Why is the hypothesis of ET "highly improbable"?

[William]

From "The fabrication of Jesus." thread, this;

[Replying to post 41 by historia]

But, just because we can't be certain, doesn't mean that all hypothesis are equally probable. It's possible that Jesus was an alien who visited earth, but that hypothesis is highly improbable.

Recently I created a thread called "The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally" with the sub-heading "The explanation which involves science rather than magic" in the Members Only Chat forum.

The thread has attracted no interest from Christians on this site and derisive comments from one atheist, with the observation;

You're certainly not going to convince any religious people because they have no desire to start believing in aliens instead of a "God". Not only that but their first question to you would no doubt be "Who created the aliens?".

post 4 by Divine Insight, which in part answers why Christians are loath to broach the subject or get into any significant discussion regarding it.

However, to state that the hypothesis is 'highly improbable' does require explanation.

As far as I am concerned, this hypothesis is still very much on the table and as such, does indeed require serious consideration.

Questions for debate.

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

[tam]

[Replying to post 10 by William]

(Feel free to contribute to this thread too, Tam) Smile

Lol, I had to grin when I got to that part.


I don't deal with probability, so I did not feel I had anything to contribute to the OP.


But I must agree with what 1213 wrote, regarding extradimensional beings. Angels, and Christ and God are not extra-terrestrial beings from another planet in this, the physical realm (this "dimension"). They are beings from another realm: the spiritual realm (out of which realm came the physical realm).


So their existence cannot and does not threaten my faith. I mean, it really can't, can it?



I'm not sure what else to add just yet, so I will leave it at that for the moment.


Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?
Yes. Once a paradigm is securely in place, those in control want nothing to change - at least until they can manipulate it to serve their own purpose. I've long thought the unknown causes religions to be worried but I've found knowledge is far more dangerous to them.

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?
Not that I can see.

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?
There are like several good reasons and many other reason that are just 'meh'. It's a complicated issue when people 'live by their hearts' and not their minds.

Most 'gods' were likely supreme mortal beings not from this earth from what I have seen.
I haven't yet found a good English translation but when I do I'd seriously get this book
https://unoeditori.com/e-book/167-the-b ... glino.html

It makes loads more sense than an invisible immortal being that lives just out of reach of anything other than faith.

[FarWanderer]

Of course not. The "historical" arguments of the Abrahamic religions are made by a process of elimination of all naturalistic explananations. This means they have to dismiss ET explanations to prove their arguments in the first place. It would be fallacious to then turn around and argue against ET explanations with the conclusion they came to by dismissing ET explanations.

This would appear fairly accurate on the surface of what is being observed. However, it seems clear that not all Abrahamic-based theists are loath to admit that the stories in their holy books regarding all things to do with God (such as angels, visions, holy calamities etc) could be explained by ET/EDimensional beings.

One thing that could be argued is that unlike the ancients, we in present times have a fuller appreciation for such a thing being possible because we know more about our universe than the ancients apparently did.

As well as this, I do not think it is entirely accurate for you to imply (as you seem to have done in the above quote), that ET/ED explanations are not to be regarded as 'naturalistic'. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this.

Either you misread or I was not clear enough. I meant by implication the opposite: ETs are a naturalistic explanation. That's why Theists, when arguing for a supernatural explanation by process of elimination, have to dismiss it.

Defying the known laws of physics certainly makes a claim harder to believe. I don't like the word "probable" in this situation though, because the epistemic probability of any specific explanation outside of our realm of understanding is categorically undefinable.

I am not so sure that this argument holds water, because we know from our own experience that the more we delve into understanding the laws of physics through scientific process, the more we are able to appreciate that what was once highly improbable (as to be unbelievable) has eventuated in being actually made real.

There are many examples where ideas once consigned to science fiction, have become actual fact.

So we can take that understanding and apply it to the probability of their being far more ancient species in this Galaxy than our own, who have unlocked the secrets of physics to an extent that we - even in our present technological state, but certainly in our ancient state as a species, would view such as miraculous and god-like, as far as we understand such ideas.

I do agree that the problem has more nuance than my initial post might imply.

