208 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

I am firstly aware of the theory that the genes were acquired through horizontal bacterial insertion. I don't personally accept it. Possible. Very improbable. There are many sources which discuss this topic. From memory I can think only of the Sefer Yetzirah. You might start there.

I beg your pardon? Sefer Yetzirah??????  The earliest extant book on Jewish esotericism?????? What???????????

For goodness sakes, OK, do you mean the The Short Version, The Long Version, The Saadia Version or The Gra Version?

The Sefer Yetzirah describes how the universe was created by the "God of Israel" not a whole bunch of Aliens, it is hard to interpret so many versions of interpretation exist, which I do not think you will acknowledge, only your preferred version, and Sefer Yetzirah's appendix (vi. 15) declares that the Biblical patriarch Abraham was the recipient of the divine revelation. How does that sit with the views you have expressed to date? In particular:

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Yes. The Abrahamic God is abjectly without evidence.
The gods of other cultures' ancient texts however bear more weight.

You are contradicting yourself. Again. Like you did with Hawking.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

I should also say that I hope that I'm at least a little meek! I don't wish to be overtly argumentative, but yes, I suppose debate with me can become rather heated.
To clarify, I am a Hindu atheist. Hinduism is ultimately an atheistic philosophy; I do not accept the Abrahamic conception of "God". Or anything with any semblance of it. Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan are both noted atheists, and they each have expressed great enthusiasm in their insistence that the gods exist. The gods to which I refer are of course not so-termed by either Sagan or Hawking: they refer to them as extraterrestrials. I suppose I am rather partial to the term "god". In Sanskrit, the two words have the same meaning--thus I use them interchangeably. Carl Sagan also devoted time in his masterpiece Cosmos to discussing the possibility that the ancient accounts of gods were in fact extraterrestrial beings. I am not a proponent of Erich von Daniken (insofar as many of his theories are sheer conjecture--I mostly agree with him on his essential premise).

The debates become heated because you are rude. It's that simple.

How can you refuse an Abrahamic conception of "God" and with the same conviction advocate Sefer Yetzirah?

Hawking has not stated that Gods exist. Sagan has not stated that Gods exist. You can use the words interchangeably but they will not be recognised in conversation. As I have said to you before, I do not care at all for your personal interpretations, what we are discussing here is accepted and known terminology. I think you just say such to cover your stuff ups, but that's another story. The closest to the truth that stement comes is that Sagan, alone mind you not Hawking, has said the 95% of UFO's can be explained, and that the remaining 5% he considers as completely unknown, and that he believes a possibility exists that of that 5% some may turn out to be extra terrestrial intelligence.
Hawking says that to his mathematical mind, the sheer numbers of planets mean that other life must exist. That is nothing like what you seem to think they are saying. Or is that also a personal interpretation you are eventually planning to let us in on?
Daniken is pure 100% nonsense. That is all I have to say about him.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

I will also say that there is the possibility that my theses are to some extent based on my interpretation of the evidence. However, I have fortunately catalogued my study, and the formation of my thesis, and I would suggest that in fact I began with the evidence, and simply created a thesis based on the collective information supplied by my many sources. It has been called a "from-the-ground-up" thesis: insomuch as I began with nothing more than the evidence available, and determined through research and reflection what that evidence indicates occurred historically, as a whole.
I was raised as a Christian. My father was a Hindu and my mother and her family were Christians--vehement ones. I converted to Christianity at age seven--under the pretense of course that I was terrified out of my rational mind by the thought of hell. At around age twenty though I gave it up. I began to study science and history, and it simply became clear that the worldview presented by Christianity was/is utterly impossible. I then studied really all other religions, before finally coming back to my father's roots: Hinduism. I have so far found not a single fact or piece of evidence which refutes the Hindu knowledge in the slightest--on the contrary, I have compiled in all my study an immense collection of evidence which can attest to the accuracy and insight of the information given in the ancient texts.

To some extent? I feel that is something of a major understatement to say the least!

If you have so much information, why is it impossible for you to share a single source?

I too was raised a Christian, and had a mad mother who was a religious nut. But I dod not simply throw away the God that did not appeal to me, or did not give me what I wanted. I studied and I feel comfortable with an agnostic view.

What did you find impossible about the Christian Bible? Any specific epiphanies or certain references that you could not resolve?

Honestly, how science could lead to your current predicament is indeed an unexplained mystery.

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

And to clarify on the creation of the universe: the universe was not created by anything--unless one considers the quantum mechanical consciousness which sparked the Big Bang to be a "creator".

