Were Gods Astronauts?

[mmaria]

What do you think about this theory?

[billyjack]

that's a theory? held by whom? tom cruise?

[zado_k]

What do you think about this theory?

No but they will be.

[weltanschauung]

whaah?

[Silas Thorne]

I'm not sure if you are referring to scientology above, but I heard that there was a guy called Von Daniken who put forward these views. He used ancient art and the portrayal of figures in artwork (with photos!) , together with carefully selected ancient texts, to 'prove' his theory that we were brought to this planet by alien astronauts.
Sounds about as far fetched as the mad scientific theories of Wilhelm Reich, and his orgone boxes...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich

[The Atheist]

I'm not sure if you are referring to scientology above, but I heard that there was a guy called Von Daniken who put forward these views. He used ancient art and the portrayal of figures in artwork (with photos!) , together with carefully selected ancient texts, to 'prove' his theory that we were brought to this planet by alien astronauts.

You certainly got the right man - Chariots of the Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods%3F) propounds exactly that theory; that what we see as gods were actually aliens.

Aliens being gods is about as likely as gods being gods.

[mmaria]

To me it seams quite logical.

[Pendragon]

Why would aliens visit this backwater planet, if they are advanced enough to do so? Just to draw lines on the ground? Don't think so. It would be more likely that they started here and left.

Don't you think there are more likely better worlds out there to take up their time? Besides, a civilization that advanced would be at war most likely, and only be looking for an extra place to exploit and use. We haven't made it to Mars yet, and never took full advantage of the moon as a place to install a base. Be a better jumping off point for the Mars trip...

[The Atheist]

To me it seams quite logical.

This must be some new use of the word "logical" I'm unfamiliar with, so can you set out how your logic works to show it's possible?

[Silas Thorne]

Believe what you choose to believe. But I would urge you to examine the evidence yourself carefully. There are many interesting strange ancient artworks around the world and it is quite possible be misled with translations from ancient texts out of context. And if you are amazed by the pyramids and white horse's which can be seen from well above the earth, I just think humans are capable of some amazing things and that we don't always need to look for other interpretations outside of our own possibilities. The great wall was made due to incredibly long term planning and slave labour...and the desire to see a lot of earlier smaller walls connected.

I am constantly amazed by some translations of Ancient Chinese texts.... that's the creativity of translation for you.:)

That's just my opinion though :)

[mmaria]

This must be some new use of the word "logical" I'm unfamiliar with, so can you set out how your logic works to show it's possible?

Logic is the way of thinking logically, he,he...
I don't understand what is not logical in thinking that it is possible.

[The Atheist]

I don't understand what is not logical in thinking that it is possible.

Well, logic usually requires some input to reach a decision on the probability of something happening.

Given that no evidence exists which suggest that aliens have ever visited Earth, normal logic cannot apply, which is why I was interested in trying to figure yours out.

If you don't want to say, fair enough, but why start a thread?

[mmaria]

I have started the thread because it interested me to hear what other people from the literature site think about the theory. According to the theory, (which can be found on the internet, there is no need that I talk about it) evidence does exist. :)

[Leksandar]

It's circumstantial though. Personally I find the theory uninteresting; it's a possibility, and that is all. Now what would you say if I proposed to you the idea of human beings creating a time machine in the near future, and visiting ourselves then as Gods, but that we can only travel to that time era because of some physical laws we yet do not know anything about?

I would like a page on Wikipedia about myself now too. I mean, it *is* a possibility, right? I really feel like I've got something here.

[oopsycandy]

Erm which alien theory is this about?
I just found one on google about plaeidians which suggests that the brains of certain creatures were genetically altered by these alien visitors and that, that explains the sudden rise of civilizations and the sudden development of things like farming and the ability to acknowledge a god or other higher being.
My historys not brilliant but even I'm pretty certain that there is archaeological proof that the development of humans from hunter/nomads to the development of early cities and civilisations took several thousand years?
but then I found different aliens called Annunaki (not personally)and they come to Earth every 3600 years and created humans to mine gold which they then eat.
The only thing that I found quite interesting about it was the fact that both theorys had used Old Testament passages and ancient sumerian texts as possible proof that these visitations had taken place.
I'm sticking with Darwin personally, it might not be perfect but its the most logical theory.

[The Atheist]

I have started the thread because it interested me to hear what other people from the literature site think about the theory. According to the theory, (which can be found on the internet, there is no need that I talk about it) evidence does exist. :)

No, this is a fail, I'm sorry. You claimed that it "seemed logical" to you, so I asked in what way. You cannot now turn around and say that it's all on Google, because there are literally hundreds of different ideas people have about aliens visiting the earth, and I'm sure you don't believe all of them.

