

Once they convinced you that you are steadily moving along the road into the future, you now see that the possible is actually impossible! By merely moving backwards along the road, you can actually kill your own grand mother before he gave birth to your own father! What a demagorgon will you be! But this impossibility is very simple. What does it prevent you from making a U turn along the  road?

They also created a problem instantly. Every minute, you are waving an everlasting bye bye to something since you are moving along the road in only one direction.  Then they created a solution to the problem they created: time travel. But if time is not a road, as your commom sense tell you, time travel is a solution to unknown problem. We are not waving any bye bye at any moment. There is nothing that we left in yesterday to time travel for. There are no telephone poles demagorgons and unicorns that we passed by along the road in our way to a town called 'future'.

In new age, time is a road, a fabric and also it does not exist! There is no past and no future and time travel to both the past and the future is possible! It is like saying that there is no moon but-but we can travel to the moon any way! We can visit the moon without the moon being there! They also say 'now' is all there is! It is like saying 'this number' is all there is, there is no other number! A side from not specifying any number, numbers have meaning only in relation to other numbers. without 4, 5 has no meaning. Similarly, without 'then', now has no meaning.

Actually, 'time' is not even half  complex. If your pants got tethered yesterday, you can sew it today. Poetically, 'you can affect yesterday today'. You can 'reverse time', er, reverse the event of tethering of pants. You did not leave your pants yesterday like a telephone pole you passed by. You did not leave anything! Indead there is no such a location as 'yesterday' to 'time travel' to.

It is not a surprise that people would eventually say that men created God in their own image rather than the vice-versa. However, it is both wise and stupid  to say so. Originaly God was conceived as some unknown creator. There was no much description about God. The 'spokesmen of God' came latter to tell us guess what, that creator you are talking of is some superhuman being who closely watches your every step to check if you are messing with his rules. The creator has nothing to do with 'image of man'. Infact human doesn't create things from scratch at all so what does it mean to say the concept of creator is 'in man's image'? It is nothing of the sort.

Apparently people neaded something more than some unknown creator. They neaded a super-daddy or a super-mom. They neaded assurance that everything they want can be achieved. So they invented an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent superhuman being. To justify the rulership of this being, the superhuman would have to be the creator. So you owe much to this superhuman. This superhuman evolved into a pair of gumboots, worn in rainy seasons and thrown out during the sunny seasons. He is now the source-the source of everything sweet. This notion of omnipotent, ommiscient, omnibenevolent being have become so tangled with the concept of creator that people can never conceive one without the other.

Of course no one can understand an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, at least not, one that nevertheless creats a world like this. No one can understand absurdities. So the idea that 'God is beyond understanding' became in built to the concept of God. Like dogs salivating at the bell instead of food, people came to fall in love with anything 'beyond understanding'. They linked it to God in the same way a dog can link a ringing bell to food. Because no one can understand nonsense, a fertile grownd for all manner of horse shit was prepared. People now buy into all manner of rubbish because they are 'beyond understanding'. They have forgotten that some could just be ringing bells but with no food that follow. They salivate, anyway.

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being have ironically came to be hated. One wonders why some things don't  happen if there is some being sitted somewhere who can do everything. The advocates of the devil would try to convince you that this being cares so much about your free will that he is willing to send you into eternal fire wether you like it or not, instead of creating a paradise for all whether some like it or not. Their story contradict itself, anyway. Things happen to us whether we want it or not, anyway! Their rationalization does not conduct electricity.

The correct explanation of why the world is as it is is that the creator is not omnipotent, omniscient nor omnibenevolent. This may be strange to some. Rejecting existence of 'omni' being is often seen as rejecting existence of God all together. But this is fallacious. There is no provision for 'omnis' in the concept of 'creator'. This  was latter added in by 'spokesmen of God'. I have seen that the major problem many atheists have with 'God' is the 'omnis'. Most cannot seperate the concept of 'creator' from the concept of an 'omni' being. So they end up rejecting creator alongside rejecting the 'omni'. The argument is that 'omni' is absurd, therefore 'creator' is absurd. They have not considered a non omnipotent, non omniscient and non omni benevolent creator.

