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?

[bjs]

Alpha Centauri, the closest start to us, is 25 trillion miles away (4.3 light-years). New Horizons, the fastest spacecraft humans have created, travels at over 36,000 miles per hour.

It would take New Horizons 78,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri.

That is just traveling to the nearest star, to say nothing of the nearest galaxy.

The idea that a rocket could travel to another galaxy in 100 years is doubtful to say the least.

http://earthsky.org/space/alpha-centauri-travel-time

Yes, this is from the relative point of view of someone on earth. It works differently for the traveller at high speeds; distance covered for them changes exponentially. If you want to examine the physics and mathematics behind the calculations and explanations, by a top astrophysicist, here is the reference. Good luck.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ace_Travel

Yes, but by high speeds you mean speeds at or close to light speed. As far as we can tell nothing with a mass above zero can get anywhere near that speed. The top speed we have achieved (36,000 miles per hour) does not come to close to fast enough to alter the experience of time on the traveler.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 17 by rikuoamero]

I think that you have already figured out what my answer is, but I will say it anyway: No, unless we are saying that this ET is literally God I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that a traveler from another planet has visited earth.

Okay...so how did God resurrect Jesus?
If you are a person who wouldn't be satisfied with being told aliens visited Earth using an FTL drive that has no explanation...

Assuming you are using traditional definitions, comparing an alien to God is comparing two fundamentally different ideas.

The former is a being from another planet which evolved within space-time. We assume that being must obey the existing laws of this universe. While such a being might have technology well beyond ours, it would be unreasonable to think that such technology could escape the laws of physics.

The latter is a Being from outside this universe. This Being created space-time. As the One who designed physics, it is unreasonable to expect such a Being to be confined by the laws of physics.

This would be like suggesting that since the rules of soccer (football) say we cant touch the ball with our hands that makes us physically incapable of grabbing the ball. As the ones who created the soccer, we can choose when and if we follow its rules. As the Creator of the universe, it is reasonable to believe that God is not confined by the laws of the universe.

[bjs]

Not improbable at all. The idea is not to send biological critters into deep space, for precisely the reasons you point out. This does not mean that it can't be done in other ways.
For example, a biological species can design AI ships and send them in many directions, and even place biological 'seed' on those ships. Those ships can bring biological life forms into existence in laboratory settings, as and when required.

Also, there is no particular hurry. There is no necessity to go hurtling through the Galaxy at a tremendous rate of knots. Slowly and surely is the better option. After all there is plenty of time in which to do things.

The ships themselves could contain bots which can also be useful for mining in order to increase the ships size. Many things can be accomplished in the journey from 'A' to 'B'. Sensibly, there is no requirement to hurry.

I want to put this idea in context.

Andromeda, the closest galaxy to ours, is 2.5 million light years away.

For the fastest craft ever created by human beings (New Horizones) to travel to the nearest galaxy would take more than 2 quadrillion years.

Lets give this alien a huge advantage. Lets say that it has figured out has to travel one thousand times faster than we have, and is leaving from the closest galaxy (Andromeda).

Even if it is in a hurry (which you have said it need not be), then at top speed it would take this alien 2 trillion years to get here.

The universe is at most 14 billion years old.

There has not been enough time to do what you are suggesting.

2. If somehow an alien could arrive on earth, it would have evolved in a completely different way that humans did...

Not likely. As said, a biological being cannot traverse space and survive the journey. However and AI ship can. And once within the general proximity to its target planet, the AI ship can raise biological beings from the seed it carries and can also be the very being which parents/teaches those beings everything they need to know re the mission etc.

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.

There is no saying that should it be the case, or that some biological form cannot be created which would assist in overcoming these minor problems. Language itself may well be mathematically based anyway, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that designing the appropriate biological instrument would be easy enough to accomplish in order to overcome these types of perceived barriers, should they exist as you assert.

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.

Well hopefully you might be able to see now that one doesn't have to be omnipotent in order to accomplish ways around such problems.

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.

Here we reach a point where you are conflating an idea with another idea without taking known human propensity to bend and twist things to suit a political agenda. This is of course - not entirely your fault as those representing Abrahamic religions are often the first that one entrusts to be truthfully representing said religions.

However, it can be pointed out in many places in the biblical writ, where the GOD idea of the bible is seriously against being misrepresented whilst at the same time resigned to the fact that humans will continue to do this.