Yes in that we agree. If you could stop using your own terminology we might get things likt this sorted out much quicker. I outright refuse your terminology of interchanging the terms Gods and Aliens, for the sake of clarity I suggest you adopt everyday word usage.

[psyche101]

Rlyeh, on 05 April 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Yet chemical substance can switch it off.

Thank you!!

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 05 April 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

That was merely an example.
The actual flood would have been caused by a slippage of the Antarctic ice cap into the sea--an event verified by modern science (an which many scientists are fearful of today, with climate change eroding away at the underside). Even a relatively small portion of the mile-wide ice cap falling into the ocean would raise the sea level by a noticeable amount--and the entire cap would cause at the very least a tsunami on an unprecedented scale which would flood much of the world for a number of days or weeks.

And an absolutely awful example at that. The world was never completely covered in water, it took centuries for the levels to rise and I referenced the great flood which was supposed to have created all this water in 40 days and 40 nights. As usual, you skipped over what everyone was saying so your could announce your view. Getting old that. Hope you are not hoping to sell too many books, you do not seem to be able to convince a forum named Unexplained Mysteries! LOL. Not seeing a bright future for your book in that respect!

If all the Ice in the world melted tomorrow, my toes would be high and dry at home.

[psyche101]

The_Spartan, on 06 April 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Folks. Arbitran's knowledge of ancient Hindu Mythology is half baked information only.
many times i had to correct him because he is twisting the stuff in Hindu Mythology to suit his own ideas.

Hello Spartan

May I take the opportunity to say that I am indeed familiar with your posting, I cruise through Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History threads frequently but have little to say other than I very much enjoy the knowledge and insight departed from Badeskov, Kmt_Sesh (hope I spelled that right) and of course your good self. It is my pleasure to meet you.
I feel that was becoming quite apparent even with my very limited knowledge of the Vedas, any corrections you could make would be most welcomed. I believe I read in one thread that you read Sanskrit? It would be very helpful to have you included in the conversations if you could spare the time.


Cheers.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

I beg your pardon? Sefer Yetzirah??????  The earliest extant book on Jewish esotericism?????? What???????????

For goodness sakes, OK, do you mean the The Short Version, The Long Version, The Saadia Version or The Gra Version?

The Long Version.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

The Sefer Yetzirah describes how the universe was created by the "God of Israel" not a whole bunch of Aliens, it is hard to interpret so many versions of interpretation exist, which I do not think you will acknowledge, only your preferred version, and Sefer Yetzirah's appendix (vi. 15) declares that the Biblical patriarch Abraham was the recipient of the divine revelation. How does that sit with the views you have expressed to date?

The "God" to which you refer are in fact elohim: gods. I should clarify, the God believed in by Christians and some Jews is without evidence. Some of Genesis has basis in history--much of the Bible apart from that is fiction (with smatterings of historical battles, etc.). Abraham may or may not have been an actual figure. In any case, it is the scientific content of the Sefer Yetzirah which is pertinent.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

You are contradicting yourself. Again. Like you did with Hawking.

I have not contradicted myself; it would seem that my terminology may have led to some confusion here.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

The debates become heated because you are rude. It's that simple.

I apologize. I don't mean to be rude. In light of constant incessant requests for evidence that I am at that very moment striving to locate in my files... well, I admit that can probably drive me to rudeness at times. Forgive me.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

How can you refuse an Abrahamic conception of "God" and with the same conviction advocate Sefer Yetzirah?

I can understand the confusion. The original, Hindu-rooted origins of Judaism offer some semblance of the more ancient knowledge. The later, post-polytheistic traditions of Judaism, and consequently Christianity and Islam, offer far less reason for interest.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Hawking has not stated that Gods exist. Sagan has not stated that Gods exist. You can use the words interchangeably but they will not be recognised in conversation. As I have said to you before, I do not care at all for your personal interpretations, what we are discussing here is accepted and known terminology. I think you just say such to cover your stuff ups, but that's another story. The closest to the truth that stement comes is that Sagan, alone mind you not Hawking, has said the 95% of UFO's can be explained, and that the remaining 5% he considers as completely unknown, and that he believes a possibility exists that of that 5% some may turn out to be extra terrestrial intelligence.
Hawking says that to his mathematical mind, the sheer numbers of planets mean that other life must exist. That is nothing like what you seem to think they are saying. Or is that also a personal interpretation you are eventually planning to let us in on?
Daniken is pure 100% nonsense. That is all I have to say about him.