If you only want others' opinions, that's fine, but why claim it as "logical" if you won't discuss that logic at all?

Plus, Google isn't evidence, much as Messrs Page & Brin would like us to think so.

[Wintermute]

If you only want others' opinions, that's fine, but why claim it as "logical" if you won't discuss that logic at all?

Hi Atheist,

Here's my logic of why it might be possible. There are many galaxies and star systems within them that are millions--even billions of years older than ours. Hopefully you will accept this and I won't need to supply references. If we assume that intelligent life is possible elsewhere, its not too much of a stretch to imagine a group who have survived the growing pains earth is experiencing and have not succeeded in destroying themselves. Then realize that it was a scant 105 years ago that the Wright brothers flew their little plane a few hundred yards and that we now have rovers cruising around on the surface of another planet! Now imagine if you can, where we might be in say 1000 years, or 10,000 years assuming we survive our silly human failings (I know this is wishful thinking, hehe). I'm thinking, for one thing, we will probably be immortal. Medical science will certainly have developed to the point where we don't die. Ok, say in 50,000 years if 10,000 is too short for ya--remember, there are planets that have been around millions of years longer than ours. Well, if we don't die, then a 400 year inter-stellar journey doesn't seem impossible to me.

Naturally, being agnostic, I could be completely wrong.

Cheers,
Doug

[The Atheist]

Hi Atheist,

Here's my logic of why it might be possible. There are many galaxies and star systems within them that are millions--even billions of years older than ours. Hopefully you will accept this and I won't need to supply references.

No problem there - I'm pretty comfortable with ~100 bn galaxies containing ~100 bn stars each and that some are up to 5-10 bn years older than ours.


If we assume that intelligent life is possible elsewhere, its not too much of a stretch to imagine a group who have survived the growing pains earth is experiencing and have not succeeded in destroying themselves.

Hmmm. Logic starting with an assumption looks an unlikey starter, but I'll play. I think it's a bad assumption, but that's just me.


Then realize that it was a scant 105 years ago that the Wright brothers flew their little plane a few hundred yards and that we now have rovers cruising around on the surface of another planet! Now imagine if you can, where we might be in say 1000 years, or 10,000 years assuming we survive our silly human failings (I know this is wishful thinking, hehe). I'm thinking, for one thing, we will probably be immortal. Medical science will certainly have developed to the point where we don't die. Ok, say in 50,000 years if 10,000 is too short for ya--remember, there are planets that have been around millions of years longer than ours. Well, if we don't die, then a 400 year inter-stellar journey doesn't seem impossible to me.

Ok, so let's say alien life did indeed reach us. You're anthropomorphisising the aliens, which is fair, but that being the case, I feel they would have left some evidence of their visit - maybe a flag, like we did on the moon. No doubt an advanced race of aliens able to travel intergalactically would have something a bit less flimsy than a piece of nylon. Also, humans have tended to return to places visited, and the main reason for intergalactic travel - if it ever becomes possible - is to seed other communities, and since earth is so ideal for all life forms we've yet encountered, it seems likely to me that we'd still have them here. Maybe in a commune in Utah!

Along with that, if we assume this alien life form has travelled, then there would be residual RF energy cruising around the universe, and since Frank Drake made the awful error of trying to prove Fermi's mistake, his SETI has been searching for exactly the frequencies which aliens would have to use. (Unless they've learned astral travel, that is. ;))

The idea is possible until we ask for evidence that such a thing could have ever happened, and since there is none, logic gets out Occam's Razor and dismisses the idea, attractive though it may be.


Naturally, being agnostic, I could be completely wrong.

Cheers,
Doug

Looks that way to me!

:)

[mmaria]

Imagine this: you are a very rich person from some civilized country in our world. You have so much money that you don't have to work and just out of boredom you get into your plane (you are so rich that you have your own plane) and go somewhere into a jungle searching for adventures. You find a tribe of people who have never met with any kind of civilization. They see you coming down to them from the sky, and if we suppose that everything goes well with you and them, that you know their language, you take out your mobile phone and call some friend of yours and tell him to tell something to one of them, you have chosen, in his own language. What do you suppose this people will think about you? I am sure they would think that you are a god who has come down from the sky and that you can talk to in a very strange way. You would become an object of their adoration. You could show them some tricks from your civilization which would make you even greater in their eyes. Then you get bored again and leave them. You also leave your phone after teaching them how to answer when it rings, you call them from time to time. They would keep the device with a special protection and adoration, and so on and so forth. Hundreds of years pass, the story is handed down from generation to generation in verbal form because they do not know how to write. The visit of god is kept in their tradition and every generation adds something new, they are humans and their imagination works. Some of the generations would try to preserve the memory of you in some kinds of drawings or the like...