There is zero evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent being and there are many evidences to the contrary. However, there are plenty of compelling evidences of an intelligent creator. Life is just but one example. We see unkown mind in nature. But we have never seen an act that requires omnipotence plus it is not even conceivable how such an act would appear. It is these evidences that drove all cultures to beleive in some creator. There would have been no much resistance to 'creator' idea had people stopped at just that: some unknown, intelligent being. Instead, people decided to 'know' this being. They concocted all manner of stories around this being. The worst of them is that 'he" must be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Some bible prophecies have been clearly fulfilled. Even sceptics admit this. Rather than disputing that the prophecy were fullfied, they opt to say that they were vaticinium ex eventu. If we knock down the vaticinium ex eventu hypothesis, we are left with the conclusion that indead the ancient prophets sometimes correctly foretold the future. On the other hand Christians will use this to try to convince you that the bible is the authentic word of God. In places where prophecy clearly fails, Christians are forced to tweast it into an incomprehensible prophecy. So, for instance, the end-time prophecies, e.g. those in revelation are often unintelligible.

There are other options rather than the option that some perfect, omniscient being reveald the 'future'. The Christian explanation is that to God, the future is as clear as the past. The Christian explanation is absurd. Then they try to force in a dilemma. Either the whole of future is knowable or non of it is knowable. With this dilemma, they can easily swing an historian into their camp, when the historian finds that the vaticinium ex eventu hypothesis is unteanable. Christian explanation is areconcilable with our free will. 

One of the other explanations is that the prophecies were revealed by 'other dimensional' beings who knew alot about the future but nevertheless they were not omniscient. This is consistent with the testimonies of the prophets themselves. They often claimed that a 'man' brought the vision to them. The one in Daniel is particularly illuminating. Read through Daniel chapter 10. Take note of Daniel 10:20. The 'man' says that he will tell Daniel what is written in the 'book of truth'. So it is not that he will tell Daniel what God sent him. Check that he is not even Gabriel, the messenger Angel. He is more like Michael, the leader of heavenly armies. So we can easily get the message that the angel was telling Daniel some plans that some other worldly beings have concocted and written down in some books. Since they are the future plans, not the future itself, then they are thwartable. This explain why some of the prophecies were fulfilled and some others were never fulfilled.

But how did the prophets contact those beings and why did they not appear to everyone? The bible suggest that the 'prophets' were in some extraordinary mental state read Daniel 10:2 for instance. mourning for 3 weaks, fasting, etc may have easily driven Daniel into an extraordinary meditative state. Take note also of Daniel 10:5-6. We see Daniel standing by the river and, amongst other things he hears the voice of the 'man' sounds like sound of multitude. This begines to look like Ezekiel's prophecy e.g. in Ezekiel 1:24. Ezekiel often hears a 'sound like the roar of rushing waters'. This could be a ganzfeld effect due to them standing by the river, Kebar in the case of Ezekiel. He may also have blended the vision with the sound of the river itself. All this adds to show that Ezekiel and Daniel were some peiple writting an actual experience, not some story teller some centuaries afterwards as in the vaticinium ex eventu.

The book of Daniel is unique in the bible prophetic books because it describes its predictions in a luxury of details. The fulfilment of Daniel prophecy cannot be anything like those hammerd by Mathew to dubiously claim that Jesus fulfilled old testament prophesies. There is no room for ambiguity in Daniel. So the only way a skeptic can dismiss Daniel is to claim that its fulfilled predictions are vaticinium ex eventu ( written after the events). Indead the claim that 'it was all an hoax' is the general default of skeptics when the evidence is too clear to explain it away using other ideas e.g. 'hallucinations' or 'misinterpretation'.

But do the idea that Daniel is vaticinium ex- eventu conduct electricity? As we will see, it doesn't. On the other hand, it is hard to say thay Daniel is an infallible works of some omniscient being. Indead Daniel predicted empires and emperors with astonishing accuracy, down from Persia to Alexander the great all the way to culminate in Antiochus Epiphane. However, it suddenly begun to make false predictions! It, for instance, begins to insinuate that resurrection and  kingdom of God will follow immediately after the era of Antiochus! It is this prediction that is at the heart of confusion around Daniel, specifically, the mistaken idea that Daniel is talking of the future end times.