Indeed, it can be observed that a good part of Yeshua's teachings had to do with this very thing.
Things start off one way and morph into completely different and often contradictory ways as conflation of cultures and religions, politics and agendas are added to the mix.

One can indeed read the bible in such a manner as to understand that the GOD in question was never trying to 'create a false religion' but rather, was trying to show humans where their ideas of GODs had gone way off track - attempted to correct the problem, and steer humans towards a more convivial idea of GOD which promoted the survival and prosperity of the human species to a point where they had the best chances of actually making it rather than destroying themselves.

In relation to ET agenda, this would most certainly involve getting humans up to speed in order that we as a species would come to a point of understanding our true circumstances and develop the technology which would enable us to fit into and support that agenda, which - in a nut shell - is to create AI mother-ships, place the seed of our planet into those ships and send them out into the Galaxy at an orderly pace. Rinse and repeat.

The challenge for the ET in relation to that agenda has been to create paths around the obstacles which certain types of human beings have purposefully placed in the way.

The pattern is there in the evidence. Yeshua planted a seed - and he also knew that there would be ferocious opposition to that from the sector of human society which saw the greatest threat to their positions therein and these would develop intricate ways in which to counter that agenda, including formulation of a false religion. So no - it was not the ET who create the false religions, but the humans who resist the changes necessary to have happen in order for the ET agenda to take precedence.

Nevertheless, whilst there was a concerted effort to infiltrate and falsify this new thing Yeshua planted into the minds of humans, at the same time the ET were also infiltrating the very thing which was creating the falseness, because with their clearer foresight and higher ground position, they understood the falseness to being useful as part of the solution rather than simply just a problem.

The main thing in all of this is that the ET had to keep hidden and it had to look - by and large - solely a Human effort - because this is the nature of human consciousness. It has to be seen to be the one doing the job, all by itself, without any help thank you very much. So the help is largely done behinds the scenes.

But not just for that reason. The ET forms (when they aren't wearing costumes) creates horror in humans. So much so that humans could drop dead at the sight of them... and in that, human myths regarding demons etc are bought to the fore and this simply complicates things.

But above all, the ET are not interested in playing the role of GOD to the extent which humans demand. They are not 'skydaddies' intent on giving into the demands of spoilt children who think they should be rewarded with easy lives and everything handed to them on a silver platter. That is simply not how things work in the real universe.

So, while there is plenty of wiggle room allowed for human development, it is not to the point where the ET agenda could be seriously compromised.
Thus we fight our wars, muck with our politics and cultures and religious beliefs, and distracting ourselves in the human drama and do all this with or without any 'GOD' idea propelling us forward in supporting these things. We have already reached the point where the ET agenda has been fulfilled sufficiently that we are more likely to be a species who supports and contributed to that agenda rather than completely snuff ourselves out of existence, so nothing of any importance is lost in the overall time and effort involved.

Of course one can argue that we are on the very brink of self annihilation as a species, what with global warming, rampant consumerism, weapons of mass destruction etc et al...and that would be a fair enough argument, but while this might be the fate of most of us (and who can we the majority truly blame for that but ourselves yes?) there will be a remnant of humanity who have the technological capabilities to survive such a fate and use that opportunity to continue with the agenda durng such crisis as well as once the smoke clears.

On that note, perhaps many Christians might argue "Noooooooo!!!!" because they are believing that Jesus will return and save us all from such evil, even that we all partook of making it so, because well - they believe that they deserve to be saved from that and that we were forced into supporting such a destructive pathway because 'the atheist antichrist' but that may be part of the false religion giving people hope in a 'supernatural' intervention in order to pacify them into submitting to the human masters, and well - that will just have to be one of the main lessons we all learn from it all. Life goes on, even after death.

Is there anything this alien cant do? It can travel unimaginable distance. It can raise any biological being it encounters from seed. It can blend in to any society. May I assume that it can also perform miracles recorded in the Bible? It can heal the sick. It can control the weather. It can raise the dead. Can it hear and respond to prayers? Heck, why not say that it can come back to save us all? Why draw the line there? Can it grant eternal life, even raising those who died long ago? Can it be an inter-dimensional being that created the universe?

