Could ancient gods be aliens?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Cicada
The reason that we can not say that aliens influenced earliest human cultures is because we can not imagine a means of travelling at the speeds necessary to traverse light years of space.

Would the ancient imagine that someone will ever realy walk on the moon?
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892"

Originally posted by Cicada
The ancient astronaut theory is interesting, it has a lot of romantic charm, but it seems to be a modern incident of misreading the poetic, allegorical intent of world mythological systems. Why do all these various systems say that wise, benevolent, governing entities came down to Earth from the sky? Because this is how they described the planets and the stars, and these celestial objects were fundamentally important in the conception of time and space.

This is an opinion: what they came here for... did they even came from somewhere else... were they benevolent? Who knows....

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:17 PM

Could ancient gods be aliens?

You bet your @$$ they are!

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:57 PM
Well if you want my opinion...
we can even be ourself foreign to this planet: we can be the last people "fallen" here...* or we may also have progenitors or whatever they were...
Actualy, the more I learn, the more I go on my own studies, the more it sounds strange to me that 30.000 years took us to our level. While it tooks millions(and before billions) of years to get there...

*but in this case, we should think that the evolution of life was very similar in the place we came from... since we have nearly the same DNA than a fly
well... I won't write my opinion on this...

[edit on 20/12/2005 by Lillo]

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:35 PM
But where did the aliens come from? How is this satisfying any enigmas in any way? I would be more willing to read the ancient mythological sources as literal truth because at least in that case there's usually a point of origin presented.

The mathematics, technology and physics involved in rocketing out of orbit and onto the moon are vastly different then whatever method we might suggest for traversing huge astronomical distances. I get the point of what you're saying about a civilization at certain level of technological breakthrough not being able to conceptualize the potential breakthroughs of future generations, but I think you're miss reading my point. It's not that we can't imagine someone travelling at or beyond the speed of light, just turn on the Sci-Fi channel, it's that we can not imagine a means of doing so. Might another species on another planet more "advanced" then Homo Sapiens have developed some manner to traverse these distances? Maybe, but it's a really big maybe. The more we try to stretch the ancient astronaut theory the more questions it raises. Proponents of the concept seem perfectly satisfied with these gaping voids of information, but if we really want to answer the big questions about the history of our world then we're going to have to set aside the romanticism, as much fun as it may be.

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Cicada
How does adding aliens into the mysteries of human existence do anything but add unnecessary complications?

this is the problem right here,lazy bbrain ppl like your self,who dont wanna dig deeper for the truth,so what if you encounter a few complications...its called if first you dont succed,try again! we have to look for the truth,...

[edit on 20-12-2005 by MagicPriest420]

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 09:56 PM
I personally don't see adding aliens more complicating to human history or existance than adding a God of your choice to the mix. I really and truly do not.

Just look at the Akkadian (Babylonian-Assyrian) culture, for example. 5000 years before the telescope, they had identified - with a few mistakes (for example adding some of the larger moons of Jupiter) - all of the planets of our solar system, plus several moons of Uranus. This is clearly seen in their art.

Science doesn't do proof. Science merely allows things to be shown to be wrong, until then they are just "most likely". In fact that is why science can be relied on, it isn't a matter of orthodoxy or adherence to laws, it is continually being tested and those bits that fail to work out are questioned and eventually ignored.

I think a big part of what constitutes our "real" history is how much people believe it. Evolution, for instance, is considered a solid fact by most of the population.

The "Chariots of The Gods" theory; however, would probably never get to that point of believability. Although a great deal of people do believe in life on other planets, the idea that most of human history was wasted on religious concerns when it was just a bunch of "lost martians" is one that disturbs many people.

This is why any intelligent person that advances the theory is laughed at. And artifacts which seem to prove it can also be interpreted in very benign ways. So, essentially, if anything like this is found on Earth it will most likely be something that is easily erased from the public consiousness or is very obscure.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the idea just because it's not the mainstream WASP way of thinking.