The major problem with the idea that Daniel was vaticinium ex eventu is explaining how it was unanimously accepted by Jews. People often make the erroneous insinuation that ancient people were never critical. This is not the case as is evidenced by existence of many mutually exclusive sects in ancient Judaism. This means that each of the sects were critical of the other. We have Zealots, Essenes, Gnostics, Pharisees, Saddusees, Christians etc. Particularly interesting is the Saddusees case who did not believe in resurrection. Were it true that Daniel was vaticinium ex eventu, Saducees would have certainly pointed it out as Daniel clearly teaches a future resurrection. Take Jesus's case, for instance. We know that the belief that Jesus resurrection was not unanimous because the book of Mark mentions how sceptic of the day rationalized  the empty tomb. 

We also know that Jews did not include all books in the canon. They did not include the book of Enoch written at about the same time when Daniel is supposedly written. The reason is that Enoch was apocryphal. However if Daniel was vaticinium ex eventu, it too would be apocryphal! Thus we see that Jews did judge whether or not a book was a vaticinium ex eventu before they accepted that it was an inspired word of God. So it is impossible that a book written just the other day would be accepted into the cannon without a split in Judaism based on the authenticity of that particular book. For instance a future historian will know that the teachings of Elen G White were not part of the earlier Christian teachings even if he is not told so. He will tell this from the fact that Christianity splits on the basis of those teachings alone, so that we have a new sect that differs from the other in that it believe in the authenticity of the works of Elen G White. Similarly, the sudden introduction of Daniel would not possibly convince every Jew. Therefore a sect that revolves around the authenticity of prophet Daniel would branch off Judaism just as Christianity branches off based on authenticity if Gospels, and Islam does the same based on authenticity of Quran.

 The book of Daniel is theorized to have been written at the periods around the Hanukkah wars. This adds to the problems as another book called 'Meccabees' was written at around that time. However, the authenticity of meccabees is questioned among Jews. This means that at around that time, it was not easy to introduce new books into the canon of Jewish scriptures. Furthermore meccabees was a pro- hasmonean. This means that the triumphant kingdom had no authority to hammer in a book and declare it to be the 'word of God'. It it had such, it would have declared that meccabees was so. So at best, if Daniel was vaticinium ex eventu, it would have been like mecabes, found in some compilations but never found in others.

Also, the book of Meccabes mensions Daniel and mensions conflicts and even changes and corruptions in Jewish priesthoods. But it never mensions anything about finding an ancient book that foretold the events that meccabees was zeroing in. Were it true that Daniel was vaticinium ex eventu, the writter of mecabees (more of an historian ) would try to rationalize its absence by mensioning that a book of Daniel, foretelling the events were found. Instead, he mensions Daniel as if he were already a well known ancient hero in Israel, alongside David, Joseph and other heroes. 

'Probability' is an envelope of knowledge that covers ignorance. When we say ' probably it will rain today', we mean that we don't know if it will rain today. That is all there is to it! Acknowledging ignorance is hard for proud beings like us. So we invent round about ways of saying 'we don't know', as if we are talking of something that we know. We say we know the probability.

Nothing creates an illusion of understanding than the constant usage of certain words. This is because our understanding of words often comes in a wink wink nudge nudge manner. You know...you know...No, I don't know! Take 'probably', for example. We think we know what someone means. But infact we don't have a clue! This  is one of the reason we have endless debates in science etc. It is because the latter believe in a claim because it is 'probably true'. Have you ever wondered why, when a scientist say ,'it is highly likely that bla bla bla' or 'most probably, bla bla bla' he never say the exact probability in mathematical terms? The answer is that he realy hasn't done any math on it. What he mean is that he believes that bla bla bla but there is not enough evidence to establish bla bla bla. He ignorant, but he is trying to come across as knowledgable!

Now let us check what someone might mean if he says 'It is more likely that Jesus survived the crucifixion than it is that he resurrected.'  The aim is to show you how loose this word: 'likely' is, yet we think that we know it well. We challenge the person to calculate the exact probability of Jesus resurrecting and that of surviving crucifixion. This is the real can that encloses the worms. A die has six sides. So the probability of getting any one number, when you toss it, is 1/6 . But what if 2 of its sides has number 3? Then we say that the probability of obtaining 3 is 2/6. So we say 'it is more likely to obtain 3 than to obtain say 2. You see? We have realy said nothing about the truthfulness of saying 'the dice will show 2 or 3'. We have just said 'there are more ways of obtaining 3 than there are of obtaining 2'. A scientist should not tell us that 'it is more reasonable to believe that the die will land on 3 than to believe that it will land on 2.'

