'god' no longer active within human events

[username]

Re: To username & Kopji:

As I said before, I don't know 'exactly' what I saw, other than to say that what it was did stuff I did not know that human pilots could do, and they performed feats that disobeyed the laws of flight and physics as I now know them...

OK, you saw something in the sky and it's movement appeared to be such that no human created object could move that way. So far so good.

What I saw moved in concert with one another, and were not acting in what I would deem a random or chaotic manner. And this is where I made my first 'leap' in drawing a conclusion. These concerted movements were driven by 'an intelligence' of some kind.

This is a leap though, you do realize that right? One explanation is that these two objects were governed by an intelligence, another explanation is that their movement was not driven by any intelligence, but to your mind's eye an intelligent actor was the most likely explanation.

The second 'leap' I take is to compare these findings to what others have seen in the heavens. Certainly, I am no stranger to UFO sightings, and have seen images of 'angels' posted in ancient paintings, caught on video and in countless photographic images.

There are a lot of claims of UFOs and supernatural sightings. Do you believe all of them? What percentage of these claims do you believe are completely fabricated? What percentage do you believe are folks 'leaping' to incorrect explanations for what they saw?

And thusly, I arrive at the conclusion that, 'something' is up there, and that this something's ability surpasses our own, in their right angled turns at a constant velocity and the 2 becoming ONE...thus my 'god' labeling.

Right, but what you saying here is that you saw something, don't know what it was that you saw, but you believe it's movement indicates an intelligence behind it. There are other explantions than what you propose, you have simply chosen to accept the one you wish to accept.

On a board of skeptics you must realize that you are going to get some mild flak for this, right?

I guess, I have a problem with you 'skeptics' NOT taking a logical step forward in trying to understand these findings. I mean, while I don't know 'exactly' what I saw, I know I saw something, and the things these things could do demonstrate a super-human ability. "username" suggested, even in lou of his experiences, that he didn't have any proof that the supernatural exists...when in fact he & a friend witnessed 'something' supernatural.

My friend and I might well have witnessed something supernatural. I readily admit that. However I listed a couple/few 'natural' explanations that are just as plausible, if not more so. I don't know that what I saw has a supernatural explanation and frankly neither do you. You choose to believe that what you saw has a supernatural explanation and I choose to not assign any explanation natural or supernatural to what I saw because I don't have enough evidence to know what explains what I saw.

I would like to know what it was that I saw and why. I really would. Thing is, I don't. If I took a currently popular mythology and used it as the explanation I wouldn't be a skeptic

I find this intellectually irresponsible. I mean to have findings, and not act or accumulate them into the rest of your understanding seems at the very least, lazy. I mean, you've got a piece of the puzzle in your hand, and yet you refuse to accept that it belongs in the puzzle your have in front of you.

I accept that what I saw is a puzzle piece. What I don't know is where in the puzzle the piece properly fits. Does it properly fit into the supernatural (angels and demons), the extra terrestial(aliens), the natural (experiment by government/military), psychological (hallucination) or some other explanation?

KOA, will you at least admit that you do not know the explanation behind what you saw?

You have assigned a supernatural explanation to what you saw, but do you *know* that the supernatural is the only possible explanation?

It also seems that your beliefs concerning the nature of the diety or dieties are based at least in part upon this experience.

In my opinion it is unwise to base a faith system around a singular event whose explanation is unknown with any degree of certainty.

An event such as you and I and many others have experienced can be a cause for further investigation, but ultimately we must resist arriving at conclusions that aren't proven by the evidence. Your conclusion is one of many possible explanations. As such I don't understand why you assign a god label to it with confidence.

 

[Kopji]

KOA
What I saw moved in concert with one another, and were not acting in what I would deem a random or chaotic manner. And this is where I made my first 'leap' in drawing a conclusion. These concerted movements were driven by 'an intelligence' of some kind.

I've no problem at all with this. And I am even willing to accept that 'hey' this might be some kind of alien craft. Or not. How do I decide?

So is the 'duck' I see a real duck or a decoy duck? How would a scientist decide? 'Duck-ness testing' is something called a dialectic triad:
thesis
antithesis
and synthesis.

The 'thesis' is that you observed aliens. (and that's ok)

The next thing to do is test the thesis having by us oppose it, hence the "anti" part. Simply: "What are the weak points?"