For the sake of brevity I was taking the simplest approach, focusing just on the logic. To illustrate what I mean by that, take the term "alien" and replace it with some generic term like "widget"; then, given no past experience of widgets, the probability of experiencing a widget is indeed completely undefinable. However, this is because "widgets" have no characteristics. Aliens do have characteristics, some of which we have definite evidence of existing elsewhere. One such characteristic is physical embodiment, which is a characteristic that God does not have.

But that's about the only assumption we can certainly make about aliens. There are an endless number of questions about how aliens might be manifest. Do we assume they must be Carbon-based, for example? All life we know of is Carbon-based, and as far as our science can tell being Carbon-based is an essential attribute of life (with a possible exception for Silicon-based life, but only because Silicon has a similar structure to Carbon). Of course the Carbon requirement could just be an erroneous assumption. For all we know there is some way life can start in the middle of stars, or out in space; or even in other dimensions with entirely different physics. It's an endless rabbit-hole, an act of exploration into unknown potentials. "Probability" is the word to use with known potentials. Aliens are intuition and imagination, not probabilities (not that there is anything wrong with intuition and imagination).

Also, God defies the known laws of physics as well, so if a Theist were to argue against ET involvement on this basis it would be a special pleading.

I agree with this. One tends to cancel out the other as it were. This also implies specifically that the idea of GOD in question can indeed be understood to possibly be ET - indeed, before we move to the belief that he is as the Abrahamic religions claim, we first have to eliminate this possibility altogether.

In saying that, this would have to be the requirement for atheists as well. They simply cannot say that the idea of the Abrahamic GOD is completely fabricated from the human imagination without also first eliminating the possibility that what they are dealing with here is in fact, a remnant/artifact of ancient ET encounter of which the stories are based (loosely or otherwise) upon actual experience.

Aliens are at least physically manifest, unlike the supernatural, which in my opinion makes them a superior explanation.

But I am far more familiar with humans embellishing tales than I am with aliens performing them. So, I default to the human embellishment explanation over the alien involvement explanation. Basically I ignore the alien explanation, but at least leave room for some evidence or argument to change my mind.

The issue at play here has a name. It is called "The problem of induction".

Basically, we have never experienced aliens before so we more or less operate under the assumption that the trend will continue. On this basis Historia described aliens as being "highly improbable".

Generally induction serves us well, but it's not always correct. The classic example is the black swan. Prior to the discovery of black swans in Australia, it was thought that since all observed swans were white, that all swans are white.

In this case experiencing something is here nor there, as far as I can tell.

Very few Christians have ever experienced winged beings identified as 'angels', but this does not prevent them from believing that angels exist.

I was just answering the question as I see it. Christians may have their own [strike]completely wrong[/strike] ideas. At any rate, I think the particular claim in question is empirically-based, so the Problem of Induction is relevant.

Belief in angels usually comes from the Bible or some other authority. The only way to judge the credibility of authorities in a non-arbitrary way is to use induction. Or a person could just believe something arbitrarily, in which case there's not really much point in a debate about it, is there?

*Glances at the mostly empty Christian bench*

What we do know though, is that if WE can exist in this Galaxy, the chances of other species, more ancient as well as more primitive, must also exist in this Galaxy. That is just good mathematics.

(Using the same principle, it is highly likely that somewhere in this universe horned horses will also exist.)

The idea being, that the Galaxy is so vast (let alone the rest of the universe) that to think we are the only planet which has life-forms on it, or that it is impossible that ET have not visited or even seeded life-forms on Earth is - in today's world rather a naive speculation. Far more naive than speculating that they have.

ET is not as 'highly improbably' as some would think and/or would like others to think.

Whatever sample of the universe we observe, we will be in it, which creates a kind of selection bias. It's called the Weak Anthropic Principle. Basically it says that you cannot establish a pattern by observing a single event that is itself necessary for the observation to occur.

So you can't just say "We're here and there's lots of planets so there must be other beings out there like us". That simple argument doesn't hold. You have to get into specifics, like figuring out what the conditions for abiogenesis are and figuring out how frequently those conditions might happen across the universe.