But it is even worse when we apply the 'probability' argument to natural happenings. It assumes that nature 'throws some dice' and then choose what the 'dice indicates' and then makes that happen in the real world. But it is worse. It also assumes that we know the faces of this 'dice'. Take for instance the 'resurrection' case. The 'probability' thinking unwittingly asks us to see the resurrection as one of the many events that could happen, akin to one of the many faces of a cube. Then some 'die is thrown' to indicate what it should happen. What is it that is equivalent to the number of sides that indicates 'resurrection' or 'survival'?  We may say, for instance, that the number of sides that indicates 'Jesus survived on the cross' is the number of  things that could cause his survival. But who said that nature was randomly choosing from the number of ways of achieving a certain state? Or I may ask in different way: do we realy know what dice the nature was tossing, if there was such a dice in the first place?

Some ideas such as many 'spiritual' ideas demands that nature don't act in a random way. When a skeptic uses 'probability' here, he is, infact, begging the question. Does nature 'toss a dice'? When we say 'it is unlikely that a UFO that people saw last year was a spaceship', it has no bearing on truthfullness of the event unless we know that events happen because nature chooses randomly from an available set of  things that can cause  the events and that the set that nature uses is known to man. One should just say that he doesn't know if what people saw was a spaceship or a balloon. He should not say 'more likely it was a balloon' or ' most likely it was a spaceship'. There is realy no in- between knowledge and ignorance.

Corona virus came and once again I hear Christians say 'these are the signs of the end of the world'. Thus it is easy to think that the bible has a coherent teaching of how the world will end. Actually it has non! When you take the priest by the shirt and press him against the wall, he now switch gears. Tell him that the Christians of the first century were also saying 'Jesus is comming soon'. He now releases the famous joker card (unwittingly bought by new age): God is beyond human understanding. By  'Jesus is comming soon' we mean 'Jesus will come any time' or 'Jesus's comming is certain'. You know to God, a thaosand years is like one day! So they unwittingly admit that 'Jesus is comming soon' is a roundabout way of saying 'we don't know when Jesus will come'. It is a 'knowledge' envelope used to package ignorance. But is this moving bone of 'soon' what early Christians and Jesus himself meant? Nope! You will see.

When you say that Jesus was mistaken about when the world would end, Christians begins to fume. After all their master is supposed to be omniscient. However Jesus himself said he did not know when the world would end. So their master was not so cocky after all. But if you don't know when the world will end, then you don't know if it is 'soon' or 'latter'. Infact you can't even be sure if it will ever end at all! Christians should stop pretending.

The Kingdom Of God Is Near

Our understanding of the historical Jesus is tainted by our modern understanding of government as something seperate from religion. Therefore a story- telling, physically impotent 'messiah' who is ironically himself got and killedmakes some sense to us. Not so to the ancient Jews and early Christians. A 'messiah' was supposed to triumph over the earthly government, especially the Roman Empire, and then restore kingdom of Israel to the 'son of David'. So the message that the 'kingdom of God is near' was understood as amongst other things, 'the Roman Empire will soon be uprooted'. That is why Romans were not comfortable with the message. Early Christians were nothing like the modern pacifists that the governments so love them as they pose no threat to the government.

If you understand that the 'kingdom of God' was supposed to be the worldly alternative to the Roman Empire, then you will now understand why the message that 'the kingdom of God is near' was litteral. It meant soon, you will nolonger see these tax collectors and gentile overloads in our land. It is just the kingdom which God himself establishes. But sinse  people can take action and then claim that 'God is using them' an earthly messiah could have as well lead an army, overthrew Rome and then claim that God has finaly brought his kingdom by acting through them. So the belief in the nearness of the kingdom of God was of real concern to governments, unlike in modern times where the 'kingdom of God' have been spiritualized into irrelevance'. It now means anything, from something in the 12th dimension to a figment in people's hearts.