You then make your case stronger by addressing the points of our antithesis. This is called the 'synthesis'... often the first step of a new round (triad).

By following this logical pattern of reasoning we make better decisions.

The second 'leap' I take is to compare these findings to what others have seen in the heavens. Certainly, I am no stranger to UFO sightings, and have seen images of 'angels' posted in ancient paintings, caught on video and in countless photographic images.

Ok, so I toss back my "anti-thesis".

Does the quantity of unexplained objects lead us to conclude they are aliens? No, we can't really make any kind of conclusion one way or another.

Through time many sightings turned out to be hoaxes, fakes, or otherwise explainable as not being aliens. This does not refute the thesis, but we have a body of evidence that shows a trend.

If anything, a trend shows a certain tendency or momentum. Maybe I need MORE evidence to overcome this momentum.

Ancient arts and writings are another kind of unexplained sighting. Maybe there used to be an angel shaped bird that is now extinct? Maybe they represent some kind of ancient costume?

And thusly, I arrive at the conclusion that, 'something' is up there, and that this something's ability surpasses our own, in their right angled turns at a constant velocity and the 2 becoming ONE...thus my 'god' labeling.

You've arrived at a conclusion without following the decision process, and yet accuse us of being intellecutually lazy.

Here is an interesting topic mentioning a similar sighting, associated with electrochromatic panels. These panels, if they existed (I suspect they do) would explain much of what you saw.

...Well, some witnesses seemed to see structure between the lights, and some did not, saying they saw stars between the lights. Maybe both were correct. The new daytime stealth technology based on electrochromatic panels could explain this. When the panels were operating, viewers would see stars, since these chameleon-like panels project what is above an aircraft onto the underside of it. When the panels were turned off, a viewer might see structure. The final question would then be: Why the lights? If this was some sort of test of a secret aircraft from Area 51, why fly it near populated areas with lights on it?
http://ufos.about.com/cs/famoussightings/a/aa121403_2.htm

That seems a bit far fetched, but less so than concluding that what was seen were aliens that have been visiting us thousands of years.

It is now your turn to refute this as a possibility, and that the conclusion that these are aliens is the correct one. This would be the 'synthesis'.

I guess, I have a problem with you 'skeptics' NOT taking a logical step forward in trying to understand these findings. I mean, while I don't know 'exactly' what I saw, I know I saw something, and the things these things could do demonstrate a super-human ability. "username" suggested, even in lou of his experiences, that he didn't have any proof that the supernatural exists...when in fact he & a friend witnessed 'something' supernatural.
The problem with skeptics is: at the end, when we look to see what's left after laboriously debating and finally seperating the baby from the bathwater - there's no baby.

I find this intellectually irresponsible. I mean to have findings, and not act or accumulate them into the rest of your understanding seems at the very least, lazy. I mean, you've got a piece of the puzzle in your hand, and yet you refuse to accept that it belongs in the puzzle your have in front of you.

Ok, well, here we are not being lazy. It is your turn to help us decide. Show us that what you saw could not be more easily and logically explained by human technology.

Cloaking Using Electro-Optical Camouflage Patent No.
5,307,162 issued 26 April 1994 Patent Renewed in 1997
- Next Maintenance Fee Due 26 April 2001

 

[King of the Americas]

THIS is why I like this board...

...I can always rely on carefully worded rebuttles, littered with rationality and steaped in insight.

Given that, here's my 'synthesis':

That what I saw was 'probably' aliens is my stance, not that I could prove any such thing, but that I would like to rely on Occam's Razor...

The way I see it, there COULD be any number of theories that would explain what I saw. But that the 3 most likely are these: 1.) Both of us could have imagines the whole thing. 2.) What we saw was a super secret terresterial craft, an UAV of some sorts capabled of changing its physical form, or 3.) That there is 'some' truth behind the myths and stories written about a "god" who exists in the heavens.

I would like to boldly say that of these the first is the more unlikely, given that for 2 seperate unrelated people, uninduced by drugs or alcohol, to have the exact same hallucination would be odd, indeed.

