/posad/ - Paranormal

>>790 (OP)
Would people from 2 millennia ago interpret aliens as religious manifestations, yes probably. But angels probably are the type of fictional character similar to comic-book superheros/villains.

If you ask a theology professor angels might be considered residual polytheism, in an otherwise monotheistic religion.

Did extraterrestrials visit earth ? Who knows, but if they did, they probably would have left a probe somewhere in the solar system. And we might want to look for that. Looking for alien foot-prints in the cultural sphere is difficult. Imagine the shoe being on the other foot. Archeologists 2000 years in the future finding contemporary scifi stories, and concluding that earth has fought off hundreds of alien invasions in our time.

Tbh this could be a valid explanation for any kind of angel or divine cosmic entity. I guess that, you know, the big flaming wheel thing and the wings-on-wings-on-wings and the giant purple rainbow dragon that flies around the sun are all a bit weirder to us than the androgynous men with wings, but the androgynous men with wings are still pretty weird.

Still, to me, these… especially with the wheels and wings-on-wings-on-wings (and also the, uh… seven horned & seven eyed lamb)… come across as psychic manifestations. That is, they remind me of the sorts of images a mind generates when left to search the astral plane for patterns, the kind of things the mind generates with great natural proficiency: geometric shapes, fractals, etc. These are imbued with divine properties out of some innate part of the human mind which is attracted to them. There are ways you can explain this tendency - an evolutionary knack for architecture and complex order, an affinity for the shapes formed by trees, an aesthetic manifestation of the complex roads and patterns of the brain & body itself… but anyway the feeling of wonder at them is unlikely to fade when you see them appear before you bathed in light. It becomes absurd because it can't be explained, and the absurdity of trying to rationalize the fascination itself becomes divine in that sense.

There's a constant element of fable to this stuff, too, but I think that some of the symbolic truth displayed in these more abstract visions of divine beings does represent some component of the human unconscious as opposed to, uh… something more overt like what the narrative of Jesus of Nazareth represents.

>>792
>But angels probably are the type of fictional character similar to comic-book superheros/villains.
I'm referring to these "biblically accurate" portrayals of angels, not angels in general. These creatures look downright Lovecraftian, like they're the Great Old Ones or shit.
>Archeologists 2000 years in the future finding contemporary scifi stories, and concluding that earth has fought off hundreds of alien invasions in our time.
lol
>>793
>an aesthetic manifestation of the complex roads and patterns of the brain & body itself
Probably this. Have you noticed how the early video generating neural networks tended to generate some surreal nonsense? I think it's kinda like that, just a bunch of random data from one's memory mashed together. That explains lambs with seven horns and seven eyes. After all, lambs were common farm animals back then, it's something the serfs were very familiar with.

>>795
Oh, I wouldn't go as far as to say it's nonsense. Imo it's more like a profound visual manifestation of human internal logic and structure, there's a great deal of sense to it, but it just goes beyond what is ordinarily logically comprehended.

There is evidence to suggest that UFOs/aliens are really fallen angels.

>>807
This anon somehow got it backwards.

>>807
>>809
They scraped the DNA from the Roswell "alien" specimens and found out it actually matches angel DNA. Grays/Zeta Reticulans are a myth made up by Richard Dawkins to sell reddit atheism.

>>811
>angel DNA
Blind assumption. Christians themselves will never admit that the fallen angels are actually aliens because they wanna spread their religious propaganda.
>Grays/Zeta Reticulans are a myth made up by Richard Dawkins to sell reddit atheism.
Who said aliens look like the Grays? This thread, Alien, Metroid and Cthulhu Mythos exist because people don't believe that to be true.

>>813 (me)
Also, why tf would angels even need a DNA if they don't pass their genes? You don't understand genetics.

>>814
Ok wise guy just one question. If angels don't pass on their genes then where did you come from?

>>815
>Ok wise guy just one question. If angels don't pass on their genes then where did you come from?
From my daddy. 😏

>>795
>I'm referring to these "biblically accurate" portrayals of angels, not angels in general. These creatures look downright Lovecraftian, like they're the Great Old Ones or shit.
Right, i always assumed that these were just artistic works like a horror movie.

>>807
>There is evidence to suggest that UFOs/aliens are really fallen angels.
we got evidence for either ?

>>814
>Also, why tf would angels even need a DNA if they don't pass their genes? You don't understand genetics.
Living organisms use dna for lots of other stuff like replicating cells to stay alive, not just for procreation.

>>818
>Living organisms use dna for lots of other stuff like replicating cells to stay alive, not just for procreation.
I'm not sure why divine creatures would have the same biology as the living creatures as their own existence kinda breaks the materialist worldview.

>>811
Nah. Aliens just lie about their origins so well.

>>809
Explain why alien starships cannot be seen properly with high definition videography. Why do they only come out at night?
Why do they sometimes show up in photos but other times don't?

Why are they only seen up close in a hypnagogic state?

>>819
<I'm not sure why divine creatures would have the same biology as the living creatures
So divine = not living ?

>as their own existence kinda breaks the materialist worldview.
Not really, your believes in angels does not break materialism.

>>823
>So divine = not living ?
That's not what I meant.
>your believes in angels does not break materialism
Not only does God's existence imply that materialism can be easily broken by God's will (a problem with monotheism in general) but it also implies that angels, being divine creatures, do not obey the laws of physics.