In short, how do you differentiate this alien from the God of Abraham?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to William]

Let us assume that our understanding of physics is more or less close to correct

That might be the problem right there.

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.

This objection seems like a simple lack of imagination.

Do we have some idea as to the lifespan of aliens? Or if spending generations to go from one place to another even bothers them? They are aliens. They are going to be very different from us. William also mentioned AI ships. And what about cryogenic sleep? Worm holes?

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.

How is it that a being capable of doing X is somehow less plausible than a being capable of doing X and everything else?

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.

Weird, yes, but how are the actions of the Christian God any less inscrutable?

[marco]

Yes, but by high speeds you mean speeds at or close to light speed. As far as we can tell nothing with a mass above zero can get anywhere near that speed. The top speed we have achieved (36,000 miles per hour) does not come to close to fast enough to alter the experience of time on the traveler.

Of course we're dealing with speeds close to that of light and of course, under present knowledge, we don't have the wherewithal to make the mechanics possible. That was not the issue when you said:


"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. "

The paper I referred to, on the future of space travel, does suggest it is theoretically possible. Caesar may once have said: "It would be good if we could all fly over to Britain in a big ship but that is of course impossible. " And so it was.

If we are to advance another ten thousand years it is certain that ideas that appear to us impossible will be commonplace. Give us 100,000 and our bodies might by wishful thinking travel anywhere. Vast distances and such huge time periods would merge.

The question of ET is improbable relative to our state of knowledge. But that is irrelevant since ET would be coming from somewhere that makes our state of knowledge neanderthal. Why would ET come? God knows.

[FarWanderer]

[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*

They are a naturalistic explanation. Not sure how me not assigning a probability to their existence would change that.

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?

Of course I've been exposed to it. And I enjoy talking about it.

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.

A number of people witnessing a seemingly impossible event tells us nothing about how that event came about. For example, let us consider some other naturalistic hypotheses:

1) Biblical miracles were carried out by a secret society of Atlantians (humans) with their secret ancient technology.
2) Jesus was a mutant, like in X-men, and used his mutant powers to perform what appeared to be "miracles" to his followers.

Are these hypotheses any less deserving of serious exploration than the alien hypothesis?

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?

I am not going to pretend that I understand the "probability" of unknown beings from an unknown place using unknown technology in order to found a religion among humans for unknown reasons.

If that's bias, then I am guilty.

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.

Do you mean like crop circles, blurry photographs, and alien abduction stories? Perhaps we could start a thread in the "Science and Religion" subforum.

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'.

Well, it's a common psychological defense mechanism. I consider myself a pretty flexible thinker, but I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly how I'd react in a situation like that.

[bjs]

Of course we're dealing with speeds close to that of light and of course, under present knowledge, we don't have the wherewithal to make the mechanics possible.

To be clear, I did not say we dont have the wherewithal to make the mechanics possible. Rather, I said that it is not possible for anything with a mass above zero to achieve speeds close to the speed of light.

If you want to say everything we know is wrong, Newton and Einstein were no closer to the truth than cavemen, and mathematics and logic themselves are useless and misleading endeavors, then ok. I dont see how we can meaningfully discuss anything at that point.

However, if our current science is more or less correct " maybe we got a few things wrong, but the general gist of it is right " then we will never travel to another galaxy. We could have another 1 billion years of advancement; it simply cannot be done.

For an object with a mass above zero to travel close to light speed would requires suspending the laws of physics.

[bjs]

I am going to repeat a few things from others posts, but here it is:

[Replying to William]

Let us assume that our understanding of physics is more or less close to correct

That might be the problem right there.

If you want to say everything we know is wrong, Newton and Einstein were no closer to the truth than cavemen, and mathematics and logic themselves are useless and misleading endeavors, then ok.

I dont see how we can meaningfully discuss anything at that point.

However, if our current science is more or less correct " maybe we got a few things wrong, but the general gist of it is right " then travel from one galaxy to another cannot be achieved, regardless of the degree of advancement.

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.

This objection seems like a simple lack of imagination.

Do we have some idea as to the lifespan of aliens? Or if spending generations to go from one place to another even bothers them? They are aliens. They are going to be very different from us. William also mentioned AI ships. And what about cryogenic sleep? Worm holes?

Andromeda, the closest galaxy to ours, is 2.5 million light years away.