So, what I saw was either man-made or it wasn't. Within the event I witnessed, these craft did several astounding things, some feats I have heard of and seen, while others I had not. Initially, the star-like objects moved into position, and merely 'held' their position. This was not a really big deal, because I know the helicopters can do virtually the same manuver (except that these craft moved silently). Their next feat did however raise my eyebrow, as well as my friend's. They moved, and 'seeming' without slowing down, turned at a right angle or greater. This was odd, in that I had 'heard' of some new military craft utilizing 'directional exhaust', but that the g-forces put upon a pilot's body would limit how fast turns could be accomplished. Still, a UAV with the right engineering make-up MIGHT be able to simlate such feats, given the right conditions. But WHY would the government be showing off these things to a couple of country bumpkins??? Believe it or not, that question actually went through my mind at one point...then two of them headed for each other at a greater speed than either had previously moved. Then they did something I had NEVER seen or heard of aircraft doing, while airborne, they became ONE.

Now, this was odd, moreso than anything I could have expected to see in the sky. Moreover, their joining was marked by a multiplied size. Like when you take 2 small clay balls and join them together, you expect to get 1 medium size ball. Or a ball twice the volume of one of the balls. Well, the appearance of the larger entity was "4 times" as large as the single units. So, I look to my friend and ask, "Did you see those two head toward one another...?"

And he responded before I could finish, "...and join up to make a really big version of themselves.", Yes, I did.

Then we looked back up at it and it seperated again into it smaller parts.

Now, what is more likely? That the two of us witnessed the SAME heavenly phenomonia- "dancing stars", that countless thousands of people have also witnessed throughout the ages, OR that the two of us were subjects of a hoax that would make even Steven Speilberg proud, or that the government let the 2 of us in on a secret miles and miles away any major testing facility?

Call me a fool, but I am gonna go with what my ancestors said they saw, that MATCHES what I saw myself, and give 'some' credence to what the myths say. This is NOT to say that I believe them at their face value. For I think the really folly of Man has been to idolize that which he saw, making "God" out of these things. I must say that a metaphysical, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving 'G'od does in all likely hood NOT exist. For, I think herer and only here you could apply, "absence of evidence IS evidence of absence". I mean, if he KNOWS ecerything, and could DO anything, why would he allow tens of thousands of innocent children to die!?

My only conclusion is that "god" does exist, for I have seen something if it with mine own eyes, with a witness for colaborate my tale, but that what I have seen in deeds that this is NOT "God", in practice.

Michael Jordan can not fly, but in his prime he could jump really far & high, such that in a still picture he LOOKED like he was flying. So too, did our ancestors mistake extreme ability with the supernatural.

What I saw may not have been of the metaphysical/supernatural, but it WAS beyond that of what I know terresterial Man has accomplished...

And I return with Occam's Razor, the most likely possibility is usually the correct one. I think it IS likely for all these myths about a heavenly-borne god to have 'some' grain or thread of sincerity within them, and moreover that these things I saw were further witness to their existance.


---

 

[Atlas]

Re: THIS is why I like this board...

... My only conclusion is that "god" does exist, for I have seen something if it with mine own eyes, with a witness for colaborate my tale, but that what I have seen in deeds that this is NOT "God", in practice.

Michael Jordan can not fly, but in his prime he could jump really far & high, such that in a still picture he LOOKED like he was flying. So too, did our ancestors mistake extreme ability with the supernatural.

What I saw may not have been of the metaphysical/supernatural, but it WAS beyond that of what I know terresterial Man has accomplished...

This is an interesting thought. You come to the only conclusion possible based on your first hand witness - then admit that it could have been a Michael Jordan "flying" error like folks might have made in the old days. Then fall back on the idea that no terrestrial could've done what Michael did... (only your Michael was lights in the sky.) And then bring out Occam's razor.

And I return with Occam's Razor, the most likely possibility is usually the correct one. I think it IS likely for all these myths about a heavenly-borne god to have 'some' grain or thread of sincerity within them, and moreover that these things I saw were further witness to their existance.

I think you are misinterpreting Occam. First it's not the "most likely" it's the simplest. Secondly, Occam would have cautioned against compounding the unknown. You see and verify strange moving lights in the sky but you compound it with an "Alien/god" hypothesis. Ground lights like searchlights on a filmy stratus cloud layer or some atmospheric phenomenon is at least as likely as alien spacecraft and being more terrestrial in nature, simpler.

I would like to second your observation that in this forum you do get some very insightful responses. Some of these posters are brilliant. And even though I'm not, if I'm quick, I get my posts on the same page as the really good ones. I don't know, it makes me feel smarter... like I'm smart because I'm hanging around with smart people.

 

[Kimpatsu]

The issue of lights in the sky was dealt with by Randi in ones of his commentaries.