[edit on 20/12/05 by Bripe Klmun]

[edit on 20/12/05 by Bripe Klmun]

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 10:55 PM
Name-calling? That's nice. Way to elevate the conversation my friend. Nice logic as well. Seeing as I'm the one that's posing questions on the matter and actually thinking about it in terms of feasibility above "I like aliens", then it seems to me that I'm the one who is using their brain actively. Seeing as how instead of answering my questions with well thought out or presented material of any kind at all you chose to cast aspersions on my intellect, I'm going to assume that you have no reasonable argument to make on this matter. It's really too bad because it could be an interesting discussion.

I have no problem with poetic or romantic notions or flights of fancy. The concept of alien astronauts is great as a plot device in a space opera or as part of the cosmology of a comic book universe. Some of my favorite works of fiction involve the concept, Arthur C. Clarke's "2001" series, the weird fiction of H.P. Lovecraft, Douglas Adam's "Hitchhiker" satire, and the wondrous super-mythologies generated by Jack Kirby in comics titles like "The Fantastic Four" and "The New Gods".

But in terms of the real world it's far from being demonstratable or tenable. It's a poetic notion, and there are all manner of confusions in interpreting the poetic and often fragmentary, sometimes mistranslated language and concepts of ancient mythologies. Modern ones too, for that matter. In my opinion the ancient astronaut theory is just another symptom of a propensity of modern, Western society to too literally read language that was always intended to be understood allegorically.

So why is it that I'm adverse to a completely unspecified notion that the ancient gods were aliens besides the obviously turbid state of my mental capabilities? It's the incredibly large numbers involved in the probabilities.

I do believe in the potential for extraterrestrial life and I am a proponent of SETI research. The universe is vast and within our galaxy alone there could potentially be millions of "intelligent" life forms that are technologically advanced to the level of radio astronomy. Here's the excellent article on the topic by Dr. Carl Sagan from the journal "Cosmic Search":

The Quest for Extraterrestrial Life

There's not a word in this particular article that I disagree with. Here's a pertinent point to the conversation at hand:

Despite claims about ancient astronauts and unidentified flying objects, there is no firm evidence of past visitations to the Earth by other civilizations, and so we are restricted to looking for signals from afar.

Sagan is about as friendly as any mainstream scientist could ever be expected to be on this subject. Very early in his career he actually advocated the concept, such as in his 1966 book "Intelligent Life in the Universe”, co-written with I. Shklovskii, but at least his public view on the subject seemed to moderate by the time he was working on the Voyager project in the '70s.

What I was hoping to get out of this thread was a vigorous and thought provoking discussion on the possibilities of the concept. Despite the fact that all we've really seen produced on this particular thread is name calling and "I like aliens" statements, I still think this is a worthwhile conversation to have, so I'm going to do the "for ancient astronauts" homework for them in an effort to get something substantial to talk about generated.

Here's the Wikipedia article on Ancient Astronaut Theory
Probably the most famous proponent of the theory is Zecharia Sitchin.
But Stichin's work is highly controversial and contains little or no scientific merit, as demonstrated by this entry from The Skeptics Dictionary:

Zecharia Stichin and The Earth Chronicles

Their article on the topic in general is worth noting as well, although I personally find their treatment of the unaccountable engineering feats of ancients to be somewhat cursory:

Ancient Astronauts and Erich von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods

Stichin and von Daniken's work is a little sketchy but I'm not personally of the opinion that they are intentional charlatans. Let's go back briefly to Sagan, a much more reasonable figure. The following is from a larger article on Sagan's work on the Voyager program from Andy Lloyd's Dark Star Theory site:

Intelligent Life in the Universe

Remarkably, some of Carl Sagan’s early writings directly pertain to the possibility of extra-terrestrial contact in our distant past (4). Dr Sagan was clearly far more open-minded to these possibilities prior to his work on Voyager in the 70’s. In his 1966 book “Intelligent Life in the Universe”, co-written with I. Shklovskii of the Sternberg Astronomical Institute and Soviet Academy of Sciences, Sagan writes the following:
“ I feel that if Sumerian civilization is depicted by the descendants of the Sumerians themselves to be of non-human origin, the relevant legends should be examined carefully. I do not claim that the following is necessarily an example of extraterrestrial contact, but it is the type of legend that deserves more careful study. Taken at face value, the legend suggests that contact occurred between human beings and a non-human civilzsation of immense powers on the shores of the Persian Gulf, perhaps near the site of the ancient Sumerian city of Eridu, and in the fourth millennium B.C. or earlier.” (5)

Sagan goes on to describe various cylinder seals depicting the Mesopotamian gods, and ties these images in with the planets in the same way as Sitchin. But we must remember that this analysis by Carl Sagan was published 10 years before Zecharia Sitchin released “The 12th Planet”. Remarkably, Sagan appears to have pre-empted Sitchin. Here, Sagan describes his analysis of the enigmatic Sumerian cylinder seals:

“The illustrations on the cylinder seals have for this reason generally defied attempts to understand them in detail. They refer to mythological material otherwise lost... In each, there is a clear representation of some celestial object--a central circle, or sphere, surrounded by other, generally smaller circles or spheres.

In the upper left-hand illustration of Figure 33-5, we see that the central circle is surrounded by rays and can quite clearly be identified as a sun or star. But what are we to make of the other objects surrounding each star? It is at least a natural assumption that they represent the planets. But the idea of planets circling suns and stars is an idea which essentially originated with Copernicus--although some earlier speculations along these lines were mentioned in ancient Greece.

The cylinder seal in the upper left-hand corner of Figure 33-5 shows, curiously enough, nine planets circling the prominent sun in the sky (and two smaller planets, off to one side). The other representations of planetary systems—if we may call them this--show, remarkably, a variation in the numbers of planets per star. In some of the cylinder seals, a star and accompanying planets seem to be associated with a particular deity.” (5)

These are clearly the same images that Sitchin used to develop his theory, although he also delved into the Epic tales, using his linguistic expertise with cuneiform script.

But the astronomical implications of the pictorial cylinder seals were clearly not lost on Sagan, regardless of his knowledge of the accompanying Epics. His analysis seems open to the idea that the Sumerians had an understanding of celestial mechanics that belied their own primitive origins.

Sagan seemed to be particularly taken with the account of the amphibious teacher Oannes, who brought knowledge to the neolithic peoples of the Persian Gulf, given by Berosus. He goes on to offer a scenario of E.T. contact based upon long-term, intermittent ‘sampling’ expeditions to the Earth, the frequency of which increased as Mankind emerged (6). Sagan was considering these possibilities back in the 1960’s, and may well have come to similar conclusions to Zecharia Sitchin. If he did, he did not discuss them in public. But to have extolled the virtues of ancient astronaut hypothesis would surely have set his scientific career back significantly. Sagan was clearly open to the idea that extra-terrestrials had visited our world in the past, and were contactable. This frame of reference may account for his inclusion on the Voyager team, particularly with regard to the communiques to ET intelligence carried by the probes. The plaque ‘bearing representational and symbolic information about the human race’ on Pioneer 10 appears to have been the brain-child of Richard Hoagland and Eric Burgess in 1971, who then passed the idea on to Carl Sagan (7)

Pro-alien astronaut people may find Lloyd's site interesting as it builds off the work of Stichin and deals with:

...the proposed existence of a binary companion in our solar system. This body has been proposed by many down the years to account for numerous astronomical anomalies. Clearly, it remains the subject of speculation, and no one can yet claim that it definitely exists. Nevertheless, the potential for a small brown dwarf to be found orbiting the Sun is not only scientifically plausible, but would enable us to tie up a great number of loose ends in ancient religion and mythology. The recent discovery of the minor planet Sedna lends credence to this claim on a number of levels. I have now updated this theory substantially, moving closer to Zecharia Sitchin's own previous work but also incorporating a swath of new scientific findings into an elegant new hypothesis.

Is this enough material to start a real conversation on this topic? Any takers? If necessary I'll argue pro.