As I have said: in the regards to the gods which I refer to, Hawking and Sagan are most vocal in their advocation.
Sagan, in his Cosmos, made it quite clear that the ancient texts may well record contact with extraterrestrial beings. He also noted that the sophisticated knowledge contained therein (particularly in the Hindu texts) may well represent evidence of such claims. True, Hawking has not directly addressed this precise concept--however with him I was referring to his belief in extraterrestrial civilizations (which, if I recall, he stated would be more likely to have come here in the billions of years prior to man's appearance).
In regards to Daniken... I can't say I agree or disagree with him on everything. His interpretations of depictions are often extreme leaps of logic, and I agree with him only on such basic points as I happen to think that what we today call "gods" were actually extraterrestrial beings. Beyond that, there are few, if any points with which I support him.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

I too was raised a Christian, and had a mad mother who was a religious nut. But I dod not simply throw away the God that did not appeal to me, or did not give me what I wanted. I studied and I feel comfortable with an agnostic view.

What did you find impossible about the Christian Bible? Any specific epiphanies or certain references that you could not resolve?

Honestly, how science could lead to your current predicament is indeed an unexplained mystery.

I did not simply discard the Christian deity on a whim--it took many years, and much research.
One of the many aspects of the Bible which showed its impossibility were the numerous clear contradictions between various statements. Another aspect is the utter and abject evil perpetrated by the Christian God throughout the Bible--which could of course also be regarded as a contradiction, given that the same deity which commits mass genocide is also described as a morally-perfect, merciful, and compassionate entity.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Yes in that we agree. If you could stop using your own terminology we might get things likt this sorted out much quicker. I outright refuse your terminology of interchanging the terms Gods and Aliens, for the sake of clarity I suggest you adopt everyday word usage.

I apologize if my terminology is confusing: I have become accustomed to it after all these years I suppose.
I will do my best to use a more familiar terminology for you.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 07 April 2012 - 10:18 PM, said:

Adieu.
I however will continue to talk to those who are serious about history.

If that indeed be the case, perhaps it might be a good idea to refrain from personal opinion and start providing some level of documentation?

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

And an absolutely awful example at that. The world was never completely covered in water, it took centuries for the levels to rise and I referenced the great flood which was supposed to have created all this water in 40 days and 40 nights. As usual, you skipped over what everyone was saying so your could announce your view. Getting old that. Hope you are not hoping to sell too many books, you do not seem to be able to convince a forum named Unexplained Mysteries! LOL. Not seeing a bright future for your book in that respect!

If all the Ice in the world melted tomorrow, my toes would be high and dry at home.

I never said that the world was submerged. The Bible's take on those events is absurd (it would take more that triple the amount of water on our planet, and in the atmosphere, to cover all land on Earth).
A significant, disastrous flood at the end of the last ice age however, is evident. That is all I referred to.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

The Long Version.

OK, thanks. I remember the text as being frustratingly confusing but I will dig up a copy and familiarise myself.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

The "God" to which you refer are in fact elohim: gods. I should clarify, the God believed in by Christians and some Jews is without evidence. Some of Genesis has basis in history--much of the Bible apart from that is fiction (with smatterings of historical battles, etc.). Abraham may or may not have been an actual figure. In any case, it is the scientific content of the Sefer Yetzirah which is pertinent.

But you say the Gods of India exist because they wrote such, and you feel their mathematical constructs are beyond human capabilities - which be my larger disagreement. As such, what makes the Indian Gods more likely than an Abrahamic God? You have the same proof for both - ancient writings.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

I have not contradicted myself; it would seem that my terminology may have led to some confusion here.

No, using regular terms means you contradicted yourself. If that is your personal terminology then it is not acceptable in a public forum. By definition you have contradicted yourself.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

I apologize. I don't mean to be rude. In light of constant incessant requests for evidence that I am at that very moment striving to locate in my files... well, I admit that can probably drive me to rudeness at times. Forgive me.

May I suggest that you stop elevating yourself in that instance? It is not only not becoming a Hindu scholar, it is plain unbecoming. You often belittle others in conversation and regard yourself as an authority. I feel you should gain that respect from the majority of the globe before you have the right to exert it. You keep saying things like "no you are wrong", "you are thinking small" and "you have no idea". Try coming down to earth with the rest of us.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

I can understand the confusion. The original, Hindu-rooted origins of Judaism offer some semblance of the more ancient knowledge. The later, post-polytheistic traditions of Judaism, and consequently Christianity and Islam, offer far less reason for interest.

