This essay is loosely akin to Eric von Daniken's "Chariots of Gods", as it has served to provide with the necessary details of the past that aren't easy to come by. Chances are, the theory(ies) being presented here won't fit into your regular school of thought, therefore you are encouraged to read this article with an open mind for the proper understanding of what is being implied.
Is there Intelligent Life out there?
Through a small telescope, a small region of the sky shows us about 2 million stars. On average, it is estimated that there are about 1020 stars. There may be even more out there. If we say that the conditions for life are around one in a thousand stars, we have 1014 stars. If one in a thousand of these have an atmosphere suitable for life, we get 1011. And if one in a thousand of these have produced life, we have 100 million. Take one in a thousand of these as planets that have developed some form of intelligent life, and we get 100,000 planets. We could keep reducing the probability of existence of intelligent life out there, and still reach 200!
One of the basic assumptions of this theory is the assumption that extraterrestrial life is a reality, and this is reiterated in evidence being presented again and again here.
Now, we constantly make the mistake of assuming that life must exist, develop and flourish in conditions exactly like ours. Yet on this planet of ours, we have anaerobic bacteria: these live in environments that possess no oxygen. Germs have also been found in the lethal water that surrounds a nuclear reactor. Experiments that recreated the conditions of Jupiter were also seen to have supported life. Some bacteria live in volcanoes, some eat stones and some produce iron. The point being made here is that life can exist in any condition. An alien civilization out there might consider their conditions to be the ideal one for sustaining life.
When Spaceships Landed on Earth
Jules Verna described a trip around the world in 80 days. Nowadays, it takes 90 minutes for an astronaut to do that. In those days, his ideas were considered to be pure science fiction. Yet, not only have we proven that false, we've outdone it. Ideas of today may be scoffed, yet some of them do eventually become a reality. This is one of the unfortunate tendencies we seem to maintain in all times. Sooner or later, man will have conquered space, and we will have conquered Mars, then the Solar System, and perhaps distant stars.
Now, let us assume that a spaceship leaves Earth to another planet. If the ship were traveling fast enough, then time would slow down for the crew. 10 years would pass on the ship, whereas 100 may have gone by back home on Earth.
The ship lands on a planet, inhabited by a population of creatures in the state of development that Earth was 8000 years ago. What do the primitives think of these strange visitors coming in large roaring ships? They close their eyes, and face the ground fearing these "Gods." The Gods have come to visit them! The crew would study these inhabitants, pick up their language and would be able to communicate with them. Priests from the tribe would approach them to pay homage and offer gifts. No amount of explanation would deter any of the primitives from the notion that these are Gods. Our crew would also teach the primitives some of the basic values of civilization. Interbreeding among them (perhaps by 'choosing' women) would lead to a generation that's actually a few generations ahead in intelligence and abilities. The crew would eventually leave, perhaps with a promise of return. Back on that planet, the saga would continue. They will write stories, erect statues, drawings, temples…
The reason this is being explained is because it too is relevant to this article, as you will see ahead.
This Unexplained World
Shifting focus back to our own planet now. Generally when a certain point of mystery in our past is raised, or questions regarding the history of something, the scholars will tell us what happened, in so and so way. And that will get accepted, without much thinking on our part. But there are some things on this planet that are simply too weird for an explanation, and are hence not addressed by these 'scholars.' Here is a small list below, you may do a search to read more on it:
When evidence such as the ones mentioned above are brought into light, they are usually dismissed. Either the ancient civilizations were extremely advanced (and we've lost all their technology), or they had active imaginations. Yet the existence of these cannot be denied. Just about every culture, somewhere or the other, presents us with the same cave drawings, the same legends, the same flying Gods. Why? If it is indeed all lies, how did all of them come up with the same hair brained idea?
Is God an Astronaut?
The Bible is a book full of contradictions. Go to a library, or search online for the following passages:
Genesis 1:26 - who is "our"? Why is God talking like a group?
Genesis 6:1-2 - Who are the sons of God?