As of yet we have not been able to replicate those conditions. If and when we do, then I might be comfortable with assigning a probability to the existence of ET life. Until then it's a big, fat heckifIknow.

[William]

[Replying to post 11 by tam]

Lol, I had to grin when I got to that part.

A sense of humor is integral.

I don't deal with probability, so I did not feel I had anything to contribute to the OP.

Don't you think probability is important?

But I must agree with what 1213 wrote, regarding extradimensional beings. Angels, and Christ and God are not extra-terrestrial beings from another planet in this, the physical realm (this "dimension"). They are beings from another realm: the spiritual realm (out of which realm came the physical realm).

This is of course very debatable. At least we know the physicality of this universe, but why should we assume that if there are indeed other universes that these would not also be physical?

Indeed, in a non physical universe would the idea of people hugging be absurd?

Or if indeed people can touch each other see each other etc in an alternate reality, why would this be considered non physical?

Also to note, the stories in the bible which specifically state that certain beings were able to be seen and heard and touched when they were in this universe (on this planet interacting with human beings) suggests that those beings were physical.

This could be explained simply by speculating that these beings were ET from this universe who either wanted to give humans the impression they were not of this universe, or had no say in the matter as ancient humans simply assumed such in relation to their cultural beliefs about such things. GODs are 'supernatural' as in 'spirit beings' from an 'alternate universe'.

So their existence cannot and does not threaten my faith. I mean, it really can't, can it?

Well I think it still can because even if your belief is a probability. There is also an aspect of the overall belief system of the Abrahamics, that devils also derive from that same 'spiritual' (non physical) alternate universe, AND that these 'devils' can assume the form of 'angelic light-beings', so again, how is one to tell the difference?

Part of the probable threat I am speaking of, for example, is the underlying fear that one can be 'lead astray' if one contemplates the idea of ET explaining the Abrahamic stories, let alone examines it with an open mind thirsty for truth.

So I myself may be viewed with suspicion as being an 'agent of the devil' for bringing this subject into focus and wanting people (in general - Abrahamics specifically) to contemplate it in a serious manner.

That, to me is one of the main Achilles heels to Abrahamic belief systems. They have a boogie-man which is terribly difficult to distinguish from the 'real' beings of righteousness.

One thing I have on my side to belay such fears is that I do not in any way disparage the belief in a central GOD (which I refer to as The First Source) and have also been mistakenly accused of being a Christian because I am not anti-Yeshua. I do, however, remain unsmitten by the notion of the Abrahamic idea of GOD, and as I have stated many times on this forum, my immediate central focus is upon the Earth Entity - whom I refer to as the 'Local GOD' as acknowledgement of the part [She] plays in the overall scheme of things, and see therein *hints* of [Her] influence embedded in biblical and other scripture, as I do also see hints of The First Source.

Also in regard to the thread subject, I do not think that ET (or ED for that matter) are a threat to my own theology or, in playing their part, they are attempting to lure humanity away from all notions of GOD, or even true notions of GOD.

But more on that later - I just want to establish some groundwork on what I think is an extremely interesting and important subject which is oft overlooked or ridiculed even more than religion is.

Because the notion is ridiculed (or simply ignored as irrelevant) by theists and atheists alike - this shows some common ground these apparent 'long time enemies' share, which in turn leads me to take a closer look...to see what might possibly be found here.

[bjs]

[Replying to William]

Let us assume that our understanding of physics is more or less close to correct and that these aliens are not omnipotent. If the aliens are omnipotent then they are God. If the aliens are omnipotent then, as 1213 may have been hinting at, then we are just referring to God and call Him an ET. A rose by any other name and all that rot.

Good so far? If so, then it is highly improbably that Jesus was an alien from another planet because:

1. The closest planet outside our solar system is two light years away. Only partials with zero mass can travel at light speed, and traveling faster than that is theoretically impossible. Assuming these aliens have some mass then they must be traveling considerably slower than light speed. Given the limitations of propulsion and distance between stars, it is highly improbable that any race, no matter how advanced, will ever travel between the stars.