 

[Atlas]

The issue of lights in the sky was dealt with by Randi in ones of his commentaries.

Thanks for looking that one up Kimpatsu. It shows that strange observations are sometimes the result of unintentional human play. That's not to say that KOA's were but they could have been intentional play - hoaxes. Crop circles seemed like evidence of other worldly interventions too but alas, no aliens or alien technology are involved.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Thanks for looking that one up Kimpatsu. It shows that strange observations are sometimes the result of unintentional human play. That's not to say that KOA's were but they could have been intentional play - hoaxes. Crop circles seemed like evidence of other worldly interventions too but alas, no aliens or alien technology are involved.

I saw the two pranksters responsible for crop circles on TV last year; they're quite an ebullient pair.

 

[Kopji]

KOA
Thanks for the response, and I have not implied nor would I, that you might be on drugs.

The way I see it, there COULD be any number of theories that would explain what I saw. But that the 3 most likely are these:
1.) Both of us could have imagines the whole thing.
2.) What we saw was a super secret terresterial craft, an UAV of some sorts capabled of changing its physical form, or
3.) That there is 'some' truth behind the myths and stories written about a "god" who exists in the heavens.

And as you mentioned already, there is also the possibility that we are the victim of a hoax...
or something ordinary but unexpected like Kimpatsu linked - flying kites at night.

It is not that I doubt you saw something, only that you've combined analysis and conclusion as if it were part of the actual observation. I would like to believe with you that these were aliens, but there is a big gap between what you observed and what you've concluded. Help us find our way across to where you are.

'1.' Why not accept that you saw something? That seems reasonable enough. A suggestion: Attempt to draw what you observed. Record the colors, motion, sounds. What the weather was like, was it night or day? Build a sequence of still frames. Get the images before us so we can see what you mean. Have your friend verify it's what he saw too.

'2.' Military ultra-tech is a stretch, but is it as much a one as seeing alien craft? Aliens would need to overcome a lot to get here. Things like speed of light barriers. Much less so a human created craft: chameleon-like, With the additional ability to project any image on the skin. It could look like a pig flying. A simple 'camouflage' configuration would be to project on one side what was imaged on the other. This is not very far fetched because the technology is almost commercialized and military technology only leads by a few years. There are some new displays called 'oleds' (organic led's) that hold the potential of being printed onto a surface. (Imagine a t-shirt printed with an animated jref graphic!).

'3.' And what about them being from Earth itself? Stories abound about lost cities like Atlantis. Maybe there is some advanced hidden civilization on earth? Why discard those myths, instead of integrating them into the narrative?

So the problem in part '2 and 3' is how to choose? when there's no evidence except shared testimony. Without any physical evidence how do we move toward some kind of conclusion?

There was an article recently that implied scientific people needed to be careful to not dismiss accounts of alien encounters outright. I happen to agree that even our most rational thinking should always leave room for doubt, or even being wrong.

So observe: write down or draw what it was. Take movies, photos, whatever. Record precise times, dates, places. If I'd seen lots of ufo's I'd have a log book by now.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Atlas:

I know "Occam's Razor", and indeed the most simple answer IS usually the best one to consider as the most likely.

I think it is the most simple explanation possible to unravel the mystery of "God". Men lie. They do so as they retell stories over and over again, and in the end they make a fantasic tale of an ordinary event. SUCH as with Michael Jordan, or when Babe Ruth hit a baseball so high, everyone lost sight of it, and he scored an in the park home run. He was neither blazing fast, or the ball hit really high. It was just really sunny that day, and the ball dropped just behind second base away from everyone.

So too, I think MANY people in the past have seen these same "dancing stars", angels, 'lights in the sky' and overly attributed "God" status upon these things, ESPECIALLY when they interceeded in the events of the time. However, I think what is most likely is that we have 'gods' above us, and there aren't there to interceed anymore.

I think the most likely simple thing explanation is that we are being studied, just as we would endangered animal species.

I think THIS is more 'simple' than to try to explain away the lights we saw as 'random' cloud formations, or a stray flash-light beam. It is also more simple than attributing what we saw as a hoax. I can not even fathom the kind of resources it would take to put on that show, and have it come off as it did! I've seen David Copperfield do some amazing stuff, but even his tricks take days often weeks to set up. For someone to do this, on the off chance that the 2 of us would be meandering out in those parts, is beyond complex...

