God, Religion and Unconventional Philosophy

Ever since man or mankind have sprung into existence, there have arisen a lot of questions. One of these questions is related to God’ s existence and nonexistence, having numberless answers, according to each interpreter or interpretation. There are innumerable, intermediary versions between the two limits of the contrary regarding God’ s existence or nonexistence. God does exist. Unfortunately, we are not able to perceive, see or even ponder upon His existence. We sometimes feel as if we reached God, by means of our own insights. Unfortunately, there are many people who make the mistake of believing that it is indeed possible to  intuitively reach God as Reality Itself, which is similar to believing that we could be able to infer the unbounded, without being aware of the fact that, at the limit of our intuition, however comprehensive that might be, there is just the limited of our intuition, and not God, or His unlimited. The mistake that Religion has made along the centuries was to try to cut itself apart from science, (and vice versa), with a view to imposing a blind faith, according to which we must not judge either Religion, or God. That was a big mistake, or more precisely a limitation, if we take into account that Religion is made by man and it is proper to him, whereas man, regardless of his natural or social status, reasons and is capable of reasoning or pondering on anything concerned with the reality we are and we live in.

Man does not muse only upon the positive of existence, he also meditates on its negative side, often on the unconscious, emotional, intuitive, or sensitive level. We must put things straight as far as our domain of discussion is concerned, and especially to refrain from limiting our own unlimited, (which is actually limited), by our conventions. Let us not set limits to God’ s perfection by our conventional, limited imperfection anymore. As a matter of fact, it is not our imperfection we deal with, as we are also part of this perfection, being both perfect and unlimited, we rather have to do with the limits of our reflection, with the relation between the part and the whole. We represent the part of the whole which is God and His unbounded, which confers us the right to claim that we also stand for perfection, forming an integral part of God and the unbounded, yet, we have no right to state that the part goes beyond or comprehends the whole, or that the part can see or infer the whole it is part of.

Let us not take the will for the deed, our hand will never be able to reason, such as no neuron will ever be able to replace our thinking, even if they are also part of the whole, moreover, they take part in the reasoning of the whole. We are a reason of the unbounded, and by no means the unbounded of God’s reasoning. The question is simple, does God exist? It is an apparently simple question, in the sense that we pretend to know how to ask the question, that it is a correct question, or that we do not believe in the relative character of any question. Let us check, however, if we have correctly asked the question, which God we make reference to, „to our conventional and limited God,” who is a narrow reflection of the unbounded God, or to the unbounded God, we are an integral part of, but that we will never be able to comprehend or reflect? The difference is made by the fact that „our God” is our own image on God, image that belongs to us, whereas the unbounded God lies beyond us, even if we are also part of Him. We stand for the part, while He stands for the whole, and „our God” is our image and it belongs to ourselves. If we were to take a look at the infinite sky in the mirror, this would not mean that the image in the mirror is the infinite itself. Religion is actually our set of principles, individually or collectively accepted, but which belong to us, similar to any phenomenon that we or mankind give rise to. Religion is the image of God, reflected in the mirror of our own spirit. This image will never represent God Himself.

This also true in the case of atheists, who believe in science and nonscience, that represent various sets of principles belonging to their religion, images of reality, that should never be mistaken for the reality we reflect. Both Religion and Science are reflections of the Reality Itself, philosophies, (Philosophy is defined by the dictionary as reflection of reality). Religion is a theistic philosophy, atheism is an atheistic philosophy. Let us not understand that Religion is not connected with the atheism or vice versa, as they are simultaneous, given the fact that there is no perfect theism or perfect religion,  such as there is no perfect atheism, or science free of theism. As a whole, as Eliade argues, the sacred exists within the most inveterate layman, even he is not aware of that. On the one hand, people are wrong, (they are simply limited, there is no mistake within perfection), pretending to be the masters of reason, on the other hand, they set limits to themselves, without taking into account the positive/negative simultaneity of any entity/universe in any point of its simultaneous space/time transformation. You will never discover the perfect positive or negative. Some people might flatly state that 1 is positive, or that -1 is negative, losing sight of the fact that any phenomenon, existence, or entity/universe fail to be a number, or a figure.