Genesis 6:4 - this describes mighty men known as the sons of God who mated with humans. Just about all the ancient books describe these giants. Keep in mind that if aliens had come from a planet with lower gravity, they would be extremely tall, and sport large chests. Similar to the giants.
Genesis 19:1-28 - describes or relates some sort of a catastrophe countdown, wherein the 'angels' of God tell the prophet "Lot" to hurry and get out of the city, into the mountains, and not to look at the explosion. Why the rush? Why a countdown?
In the Old Testament, Ezekiel describes in detail a visit by these Gods, and refers to fire from the vehicle, and gives a description of what we would see as an all-terrain vehicle. Apparently Ezekiel was so impressed by these that he kept describing the ship and vehicle over and over again.
Exodus 15:10, Exodus 25:40 - Noah was given the exact instructions and measurements for building the Ark, down to the inch. Also, it was described to be electrically charged, because things like sparks and flashes were said to be there. Was that perhaps a means of communication with the God?
The flood epic isn't confined to the pages of the Bible. It exists in just about every culture. You can read a few of these flood myth stories here. How did all of them come up with the same flood story? Why?
Was it perhaps that the aliens were attempting to breed an intelligent race of humans, and were attempting to destroy the experiments that they weren't satisfied with?
Is there Intelligent Life out there?
Through a small telescope, a small region of the sky shows us about 2 million stars. On average, it is estimated that there are about 1020 stars. There may be even more out there. If we say that the conditions for life are around one in a thousand stars, we have 1014 stars. If one in a thousand of these have an atmosphere suitable for life, we get 1011. And if one in a thousand of these have produced life, we have 100 million. Take one in a thousand of these as planets that have developed some form of intelligent life, and we get 100,000 planets. We could keep reducing the probability of existence of intelligent life out there, and still reach 200!
One of the basic assumptions of this theory is the assumption that extraterrestrial life is a reality, and this is reiterated in evidence being presented again and again here.
Now, we constantly make the mistake of assuming that life must exist, develop and flourish in conditions exactly like ours. Yet on this planet of ours, we have anaerobic bacteria: these live in environments that possess no oxygen. Germs have also been found in the lethal water that surrounds a nuclear reactor. Experiments that recreated the conditions of Jupiter were also seen to have supported life. Some bacteria live in volcanoes, some eat stones and some produce iron. The point being made here is that life can exist in any condition. An alien civilization out there might consider their conditions to be the ideal one for sustaining life.
When Spaceships Landed on Earth
Jules Verna described a trip around the world in 80 days. Nowadays, it takes 90 minutes for an astronaut to do that. In those days, his ideas were considered to be pure science fiction. Yet, not only have we proven that false, we've outdone it. Ideas of today may be scoffed, yet some of them do eventually become a reality. This is one of the unfortunate tendencies we seem to maintain in all times. Sooner or later, man will have conquered space, and we will have conquered Mars, then the Solar System, and perhaps distant stars.
Now, let us assume that a spaceship leaves Earth to another planet. If the ship were traveling fast enough, then time would slow down for the crew. 10 years would pass on the ship, whereas 100 may have gone by back home on Earth.
The ship lands on a planet, inhabited by a population of creatures in the state of development that Earth was 8000 years ago. What do the primitives think of these strange visitors coming in large roaring ships? They close their eyes, and face the ground fearing these "Gods." The Gods have come to visit them! The crew would study these inhabitants, pick up their language and would be able to communicate with them. Priests from the tribe would approach them to pay homage and offer gifts. No amount of explanation would deter any of the primitives from the notion that these are Gods. Our crew would also teach the primitives some of the basic values of civilization. Interbreeding among them (perhaps by 'choosing' women) would lead to a generation that's actually a few generations ahead in intelligence and abilities. The crew would eventually leave, perhaps with a promise of return. Back on that planet, the saga would continue. They will write stories, erect statues, drawings, temples…
The reason this is being explained is because it too is relevant to this article, as you will see ahead.