Compare this idea with traveling to the moon. Once it was understood what the moon is " that is, a large rock orbiting the earth " then it was understood that travel to the moon was theoretically plausible. People did not know how such a task could be performed or even what obstacles needed to be overcome, but it that task was at least possible. In contrast, once it was understood what stars are then it was quickly understood that travel to others stars is not theoretically plausible. We do understand what obstacles there are and, assuming our current science is close to correct, those obstacles cannot be overcome.

2. If somehow an alien could arrive on earth, it would have evolved in a completely different way that humans did. It is highly improbably that this alien would look remotely human or have any knowledge of human language or interaction that would allow it to pass in human society. Unless we think of that alien as omnipotent (i.e. the alien is literally God), it is improbable that it would have any technology or technique to blend into human society.

3. It is highly improbably that this alien would travel all this distance, blend into human form and society, all to create a false religion. The entire exercise seems pointless. It would mean that this alien not only choose to interact with people while intentionally lying to them, but also specifically set up a new religion knowing that this religion was false. At this point we pass being improbable and the idea become outright ludicrous.

So on the whole it is improbably that Jesus (or any other human being in history) was an alien from another planet.

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by FarWanderer]

ETs are a naturalistic explanation. That's why Theists, when arguing for a supernatural explanation by process of elimination, have to dismiss it.

Thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated.

If and when we do, then I might be comfortable with assigning a probability to the existence of ET life. Until then it's a big, fat heckifIknow.

So ETs are not a naturalistic explanation then?

*Glances at the mostly empty atheist bench*

Basically I ignore the alien explanation, but at least leave room for some evidence or argument to change my mind.

Have you ever discussed the possibility, or attempted to examine argument for the possibility?
In relation to this thread topic, the bible stories themselves may be a useful type of evidence. This is the idea the OP is essentially exploring.

Aliens do have characteristics, some of which we have definite evidence of existing elsewhere. One such characteristic is physical embodiment, which is a characteristic that God does not have.

Not according to bible stories and religious imagery.

For example, the being in the Garden of Eden Story initially is only a 'voice in the garden' but after the pair ate the forbidden fruit and experienced shame and hid themselves, the GOD in the story becomes visible to them.

Also, while 'Angels' are normally regarded as invisible, there are accounts where these beings show themselves, and the wings in the imagery may be metaphor for humanoids who are able to fly, or come from the sky etc...ET in other words.

As well as that, we cannot make the assumption that Aliens can only ever be visible - they may well have the technology which enables them to be invisible while they are in fact right there in any given situation.

Do we assume they must be Carbon-based, for example? All life we know of is Carbon-based, and as far as our science can tell being Carbon-based is an essential attribute of life (with a possible exception for Silicon-based life, but only because Silicon has a similar structure to Carbon). Of course the Carbon requirement could just be an erroneous assumption. For all we know there is some way life can start in the middle of stars, or out in space; or even in other dimensions with entirely different physics.

None of that in itself does away with the idea that ET may well have been the instigation behind the Abrahamic religious stories. It is besides the point. We are not really discussing what can and cannot be assumed about particular types of ET, or even whether they are carbon based or for that matter, some type of holographic imagery sourced in a craft hidden from sight behind clouds.

Sure, if we want to wonder and the possible makeup of ET, we can indeed speculate about it and it is a fair assumption that these would be carbon based biological critters, but just as easily it can be said that they are not even biological at all, but exobots etc - designed and engineered by carbon based creators - creators who may well be long gone extinct. See my posts in "The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally" thread for more on that idea... as well as the post;

Our Mothership Who Is In Heaven...Could extraterrestrial AI explain a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden story?

It's an endless rabbit-hole, an act of exploration into unknown potentials. "Probability" is the word to use with known potentials. Aliens are intuition and imagination, not probabilities (not that there is anything wrong with intuition and imagination).

Perhaps, if taken in general rather than specific terms. This thread is for the purpose of focusing upon the specific, and aligning the stories of the Abrahamic religions - and - for that matter - worldwide cultures with specific references to probable ET encounters. So a little down the rabbit hole rather than a lot.

That shouldn't be a problem for anyone, since we are all rather deep within a rabbit hole anyway. We call it 'The Milky Way'.