If you are going to pick and choose, you need to provide those references, or again, I see it as contradicting yourself.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

As I have said: in the regards to the gods which I refer to, Hawking and Sagan are most vocal in their advocation.
Sagan, in his Cosmos, made it quite clear that the ancient texts may well record contact with extraterrestrial beings. He also noted that the sophisticated knowledge contained therein (particularly in the Hindu texts) may well represent evidence of such claims. True, Hawking has not directly addressed this precise concept--however with him I was referring to his belief in extraterrestrial civilizations (which, if I recall, he stated would be more likely to have come here in the billions of years prior to man's appearance).
In regards to Daniken... I can't say I agree or disagree with him on everything. His interpretations of depictions are often extreme leaps of logic, and I agree with him only on such basic points as I happen to think that what we today call "gods" were actually extraterrestrial beings. Beyond that, there are few, if any points with which I support him.

I feel Sagan was speculating very deeply. Everyone does that. Someone even claimed that Sagan once remarked that UFO's come for the moon. Talk is cheap, so referenced links are required to validate your point of view. Again you have Hawking's quotes confused with your terminology, I have no reason to believe that Professor Hawking would for a moment be using your terminology in his works. To Hawking when he speaks of God it is clear he refers to the Abrahamic God and he does not intertwine the words aliens and gods.


Can you provide that Hawking quote? I am unaware of it. Or is this more of your interpretation?

With Daniken, once again I would suggest deploying Occams razor. He made it all up. It is not like part of it is true, none of it is.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

I did not simply discard the Christian deity on a whim--it took many years, and much research.
One of the many aspects of the Bible which showed its impossibility were the numerous clear contradictions between various statements. Another aspect is the utter and abject evil perpetrated by the Christian God throughout the Bible--which could of course also be regarded as a contradiction, given that the same deity which commits mass genocide is also described as a morally-perfect, merciful, and compassionate entity.

How can you profess to know the mind of God? What makes you think that what he did was evil by Universal standards? Are mans morals the boundaries and benchmark for the cosmos? I would find that hard to believe.

Are you placing judgment upon God? Is that your place? Perhaps you should state the specific example that horrifies you to see if an alternate viewpoint you had not considered might make your conviction look different in a different light?

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

I apologize if my terminology is confusing: I have become accustomed to it after all these years I suppose.
I will do my best to use a more familiar terminology for you.

Thank you it will be appreciated and save much confusion.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

I never said that the world was submerged. The Bible's take on those events is absurd (it would take more that triple the amount of water on our planet, and in the atmosphere, to cover all land on Earth).
A significant, disastrous flood at the end of the last ice age however, is evident. That is all I referred to.

You did not specifically say anything, you just decided to argue the point and went on about an Ice age, which is nothing like the Biblical flood. Nothing at all.

Why was the flood disastrous? It helped man reach lands he had no prior knowledge of and allowed him to propagate the earth. It was disastrous for megafauna, but mostly assisted early Hominoids.


And that is assuming we are discussing the same Ice Age. There have been many.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

But you say the Gods of India exist because they wrote such, and you feel their mathematical constructs are beyond human capabilities - which be my larger disagreement. As such, what makes the Indian Gods more likely than an Abrahamic God? You have the same proof for both - ancient writings.

Their mathematics are not beyond human capacity (or at least not that which they left in the texts). As I have said, it is not that humans could not have formulated the knowledge in the texts themselves, however they say otherwise. I am inclined to believe them when they say that the gods taught them. The civilization that knows the speed of light, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the number of species on our planet today, etc. probably isn't making it up when they say who discovered those things. For instance, I believe that Albert Einstein calculated E=mc²--in the same way, I will believe the ancients are correct when they record who gave them their knowledge.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

No, using regular terms means you contradicted yourself. If that is your personal terminology then it is not acceptable in a public forum. By definition you have contradicted yourself.

Fine, on your definition, I may have contradicted myself. It is not my personal terminology (I would have thought most people here knew what "gods" referred to--seemingly semantical differences indicate otherwise). My apologies again if this has caused confusion.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

May I suggest that you stop elevating yourself in that instance? It is not only not becoming a Hindu scholar, it is plain unbecoming. You often belittle others in conversation and regard yourself as an authority. I feel you should gain that respect from the majority of the globe before you have the right to exert it. You keep saying things like "no you are wrong", "you are thinking small" and "you have no idea". Try coming down to earth with the rest of us.