Jesus knew that his disciples were especting the end of Rome to be ushered in by the Messiah. It is clear also that he too believed so. The only difference is that he thought that it will be done by supernatural means, not via human military might. He knew that such a human effort to bring in 'kingdom of God' was futile from what happened afer the Hanukkah wars in apparent fullfilment of the prophecies of Daniel. So  Jesus understood that the fulfilment of Daniel 2:45 where the rock is cut but but not by human hands must be more litteral than what Hasmonneans believed during the Hanukkah wars. In other words much of Jesus's teaching of what his kingdom was not is that it was not yet another 'Hasmoneaen dynasty' which was a comic failure to eastablish a 'kingdom of God' in Israel, let alone the entire world, in a forced fullfilment of Daniel.

The Destruction Of Jerusalem 

Christians  have understood the so called 'olivet summon' such as the one recorded in Mathew 24 as to be referring to how the world will end. Some have even thought that the current zionist country of Israel is a fulfilment of ancient prophesy and that it will once again build a third temple. But this is simplistic. Jesus was specifically answering the question as to when the ancient Jerusalem would be destroyed. It only got connected to the 'end of the world' because it was widely believed at then that the triumphant messiah will come right after the destruction of Jerusalem. This is drawn from zechariah chapter 12 amongst other scriptures. It appears that Jesus himself held this belief and must have taught his disciples but it isn't recorded. 

So jesus was talking about what would happen in his own generation, at around 70th AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. So when Jesus said that 'all this will happen in this generation' he was litteral (Mathew 24:34). Since Jesus did not come in 70th AD, we must conclude that Jesus was mistaken.

To add another weight to the idea that Jesus and his disciples thought that the world would end in their generation, consider the book of revelation where Jesus is depicted as a military king who will triumph over the beast, which is clearly Roman Empire.

True Prophets?

To understand the bible prophecies  we must not be drawn into these two common false dilemmas. One is that either the prophets could see future and their message was infallible word of God or they could not see the future and non of the prophecies were ever true prophesies. Another dilemma is that if the prophets did see the future, then they were either the agents of God or the agents of the devil. From this, some skeptics go ahead to constract absurd theories where all the prophecies, e.g. Jesus prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem were vaticinum ex-eventu. But a similar prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is found in Zechariah, as we have seen, and obviously it wasn't a vaticinium ex-eventu.

So a good conclution is that the prophets in the bible sometimes could see the future, yet they were still fallible. There are some reasons why it could be so. One is that they were somehow tapping into 'divine plans' , perharps with the help of angels such as how it is recorded in the book of Daniel. The point is that God himself was not revealing them. They were surreptitiously peeping into 'divine books'. So the plans might have simply been altered without them realizing.

Another idea is that 'time' is like a spatial dimension where the future events can, in principal, be seen much like the way we can see the road ahead where we are going to. This does not require God or other omniscient beings. It us just the physical nature 'time' . If this is the  case, then some people might see into the 'future'. But just like in space, the sight is not infallible. When we see up in the sky, we think that the clouds are just next to the moon. We are oblivious of a space between the moon and the clouds that is bigger than the space between the earth and the clouds. Same might  have happened to the Jewish prophets when they saw the 'future'. They were interested only with temple based Judaism which came ti an end in 70th AD. So they saw the end as though to be just next to it!

First we must avoid the false dilema some people tend to operate in: you either believe that Jesus died and resurrected or you are a closed minded skeptic who don't believe in any miracle. You can begine by noting that though Muslims believe in miracles and even resurrection, they don't believe that Jesus died on the cross. Even if resurrection is possible, it is also likely that it does not happen because we don't see it happening. So possibly Jesus too died and never resurrected. 

There are good arguments for the claim that Jesus was actually crusified, burried, an empty tomb was found and that Jesus's early disciples indead believed that Jesus ressurected. In other words the disciples were honest. However the eidea that a group of over 500 disciples all experienced the same hallucination is ridiculus! So the best explanation that does not need Jesus to have actually resurrected , and which doesn't modify the bible too much is that Jesus did not actually die on the cross.

Scholars and christians reject the idea that Jesus survuved the crucifixion. However when you close exermine, it is because the have unjustified idea of what happened  to Jesus. They stop reading the bible to get what might have happened specifically to Jesus. They rather consider the Roman crucifixion in general and reason that because Romans treated the crucified vuctims in a certain way, they must have treated Jesus that way as well. However, the bible insinuates that Jesus's case was a special case. Scholars also reason that since Pilate was known to be brutal, he cannot have acted fairly as seen in the bible. But this is fallacious reasoning as it denies the possibile of special cases a priori. We know, however, that norms are broken over and over. 