Do you see the logic I am talking about?

[JacobF]

Imagine this: you are a very rich person from some civilized country in our world. You have so much money that you don't have to work and just out of boredom you get into your plane (you are so rich that you have your own plane) and go somewhere into a jungle searching for adventures. You find a tribe of people who have never met with any kind of civilization. They see you coming down to them from the sky, and if we suppose that everything goes well with you and them, that you know their language, you take out your mobile phone and call some friend of yours and tell him to tell something to one of them, you have chosen, in his own language. What do you suppose this people will think about you? I am sure they would think that you are a god who has come down from the sky and that you can talk to in a very strange way. You would become an object of their adoration. You could show them some tricks from your civilization which would make you even greater in their eyes. Then you get bored again and leave them. You also leave your phone after teaching them how to answer when it rings, you call them from time to time. They would keep the device with a special protection and adoration, and so on and so forth. Hundreds of years pass, the story is handed down from generation to generation in verbal form because they do not know how to write. The visit of god is kept in their tradition and every generation adds something new, they are humans and their imagination works. Some of the generations would try to preserve the memory of you in some kinds of drawings or the like...

Do you see the logic I am talking about?

I've never heard of these ancient verbal recounts of gods coming to Earth. Except for on conspiracy websites, and as we all know the internet is not an ancient source of knowledge.

And every theory or story follows a logical order of events, but that doesn't automatically make it believable, credible or realistic.

[The Atheist]

Imagine this: ...

Do you see the logic I am talking about?

No.

I see imagination, fantasy and desire, no logic.

[Wintermute]

I've never heard of these ancient verbal recounts of gods coming to Earth.

Really? http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&c=1&v=4&t=KJV#4

[billyjack]

Really? http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eze&c=1&v=4&t=KJV#4

bible and credibility are mutually exclusive terms. ever played telephone? now imagine a 2000 year version of it. its hearsay

The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses. (Bacon)

the one hit this theory has is hearsay

[oopsycandy]

To assume that those passages from Ezekiel are referring to 'gods' would surely go against the monotheistic beliefs of the Jewish and Christian religions? Who as far as I am aware claim the bible as the word of god and his teachings and covenant with them?
Im confused now :alien:

[The Atheist]

To assume that those passages from Ezekiel are referring to 'gods' would surely go against the monotheistic beliefs of the Jewish and Christian religions?

Absolutely correct.

[Wintermute]

To assume that those passages from Ezekiel are referring to 'gods' would surely go against the monotheistic beliefs of the Jewish and Christian religions? Who as far as I am aware claim the bible as the word of god and his teachings and covenant with them?
Im confused now :alien:

Well they certainly seem to be messengers of 'god'. Read the passages including the next page. By your logic wouldn't it follow that Jesus goes against the monotheistic beliefs of the Jewish and Christian religions? He too was god's messenger, no?

The 'star' that 'went before' the kings to guide them to Christ's birthplace and the pillar of fire and flame that led Moses from the 'holy land' also have an extraterrestrial feel to them (for me).

Note: As an agnostic, i don't necessarily believe any of this. I do think it is interesting and fun to discuss though :)

Blessings,
Doug

[mmaria]

No.

I see imagination, fantasy and desire, no logic.

Do I see intolerance...?:)

[JacobF]

Do I see intolerance...?:)

I don't want to speak for atheist but, if you need to play the 'intolerance' card to rebuttal then your argument isn't very strong.

[The Atheist]

Do I see intolerance...?:)

No, you're confusing what intolerance is as well as logic.

Intolerance would be if I went, "That's a stupid belief, so you must be stupid", which is not something I would do. As I said, you're welcome to your beliefs; to me, they're no stranger than those of christianity, Buddhism, islam or Judaism.

You claimed that you used logic to arrive at your belief, but what you've described isn't logic. I'm not going to argue with your beliefs, but I won't sit by and see you claiming it has anything to with logic.

[mmaria]

All that I've said above has nothing to do with beliefs. It is pure logic. First, you exclude every possibility of it, and that is not logical.

[The Atheist]

All that I've said above has nothing to do with beliefs. It is pure logic.

Nope.

Check it out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic)


First, you exclude every possibility of it, and that is not logical.

Wrong again. I haven't excluded anything. I said that there is no evidence which suggests even a remote possibility of it being correct, therefore logic can only find against the premise.