This Unexplained World
Shifting focus back to our own planet now. Generally when a certain point of mystery in our past is raised, or questions regarding the history of something, the scholars will tell us what happened, in so and so way. And that will get accepted, without much thinking on our part. But there are some things on this planet that are simply too weird for an explanation, and are hence not addressed by these 'scholars.' Here is a small list below, you may do a search to read more on it:
- Piri Reis Maps found in Topkapi Palace. This was found in the possession of a Turkish Navy Admiral. It was a map of the world, showing even North and South America and even Antarctica if the ice caps were to be removed. However, the map was seemingly distorted. A startling discovery showed that projecting the map onto a sphere would produce an exact view of how the world would appear if it were seen from a certain distance in space. How did our ancestors get a hold of this?
- Straight geometrical lines, some intersect and form trapezoids, in Nazca, Peru. And they're not even roads, because they end abruptly.
- Tiahuanaco is a city teeming with mysteries. Here, archaeologists founds an accurate calendar that gave the equinoxes, astronomical seasons and the positions of the moon at every hour. This is from 27,000 years ago. Also at Tiahuanaco, one can find huge sandstone blocks with accurate stonework on it, in seemingly impossible ways. There is also a Great Idol at the Old Temple, and the Gate of the Sun shows 'flying Gods' on it. Tiahuanaco also holds a legend of flying ships from the stars.
- Sacsahuaman: Giant Monolith, exquisitely carved and standing on its head.
- In Ur, where the worlds oldest books exist, we find stories of "Great Gods" that come in flying ships.
- Sumerians were one of the earliest civilizations that apparently appeared out of nowhere. Not only that, they were an advanced civilization: They had advanced astronomy, and estimates on the rotation of the moon that differ from todays calculations by 0.4 seconds. Also found was a calculation with a 15 digit result. The Greeks at the peak of their civilization never went above 10,000. The Sumerians, apparently, also had huge spans of life. They have documented 10 kings that ruled for a total of 456,000 years. The Sumerians also relate a story of how the Gods had returned after the Great Flood. Some Akkadian tablets show Gods connected with helmets and stars. What's strange is that around the stars are planets of various sizes.
- Drawing of spirals at Geoy Tepe from 6000 years ago.
- A 40,000 year old flint industry at Gar Kobeh
- A Similar one from 30,000 years ago at Baradostian
- Figures and Tombs, 13,000 years old at Tepe Asiab
- Tools, engravings and flints at Karim Shahir from the year 45000 BC
- Helwan has a piece of cloth so fine that it is possible only in a specialized factory today.
- Electric batteries that work on the galvanic principle are on display at the Baghdad Museum
- A 10,000 year old star map in Kohistan
- Smelted Platinum found in Peru
- A rust proof Iron pillar in Delhi
When evidence such as the ones mentioned above are brought into light, they are usually dismissed. Either the ancient civilizations were extremely advanced (and we've lost all their technology), or they had active imaginations. Yet the existence of these cannot be denied. Just about every culture, somewhere or the other, presents us with the same cave drawings, the same legends, the same flying Gods. Why? If it is indeed all lies, how did all of them come up with the same hair brained idea?
Is God an Astronaut?
The Bible is a book full of contradictions. Go to a library, or search online for the following passages:
Genesis 1:26 - who is "our"? Why is God talking like a group?
Genesis 6:1-2 - Who are the sons of God?
Genesis 6:4 - this describes mighty men known as the sons of God who mated with humans. Just about all the ancient books describe these giants. Keep in mind that if aliens had come from a planet with lower gravity, they would be extremely tall, and sport large chests. Similar to the giants.
Genesis 19:1-28 - describes or relates some sort of a catastrophe countdown, wherein the 'angels' of God tell the prophet "Lot" to hurry and get out of the city, into the mountains, and not to look at the explosion. Why the rush? Why a countdown?
In the Old Testament, Ezekiel describes in detail a visit by these Gods, and refers to fire from the vehicle, and gives a description of what we would see as an all-terrain vehicle. Apparently Ezekiel was so impressed by these that he kept describing the ship and vehicle over and over again.
Exodus 15:10, Exodus 25:40 - Noah was given the exact instructions and measurements for building the Ark, down to the inch. Also, it was described to be electrically charged, because things like sparks and flashes were said to be there. Was that perhaps a means of communication with the God?