Scholars argue that Jesus could not have escaped the crucifixion because the Romans were experts in killing via crucifixion. This is the prototype of the argument. It assumes that Romans wanted to kill Jesus. The bible, however, says that they didn't! Romans, beginning with Pilate himself, was convinced that Jesus was innocent of the charges brought against him. So why would he want to kill Jesus? Same thing will apply to the soldiers. They knew that Jesus was not the usual type of militaristic 'messiahs' that they normally crucify. So why would they crucify him the usual way?

It is clear that Romans had no moral motive to kill Jesus. They only had superficial reasons to do that. They only wanted to tame the crowds by doing what Jews wanted. The question then is why tame the crowd by actually killing an innocent person if you can achieve the same end by merely fooling them? This might be what Pilate did!

If Romans did not believe that Jesus was one of the often troublesome, militaristic 'messiahs', then they had no grudge nor wrath with him. Remember that a militarist would have done a couple of heinous activities against Romans. He would have totured and killed some. This, I can argue, is one of the reasons behind the brutality in the crucifixion. In other words revenge was also part of the reason for crucifixion brutality and not just deterrence. Deterrence can possibly be done by a mere sham of crucifixion to fool the crowd.

The centurion in charge of the crucifixion is said to have finally believed that Jesus was indead the son of God. So we have a very strange scenario. Pilate, who did not want Jesus to die must rely on someone who believe that Jesus is the son of God to check if Jesus have actually died before being taken off the cross! The question is will they care? Nope! Finding out that Jesus had not actually died yet, but people had believed so would be an exellent opportunity to rid themselves of the guilt of killing the 'son of God'.

Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. They think that the Jews who wanted Jesus killed were fooled in one way or another into thinking so. You have seen that the argument that those who were in charge with killing Jesus did not want Jesus to die gives weight to Muslim's idea.

Finally the story of Jesus's resurrection could have been entertained in Pilate's circle as an ad hoc to explain Jesus's appearance even after the supposed crucifixion. After all the idea of a 'messiah' who is now in heaven would be welcomed by Romans. It would divert attention off the earthly, militaristic 'messiah' who were so troublesome to Rome.

A computer is too stupid to make errors. Yes, our abiliy to make errors is the secrete behind our intelligence. If we were able to make an intelligent machine then by the time it is truely intelligent then it will have become as erroneous as a human being. This means that there would have been no need to make the machine in the first place as it can't be better than a human.

We are told that soon vehicles will drive themselves on the road! Think about this carefully. The so called 'artificial intelligence ' is actually nothing 'artificial' at all. By attributing human features to a machine, you are being prepared to believe that a machine can make its own decision! A whopper is being baked slowly! Once you beleive that a machine can make its own choices, you are now ready to beleive anything. You are now very stupid! If all the driver- less cars end up crashing on each other, killing all the passengers in the road, you wont be told what it is: an error in the program. You will be told that it happened by who knows what 'decision' the 'intelligent' vehicles made! Remember terminator is in the back of mind. Even the experts end up fooling themselves after watching too many science fiction movies! 

You are told that an 'artificially intelligent' robot was prigrammed to do something, eg being a referee only to be 'biased'. You see? There is a constant attempt to shove human attributes that we donnot even understand well yet to machine. In turn they will tell you that you are nothing but a very complex robot! Why should we say that a robot is 'biased'. Perhaps rather than artificially creating an intelligent referee, we have rather created a stupid one! It is realy more of 'artificial stupidity'.

Again think carefully about 'artificial intelligence' what does it mean to say that a machine is being ' intelligent'? If you close exermine, it is nothing but leaving a machine to work on its own in the hope that it will act like something intelligent!  There is nothing new in such. It is normally called simply 'being silly'! If you leave a machine, e.g. a grinding tool unattended to, then it causes an accident, you are usually accountable for the loss. But in the case of the 'artificially intelligent' nachine, you will be told the machine acted by who knows what decisions the machine  made!! Again remember the terminator?