I apologize if this is your impression. I do not mean to elevate myself--but I do believe that as a Hindu scholar, I may have some knowledge of Hinduism which is not apparent to a non-Hindu. This is merely my opinion.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

I feel Sagan was speculating very deeply. Everyone does that. Someone even claimed that Sagan once remarked that UFO's come for the moon. Talk is cheap, so referenced links are required to validate your point of view. Again you have Hawking's quotes confused with your terminology, I have no reason to believe that Professor Hawking would for a moment be using your terminology in his works. To Hawking when he speaks of God it is clear he refers to the Abrahamic God and he does not intertwine the words aliens and gods.

Of course, Hawking does not refer to extraterrestrials as gods. I believed that my position was clear; I apologize if the semantics have resulted in confusion. Perhaps Sagan was speculating; this is not the point. Carl Sagan, in multiple of his books (for instance, Cosmos and Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science) refers to the ancient texts, particularly the Hindu texts, as sources of remarkably credible information. There are indications that Sagan had pondered the possibility that the Hindu texts were truthful in their descriptions of the gods and stars and planets.

"A millennium before Europeans were wiling to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions..."

(source: Cosmos pg. 213-214)

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

With Daniken, once again I would suggest deploying Occams razor. He made it all up. It is not like part of it is true, none of it is.

As I have said, all but the central theme is essentially conjecture. As for Occam's Razor, it cannot finally determine the veracity of a proposition; it simply weighs probability. This can be quite useful, and in the case of Daniken's work, it can be said that virtually all of it breaks under scrutiny. The underlying base of his theories however (that the gods were extraterrestrial), is supported by real evidence--far better than that which he provided.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

How can you profess to know the mind of God? What makes you think that what he did was evil by Universal standards? Are mans morals the boundaries and benchmark for the cosmos? I would find that hard to believe.

Are you placing judgment upon God? Is that your place? Perhaps you should state the specific example that horrifies you to see if an alternate viewpoint you had not considered might make your conviction look different in a different light?

A familiar answer I get from Christians on an almost daily basis. Whether by "Universal standards" or not, God's own commandments clearly forbid his own behavior. Either what God did was morally wrong, or there is no morality. If a "morally-perfect being" can commit mass-genocide then why can't I? I regard such actions as morally reprehensible (as does the majority of humanity), and thus the former must be correct: the God of the Christian religion is the most irredeemably evil being ever conceived.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

Thank you it will be appreciated and save much confusion.

Alright then. So we agree. I will use a more modern terminology.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

You did not specifically say anything, you just decided to argue the point and went on about an Ice age, which is nothing like the Biblical flood. Nothing at all.

Why was the flood disastrous? It helped man reach lands he had no prior knowledge of and allowed him to propagate the earth. It was disastrous for megafauna, but mostly assisted early Hominoids.


And that is assuming we are discussing the same Ice Age. There have been many.

Indeed. I meant largely for the animal life. As for man's place in it, I am of the opinion that it would have been equally disastrous, if it were not for the intervention of the gods as described in the ancient texts.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Their mathematics are not beyond human capacity (or at least not that which they left in the texts). As I have said, it is not that humans could not have formulated the knowledge in the texts themselves, however they say otherwise. I am inclined to believe them when they say that the gods taught them. The civilization that knows the speed of light, the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the number of species on our planet today, etc. probably isn't making it up when they say who discovered those things. For instance, I believe that Albert Einstein calculated E=mc²--in the same way, I will believe the ancients are correct when they record who gave them their knowledge.

That is far more acceptable. You are inclined to believe what you have read at face value, and that is fine, but is not in any way proof that Extraterrestrial beings are the Gods spoken about in the Vedas. Personal belief, I am good with, personal proof, not so much.

The maths as you say are not proof of an outside influence, but remarkably intelligent men. Personally, I think it is understating their impressive achievements. If there is no need for the Gods, I see no reason to invoke them. Some cryptic translations to me are insufficient proof.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Fine, on your definition, I may have contradicted myself. It is not my personal terminology (I would have thought most people here knew what "gods" referred to--seemingly semantical differences indicate otherwise). My apologies again if this has caused confusion.

Thank you, using accepted terminology saves much confusion, remember I am in Australia, I am sure there are language differences, if we can remain as accurate as possible I feel we will both benefit from it.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

I apologize if this is your impression. I do not mean to elevate myself--but I do believe that as a Hindu scholar, I may have some knowledge of Hinduism which is not apparent to a non-Hindu. This is merely my opinion.