Furthermore, figures are just mathematical conventions and relativity does not narrow down to figures and numbers, that we the people relate to an unlimited axis and to a zero equilibrium point, conventionally and relatively chosen. This equilibrium point represents the relative side of Mathematics, as long as we cand find it anywhere on the unlimited axis. People make the mistake of believing that the lack of faith id the contrary of faith, which is false. It is as if we sustained that our nonexistence is the contrary of our existence, or taht the phenomenon is the contrary of matter. Contraries are never different, they are identical and opposite; more exactly, the contrary of matter is not the phenomenon or the energy, but another matter, the negative matter, or in other words, antimatter, as some people call it. The opposite of 1 is never a rational or complex number, its opposite is itself, but negative, that is -1. According to this statement, the negative aspect of the phenomenon is a phenomenon, the negative aspect of the matter is a matter, whereas that of our existence is an existence and not a nonexistence. We should search for a negative God, and we will come to the conclusion that there is such a thing, because there is a negative God for many legal or illegal religions. The positive/negative is simultaneous, except taht we do not habe the ability to reflect this thing, although the entire mankind recognizes God’s unlimited in both senses.

As regards science, this lacks any kind of contraries, similar to God and the Universe Itself, no matter whether this is an unlimitedly small or large Universe. It is from here that our confusion towards God or towards the unlimited springs. This unlimited represents the perfect positive/negative simultaneity, where we cannot make use of our narrow words, where all the contraries are simultaneous and cannot be conventionally, narrowly defined anymore, even if they exist, because they can turn into conventional contraries or existences anytime. „Our God” or Religion’s God, equivalent to the reflection of the unbounded God through our eyes and limited spirit, does have contraries, which are obvious, if we take into account the negative religions, (sects, occultism, etc.), the negative or positive theism. In actual fact, there is no dissociation between the positive and the negative, it is only our reflections that give rise to that, due to our inability of reasoning according to simultaneities. Man is simultaneously positive/negative in any phase of his transformation, similar to the unbounded and God. This is certified by the fact that the relative of any transformation, convention, allows us to ascertain that any action, phenomenon, or transformation may be good or bad, according to the interpreter or interpretation, in relation to a system of reference, that is relative, in its turn, etc.

It has all started with faith, then Religion, then the atheism has apparently gained ground to the detriment of Religion, hoping to become a general thing and do away with Religion. This will never happen, and not because atheism will not continue to exist, or because Science will sometimes come to an end, but because it cannot defeat its opposite, namely the theism, as this would mean to believe that such things as perfect freedom, faultless good, or flawless positive, without their contraries, could be possible. This is an absurd concept, as perfection embodies an unlimited existence, and we cannot embrace the unbounded. Consequently, it would be irrational to believe that we can find perfection, by means of our limits. We cannot talk about an interdisciplinarity between theism and atheism, as long as nobody can establish their limits, or the limit between them, their neutral. When we say interdisciplinarity, we must accurately define the disciplines, not their relative aspect, or to believe that there is anyone that could ever eliminate the relative from any phenomenon or matter, would definitely be a big aberrance. They are simultaneous in this sense, whether we like it or not, all the more so as you will notice that you will never be able to separate the theism from the atheism, which are both existent within every man and every element of his thinking, during any instant of his existence.