This is an argument in favor of 'god'-plural noun, but NOT a 'G' od metaphysical omni-potent, all knowing ruler of the Universe.

 

[Atlas]

Re: To Atlas:

...So too, I think MANY people in the past have seen these same "dancing stars", angels, 'lights in the sky' and overly attributed "God" status upon these things, ESPECIALLY when they interceeded in the events of the time. However, I think what is most likely is that we have 'gods' above us, and there aren't there to interceed anymore. ...

Even though you agree that men conflate even minor events you readily accept that intercessions by "angels" did occur as told in folktales of old. It's more likely that no intercession occurred but there might have been a correspondence of an actual event with an unexplained sighting or dream that caused someone to connect the two just as you see moving lights and assume aliens are behind them.

Nobody could've made the display you saw but aliens did want to call attention to themselves by their arial antics so two backwoods boys would be charmed? They came across galactic space to dance for you? If they are watching why are they dancing? What possible value could their dance in the sky provide for them? They obviously forgot that they were trying to remain unseen.

Those are some of the unknowns Occam would have liked you to answer before saying, "It's simple - Aliens." Of course, you don't actually say aliens, you imply it. But the lights could be skyships from Atlantis, I suppose, or from the center of the earth. You don't have any idea where your simple aliens come from or how they possibly got here, but from an unexplained, one time, unexplained event you invoke Occam for the purpose of populating the skies with benign watchers who hide themselves from our radars but dance for woodsmen when boredom overtakes them.

You still have not adequately explained how Occam gets you from dancing lights to Aliens who do not warn us about tsunamis. But that's just my opinion.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Kopji:

KOA
Thanks for the response, and I have not implied nor would I, that you might be on drugs.

The way I see it, there COULD be any number of theories that would explain what I saw. But that the 3 most likely are these:
1.) Both of us could have imagines the whole thing.
2.) What we saw was a super secret terresterial craft, an UAV of some sorts capabled of changing its physical form, or
3.) That there is 'some' truth behind the myths and stories written about a "god" who exists in the heavens.

And as you mentioned already, there is also the possibility that we are the victim of a hoax...
or something ordinary but unexpected like Kimpatsu linked - flying kites at night.

*It COULD have been a hoax, but I don't think they used 'kites' at night to accomplish this.

It is not that I doubt you saw something, only that you've combined analysis and conclusion as if it were part of the actual observation. I would like to believe with you that these were aliens, but there is a big gap between what you observed and what you've concluded. Help us find our way across to where you are.

*Well, you know what they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

'1.' Why not accept that you saw something? That seems reasonable enough. A suggestion: Attempt to draw what you observed. Record the colors, motion, sounds. What the weather was like, was it night or day? Build a sequence of still frames. Get the images before us so we can see what you mean. Have your friend verify it's what he saw too.

*I have never actaully story-boarded the whole thing out... I could. I remember the event, well enough I think to remake it as it appears in my memory. While watching one of those TLC or History Channel programs, I have seen video of the same kind of 'lights in the sky', in their style and performance skills. Although, with that video, you only see the frames wherein the phenomonia occurs. So that is usually what I speak to whenever I tell my story. However, I have told the entire tale to a friend or two, and I'd be happy to do so again, here.

'2.' Military ultra-tech is a stretch, but is it as much a one as seeing alien craft? Aliens would need to overcome a lot to get here. Things like speed of light barriers. Much less so a human created craft: chameleon-like, With the additional ability to project any image on the skin. It could look like a pig flying. A simple 'camouflage' configuration would be to project on one side what was imaged on the other. This is not very far fetched because the technology is almost commercialized and military technology only leads by a few years. There are some new displays called 'oleds' (organic led's) that hold the potential of being printed onto a surface. (Imagine a t-shirt printed with an animated jref graphic!).

*But what if they never left...? I mean aliens were only aliens once, maybe after that they considered this their home, or their very own little petrie dish... I have no idea, what they are capable of, I only know that evidence of them appears throughout the ages, so maybe they haven't had to go, or come from anywhere. Maybe they are as we have been, alive and here for a long time?

'3.' And what about them being from Earth itself? Stories abound about lost cities like Atlantis. Maybe there is some advanced hidden civilization on earth? Why discard those myths, instead of integrating them into the narrative?