Aliens are at least physically manifest, unlike the supernatural, which in my opinion makes them a superior explanation.

Precisely.

One can then explain WHY Alien encounters morphed into Sky-daddy imagery. An enthroned superhuman being, all white and fluffy.

But I am far more familiar with humans embellishing tales than I am with aliens performing them. So, I default to the human embellishment explanation over the alien involvement explanation.

Well at least you are not hiding your bias in that. Or perhaps you are not seeing it?

Basically I ignore the alien explanation, but at least leave room for some evidence or argument to change my mind.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence re ET. Perhaps without one paying you a personal visit, you cannot 'change your mind' and perhaps too, even if one were to visit you, you might just put that down to a simple brain malfunction. I find it interesting how different an atheist might react to such a thing as opposed to how a theist might react, but in saying that I also find it interesting how both types of reactions achieve a similar result. As in 'Set the default to Ignore', in order to protect their most comfortable positions re 'world view'.

[rikuoamero]

A question I'd like for Christians to answer (especially bjs since it seems s/he has a decent understanding of cosmology)

Let's say someone seriously asserts, as in they claim that this is something that they believe in, that Jesus/God was/is an ET, some alien being from another planet/galaxy. I remember one user on this site actually was into this.
So, bjs and others, would you believe them when they say that Jesus/God travelled on a faster-than-light vehicle of some sort? Bjs especially sounds pretty certain that such simply cannot happen (something I agree with).
The problem with FTL travel is of course that pesky business with needing infinite energy to move mass faster than light. We know of no technology that can do that, not even as a hypothetical.
So bjs and others, would you give that person a pass (as in say their claim is not ridiculous) if they claim that the ET just has 'really advanced technology'? They give no details on how it operates, but say that as aliens, surely they'd have FTL drives?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by William]

As well as that, we cannot make the assumption that Aliens can only ever be visible - they may well have the technology which enables them to be invisible while they are in fact right there in any given situation.

The problem with this is that we would need to have some kind of hypothesis on how the technology works in the real world. It's not enough to just pass it off as a Star Trek style cloaking device and not get into any kind of nitty gritty details - it works fine in the context of a TV show to say the Romulans have a cloaking device and then get on with the plot...but if we're going to hypothesise there is a real entity (God/ETs) with real cloaking devices, that would not be enough.
If we don't do this, we (meaning atheists) would end up doing what Christians do with their God - saying he can do whatever the situation says he can do and not bothering to explore it, just 'explaining' it as "God-did-it, he did do it and can do it, he's omnipotent".

[1213]

This seems to me to be the case. However, in practice, there really does seem to be a threat as most Abrahamics appear loath to contemplate it let alone enter any reasonable and constructive discussion about it.

I think that is only if there are meanings for the ET that are not fitting to Biblical world view. But if, as you told, ET is only an extraterrestrial, it is not in contradiction with the Bible.

For example, in today's world should an event such as described in the Bible regarding Jesus' return actually happen, most first-world humans would equate such as ET - an ET intervention, because most first-world humans understand that such an event would be self explanatory.

That may be true that people would receive it like that. It doesnt mean their idea is correct.

However, (in line with today's knowledge) it can be said that such an event would not be received by atheists as 'GOD' returning to Earth, but as ET, and theists would see the same event as not Jesus (the son of their GOD) returning to earth, but a deceptive forerunner - perhaps pretending to be Jesus... point being that the threat I am specifically speaking about is the one which shows that the Abrahamic idea of GOD can be sourced as possible/probable ET/ED interaction with human beings, and one is thus hard-pressed to know the difference between supposed genuine and supposed counterfeit, but more to the point, are any ET/ED beings claiming to be the GOD(s) of humanity really entitled to make such claims, and if so, in the way that they allegedly interacted with human beings (as per the stories) are these all or even in part, justifiable?

Firstly, Jesus is less than the only true god according to the Bible. Therefore the whole idea of God descending on earth is not very Biblical.

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

When Jesus returns, he should fit to Biblical description, else he is not the Bible Jesus and for example I would reject him as false Jesus.

Bible God is spirit and love.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24
He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

I wouldnt keep anything else as my God, even if it would be really existing.