[oopsycandy]

Well they certainly seem to be messengers of 'god'. Read the passages including the next page. By your logic wouldn't it follow that Jesus goes against the monotheistic beliefs of the Jewish and Christian religions? He too was god's messenger, no?

Ah but the original premise was not that theses alien visitors were messengers, but that they are gods. Also Jesus is considered the son of god and an incarnation of god. The holy trinity are seperate and yet the same entity which allows for the apparent contradiction of Jesus as mortal man and divine being.


The 'star' that 'went before' the kings to guide them to Christ's birthplace and the pillar of fire and flame that led Moses from the 'holy land' also have an extraterrestrial feel to them (for me).

Or ancient superstition? Its easy to interpret such language as justifying what you already believe. Did someone read the Old Testament and think hmmm that sounds like an alien visitation or did someone decide that alien visitation was possible and go looking for sources to support it?


Note: As an agnostic, i don't necessarily believe any of this. I do think it is interesting and fun to discuss though :)






:D

[mmaria]

This theory also says that extraterrestrials guide the evolution of life on Earth.

[mmaria]

...or not?

[BlindPoet]

I believe it's definitely a possibility at the least. If you think about it if you were an ancient primitive undeveloped civilization looking at a highly advanced high tech society, you might mistake them for gods. The tales we here about Greek Gods the characteristics and ability's could be a result of their technology. Thrown Lightning bolts = Energy Weapons, Flying = Jet Packs, that sort of thing.

[cacian]

what is the point of astronaut? it is to go to space and try a different way of walking so to speak.
a god has no reason to be anything but a god and so for him or her to have been an astronaut is simply too simplistic. what would be the reason for a god to be one?

[Calidore]

I believe it's definitely a possibility at the least. If you think about it if you were an ancient primitive undeveloped civilization looking at a highly advanced high tech society, you might mistake them for gods. The tales we here about Greek Gods the characteristics and ability's could be a result of their technology. Thrown Lightning bolts = Energy Weapons, Flying = Jet Packs, that sort of thing.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

[cafolini]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

True. For anyone the why has no answer, the how is magic.

[cacian]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

and magic is man made right? technology is too. :D

[cafolini]

The Gods are a pagan, Greek proposition. They are immortal and, as such, they have absolutely no motive to be concerned with flesh transactions, as Epicurus pointed out. The Gods that came to earth were gastronauts, not astronauts.

[Dreamwoven]

There is another theory about this, it need not involve "gods". It is by Zecharia Sitchin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin) who wrote a series of books called The Earth Chronicles (http://www.sitchin.com) Sitchin died in 2010 but his work is continued by others. Basically, Sitchin argued that there is a twelfth planet going round the sun. This is part of a wider controversy around what constitutes a planet that has raged in the International Astronomy Association (IAU), and still does. See this discussion in Wikipedia on the IAU definition of a planet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet).

I remain sceptical but feel we have to leave this issue open until we get more information. Part of the controversy surrounds the definition of Pluto, and the New Horizons (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/) space craft will hopefully contribute to clarifying this. The NASA website in the preceding link is worth examining. Space research has developed in leaps and bounds in recent years, and no doubt there will be more to discover.

[Munshie]

mmaria

The God was an astronaut idea was book wrtitten by Von Daniken. He's written other permutations on the theme. He is not an archaelogist and he has been taken to task by archaelogists for distortions and untruths. It's all poppycock. There are detailed critiques by appropriate experts of Von Daniken's fantasies in books and on YouTube. In a nutshell Von Daniken and his followers do not credit humans with the intelligence to do the things we have done. He thinks we're dumb. We needed help from aliens to do many things.

[Munshie]

mmaria

I don't know what internet you're referring to! See my previous comment to your original post. Von Daniken has been discreditted by reputable archaelogists. Daniken has no qualifications in the field about which he writes. Now I don't know about you but I would rather seek out a medically trained doctor than a witch-doctor.

[Dreamwoven]

I have started the thread because it interested me to hear what other people from the literature site think about the theory. According to the theory, (which can be found on the internet, there is no need that I talk about it) evidence does exist. :)

I guess this is the post you refer to, which is on p.1 of this thread.

I also have serious doubts about this theory, von Daniken seems to have poorer qualifications on this than either Sitchin or Velikovsky. And we now have more information than was available then. We know, for example, that Pluto goes around the sun once every 250 years (roughly). Pluto was only discovered in the 1930s and we now have fleeting glimpses of it from New Horizons. It is most unlikely that there is another planet going round the sun with an even longer orbit further out. Sitchin claimed it had an orbit around the sun that took some 4,000 years to complete. He may be proved wrong but not before we know a lot more about our neighbouring planets. Until then, scepticism is a sound approach, I think.