And it is honorable to share knowledge, that is great, but please make sure that you define belief and fact. It can create some heated situations quickly and easily. Thank you for taking this under consideration.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Of course, Hawking does not refer to extraterrestrials as gods. I believed that my position was clear; I apologize if the semantics have resulted in confusion. Perhaps Sagan was speculating; this is not the point. Carl Sagan, in multiple of his books (for instance, Cosmos and Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science) refers to the ancient texts, particularly the Hindu texts, as sources of remarkably credible information. There are indications that Sagan had pondered the possibility that the Hindu texts were truthful in their descriptions of the gods and stars and planets.

"A millennium before Europeans were wiling to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions..."

(source: Cosmos pg. 213-214)

It is indeed confusing when you talk about Aliens as God's in your terminology and then substitute Hawking's quotes.
That Sagan speculated so much lends to the belief that he was largely allegorical. He did not know, he just took in anything that was vaguely possible and worked on it until he came to a conclusion. If he was convinced that the Indian Ancients were referring to extra  terrestrials as Gods, I honestly do not feel it would be a cryptic message, but quite obvious.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

As I have said, all but the central theme is essentially conjecture. As for Occam's Razor, it cannot finally determine the veracity of a proposition; it simply weighs probability. This can be quite useful, and in the case of Daniken's work, it can be said that virtually all of it breaks under scrutiny. The underlying base of his theories however (that the gods were extraterrestrial), is supported by real evidence--far better than that which he provided.

I do not feel that is enough to award this charlatan a mention. I find it a disservice to those who actually did examine the hypothesis.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

A familiar answer I get from Christians on an almost daily basis. Whether by "Universal standards" or not, God's own commandments clearly forbid his own behavior. Either what God did was morally wrong, or there is no morality. If a "morally-perfect being" can commit mass-genocide then why can't I? I regard such actions as morally reprehensible (as does the majority of humanity), and thus the former must be correct: the God of the Christian religion is the most irredeemably evil being ever conceived.

But you believe in the after life, a cyclic Universe, so in that sense is it genocide, or did God simply "herd" people where they would be happier? IS it morally wrong to go to the afterlife, and if so, why? For me it is, I do not believe in an afterlife, but that restriction does not apply to God.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Alright then. So we agree. I will use a more modern terminology.

Thank you I appreciate that very much.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

Indeed. I meant largely for the animal life. As for man's place in it, I am of the opinion that it would have been equally disastrous, if it were not for the intervention of the gods as described in the ancient texts.

But that is not the Biblical story either. In it, everything perished. So we seem to be talking about two very different things, and something that cannot be ascribed to the Bible stories.

I still do not see how man would have suffered, it assisted early man. The rising sea level created Ice bridges like the one that man followed into North America. It created inland seas bringing life to what we know as desserts. No intervention was required, and natural record supports intervention. Rather the opposite.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

That is far more acceptable. You are inclined to believe what you have read at face value, and that is fine, but is not in any way proof that Extraterrestrial beings are the Gods spoken about in the Vedas. Personal belief, I am good with, personal proof, not so much.

There was never any difference between the gods and extraterrestrials to begin with. That modern society demarcates them is unnecessary.

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

The maths as you say are not proof of an outside influence, but remarkably intelligent men. Personally, I think it is understating their impressive achievements. If there is no need for the Gods, I see no reason to invoke them. Some cryptic translations to me are insufficient proof.

I will say it again: yes, men could have calculated those things themselves, but they make quite clear that they did not. That is the reason for the gods--if the ancients hadn't said that the gods taught them, and had merely said that they calculated those things themselves, then you would have a point. However, this is not the case.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

But that is not the Biblical story either. In it, everything perished. So we seem to be talking about two very different things, and something that cannot be ascribed to the Bible stories.

I still do not see how man would have suffered, it assisted early man. The rising sea level created Ice bridges like the one that man followed into North America. It created inland seas bringing life to what we know as desserts. No intervention was required, and natural record supports intervention. Rather the opposite.

The biblical story is a distant, distorted form of the historical event of the flood. It is exaggerated.

It assisted man insofar as the seas and bridges of your reference, yes--but it would also have been highly threatening to the humans living. Sure, you'd be better off as a human living on the fertile shores of a newly-formed sea; but would you want to have been one of the humans who died while those seas were being formed? Or one of the humans who died of starvation because of the declining populations of animals you could hunt?