>>827
Divine beings are hyperdimensional. They do obey laws of physics but not the kind on our dimensional level

>>827
>That's not what I meant.
what did you mean ?
>Not only does God's existence imply that materialism can be easily broken by God's will (a problem with monotheism in general) but it also implies that angels, being divine creatures, do not obey the laws of physics.
Many people have believes in their heads about physics defying gods, angels and assorted divine creatures, however believes don't break anything in materialism, nor do those defy any physics.

The materialist perspective is:
gods, angels and assorted divine creatures = brain-activity

>>836
>Divine beings are hyperdimensional. They do obey laws of physics but not the kind on our dimensional level
A for effort, but you're still required to have a leap of faith, about the existence of hyper-dimensional levels

>>818
>>814
Why would an extraterrestrial species with advanced technology from light years away know so much about earth from mere visitation? And why aren't we humans seeing pictures or radio signals of their stellar ships from outside the solar system?

We see UFOs only in earth space. Or we see them manifest in the sky or come out of the oceans.

But we never see them coming from outside of earth space.

Why do they always seem to interact with Earthbound geography without any sort of technological aid or clothing to protect their bodily biochemistry?

Why do they always seem to assert neuro-cognitive control of humans by merely looking at them?

Also, UFOs often are seen alot in new age/occult settings.

People often report seeing UFO beings being able to manipulate natural phenomenon, such as making earth quakes, time regression, teleportation, and even phase through the solid matter.

People often dismiss all of this as technological advancement.

To some degree, this is understandable.


And why are they able to telepathically communicate with other species?

If they are just merely flesh-and-blood aliens most of the behavior they exhibit wouldn't make sense.

We humans still cannot telepathically communicate with other animals let alone each other.
No species of animal is known to telepathically communicate

>>836
>They do obey laws of physics
Then how can you claim their divinity? What's the practical difference between them and Cthulhu, say?
>>837
>however believes don't break anything in materialism
They don't but they do kinda make the materialist explanation kinda redundant if God can create miracles on a whim. God is immune to causation, he (why does God have a gender?) can make shit up on the spot. Therefore it opens the door to all kinds of occult practices.
>The materialist perspective is: gods, angels and assorted divine creatures = brain-activity
Never heard THAT "materialist" explanation in my life. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
>>841
It's already rare to see UFO and it's really hard to distinguish which one is true, which one is hearsay and which one is pure hallucination.

>>844
>They don't but they do kinda make the materialist explanation kinda redundant if God can create miracles on a whim. God is immune to causation,
There is no violation of causation happening if you imagine a god doing miracles. You imagination doesn't affect the material world, beyond your brain consuming a little bit of energy.

>Never heard THAT "materialist" explanation in my life. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Materialists, think that only measurable phenomena exist, roughly speaking. If you talk about magical deities, materialist never consider the possibility that this actually exists, but instead think that your brain is having thoughts about magical deities, and that you are talking about those thoughts. Because in that situation what is measurable is that there is another person that has a brain with thoughts.

>>846
>There is no violation of causation happening if you imagine a god doing miracles.
How's that different from having an acid trip? And how does God even exist in a material universe? And how do these "miracles" manifest in your brain with no material cause? And why do these "miracles" have to be
brain activity? Isn't God almighty?
>Because in that situation what is measurable is that there is another person that has a brain with thoughts.
Again, how is it different from an acid trip?

>>849
>How's that different from having an acid trip?
I had neither religious experiences nor have i ever been tripping, so i can't say.
But you probably are correct about the similarities. At least some people say that drugs made them have religious experiences.

>And how does God even exist in a material universe?
Well people have believes in gods and those believes happen because of physical processes in the brains. So yes gods exists, but not as a powerful wizard of sorts, rather its neurons and synapses doing a thing.

>And why do these "miracles" have to be brain activity?
People attribute happenings they can't explain to miracles.
We have no reason to think that our inability to explain certain things is anything other than a limitation of what we know. So a miracle appears to refer to a knowledge gap.

>Isn't God almighty?
in the imagination of believers, certainly.

>>850
>its neurons and synapses doing a thing
Then God is as real as spooks. Which means he isn't fucking real, just the concept of God is real.
>So a miracle appears to refer to a knowledge gap.
A miracle is something people think can't be real and yet it is.
>in the imagination of believers, certainly.
Then he isn't fucking almighty, wtf is this supposed to mean?

>>851
>Then God is as real as spooks.
If you want to put it that way, sure.
> Which means he isn't fucking real, just the concept of God is real.
You're almost getting it. It was always a concept.

I'll try a few examples.

Lets say you're a kid that just figured out Santa Clause isn't a guy on a magic sled. But it's just your dad in a costume.
You're reaction could be "Santa isn't real". But that isn't really true. Santa was always real, it was always just adults pretending for their children. You just figured out that you did not know what the real Santa is.

I'm going to say that magicians are real and that magic is too. But the magic that is real is based on slight of hand, misdirection of attention and illusions. Fake magic is the supernatural stuff, because that is not real. The magicians that put on a show to amuse people, those are real.

What I'm getting at here is : use words to describe the things that actually exist. Don't allocate all the words to impossible things, and then proceed to describe the actually existing things as "not real".

>>852
This is all just semantics.