The flood epic isn't confined to the pages of the Bible. It exists in just about every culture. You can read a few of these flood myth stories here. How did all of them come up with the same flood story? Why?
Was it perhaps that the aliens were attempting to breed an intelligent race of humans, and were attempting to destroy the experiments that they weren't satisfied with?
yes
because God would be not God but an alien... or did you mean the word as an adjective... as in God is alien rather than God is an alien?
God is alien... he is not an alien
Daniken was a fraud and Verne wrote fiction
you're asserting a God of the Gaps argument but substituting "ancient alien" for God.
you're asserting a God of the Gaps argument but substituting "ancient alien" for God.
Since I believe "God" is all Consciousness, and also believe Humans were genetically monkeyed with by "ET's" in the distant past, discovering proof of this would change nothing for me.
The 'God' idea has a fairly well-attested parentage, beginning with the ritual magic dance early people used before hunting and so on, the magic animals later turning into 'gods' embodying the power of the dance and reforming persons constantly working to cut down the number of magic entities and connect them up with human morality in a most sensible and laudable way. Occam's razor suggests we don't need aliens to explain this praiseworthy project.
So how did Judeo-Christian monotheism evolve into a religion of mercy, love and all things not associated with animism and all the varients evolving?
Occam's got nothing to do with this. God is or isn't. Believe or don't. Absent proof or concrete evidence there's nothing to support God from a scientific basis. That's why we call it faith.
Edit... Occam... with regard to outlandish theories; agreed. The sociological explanation you gave is absurdly more reasonable that an alien theory. Though I'm not troubled by pan-spermia notions.
Unsophisticated peoples feel guilt at killing, which is why particular clans of the tribe 'are' the hunted animal and, never eating it, forgive the rest on behalf of their totem, nor do they kill more than they must. Human beings are totally co-operative animals, so love and mercy are part of their daly experience. Living as herders under one sky gives the image of the one sky-father. So as 'religion' develops out of magic, all the higher elements are there in embryo.
In the long run, yes, there are more economical explanations of our experience, so Occam's razor cuts out God. It takes time, however, for human belief to contain both scientific and human truths.
Occam's Razor also suggests that if the Sumerians described "Gods" genetically engineering Humans, then that is probably what happened.
And it turns out that Sitchen's work is virtually the same as all the others who have translated the Tablets. No significant differences. So I think it is most probable that "aliens" both created Us and used Their own DNA in part.
Last edited:
No. Moral people feel guilt at killing. Unsophisticated, insane or otherwise touched "people" feel no guilt when they kill.
You've never had children have you.
No. Occam tells us other explanations are more likely. A propensity is not a certainty. Besides, God doesn't have to comply with Occam because he's God. Which gets us back to... believe or don't; but stop wasting time justifying either POV.
See what you did is assert a premise that assumes the conclusion. It is referred to as "begging the question."
Occam's Razor also suggests that if (my premise is true), then that is probably what happened.
See what I mean?
It turns out you're relying on a fraud....
Unsophisticated people ARE moral. It takes a great deal of energy and perversity to pretend to believe lies. People feel guilt at killing because it is contrary to their species-nature.
Yes, four. Clearly we don't train them to hate and kill, do we?
Who's begging the question now? God is a fantasy people found - and find - necessary to justify their natural need to behave in a way appropriate to a co-operative species despite having lost instinctive behaviour.
they seem to come by selfishness, lying and all that kind of thing naturally.... we have to teach them to share, not to hit etc
But at no point did I dispute that. Believe or don't. Assume the premise or don't. I've been quite explicit and up front on that point.
I'm not justifying God. You are justifying why a "false" God.
You're asserting that people have a "need" which is "necessary" to "justify" their lives. You can't know that. You assume it. For me and those of whom I have spoken to on the subject we never really questioned the existence of God in terms of their needs. They have simply assumed one exists - whether he addresses their needs is another issue. They didn't do this to fill any need - just seemed obvious to them. The fact is you'd probably find this to be true of 99.9999999% of everyone to live if you could ask them. Your assertion requires way too much reflection and consideration to be true for all but an absurdly small number of people.