*I guess one should...but hey, why not make "Big foot" the culpret!? Maybe Star Wars really did have it right, "Chewy" was a hell of a pilot, you know! I guess I disclude such theories, because we have the continential U.S. pretty mapped by radar. When something pops up, unexpectedly it usually get investigated. Patterns could be used to easily find the launching point of such an airbase. I've been out to this place dozens of times after the fact, and ever seen anything like it again. I don't know how well we have the earth's orbit mapped, but I'd bet that we probably don't have any long range radar or scanning ability beyond the U.S.'s physical borders...

So the problem in part '2 and 3' is how to choose? when there's no evidence except shared testimony. Without any physical evidence how do we move toward some kind of conclusion?

*Well, I must say that I probably couldn't move toward my conclusion, without having seen what I saw. I mean, I always fancied myself a 'believer' in E.T.'s, but now deem it more of a 'known' to me. I KNOW there is something up there. However, without my previous research upon the topic, I can't say that I would have been convienced of the fact, if I had merely seen this thing myself. My findings are of those over millenia, from paintings on cave walls, to medeval manuscripts, to modern photographs and video footage, AND my own personal emperically collected data on the matter.

There was an article recently that implied scientific people needed to be careful to not dismiss accounts of alien encounters outright. I happen to agree that even our most rational thinking should always leave room for doubt, or even being wrong.

*Given that Science's nature is rediscovery of new facts, clouded by aniquated fact collecting techniques. The world WAS once flat, until 'men' (plural) could see for themselves that it wasn't. ONE man's opinion, or recollection of the fact was almost never accepted. I think the FIRST step for Science will be to admit that there IS something worth looking for, rather than turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the possibility. I mean, we must first admit that there is something worth looking for, before we can administer a proper means to find it.

So observe: write down or draw what it was. Take movies, photos, whatever. Record precise times, dates, places. If I'd seen lots of ufo's I'd have a log book by now.

*Well, trust me, had I KNOWN I was going to see this stuff, I'd have brought my camera. However, I have only had the one experience...I haven't seen anything like this since then.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Atlas:

Even though you agree that men conflate even minor events you readily accept that intercessions by "angels" did occur as told in folktales of old. It's more likely that no intercession occurred but there might have been a correspondence of an actual event with an unexplained sighting or dream that caused someone to connect the two just as you see moving lights and assume aliens are behind them.

*I AGREE that there was likely an ACTUAL event behind almost every historical account of something or other, BUT that that account is probably differen than the thing that actually was... The question is where to stop or under appreciate that which the writer has left for us. I hold that it stops, where MY experiences of a similar event begins. I saw a picture of Michael Jordan 'flying', then I witnessed him jumping on the way to a huge dunk, therein lies my dispostion. So too with "God", I read and I researched, and then I SAW with mine own eyes, thus I disregarded the capital 'G', and went with "god". I have not witnessed any all powerful "God", but what I saw was plural and capable of stuff we are not.

Nobody could've made the display you saw but aliens did want to call attention to themselves by their arial antics so two backwoods boys would be charmed? They came across galactic space to dance for you? If they are watching why are they dancing? What possible value could their dance in the sky provide for them? They obviously forgot that they were trying to remain unseen.

*I see no purpose in what they did, either. All, that I know, is that I now KNOW of their existance, and I share that knowledge with others.

Those are some of the unknowns Occam would have liked you to answer before saying, "It's simple - Aliens." Of course, you don't actually say aliens, you imply it. But the lights could be skyships from Atlantis, I suppose, or from the center of the earth. You don't have any idea where your simple aliens come from or how they possibly got here, but from an unexplained, one time, unexplained event you invoke Occam for the purpose of populating the skies with benign watchers who hide themselves from our radars but dance for woodsmen when boredom overtakes them.

*No I don't say "aliens" because maybe they aren't. Maybe they didn't come from anywhere, but rather maybe they have always been there...as the hsitorical record would indicate?

You still have not adequately explained how Occam gets you from dancing lights to Aliens who do not warn us about tsunamis. But that's just my opinion.

*I think it is THE most most simple explanation is to saw that men lie and or over-elaborate in their story telling. I think that the most plausable explanation is tht 'god' became "God", and then let down religions when they ceased to interact anymore.