For example, if we humans reached a stage in our evolution with technological advancement that we were able to play the role of GODs over a far younger species, would we be wise to use the same methods employed by the biblical GODs, and if so, why so and if not, why not?

I personally hope that people would not ever come to that, unless they become righteous. Else they would be evil and cause bad things.

But what do you think are Bible Gods methods, give freedom and love?

[tam]

[Replying to post 14 by William]

Peace to you William!

[Replying to post 11 by tam]

Lol, I had to grin when I got to that part.

A sense of humor is integral.

I don't deal with probability, so I did not feel I had anything to contribute to the OP.

Don't you think probability is important?

No.

I don't know if I am correct in thinking that or incorrect. But something does not have to be probable in order for it to be true; it does, however, have to be possible. (even though I imagine that if all the facts and data were known, the thing that might once have been considered improbable would at that time be considered probable).

But I must agree with what 1213 wrote, regarding extradimensional beings. Angels, and Christ and God are not extra-terrestrial beings from another planet in this, the physical realm (this "dimension"). They are beings from another realm: the spiritual realm (out of which realm came the physical realm).

This is of course very debatable. At least we know the physicality of this universe, but why should we assume that if there are indeed other universes that these would not also be physical?

Why should we assume that they WOULD be physical?

Our knowledge (scientific or otherwise) is limited. Why would we then assume that all existence is confined to our very limited knowledge?

Science is limited to the tools that we have created, and to our understanding (or lack thereof) of the evidence gathered. Science is also always changing as more evidence becomes available. Hopefully that means our scientific understanding is always advancing, but if scientists get ahead of themselves and draw conclusions with incomplete data, then science might have to step in reverse as well.


In my forty(ish) years, the (our) universe was first said to be eternal. Then, with the creation and use of better 'tools' allowing more evidence to be observed and gathered, the universe was said to have a beginning: the big bang. (I do not understand why some religious people argued against the Big Bang; it corroborated the account from Genesis about there being a beginning to the creation.)


**


But what I accept as true is not based upon probability, but rather upon what my Lord teaches.

Indeed, in a non physical universe would the idea of people hugging be absurd?

Maybe, maybe not. If we do not understand everything in our realm; how can we understand enough about a spiritual realm to make statements of fact about it?

Or if indeed people can touch each other see each other etc in an alternate reality, why would this be considered non physical?

That may simply be a lack of understanding of what is spiritual.

Also to note, the stories in the bible which specifically state that certain beings were able to be seen and heard and touched when they were in this universe (on this planet interacting with human beings) suggests that those beings were physical.

They were physical, when they were here. They simply are not confined to the physical (as we currently are confined). They are able to move from the spiritual to the physical (and back again).

Energy to matter to energy.


This is how my Lord was able to be touched and to eat food, and yet also move between walls. This is how He was resurrected and ascended (physically) but 'changed' before entering into the spiritual realm.


This is what the new body (the white robe that we are to be given) does; so that we can also move between the spiritual and the physical. We will be able to 'put on' and 'take off' the flesh. Not being one or the other, but able to be both.

This is what Paul is speaking about when he says that we will all be changed in a twinkling.


Currently we are 'clothed' in the long garment of skin that was given to adam and Eve (this body that has sin and death in it; it cannot move between the physical and the spiritual). But we are going to be (if we are given it) "clothed" in the white robe. (which is not an article of actual clothing per se, but a description of our new body) So that we will be like the angels, who can themselves move between the realms. This flesh with its blood cannot enter the spiritual realm. But that new body with ITS blood (holy spirit) can.


**

In another post, you mentioned science instead of 'magic' and you are correct. But the spiritual realm is not magic; it is just something we do not yet understand.


In that other post, I think you were attempting to have a conversation where technology explains some of what we call 'miracles' (like Mary being impregnated). But technology seems to be more like man trying to replicate what God and Christ can do naturally. Which science would probably explain (one day), except that I expect my Lord to return before that time.