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:09 PM

Originally posted by MagicPriest420
this is the problem right here,lazy bbrain ppl like your self,who dont wanna dig deeper for the truth,so what if you encounter a few complications...its called if first you dont succed,try again! we have to look for the truth,...

Just read Cicada's post and saw name calling being mentioned and then looked above my post to see this.

What was the point in that? Treat your fellow posters with respect and keep your arguments constructive, and your voice will be heard. We're from all over the world here and we all have different viewpoints. Insulting someone because they don't agree with you isn't the fast-track to posting dominance.

Sorry that I felt the need to play junior mod when I am no such thing, but let's keep the topic on topic and the insults off the forum, please.

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:11 PM
I have no idea what a White Anglo Saxon Protestant "way of thinking" has to do with this topic. I'm also in no way advocating belief in a deity or deities of any nature. I understand the scientific method and the nature of proof. Another important aspect of the scientific method is that a hypothesis be falsifiable, meaning there has to be allowances for proving the theory false. If a hypothesis isn't falsifiable then it is an opinion and considered outside the consideration of the scientific inquiry. This alone prevents the ancient astronaut hypothesis from being seriously considered scientifically.

I'm not laughing at all at intelligent presentations on the matter. Personally I think my own presentation on the subject is pretty darn good.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Cicada
But where did the aliens come from? How is this satisfying any enigmas in any way? I would be more willing to read the ancient mythological sources as literal truth because at least in that case there's usually a point of origin presented.
The mathematics, technology and physics involved in rocketing out of orbit and onto the moon are vastly different then whatever method we might suggest for traversing huge astronomical distances.

About this, we already have many theory on how we can move to other part of the univers. "Curving" the space around the ship, worm hole... physic allows theoricaly to move a place to another in less time than the light, of course we are far from beeing able to design and build these engines...

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:46 AM
People use the search function!

If you find yourself saying "I don’t know if this topic has been covered before, but..." then it has been covered. In this case, it has been done to death; you will find a multitude of topics based on this, and some good info.

Another clue to look for: when nearly everyone posting on such an interesting subject has less than 100 posts under their belt, there is probably a reason, such as the topic has already been covered 80 or 90 times with a jillion bazillion posts.

That said, aliens are not gods, they are fallen angels. The idea that they are gods that seeded the planet with humans will be the great lie during the end times. Be careful, the idea is romantic but deadly.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:04 AM
Good read, whether you buy into it or not. I believe it was wrote in the 70's, so if you don't buy into it that will explain alot.

The one thing I like about books like that is they CHALLANGE to system. You shouldn't simple take what the first guy tells you as Truth, because he could be wrong or more than likely he's shading facts to form his own Agenda.

Alot of great points are made in this book, and the topic of this thread is EXACTLY what the writer is writing about (read it 3 years ago, forgot his name.)

I for one find it difficult, no matter how many times the History Channel tries it, to believe the current theories on how Stonehenge was set up, or exactly how the Pyramids were built (and I mean all triangular shaped collasul sized buildings, whether pointy topped or flat). Ideas about extreterrestials should be pursued, but not at the expense of learning what this world has to offer. What technology, now lost, could these ancients have come up with to do such things? After all, to this day we have yet to devise some of the great things the Ancients did. So we can't assume them stupid. Apparently a hand full of them were actually Genius, if not just for their time but of all time. Mapping the stars to such precision or mirroring them with structures to such exacting standards would be difficult today using high grade technology, yet it occured.

So while chasing space is fine and my produce benefits, let us first consider HUMAN INTELLECT first.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:30 AM
Why dive into a 'Dead Thread'? That is usually the problem with threads that grow to amazing size, they usually get boilded down to one or two arguements that stymie the topic.

From what I see here, there isn't anyone saying "Just last week we had a thread, and this was covered. Actually, since that thread is still active, how about bringing your ideas there?" That tells me all those millions of other threads on this topic, are way down the bottom and no longer discussed.