As a conclusion, Religion must serach for their dissociation, division, but for the scientific arguments concerned with the existence of Religion, as well as for the scientific justification of God’s existence, though he knows that he never directly reach Him, but only by His effects. His effects are everywhere, we are His existence as effect, He is any entity/universe, let us not search for Him in the unbounded, let us serach for Him within ourselves, here, in our daily, ordinary life, which means to investigate and make use of all the scientific pieces of evidence in this search, without thinking that we will ever understand or comprehend, embrace God or His unlimited. Quantum Physics has come to deal with great energies and infinitesimally small energy particles. I myself fiind it improper to say  „The God Particle,” as long as we all are unlimitedly small and big particles of God. People will finally notice that „God Particle” is by no means the smallest unlimited of the matter; it is as if we thought to have found the unlimited of division, or its perfection, and it would be irrational to state that the limited can encompass the unlimited. Furthermore, let us keep in sight the fact that any divided unlimited, any of its divisions are actually equivalent to the unlimited, whereas us and any entity/universe are part of the unbounded, of perfection, of God and consequently we are flawless, unlimited and parts of God. This is one of the simultaneities between theism and atheism, or between Religion and Science.

We should avoid jumping to categorical conclusions, we cannot embrace eternity, although we are also part of eternity. We are the smallest unlimited out of which God shapes everything, such as the divisions or subdivisions of a unit are unlimited. We are a simultaneity of unlimitedly small divisions and subdivisions, similar to „The God Particle,” which stands for  an unlimitedly big subdivision of a certain unit, made up of other unlimitedly small subdivisions. In conclusion,  we cannot reach God, but we can analyze, without being wrong, our own images on Him and His effects, that are present everywhere around us. This is the reason why we can state that both God and the Universe Itself are entities/universe for effect, they do not represent existence itself for us. Although they are actually self-existences, we will never reflect their existence itself, but only their effects. There are people who believe in God, others who believe in the unlimited, others in phenomena, some others in existences, without understanding that all of these things are essentially God, or the Universe Itself. It all depends on our capacity of reflecting these entities/universe. Let us keep in view the fact that Buddhism is an atheistic Religion, that Nirvana is not equivalent to God, although it is a religion acknowledged by many people. This is another proof of the simultaneity between theism and atheism, similar to that between good and bad, where many people are guided by the good, whereas there are also many others guided by the bad, which is also valid for both theism and atheism, (the positive/negative).

Both theism and atheism are opposite limits, similar to the good and the bad, and between them, there are numberless theistic/atheistic versions and I do not think that there is anyone who can deny the existence of the innumerable versions between theism and atheism. Unfortunately, man, in his arrogance, has quickly put the universe he lives in behind, considering himself to be the only capable of believing and reasoning, moreover, he even considers himself to be conscious in his faith, while Freud has clearly demonstrated the unconscious as reality and we cannot sustain that feelings, instincts, or intuitions are rather unconscious than conscious within each and every man. Although we have concluded that God exists first of all as unlimited or perfection, then as a limited/unlimited Reality Itself by its effects, we must understand that we can only get access to the third, conventional version related to God’s existence, „the human God”, our God, or convention, reflection of the Reality Itself. We deal here with the ressemblance between this systematization and that of any unconventional phenomenon, that we have already treated in a former paper. Next, we are going to study the source of theism and atheism.

Faith

Any faith is an axiom, more precisely an acknowledged, but  unprovable truth. As any axiom, it forms the base for the principles resulting from the subsequent scientific, non-scientific or religious reflections. As science, these reflections can stand for general or particular, one-directional  Philosophy,  (sciences or nonsciences), while as Religion, they represent a great theistic diversity. When faith is theistic, in that case the principles and the Philosophy are also theistic, religious, if faith is atheistic, then the principles and the Philosophy will be atheistic too, or atheism. The God of both man and each entity/universe is an axiom, an approved, accepted and unproved truth, similar to the straight line or the point in Geometry, or the freedom and constraint and many others. We must understand the axiom by means of its unconventional formula, more exactly unconventional convention, or limitation of the unlimited. Figures are unconventional conventions, as any other axiom, truth, justice, or freedom, etc., without the need for any demonstration. Universe Itself, similar to God, or their unlimited are axioms and they must be taken as such. The principles resulting from these axioms, from these faiths, can be interpreted as religion or not, as theistic or not.