 

[egslim]

I read somewhere about two different stories.
The first was about a researcher, who stayed up late in his lab. Though he didn't believe in the supernatural, he experienced a strange feeling, like some kind of presence. Not only that, but he saw things from the corners of his eyes, disappearing when he looked.
Seems very much like a supernatural event, right?
However, this guy decided to investigate further. He found his experience was caused by the sound of a large fan. The frequency was too low to hear, but it created "ghost-experiences". Mystery solved, nothing supernatural involved.
Second is a researcher who can create out-of-body experiences. Again, nothing supernatural: Put on a helmet with electrodes to stimulate certain parts of your brain, and off you go.

These examples show even clearly seeming supernatural events can actually be quite natural.

 

[Atlas]

Ok KOA,

You're holding to a intellectual (though, in my opinion, illogical) appreciation of your own experience and are not returning our inquiries and jibes with name calling or aggressiveness. I give you points for that.

My own personal experience (vision) of God (Big G) had a similar affect. For you it's "Seeing is Believing". For me it was "Feelings are their own proof." (My vision was an interior one, seen like a dream but intensely felt.)

That experience was the golden thread of my own fabrication of the truth of God. Time, life and experience were better tools of deconstruction than any words of friend or foe. You have woven your fabrication of truth with your own golden thread and when complete and hung to admire I feel confident you'll notice that you've dropped a stitch here and there.

Nevertheless, the confidence that I have in time may not prevent me from adding my 2 cents to the thoughts you post in the future. Think of me as an alien watcher... I might, in fact, be one.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Atlas:

I had to read your respose twice, and I still don't really know what to think of it.

What stitches am I missing, or which ones did I "drop"?

 

[Atlas]

Re: To Atlas:

I had to read your respose twice, and I still don't really know what to think of it.

What stitches am I missing, or which ones did I "drop"?

Perhaps "dropped" is incorrect and "added inappropriately" is more correct. Anyway your design is flawed.

It is inappropriate to see dancing lights for which you know of no explanation and conclude that super beings exist and watch over us. It is not a simple jump to a conclusion you make but an extreme one.

There is a phenomenon called fairy rings.

A fairy ring or fairy circle, also known as a pixie ring, is a naturally occurring ring or arc of mushrooms. The rings may grow over ten meters in diameter and become stable over time as the fungus grows and seeks food underground. Even if no mushrooms are present, the underground presence of the fungus may sometimes be detected by observing the withering of grass directly above.

Although the edible Marasmius oreades is best known as the "fairy ring mushroom", other species of fungus, some of which are poisonous to humans, may also form arcs or rings.

In folklore, fairy rings were thought to be caused by fairies dancing in a circle, wearing down the grass beneath their feet.

That is, people can see on a walk in the wood a circle of dead grass and assume the existence of dancing pixies. You have seen dancing lights in the sky and come to a similar conclusion.

 

[Kopji]

To admit we sometimes experience things we don't understand takes courage. Scientifc method takes courage too though: To take something we experience and subject it to critical examination and sometimes harsh testing or review to find the truth of it.

To 'know' something is to understand it as it really is. Isn't it cheating ourselves to settle for less?

Since this is a religon area, I'll give a simple religious example of the problem we face with testimony. In the preface to the Book of Mormon there is recorded the testimony of several witnesses to the 'golden plates' etc. There is no physical evidence, but some swore to their death that the work was true. Many suffered great persecution and loss. So with all those eyewitnesses, why doesn't everyone believe?

Are non-believers simply evil, destined or doomed to deny a self evident truth? Or is it because we know too well the weaknesses of being human? We are right and wrong, often at the same time. We have sometimes been deceived or misled, even with the best of intents by our own well meaning self. Maybe humans make poor witnesses, compared to physical evidence.

As to 'evidence' from the past, the past is always seen through the eyes of today, not the ancient people who recorded them. There is a sense in which all the philosophers, thinkers, and artists are alive today in us. And a sense in which we impose upon them the tyranny of intrepretations and perspectives of our own time.

A few years ago I was out after sunset dark watching the stars at a remote and lonely place north of here called Wupatki. Suddenly, all these people started showing up with lawn charis and setting up around me in 'my' spot. It turns out they were out for a family evening of watching for ufos. They were talking quite openly about ufos until they noticed me, then they hushed up, as if an 'outsider' was there.

And that's too bad, because if the sightings are based in anything real I would be the first to be an 'insider'.

So my parting response would be not to post in the religon section, but begin to record and use scientific method to include, rather than exclude people. Create a convincing body of evidence we can examine and compare.

I am always curious.