Sometimes the best way to begin a discussion is to strip away everything previous and start at square one. Square one this time was a question that, although 'done to death' doesn't seem to be so hot a topic as for us all to be directed elsewhere. Now, if posters allow, we can get to the Meat and Potatoes of a good discussion.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:54 AM

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
From what I see here, there isn't anyone saying "Just last week we had a thread, and this was covered. Actually, since that thread is still active, how about bringing your ideas there?"

THis may not be the greatest thread started on the topic (I dont have time to really search, that is your job)

Actually, since that thread is still active, how about bringing your ideas there?

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:52 PM
I doubt it, in a few thousand years will future generations think that the 'God' that many worship today is an alien? I don't think so. Ancient Gods are only there to keep some kind of order by the 'ruler'.

"Ahh, when we die we'll go to hell and suffer eternal pain for what we have done! Oh wait, we could be good to the 'ruler' and we'll be fine."

What a great way to keep power, and control...

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Lillo
About this, we already have many theory on how we can move to other part of the univers.

These are not theories, they are science-fictional fantasies. As I said, I have no problems with science fiction as a source for inspiration but it is now and ever will be impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Why is this point so important in this discussion? Because the Universe is so very vast. The same nigh-infinite size of the Universe that makes the probability of extraterrestrial life very certain, also make the possibility of physical contact with such entities impossible to realistically conceive. Besides our own sun the closest star to our solar system, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years away. That's 24,635,923,200,000 miles or 39,735,360,000,000 kilometers away. With our current levels of technology the fastest speeds our rockets can achieve is about one one hundred thousandth (1:10-5) the speed of light. The distance of the Earth to the moon varies between c. 226,000 miles and 252,000 miles. It took the Apollo astronauts about three days to make the trip using as little fuel as possible (the bulk of the fuel being used to escape Earth's gravitational pull). Faster speeds could be obtained if more fuel was utilized, but look at the numbers involved here. A trip to Proxima Centauri, the closest star, using a chemical fuel system is physically impossible. Let's say we could carry enough fuel to reduce the amount of time it takes to travel from the Earth to the moon to one day, three times as fast as the Apollo flights. At that speed it would take 109,008,510 (rounded up) days to reach Proxima Centauri. That's around 298,653 years. That's approximately the same amount of time that Homo Sapiens have existed as a species. Compared to that number the c. 7,000 years of known human history is but a blink of the eye. That's just the time involved and takes no consideration of the completely unimaginable amounts of fuel the trip would necessitate. And that's just to the closest star which in fact is a Red Dwarf star far cooler than our own and thus incapable of supporting biological life as we are capable of realistically conceiving it.

So the chemical fuel method is out. Are there potential alternatives to chemical fuel? Sure, but that does little to make these numbers more manageable. To traverse these distances with any degree of plausibility would involve reaching near light speed. I'm by no means an expert on astro, quantum or any type of physics but anyone even marginally familiar with the Theory of Relativity should understand the profound complications of that scenario. Mass is not a constant. It increases with velocity and goes to infinity at the speed of light. Think about that for a moment. Infinite mass. What amount of energy would it require to move infinite mass? Infinite energy. There is no source of infinite energy. Then there's the curious time dilation. Time is relative. Even if a spaceship could travel at that speed, in motion the faster you travel the slower time passes compared to the stationary Earth. Say you could travel at 98% the speed of light and took a one-year roundtrip. When you return to Earth you will find that five years have passed. Even totally fantasizing that such a thing were possible, you have to ask yourself if biological functions that occur within time are going to operate properly when the rate of time has decreased to 1/5th that of rate you're system evolved to live at. On too many levels to really enumerate traveling at these speeds is an impossibility.

This leaves concepts such as wormholes or curving space. This is really far out stuff that is great fun in movies and books like "Star Trek" and "Dune". Let's deal with wormholes. In the movies wormholes in space/time are used all the time like a kind of cosmological Chunnel. Does this space opera plot device in any way resemble the physical reality? Maybe, but they are still only considerable at a hypothetical level. Here's the Wikipedia article on Wormholes. Note that a good half of the article deals with the science fiction application of the concept.