Any conventional truth or axiom represent the reflection of an unconventional truth or axiom, any established truth, such as a mathematical relation, accounts for the reflection of an unconventional truth. As proof of that, there stands the fact that any mathematical relation defines, more precisely, it relatively reflects a real phenomenon. On this line, physical laws are phenomena from the reality Itself, but even the most sophisticated formulae represent a reflection of the Reality Itself. The difference is made by the fact that while the Universe Itself  shapes them by unlimited multiplication/division, we make use of limited and relative formulae as a reflection of the Reality Itself. The evaluation of a surface can be made by an integral computation formula, but also by cumulating singular units of 1, or binary units of 0 and 1, such as any computer does for any mathematical formula. The Universe Itself makes cumulations of unlimitedly small zero. Thus, any entity/universe can be in the conventional, the axiom for the succeeding principles resulting from it. Husserl achieves this by taking mathematical formulae as axioms for his pure logic, which does not call for the fact that he has reached perfection, and neither have we.

The faith such defined is a conventional faith, in order to define it unconventionally, we must relate to the unconventional, that is there where there is just unconventional matter and energy simultaneously. Even if we cannot reach there, let us at least try to get ever closer to that place where we know that everything is unlimitedly small matter, vibration and resonance caused by the attraction/rejection simultaneity. Faith cannot stand for an axiom that generates principles there anymore, it tuns into a resonance, more exactly the resonance between us and God, or between us and the Universe Itself. This is the unconventional definition of faith, which turns into conventional faith when the resonance becomes reflectable in some way or another, when it transforms into a convention capable of generating in some way or another conventional principles. Consequently, faith is in the unconventional,  

the resonance between two or more entities/universe.  

Conventional faiths are are particular cases of the unconventional ones. This does not exclude the resonanace between a conventional or unconventional entity/universe, as things stand between us and God or between us and te Universe Itself. Love is a resonance too, as any feeling, it is a faith, as any feeling is, being able to give rise to conventional principles, as any feeling. Both science and nonscience are endowed with resonance, being particular cases of faith. Religion is also the result of the resonance between man and God and its faith has given forth to its undeniable principles. Faith is in the dictionary,

FAITH, faiths, feminine noun 1. A strong belief that someone or something can be trusted to be right or to do the right thing; conviction, confidence, assuredness. ◊ Profession of  one’s religion  = public declaration made by someone with regard to his or her principles, beliefs or convictions. 2. (Old meaning) Confidence (that somebody inspires). ◊ Adverbial phrase Really and truly = indeed. ◊ Syntagms: To lose one’s credibility = not deserving to be believed and trusted anymore. (Old meaning) To prove your loyalty towards your ruler = to taste the food served to the ruler in order to assure him that it is not poisoned. 3. Fidelity, commitment, devotion (to), steadiness towards somebody or something. ♦ (Popular term) Engagement. 4. Hope, trust, belief. 5. Conviction related to God’s existence; confession of this conviction by the observance of the ecclesiastic rules; religion, cult. – the Latin *credentia.

Source: DEX '09 (2009) | Added by LauraGellner

What else could conviction, confidence, or certainty be, if not the resonance, the connection between two or more entities/universe, between us and the truth we reflect, resonance that has turned into axiom or truth, generally acknowledged, the set of their existential principles issues from?  It is in this sense that we can explain people’s faith in God, their resonance with God, resonance which has become first axiom and then principles originator, that is Religion. Democracy is also a resonance which can shape democratic religions, similar to the dictatorship or the sects that we cannot deny, such as we cannot deny the faith of those that support them, either. In the case of sects, we deal with a negative, but real faith.

There where the unbounded is at home, and where our mind will never be able to penetrate, God and the Universe Itself are one and the same thing, they  do not embody the conventional form anymore, and consequently we can on no account reflect this thing. There lies perfection and we can never reflect perfection, either, even we also embody perfection itself, yet, just one part of its whole. According to Religion, God is everything, He is also the Universe Itself, the unbounded, the absolute, the atheistic unbounded. To deny the faith of the one or the atheism of the other would be a big abberance. It would be as if we stated that the effects of the one or the other do not exist. Between  God and the Universe Itself, that are both unlimited from all points of view, there is a relation of simultaneity, that can be mathematically rendered, similar to any mathematical relation of simultaneity,  

T = ∑a¡, 

Where T represents the theism, while A stands for the atheism, where “a”, “t” are their elementary sequences, (they are made up of) and vice versa  

A = ∑t¡

The formulae mentioned above actually render the fact that the conventional theism is the sum of the atheistic, conventional sequences within ourselves. There where we can see, feel or live the theism we cannot also see, feel, or live the atheism, due to the fact that we cannot simultaneously live, feel, or see; as a matter of fact, they are simultaneous, as any two contraries. In order to become a theist, we must do away with its contrary lying within ourselves, namely the atheism, and in order to become a perfect atheist, we must eliminate the theism that must be on a level with the atheism that it replaces. It would be irrational to believe that theism and atheism are different, or non identical within an entity/universe, as this would lead to the wrong conclusion that if we were to replace the atheism with the theism, (in the context of their inequality), one of them would preponderate and consequently we will never be atheists, or vice versa. You will notice that in the conventional of any entity/universe, theism and atheism exclude each other, while in the Reality Itself they are simultaneous. Let us take as an example two contraries, the good and the bad; if a man does somebody good, we cannot state that he has also done an ill turn, although in actual fact, the helpful service he has performed to someone may represent an unhelpful service for somebody else, for another entity/universe, or for another system of reference.

If a dog watches over a courtyard and bites the thief that is trying to steal, he does his master a kindness, but at the same time it harms the thief. Nevertheless, the thief distinguishes only the harm he had to face, whereas the master, the fact that he was rewarded with a good deed y his dog. This is also valid for theism and atheism, or any contraries simultaneous as Reality Itself, but opposite as conventional reality, (illusion/reality). Faiths are unlimited, unless we narrow them down to man and mankind, (their limitation is similar to God’s limitation, or the limitaion of His creations to man and mankind, while everything left would be nonexistences), like faith and  lack of faith, like religions or philosophies. We cannot possibly believe that the ten commandments are just theistic, it would be as if we excluded the good from the atheistic existence, or as if the atheists infringed upon the ten commandments. I myself know many atheists, much more civilized or better than many of the theists. Furthermore, not even God incriminates the nonbelievers, acknowledging their existence. The conventionally materialized faith is the axiom, generating everything on that particular direction, like in Mathematics.

There would be no Geometry without the straight line and the point and I would like to mention here that we are talking about the conventional sphere. “Our God” would not exist either, without the axiom of His unlimited existence, which is accepted, without being proven, as any axiom. Any faith, philosophy, or science spring from a faith, which is conventionally materialized by an axiom. Any theism or atheism depends on a compulsory set of principles, based on one or more acknowledged, but unproven truths, called axioms. It is from here that any faith and consequently any philosophy start from, no matter whether they are theistic or not, or simultaneously theistic/atheistic. The principles are not strictly theistic, their interpretation depends on  the interpreter and the reflected reality. The ten commandments are extremely good, moral principles for both theists and atheists, whereas Religion and its writings show us that Jesus, irrespective of the kind of religion, embraces common sense people, that do not believe in God more than, or at least as much as the religious persons that betray or hate Him. I am convinced that the representatives of any current religion easier forgive the sins of an atheist, common sense man, than those of a religious fanatic, or even criminal.

The moral principles are the same for everybody, it is their theistic or atheistic interpretation that differs from case to case, according to the one that interprets them. Each of us sees the world in his own way, but we all see God in a similar way, which does not mean that truth is different from one entity/universe to another, it is unique. Our uniqueness gives rise to such diverse and non identical interpretations. Birth is an axiom similar to death, they both represent the beginning or the end of a convention, but as they say, each beginning finally comes to an end, and vice versa. The beginning and the end  are contraries, they are identical and opposite, while their sum represents the neutral of any existence. The neutral is not nonexistence, even if it apparently seems to be so, but we could not shape anything out of nonexistence, the neutral nevertheless is the supreme creator. The proof is simple, we will never come back from nonexistence, but our neutral side turns into other forms of existence, it even continues in the guise of effects of our existence.  

Life and death, or more correctly birth and death are axioms and give forth to principles that some people attribute to God, others to the Universe Itself, but they remain unique axioms and just the different reflections of different entities/universe, conventionally theistic or atheistic. Both birth and death, similar to any simultaneous beginning/end remain contraries, conventions, whereas their neutral is represented by the God within ourselves, that we can never reflect. Existence and nonexistence cannot mutually annul, as they are not contraries. Existence is the positive/negative paradox of existence, while nonexistence represents the absence of existence, and not its negative. It is as if we subtracted nothing from 1, and the result equals nothing, when it actually equals 1. In conclusion, the axiom is in the conventional,

“any truth or untruth, acknowledged without being proven”

A paradox called theistic faith by the theists and atheistic faith, or axiom by the atheists. We deal with a simple axiom in both cases. Each and every thing, any theistic or atheistic convention springs from this paradox.  

Religion

According to the dictionary, Religion is,  

RELIGION, religions, feminine noun 1. Ensemble of ideas, feelings and actions shared by a group and which offers its members an object of worship, a code of behavior, a frame of reference necessary to join (establish a connection with) the group and the universe; confession, faith. ♦ Figuratively: conviction, creed, cult. 2. Discipline taught in school, having as an aim the pupils’ education and training in the spirit of the existing religion. – From the French religion, the Latin religio, -onis, the German Religion.

Source: DEX '98 (1998) | Added by thiess

In the unconventional, Religion is,

“theistic philosophy of an individual or group”

and it represents the sum of all the principles resulting from a theistic faith. As we can easily observe, both definitions start from faith, which shows that my intention is by no means to do away with the current definitions. I do away with the present definitions, as a matter of fact very useful and correct, up to a certain point, I just add to these reflections other kind of reflections that expand and also replace the limits of the current conventions with other, more profound in meaning. I also shape the system these definitions are part of, bringing into focus the fact they are not the result of my thinking, or of the present knowledge, they are God’s result, or the result of the Universe Itself, originating in the unbounded, heading for the unbounded, similar to any entity/universe, or to ourselves. Let us not limit ourselves to the limited space/time simultaneity, we are and live in. We also originate in the unbounded and head for this unbounded, if not, we could not claim to be a part of God or of the Universe Itself.

The conscious and the unconscious of faith

I am going to bring into focus one again the notion of conscious and unconscious in both Religion and atheism, taking into account the fact that these versions have not been discussed up to the unconventional Philosophy, without being related to a system. Whether people like it or not,  we should make it clear as daylight that faith or any human activity can be conscious and unconscious simultaneously. Their simultaneity, similar to that of any two contraries, cannot be conventionally experienced, felt, or reflected as simultaneity, but only separately or interdisciplinarily, which is a simple illusion/reality and not the Reality Itself. This is the reason why they have been separately studied and analyzed, people coming to incorrectly assess the fact that they could be separated, interdisciplinary, or dual, etc. This is completely wrong, they are, similar to many others just simultaneous, and it is only our inability of perceiving the Reality Itself such as it is, our incapacity of having control over the simultaneity, our limits that have made and still make their simultaneous reflection impossible. We must understand that the images in our spirit, shaped on the basis of our own senses, embody the assemblage of the pieces of information rendered by our senses, that apparently turn into simultaneity, by means of our spirit, after having been separately assumed and looked into, according to each entity/universe and sense.

Given the circumstances, let us fall back upon the conscious and the unconscious and notice that the elements of our spirit stand for simultaneities, being mandatorily consciuos/unconscious simultaneously. Faith and its conventional principles called Religion, atheism, theistic or atheistic Philosophy, remain simultaneously conscious/unconscious. Let us not delude ourselves with other interpretations and notice by means of concrete examples that, by its religions, theism has tried during the various stages of its development to lay its account on the unconscious faith, (the Inquisition, Giordano Bruno), or on its consciousness, (Thomas D’Aquino and others). Theism too endeavours and has endeavoured to deny Religion by some people’s unconsciousness, or others’ consciousness.  Before Freud and others, the existence of human unconsciousness has been denied, as it is still denied by many the consciousness of the other entities/universe, (plants, animals, etc.) This cannot be true, if we have in view the fact that they are the creations of God and the Universe Itself, unquestionably belonging to God and the Universe Itself. If the other entities/universe are God Himself, why do incorrectly insist on believing that they are not endowed with reason. The fact that we are not acquainted with them does not give us the right to believe that they do not exist. As a matter of fact, as long as they are, similar to us, God’s creations, standing for God’s existence, they also have the right to have their own God and  unbounded Universe Itself, or sets of principles, originating in their faith in God; even if we are not aware of this thing yet, we have no right to deny it.

Furthermore, if we think that in the apparently theistic essence, at the unlimitedly small limit of each entity/universe, everything is just unlimitedly small vibration and matter/energy simultaneity. As it has recently been proved that feelings are just vibrations of the DNA, we are not entitled to believe that plants or animals are not endowed with their own DNA, (which is obvious enough), whereas vibrations and their resonances are equivalent to our feelings or faith. Our faith is also feeling, resonance, with or without having the sense of faith,  or the the latter’s conscious and unconscious belief, conviction. Whether theistic or atheistic, we cannot talk about faith in the true of the word. In order to acknowledge that a man, plant or animal might be endowed with faith, we must necessarily believe in that thing, in all the elements that make them up as existence, spirit, or form, otherwise we will only labour under a delusion. There are many atheists who believe in the infinite, Mathematics, Literature, or other kind of principles, and they have all made and continue to make the mistake of believing that they study Mathematics without manifesting any feelings, but the fact they do like Mathematics or Literature shows that their feelings take part in this faith. Neither Religion, nor another kind of faith can be experienced, without the participation of the whole system and all its elements from form to spirit, from memory to feelings, from intuition to thinking. It would be irrational to believe in the existence of faith, whatever its type, in the absence of the feelings, reason, senses, spirit, or elements related to it.

Many persons are of the opinion that people have once used to earnestly believe in God and that with time, their faith has stopped being the same, which is false, as there are, even nowadays, people who rely on God with all their heart, except that by analogy with the expansion of the universe, the contraries split in their turn into numberless versions between the two extremes, and there are evidently more versions as form and diversity related to the same profundity of faith. We will come across religious or atheistic zealots, as once, but we will also fiind much more intermediary forms, divided on the new directions of sciences or thinking, but also on the ever increasing and diversified number of mankind. We do not have to do with one million, as once, but with eight billion people and faiths, (theistic or atheistic). Given the context and knowing that there are neither two identical religious believers, nor   two identical faiths or religions, their universal diversification according to the universal law of simultaneous division and multiplication becomes evident. T* laws are generally valid, having, similar to the unconventional, one single exception, that does not actually exist, or it represents an exception at the level of their unlimited limit, limit that does not exist, that is there where only God and the Universe Itself can determine things, or maybe not even there. We should not believe that Religion and faith cannot be defined as phenomena and that any phenomenon is not the result, or more exactly the effect of a more or less conventional energy.  Unfortunately, we can only reflect their conventional side, we will never be able to reflect their unconventional.
     will follow.