For the fastest craft ever created by human beings (New Horizones) to travel to the nearest galaxy would take more than 2 quadrillion years.

Lets give this alien a huge advantage. Lets say that it has figured out has to travel one thousand times faster than we have, and is leaving from the closest galaxy (Andromeda).

Even if it is in a hurry, then at top speed it would take this alien 2 trillion years to get here.

The universe is at most 14 billion years old.

No matter how long these aliens live, or if they have perfected cryogenic sleep, the universe itself has not been around long enough for an alien to make this trip.

Our current understanding is that wormholes are impossible and must be left to the realm of fiction.
https://www.space.com/35522-stop-talkin ... holes.html

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.

How is it that a being capable of doing X is somehow less plausible than a being capable of doing X and everything else?

For the X we are talking about in this case, then if any being is capable of doing X then that being is capable of doing X plus everything else. X requires suspending the laws of physics, and it seems unreasonable to suggest that a being which can ignore physic would have any limitations (i.e. that being is literally God).

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.

Weird, yes, but how are the actions of the Christian God any less inscrutable?

Here I can only say that we have a fundamentally different understanding of the Christian God.

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

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).

If all the facts and data were known regarding something, then it is no longer probable. It is certainty.

Why should we assume that they WOULD be physical?

That is not what I was asking. I was asking why people believe a supposed alternate universe would not be physical.

I wasn't saying I assume all alternate universes would be physical.

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

How does your Lord teach you? That would be the first question to ask, because without that knowledge one cannot ascertain weather what you accept as true is not based upon probability.

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?

Yet I am sure you can agree that the truth is, Abrahamic religions do indeed make statements about it, including the statement that 'it is spiritual and non physical'.

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

So basically there is nothing one can say about this 'spiritual universe' except that one believes that it exists. Therefore while the idea of ED beings can be dovetailed into this belief system, the idea of ET beings cannot. Yet plainly biblical stories involving non human entities exist within the pages of the bible, and as pointed out these beings interact with humans physically. Thus using Occam's Razor, of the two possibilities, ET trumps ED.

This means that the so-called 'spiritual universe' is more likely a creation of human argument which allows for the believer to find a defensive mechanism to fall behind in order to protect their particular beliefs from the threat of being able to be scrutinized.

Btw - that type of tactic can be referred to as 'Occulting', and by that I do not mean to imply that it is therefore evil, but it is most definitely questionable.

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.

Even so, this does not mean that we are not dealing with a highly advance ET species able to carry out illusions of the laws of physics being broken. The example you gave, may have been the product of a highly advanced form of hologram.

Now, when it comes to 'that which is spirit' I understand this to mean consciousness. In the realm of what is known as 'Astral' according to the many stories people bring back of their experiences in this realm, it is indeed experienced differently than the way we experience this physical universe, and it certainly still allows for what we might recognize as physical interaction (such as hugging) and there are individualized forms and the properties of this realm appear to allow for the individual to experience instant manifestation (although many there do not understand that this is what is taking place - that they are creating their reality through their beliefs and attitudes) and this realm has everything to do with afterlife stories, but this realm itself exists - not as an independent universe outside of our own, but rather, a universe which exists because of our own. It is complicated but if you care to read more about what I have learned in relation to this realm you can do so here;

My thoughts on death.

As you will see, there is a lot of information on this subject to integrate, but in relation to ET, there is no reason I can see where the idea of a highly advanced species cannot be working in conjunction with the Astral realm.

What is evident though, is in relation to things which happen where individuals experience the overlapping/superimposing of the two realms - through visions and apparently 'miraculous' happenings of clearly alternate reality experience - these are connected through the common denominator of sleep even that obviously those experiencing them are anything but 'asleep' as far as they are concerned. To an observer though, yes they would been seen to be asleep.

Thus what is taking place in relation to the individuals experience is happening within the realm of the mind. However, when I say this I am not suggesting that the person isn't actually experiencing what they experience, but that the 'mind' is not an individual thing in that we each have our own mind separate from everyone else's.

Rather the individuals mind acts as a doorway into the shared mind - the mind of GOD, if you like - or the mind of the Local GOD (Earth Entity) which itself is connected to vaster aspects of the Galactic minds, (Galactic Entities) and the Universal Mind (the Universal Entity) all operating - not in an outside universe, but within this universe.