[mortalterror]

Yes. /thread

[Dreamwoven]

Sorry, Mortalterror, could you explain the point you are making?

[mortalterror]

Sorry, Mortalterror, could you explain the point you are making?

Stupid questions don't deserve serious answers.

[Munshie]

Dreamwoven

Thanks for setting me straight about the original post.

I did as a teenager read Velikovsky's attempts to provide a scientific-type explanation of some of the bibical events. (There is still a flourishing industry in Christianity and in Islam attempting to provide a pseudo-science explanation for those faiths - even attempts to demonstrate that that some, usually vague, texts contain science foreknowledge.)

As Prof Carl Sagan wrote in one of his early (for mass consumption) books, Velikovsky's views can be discreditted with simple postage stamp calculations known to astronomy. I would recommend that you read Sagan's 'Demon haunted world' (now about 18 years old). He examines everything from alien abductions to numerology and much else in-between. Some of his idea about sleep paralysis and false memories have since the book was published been supported by other scientists.

I'm sure you are aware of Sagan's important statement in response to ufologists (and the like): Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. :smile5::smile5:

[Dreamwoven]

I agree. Velikovsky's theory that Venus started out as a comet, captured by the sun is bizarre, if not entirely impossible. I will ry and get Sagan's book, thanks for the tip!

[mortalterror]

Dreamwoven

Thanks for setting me straight about the original post.

I did as a teenager read Velikovsky's attempts to provide a scientific-type explanation of some of the bibical events. (There is still a flourishing industry in Christianity and in Islam attempting to provide a pseudo-science explanation for those faiths - even attempts to demonstrate that that some, usually vague, texts contain science foreknowledge.)

As Prof Carl Sagan wrote in one of his early (for mass consumption) books, Velikovsky's views can be discreditted with simple postage stamp calculations known to astronomy. I would recommend that you read Sagan's 'Demon haunted world' (now about 18 years old). He examines everything from alien abductions to numerology and much else in-between. Some of his idea about sleep paralysis and false memories have since the book was published been supported by other scientists.

I'm sure you are aware of Sagan's important statement in response to ufologists (and the like): Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. :smile5::smile5:

I agree with most of your comment except for the last part: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. This statement is actually logically incorrect because the word "extraordinary" implies a subjective judgment and is contingent on presuppositions.

[Munshie]

Mortalterror

The quote (from perhaps my faulty memory) is actually from Carl Sagan. The gist of it to me is that if people are going to make claims that are radical then we need good quality evidence to back them up. On the subject of aliens visiting Earth, Sagan and other scientists have argued that nothing had been produced that is not within the realms of modern technology. Some years back, Sagan suggested that perhaps technologies that can only be conducted in deep space (which were at Sagan's time impossible) could be useful evidence to support the contention that we've been visited by aliens.

[Munshie]

Mortalterror

The quote (from perhaps my faulty memory) is actually from Carl Sagan. The gist of it to me is that if people are going to make claims that are radical then we need good quality evidence to back them up. On the subject of aliens visiting Earth, Sagan and other scientists have argued that nothing had been produced that is not within the realms of modern technology. Some years back, Sagan suggested that perhaps technologies that can only be conducted in deep space (which were at Sagan's time impossible) could be useful evidence to support the contention that we've been visited by aliens.

[mortalterror]

I know it was Sagan who said it, but I also think that he was wrong. Sagan should have said instead that claims require proof and he would have been right. The crux of his error is all in the word "extraordinary." In the absence of an objective definition of ordinary or extraordinary different parties can define either as they wish. The presumptions that they bring to the argument actually determine how they determine ordinary or extraordinary. Thus it's an arbitrary standard. Also, there is only evidence or no evidence, proof or no proof. To prove by an inch is the same as to prove by a mile, so by requiring "extraordinary proof" you introduce a possibly impossible standard and an unnecessary burden to the counter argument. Furthermore, there are certain types of rare or unlikely events which by their nature rarely repeat or leave much evidence but which are generally acknowledged to have happened.

[Munshie]

mortalterror

I understand what you're saying. In the case of alien visitations/abduction, the 'believers' claim they do have evidence. To the scientific establishment the 'evidence' is disputed or there is insufficient evidence. Yes, there are events that are not common, but science does rely on 'repeatability' of events to decipher patterns/characteristics of the phenomenon. Certainly in the cases of experimental findings, the first thing that happens when the news of the experiment is shared/published scientist attempt to duplicate the experiment. Cold fusion was announced in a very public way (and some argue somewhat prematurely) but no other scientist were able to reproduce the results.