We do not know if wormholes are possible. If they are they involve the existence of exotic matter. We do not know if exotic matter exists. Theories for wormhole existence not involving exotic matter are dependent upon theories of quantum gravity. We do not know if quantum gravity exists. Note that even using wormholes does not allow for travel at or near the speed of light but provide a kind of shortcut through physical space. As a hypothetical astronomical "object" an individual traveling through the wormhole would have as much control of the exit point of the wormhole as they would over a naturally occurring cavern within the surface of the Earth. This means to utilize a wormhole, if they a) exist, and b) are physically possible to enter and exit, we would have to find one that was within a distance from Earth that was reachable at speeds allowed by the laws of physics. Then its exit point would have to be reasonably close to another solar system that supported not just biological life, but sentient biological life. I could not begin to calculate the odds in these types of probabilities. Suffice it to say they are astronomical. Any notions of networks of wormholes laced throughout space/time allowing accesses to numerous worlds and races is so far beyond even the simplest treatment of this matter that it is unmentionable.

This leaves the concept of purposefully curving space in order to achieve virtual teleportation over light years worth of distance. Everyone should realize how very far from the fringe of known physics we are at this point. Curving space would involve controlling gravity and time. By what mechanism can we envision such a thing? From what source of energy would we empower such devices? Controlling gravity and time, bending space. The whole notion is much closer to religion than it is to physical science.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Cicada]

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:40 AM
Why use CHEMICAL FUELS? Why not fine tune the process of creating Anti Matter, the only 100% effeciant fuel, and use it?

Anti Matter actually is a THEORY, not merely science fiction. Some would say it is today a FACT, but I can not support nor disprove that claim.

Since we are talking a good, sound theory here, then we can proceed to say THEORETICALLY this speed is acheivable. Meaing it is POSSIBLE once technology reaches the limits required to execute this plan.

Piss part is... that could be tomorrow or never.

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:54 AM
Most if not all the ancient god's were aliens from other planets..including JEHOVAH

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Why use CHEMICAL FUELS? Why not fine tune the process of creating Anti Matter, the only 100% effeciant fuel, and use it?

Read the second paragraph of my last post for reasons why alternatives to chemical fuel systems do little to affect the vast amount of time necessary for interstellar travel. Antimatter is not theoretical and there have already been applications used in medical imaging based upon matter/antimatter reactions. One of the biggest problems involved with an antimatter system is the incredibly high cost of generating antielements, currently about $25 million per gram. To bring that cost down would involve major breakthroughs in other theoretical areas like cold fusion or the collection of antiparticles from natural sources like the Van Allen belts using some form of magnetic scoop. It's a whole lot more conceivable than bending space, but as we continue down this rabbit hole of theoretical physics we move further and further away from the 100% certainty that the ancient gods were aliens made by many of this thread's posts.

Here's an article on Interstellar Travel
and one on Antimatter.

Originally posted by BradKellBrrexkl
Since we are talking a good, sound theory here, then we can proceed to say THEORETICALLY this speed is achievable. Meaing it is POSSIBLE once technology reaches the limits required to execute this plan.

This isn't so. While an antimatter system could potentially be much faster than a chemical fuel system it still is never going to allow for propulsion at or near the speed of light. A physical impossibility is still a physical impossibility no matter what means you use to provide your thrust. Realistically conceivable antimatter engines could reduce the time needed to travel to Mars from just under a year to just under a month, so divide the c. 300,000 years needed to reach Proxima Centurii by ten and you're still left with a 30,000 year trip, a span more than four times greater than the length of recorded history. Better pack a lunch.

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:24 AM

Originally posted by MagicPriest420
Most if not all the ancient god's were aliens from other planets..

Says you, and really who cares what you have to say if you are unable to present any sort of data, information, or source for your wild claims? At this point in the discussion, unless you can find some way to address the complications of the ancient astronaut theory that I've presented, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, than you just further embarrass yourself by making statements like that. Put up or shut up.

top topics
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in