Not to say that there isn't an outside of this universe reality - the Realm of First Source Reality envelops ALL realities as The Mind of all realities and the reason all realities exist.

The focus of this thread though, is in the possibility that ET is connected with biblical stories, and how this needs to be regarded as the first most likely point of explanation for those stories before one starts to ponder on the alternate universes being the primary explanation. First the physical, then the spiritual, as one such saying goes.

Eliminate (rather than ignore) the possibility/probability of ET intervention and then be at liberty to explore the idea of the spirit realm being the only explanation.
ET have not being eliminated in that regard - just mostly ignored as a probability.

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.

I don't hold faith in the promised return of the Christ because I understand that it is probably a story made up by the powers that be (in the day) which was a way of getting the plebs (who are the ones most drawn to such stories as they are the underdogs and are easily led as well) in order to placate them to accept their place in the system of things without complaint or aggression for not only would GOD regard them as 'worthy' for doing so, but also GOD would punish their oppressors - eventually. In the mean time 'business as usual'.

The other thing I notice is that the biblical GOD does not interfere very often in the affairs of human beings, preferring that humans learn through trial and error rather than be babysat and mollycoddled. We learn to adapt and to put aside superstition and literal belief in mythology. We learn to be ornery (well that comes natural enough given our circumstances) and we rise to the challenge.

Life throws us lemons and scientific expression makes lemonade. We understand the idea of artificial insemination and in this day and age we can thus appreciate how 'GOD' might have impregnated 'Mary' - not through the non physical realm somehow interacting with this one (which piles on more mystery - occulting rather than revealing) but through ET - (working in conjunction with the non physical realm) and using real science rather than 'magic'.

One could speculate this, but may I ask why ancient humans would have assumed such things with no knowledge base for such things?

Through their experience with it. Dreams/visions, astral travel, plants which held specific chemicals which allowed for the brain to be used in other ways - all such things allowed for humans to create mythologies to 'explain' the things which happened to them.

Plus, would that not suggest that Christ - who is and who spoke truth - did not speak truth on some things?

Can one speak the truth to those who are unable to understand let alone accept that truth?

Yeshua had to deal with the belief systems of that time and work with them.

Do you think (for example) that what he said to the woman at the well was what he believed was the truth about her? Is it not conceivable that the situation simply demanded he 'agree' with her, because it was far more practical than trying to convince her that her self impression was wrong?

Mythology and other man made belief systems effective occult the truth. They act as walls which protect people from having to abandon their beliefs for the sake of the truth.

Thus, masters like Yeshua have to allow for this reality - this protective mechanism that humans have built around their beliefs and thus the truth is not used like a wrecking ball, but more like a fine chisel and mallet and brush, slowly and surely chipping away at those beliefs, and sweeping away the debris. Chip too hard, and they might well crucify you.

We can agree that on occasion Yeshua abandoned the subtle and used a sledgehammer. He was not always patient.

[marco]

If you want to say everything we know is wrong, Newton and Einstein were no closer to the truth than cavemen, and mathematics and logic themselves are useless and misleading endeavors, then ok. I dont see how we can meaningfully discuss anything at that point.

It would have been better had you addressed the scientific paper I referenced, and this appears to contradict your objections. Perhaps you have newer partial differential equations whose solutions demonstrate you are right. I don't profess to be an astrophysicist and so I prefer to note what an astrophysicist states. If you have viewed this paper and found flaws, present them to the appropriate source. I understand that some scientists amended the calculations slightly, but they failed to take into account final deceleration. So the paper has been thoroughly examined.

Newton was in fact wrong and Einstein was surprised to be contradicting him. Science accepts and then amends. Hundreds of top scientists opposed Einstein because he opposed the status quo, which seems perfectly correct. Going by the paper about future space travel your assertion that it will never be possible is wrong.

However, if our current science is more or less correct " maybe we got a few things wrong, but the general gist of it is right " then we will never travel to another galaxy. We could have another 1 billion years of advancement; it simply cannot be done.

Well that kind of pediction suggests our level of knowledge is close to perfection. I don't think any scientists believe this. We have reached a stage where we can predict how things work; we can work out precisely the path of a rocket and we know why it travels as it does. Your suggestion suggests sterility for the remainder of time. A horrible thought. Anyway, the paper disagrees with you so my opinion hardly matters.