Let us return to the post-mortal paper by I.S. Shklovskii, to its ending so typical for our time and for the discussed problem. Shklovskii writes: ``An alternative to the conception, sketched above, rather non-optimistic, is the idea that intelligence is a manifestation of some super-material, transcendental principle. This is an old concept of God and the godlike nature of human mind. For the persons standing far apart (and not always far) from the science this concept seems much more optimistic and even moral. However, it is rather difficult nowadays to stand for the position having nothing in common with the science. Oblivion of that basic fact that we are a part of an objectively existing and recognizable material world, doesn't promise anything to anybody although creates false optimistic illusions''. As to me, after having read that now, I want simply to keep silent and to think.
This fragment comprises our latest ten years, speaks for the author himself and for the problem itself. And it is not difficult now to stand for this position., moreover, now, to the contrary, a person who hasn't God in his heart is considered to be indecent. Nevertheless, the striking intuition of this man has revealed itself in the finality. It is clear, after all, that the concept of a ``deadlock branch'' can hardly survive, and only in a small universe with a finite age. And what to think having in mind the Tsiolkovskii's paradox? Really, we have consisely expresed a materialistic, atheistic, scientific point of view and have discovered God, the scientifically supported God.
It is worth here to present the quotation from the letter by A. Einstein
to Moris Solovin of 1952, 30 March 
:
``You find surprising that I talk of cognizability of the world (to a certain degree as we have a right to talk about it) as of miracle or eternal enigma. Well, a priori a chaotic world is to be anticipated which cannot be cognized with the use of mentality. This world only might (or must) be anticipated to subject the law to a measure in which we can arrange it with our mind. This would be an arrangement like an alphabetical arrangement of the words of some language. On the contrary, the arrangement being brought in, for example, by Newtonian theory of gravitation, is of quite different character. Although the axioms of this theory were created by a man, a success of this enterprise suggests a significant arrangement of the objective word which we haven't any foundations to anticipate a priori. And this is ``a miracle'', and the further our knowledge is developed the more magic it becomes.
The positivists and professional atheists see in that a vulnerable spot as they feel themselves happy of the consciousness of succeeding not only in banishing God from this world but in ``depriving this world of miracles''. It is curious, we must be satisfied with the admission of ``a miracle'' because we have no legal ways to get out from the position. (Italics is mine,-V.L.) I have specially to underline this in order you don't think that I, growing to the old age, became a victim of priests''. (translated from Russian)
This is also a very specific saying having mainly two points. First, a real ``space miracle'' is admitted to exist and, second, there is an obvious realization of the fact that this leads at once to the admission of the God existence., but one cannot do so if he doesn't want to become ``a priests' victim''. Equally, we cannot admit an infinite complication of the world and its successful cognizability (i.e. the existence of a mind in an infinitely complicated world) without admission of Superintelligence -- the scientifically discovered God. If Einstein would only suspect of the Tsialkovskii's paradox he had not to do anything more natural than this.