So, believe or don't but quit trying to justify either view. Each begs the question.
And not to put their hands in fires or walk in front of cars. Our 'good' and 'bad' are clearly abstractions from behaviour, but since we are a co-operative species the 'good' is about co-operation, the 'bad' about childish ignorance of the nature of things, selfishness and competition.
I believe in Gloop, and I base everything on that premise!
I don't think I'm asserting anything in particular: as far as I know, no early peoples believed in 'gods' - they believed in magic. This belief gradually gave rise to the very various ideas included in the God notion, which was used, in general, to encourage group solidarity, gradually moving towards universal solidarity as great empires developed, because it was a natural abstraction of that experience. I have an historical interest in this discussion, but I am not into theism or atheism or justifying either. I was brought up a Christian Socialist, which didn't seem deeply to involve either obsession, being more concerned with decent action within societies. I suppose capitalism still seems to me to carry all the associations of the AntiChrist, but that's because by their deeds shall ye know them.
you're describing actions without moral connotations so "good" or "bad" don't apply.
Taking toys from another child would be bad.. sharing would be good.
Sticking your hand into a fire would be unwise.
I believe in Gloop, and I base everything on that premise!
OK. But Gloop doesn't have a 3000+ year old history that has had, arguably more influence on the planet than anything else.
Still, like God, believe or don't. I can't prove or disprove Gloop and trying either is silly.
Early peoples: magic v God - hard to say with no written records. However, the oldest records we do have not belief in Gods.
Back to Occam: No doubt your description would best describe an evolution in belief. But that doesn't preclude God as I understand (or don't) him.
Spartan boy letting the fox eat out his gut sooner than admit theft? Buddhist monks (and one of my ex-students) burning themselves to death in anti-war protests? Cranmer holding the hand that signed the recantation in the fire? The idea - in relation to suicide - that the sentry does not leave his post ? Japanese (or Roman) soldiers dying unquestioningly for the Emperor? Death of Socrates, who could have escaped? It seems to me (as an ex-Samaritan) that hurting yourself or killing yourself is very far from lacking a moral connotation, and preventing self-harm is very relevant to loving your neighbour as yourself. The zionists deliberately kill children and capitalists steal everyone's toys - so I oppose them as I oppose my child's burning her hand. I don't think yours is a real distinction. As a very minimum, to hurt conscious beings is wrong because it prevents useful human development, and we ourselves are conscious beings.
Nothing I say precludes the 'existence' (or however we want to term something way outside our experience) of a God, but I am gently dubious of your (and others') idea that the notion is either natural to people or very likely because the historical records go with belief. Since most of those records were kept by priests, monks and the like, whose whole economic basis was a god-system, they will evidently be weighed towards such a belief. What's more, unless I misunderstand, you are an American, inhabiting a state where it is of economic benefit to believe, or pretend to believe, in a deity. It is very different in the UK, where few suppose religion is in any way 'natural', I think.
Last edited:
Nope. The Tablets are pretty clear. [shrug]
I'm relying on all the other translators...you mean they're all frauds?
You've amplified your hypos considerably at this point.
If you meant suicide you should have said suicide.
Suicide is morally wrong.
Your "facts"
Your point: Agreed perhaps. To hurt another may be morally wrong but requires context lacking in your comments.
I'm a Texan and an American. The problem with your preference is that you are relying on supposition. I don't think it is an unreasonable suposition but when we have records that stand to illustrate a different path I think it more reasonabled to rely on that evidence rather than a reasonable notion lacking that doesn't have evidence.
Don't suggest my or my co-religionists faith is based on mammon or that it is false for other personal gain. Undoubtedly there are those for whom it is true. But it is far from common 'round these parts. It would not be unheard of for such allegations to be responded to with a fist.
In the UK where churches are museums and mosques are alive I'd accept that the issue may be laid more bare but it is outside my experience to empathize with.
Similar threads