For example, we are able to 'resuscitate' someone with electricity, but we need the right equipment to do so. (charging, charging... CLEAR!) God has that power in Himself; that energy in Himself. He would not need technology to facilitate the dispensing of that power to resuscitate someone (nor would Christ who is Himself the Life). He would know how to use that power; how much was needed exactly, etc.

As another example, as physical and limited beings, we must be within hearing/shouting distance to speak with one another. BUT we have developed technology that permits us to speak to people on the other side of the planet. If other planets were colonized, we would develop technology to permit us to speak to people on other planets. (You and I are communicating and I don't even know WHERE you are, lol. We are communicating via the internet, which one of the prophets actually saw in a vision given to him, though he could only have described it in terms that made sense to him.)

God can (and does) speak to us in our dreams. He and His son can and do communicate with us via their blood (holy spirit - which is the blood/breath/seed of JAH - which speaks - just as the blood of Abel cried out; as the blood of Christ also speaks on our behalf). In fact, our own physical blood speaks to an extent to medical professionals as well. Via blood tests and medical tech. Our blood will 'tell' labs and doctors, etc, if there is something wrong with us (physically) and what is wrong with us. God does not need the technology. He can hear the blood, the life that is IN the blood that speaks.


I know I have gone on a bit of a tangent, but I find it very exciting when something in science sheds some light on a spiritual truth. Which is what the physical does - as a reflection of the spiritual. Physical examples to help us to get a sense of spiritual realities.


Such as the temple (from Israel) which consisted of a Most Holy Place (representing the Most Holy One - God) and a Holy Place (representing the Holy One - Christ).

This could be explained simply by speculating that these beings were ET from this universe who either wanted to give humans the impression they were not of this universe, or had no say in the matter as ancient humans simply assumed such in relation to their cultural beliefs about such things. GODs are 'supernatural' as in 'spirit beings' from an 'alternate universe'.

One could speculate this, but may I ask why ancient humans would have assumed such things with no knowledge base for such things? Plus, would that not suggest that Christ - who is and who spoke truth - did not speak truth on some things?

So their existence cannot and does not threaten my faith. I mean, it really can't, can it?

Well I think it still can because even if your belief is a probability. There is also an aspect of the overall belief system of the Abrahamics, that devils also derive from that same 'spiritual' (non physical) alternate universe, AND that these 'devils' can assume the form of 'angelic light-beings', so again, how is one to tell the difference?

They are all the same 'species' (seraphim/dragon/serpent - NOT snake). Some of them are our enemies; we do have enemies in the spiritual realm. We can know the difference by keeping our eyes upon Christ; listening to Him; following Him, remaining in Him. Not theology, not religion, not men... just Christ.

Part of the probable threat I am speaking of, for example, is the underlying fear that one can be 'lead astray' if one contemplates the idea of ET explaining the Abrahamic stories, let alone examines it with an open mind thirsty for truth.

One could be led astray by many things. Many things in this world are designed to do just that (including religion). But if one is in Christ (who is the truth and who will lead us into ALL truth), then one need not fear, but rather remain in and have faith in Him. Hold all things up against Him (the Light and the Truth).

I have found that nothing TRUE disproves or even contradicts Him. On the surface it might sometimes appear so, but upon closer examination and asking Him for the truth, it never does.

Also in regard to the thread subject, I do not think that ET (or ED for that matter) are a threat to my own theology or, in playing their part, they are attempting to lure humanity away from all notions of GOD, or even true notions of GOD.

But more on that later - I just want to establish some groundwork on what I think is an extremely interesting and important subject which is oft overlooked or ridiculed even more than religion is.

I have a loved one who is very much into aliens, so this is a topic that I have discussed before. I've watched some of those ancient alien programs (I like the ones that deal with the bible - not saying that their conclusions are accurate, but that they are at least thinking outside the box rather than just dismissing everything as myth. To dismiss it all as myth without any real evidence suggesting that it must be so, that seems close-minded to me.) But we have some common ground upon which we can have discussions at least. Because what my loved one considers to be aliens, I understand to be angels. (not everything of course, some things are just man doing things that we have forgotten how to do - like the Easter Island statues, etc).


I apologize if I meandered a bit on some things before getting back on point, but thank you for the discussion so far.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy