Can Advanced Technology Explain The Bible Stories?

[William]

People seem to like to conflate the mysterious. UFOs and the Bible, for example. (SOURCE)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your preferred position on this matter otseng. I see you are unwilling to discuss alternate explanations, so there is no point in my continuing my critique in this thread any further.

To be clear, I am open to discussing alternative explanations for the shroud, but one has to actually propose an alternative, not simply claim it's some unknown future naturalistic explanation yet to be discovered.

(SOURCE)

Keeping Knowledge Hidden?

Current Headlines:

NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com › ufos-aerial-phenomena
In its 33-page report, an independent team commissioned by NASA cautioned that the negative perception surrounding UFOs poses an obstacle to collecting data.

UFOs - latest news, breaking stories and comment

The Independent
https://www.independent.co.uk › topic › ufos
The latest breaking news, comment and features from The Independent.

NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to ...

AP News
https://apnews.com › article › nasa-ufos-inidentified-fl...
22 hours ago — NASA says the study of UFOs will require new scientific techniques, including advanced satellites as well as a shift in how unidentified ...

UFOs

Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com › science › air-and-space
16 hours ago — UFOs · NASA appoints new director of UFO research in push to examine 'one of our planet's greatest mysteries' · UFO whistleblower balks at claim of 'alien corpses ...

UFO news headlines

9News.com.au
https://www.9news.com.au › mysteries
Latest Unidentified Flying Object news, UFO sightings, videos and photos, and other unsolved mysteries.

Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #70]

So we agree then. "Mind" is the same thing as "spirit".

No. They are both invisible doesn't constitute sameness. Spirit isn't a thing, it's a quality.

Mind isn't a thing either, so how do you explain-away that similarity?
The concepts of both share the attributes of being.

1: Invisible.
2: Able to use matter for purpose.
3: Not a "thing".

I see no reason logic or rational for arguing they are not the same concept being spoken of. You certainly haven't provided anything to show they are different concepts being spoken of.

Your move.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #70]

So we agree then. "Mind" is the same thing as "spirit".

No. They are both invisible doesn't constitute sameness. Spirit isn't a thing, it's a quality.

Mind isn't a thing either, so how do you explain-away that similarity?
The concepts of both share the attributes of being.

1: Invisible.
2: Able to use matter for purpose.
3: Not a "thing".

I see no reason logic or rational for arguing they are not the same concept being spoken of. You certainly haven't provided anything to show they are different concepts being spoken of.

Your move.

My understanding of the word god is that anything and anyone can be a god, or God. If you say Mind is God I don't disagree with that at all. I can't, or at least it would be foolish to attempt. Pointless and inaccurate, because if you say Mind is God, or a god, then it is. I have no say either way. But if the idea of Mind as God is conflated with some inaccurate "God concept" by trying to establish that the God of the Bible, or any other God of any other religious thought that has been established then I have a problem. If you say Amaterasu is Mind I know enough about Amaterasu to say, no, Amaterasu isn't Mind. So, your claim that God is Mind or Mind is God is, in a way, insignificant to me until you try and conflate Mind with some other established God. The same with spirit. Spirit is a word meaning invisible force producing visible results. Is the mind spirit? I could see that. I haven't given it much thought. You could introduce to me your thoughts on the matter and in all likelihood I wouldn't disagree unless you conflate the simple and universal concept of spirit as described, but although interesting and unique in some sense, it isn't significant to me.

My only problem with your supposition is that it seems to conflate with other established concepts while not being explained to me on it's own merit. That could be my fault in understanding, it could be your fault in explaining and it could be that you're just conflating. I don't know. It seems to me a little bit of the latter. When I say it isn't significant I mean on it's own. Breath is spirit. Wind is spirit. Germs are spirits. So what?

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #72]

My focus is on the thread subject and the possibility that biblical stories of angels ( since you brought these into the discussion ) are ( in functional form ) the product of ATA
( Advanced Technological Artifacts ).
The idea is not new, but has not in itself ever been critiqued sufficiently for the concept to being removed from the table as a possible explanation.

If such is the case, then the angels could be considered "messengers" of The Mind - ambassadors in a sense, but connected with said Mind. ( Source Intelligence )

I would only go so far as to conflate such concepts as you mention ( Amaterasu ) with other concepts which share similar traits and consider these to being metaphor-through-mythology and are aspects of The Mind, rather than separate from The Source Mind.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thanks for relating back to the topic, and i agree that the idea (to be relevant to the Forum at all) is that the rocks were an example of an unexplained phenomenon that might have supernatural explanations, either poltergeists trundling them about or being some unknown, possibly ancient or ET technology. It's a common argument both in the Gods from outer space or gods from inna Holy Book belief.

As Tam said, many Christians would go along with the 'probably some unknown "scientific" explanation. Which doesn't always get applied to Biblical claims. Sometimes it does.

Some believers agree the daylight in Genesis was just that, and the sun appeared later (after clouds cleared) rather than was created later. Others accept deep time geology and evolution. Others (I call 'Genesis literalists') don't. Some try to explain away miracles like the parting of the Red Sea or even the Flood.

Some have to stick with science denial (just where it relates to the Bible - they never just pray for their cars to start, but take them to the garage) and others go with dismissing stuff they really can't believe and sticking with what they can. It's a choice I'm glad i don't have to make - trying to believe what is evidently wrong or cherry picking the Bits of the Bible i can live with.

Incidentally, I of course get the hypothesis that 'Mind' (a Cosmic entity that the human mind is part of or in contact with, at least) is equivalent to 'god'. Our pal Data's effort to confuse the issue by finding alternate usages of the term 'god' isn't fooling anyone.

It's a hypothesis or claim, of course - a god outside the universe, and one i came across on my Other forum, with the proponent citing the 'light cone' theory that put a god outside the universe, though that theory also said it could not affect anything inside the light -cone. But then we can have angel messengers to enter the Universe and do the godly stuff like messages, miracles and creation itself, I suppose.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #72]

My focus is on the thread subject and the possibility that biblical stories of angels ( since you brought these into the discussion ) are ( in functional form ) the product of ATA
( Advanced Technological Artifacts ).
The idea is not new, but has not in itself ever been critiqued sufficiently for the concept to being removed from the table as a possible explanation.

If such is the case, then the angels could be considered "messengers" of The Mind - ambassadors in a sense, but connected with said Mind. ( Source Intelligence )

I would only go so far as to conflate such concepts as you mention ( Amaterasu ) with other concepts which share similar traits and consider these to being metaphor-through-mythology and are aspects of The Mind, rather than separate from The Source Mind.

I'll tell you what. I want to do some further reading on this subject before I respond. I'll try to get back to you in a day or so.

[TRANSPONDER]

ok. it's an interesting theory and take on the Bible indeed, though the Bible as a record of ET alien visitations in the past is known, though not as related to a cosmic mind, outside of the universe, but then that's a choice - to believe it or not.

I can imagine the process of reading more is to pick anything that can be used and ignore what doesn't suit. But the bottom line will really be what you can validate, not what you can claim.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #74]

The moving rocks being discussed in the other thread, is ( in context ) a great example of how something unexplained ( having "gaps" ) can be attributed to some outside (super-natural/unnatural ) "force" but then explained ( with accompanying evidence ) and thus "filling the gaps" and - yet again - with accompanying evidence supporting the TRUE explanation.

A great example is Crop-Circles.

Ones we know for a fact are created by humans in an attempt to "prove" that "All CC's are created by humans" are obviously different than those which we did not witness being created by humans as those are far more intricate, and somehow do not damage any of the grain-bearing plants being used as a "canvas" for the symbology being "printed" on the fields growing said plants.

This means that, in having set up what was needed to replicate the results ( darkness, overnight, devices - planks of wood and ropes et al - ( technology ) we discovered that this could be achieved to a degree, but nowhere near as well as the "prints" already mentioned, thus "not replication in any exact manner, thus the category of "human-made crop circles" was born in order to differentiate between the "types" of crop circles evidenced.

This then leaves the question of the continuing existence of the intricate crop circles coming into said existence overnight, on the table of discussion. It ( as a mystery ) hasn't been completely solved yet.

Since we can only explain the human-made ones ( by virtue of quality of print on the field re the technology used ) we can ascertain assumptively that technology is still obviously being used to create those unexplained ones ( by virtue of the superior quality of the print on the field ) to most likely being the result of "more advanced" technology.

Which is to say ( re the thread topic ) that before we start considering "supernatural" explanations, we HAVE to consider natural ones, and in the case of those better quality prints, the technology humans are currently using ( natural ) simply do not replicate said quality, and actually proven not to.

Thus, the idea that there may be a more advanced technology involved ( still within the realm of nature ), has to remain on the table of discussion.

Furthermore, should humans one day be able to replicate in exact detail those prints they currently cannot replicate, we should be able to agree it will require the creation of advanced technology to accomplish that - so either way - the most obvious route to assume is indeed "Advanced Technology."

Re "A Universal Mind" that really is considering an overall platform from which all this is able to take place/happen/derive from, exampled in the results of "intelligence/designing intelligently" et al.

In that, The Universe ( functional form of ) appears to be something which has been unfolding intelligently and Galaxies could be seen as types of "crop circles" on the overall fabric/field of space/darkness - giving the potential impression to the individual mind within a functional form - that it is the result of/is in itself the product of/mindful creation using advanced technology.

Or - more in line with our human linear experience of the universe - Advancing Technology.

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #72]

My focus is on the thread subject and the possibility that biblical stories of angels ( since you brought these into the discussion ) are ( in functional form ) the product of ATA
( Advanced Technological Artifacts ).
The idea is not new, but has not in itself ever been critiqued sufficiently for the concept to being removed from the table as a possible explanation.

If such is the case, then the angels could be considered "messengers" of The Mind - ambassadors in a sense, but connected with said Mind. ( Source Intelligence )

I would only go so far as to conflate such concepts as you mention ( Amaterasu ) with other concepts which share similar traits and consider these to being metaphor-through-mythology and are aspects of The Mind, rather than separate from The Source Mind.

I'll tell you what. I want to do some further reading on this subject before I respond. I'll try to get back to you in a day or so.

This may assist you also.
Debating the Role of Faith, Science, and Supernatural Beliefs
Post #565

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #74]

The moving rocks being discussed in the other thread, is ( in context ) a great example of how something unexplained ( having "gaps" ) can be attributed to some outside (super-natural/unnatural ) "force" but then explained ( with accompanying evidence ) and thus "filling the gaps" and - yet again - with accompanying evidence supporting the TRUE explanation.

A great example is Crop-Circles.

Ones we know for a fact are created by humans in an attempt to "prove" that "All CC's are created by humans" are obviously different than those which we did not witness being created by humans as those are far more intricate, and somehow do not damage any of the grain-bearing plants being used as a "canvas" for the symbology being "printed" on the fields growing said plants.

This means that, in having set up what was needed to replicate the results ( darkness, overnight, devices - planks of wood and ropes et al - ( technology ) we discovered that this could be achieved to a degree, but nowhere near as well as the "prints" already mentioned, thus "not replication in any exact manner, thus the category of "human-made crop circles" was born in order to differentiate between the "types" of crop circles evidenced.

This then leaves the question of the continuing existence of the intricate crop circles coming into said existence overnight, on the table of discussion. It ( as a mystery ) hasn't been completely solved yet.

Since we can only explain the human-made ones ( by virtue of quality of print on the field re the technology used ) we can ascertain assumptively that technology is still obviously being used to create those unexplained ones ( by virtue of the superior quality of the print on the field ) to most likely being the result of "more advanced" technology.

Which is to say ( re the thread topic ) that before we start considering "supernatural" explanations, we HAVE to consider natural ones, and in the case of those better quality prints, the technology humans are currently using ( natural ) simply do not replicate said quality, and actually proven not to.

Thus, the idea that there may be a more advanced technology involved ( still within the realm of nature ), has to remain on the table of discussion.

Furthermore, should humans one day be able to replicate in exact detail those prints they currently cannot replicate, we should be able to agree it will require the creation of advanced technology to accomplish that - so either way - the most obvious route to assume is indeed "Advanced Technology."

Re "A Universal Mind" that really is considering an overall platform from which all this is able to take place/happen/derive from, exampled in the results of "intelligence/designing intelligently" et al.

In that, The Universe ( functional form of ) appears to be something which has been unfolding intelligently and Galaxies could be seen as types of "crop circles" on the overall fabric/field of space/darkness - giving the potential impression to the individual mind within a functional form - that it is the result of/is in itself the product of/mindful creation using advanced technology.

Or - more in line with our human linear experience of the universe - Advancing Technology.

I saw the development of the crop circle thing from simple ones in one location to more elaborate ones (requiring that the original sauce -imprint story be changed) and copycat over the world so the believers protested that it couldn't be a couple of dudes doing them all - a fine example of apologists ignoring the obvious explanation. In time it all became so elaborate with crop images of celebrities, advertisement and people doing it as art that the whole thing became discredited as anything to do with ET aliens. Images known to be made by people were never reported as being seen done so 'popped up overnight' is not evidence of anything.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #79]

While it is a popular belief that "aliens" are responsible, I was not specifically speaking of such when mentioning "advanced technology" - even the alleged use of lasers, microwaves, GPS and other devices which may possibly be used by humans to create elaborate CCs is advanced technology compared with ropes and planks.

I was pointing out that those who claim to be the creators of CCs haven't really been tested comprehensively and there appear to be clear difference in the overall workmanship between known man-made CCs and ones which are not known to being man made.

The other interesting thing of note is that while claims are made by folk that they are responsible for crop-circles, these folk are largely very protective of revealing their exact methods or "secrets" making it even more difficult for scientists to come to definitive conclusions, other than the rightful assumption that CCs are mindfully created...and since there are no known beings capable of doing so, the best assumption is that humans are the ones creating all CC's.

And yes - there have been the odd formations which have taken a number of days to complete, but these are exceptions to the norm - the majority of CC's do appear overnight. ( were not in the field the day before. )