Is it sinful to believe in life on other planets?

[Technomancer]

People reading this thread might also enjoy reading Peter Ulmschneider's Intelligent Life in the Universe (see the link here)

The noted paleontologist Simon Conway Morris offers a somewhat more pessimistic assesment in his book Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (see the link here)

The SETI institute can also be found at: http://www.seti.org/

[termyt]

Not to steer the discussion in ANOTHER sticky direction, but there are times that it's perfectly correct to say that God can't do something. Can He sin? can He refuse salvation to anyone who believes in Christ? Can He act in a way that's counter to His own nature? No, and it's a good thing. Whether or not that excuses the guy at the center of THIS discussion, I couldn't say since I never heard the guy myself.

That's a completely different line of questions. You may as well ask if God could create a boulder so big He can't lift it. The existence of life on other planets has absolutely nothing to do with the very Nature of God as He presents It to us.

Being able to say that "God does not sin" does not give us the liberty to say "God did not make life on other planets because He only needed Earth to prove Satan wrong."

The first statement derives from the nature of God. Sin is the result of man disobeying God. We do not even have a definition for what God's sin would be or look like. We have no frame of reference. It is better to say "God is good" or "God has no part in evil." We can say that with absolution because of the nature of God as He reveals it to us. By the definition of what one's nature is, nothing violates its own nature. If it did, that would simply show us we had an incomplete or wrong view of the thing's nature. For example: By it's nature, a dog can not fly. If we were to find a flying dog, it has not violated its own nature. Instead, we'd have to re-evaluate our definition of its nature.

The second statement makes the assertion that God needs only us to prove Satan wrong. There is no evidence to support such a claim. It limit’s God scope and power and assigns God the need to prove something to Satan. On the contrary, if anything, God’s revelation to us would assert that God needs nothing from us. God Is. He does not need to prove anything to anyone and He owes nothing to either us or Satan.

By the way, I actually believe the answer to one of your three questions is yes. Discussion of them is clearly out of bounds in the forum, so PM me if you like to discuss it some more.

[That Dude]

Also not wanting to steer this off topic and start a debate I felt the need to reference something said earlier by Technomancer.

He said that we should view the Bible apart from science and not let our view of the Bible interfere with our understanding of science. This is a very unwise veiwpoint to hold. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God why should you not filter your view of science through it? Is what God says not applicable to science? Remember that science isn't the truth, it's merely a tool to understand it. You all know how many times scientists have been completely wrong.


Ok now back to the original topic. As others have stated, there's no evidence pointed out in the Bible that would make believing in life outside Earth sinful. Now with the tools of science it does show that though possible by the Bible it's very very unlikely.

[mitsuki lover]

To get back on track.While it is important to see all of life through a Biblical lens we need to also remember that not everyone interprets the Bible in the same way.
This is why those of us who do believe in the possibility of alien life on other planets can disagree with those of you who don't without either side being totally right or wrong.

[Sheol777]

The first statement derives from the nature of God. Sin is the result of man disobeying God. We do not even have a definition for what God's sin would be or look like. We have no frame of reference. It is better to say "God is good" or "God has no part in evil." We can say that with absolution because of the nature of God as He reveals it to us. By the definition of what one's nature is, nothing violates its own nature. If it did, that would simply show us we had an incomplete or wrong view of the thing's nature. For example: By it's nature, a dog can not fly. If we were to find a flying dog, it has not violated its own nature. Instead, we'd have to re-evaluate our definition of its nature.

Ya know I have been standing back and following this thread because I found it amusing.

However I feel I need to say that this paragraph is deep and rich with theology, nice job Termyt, I am in total agreement.

[Mithrandir]

He said that we should view the Bible apart from science and not let our view of the Bible interfere with our understanding of science. This is a very unwise veiwpoint to hold. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God why should you not filter your view of science through it? Is what God says not applicable to science? Remember that science isn't the truth, it's merely a tool to understand it. You all know how many times scientists have been completely wrong.

MOD NOTE:
Going back and forth like this is pretty much exactly what we do not want threads to be like. The obvious response for someone to bring up usually goes something like this:

"Yes. Scientists have been wrong as often as Theologians. There have likely been more theologians in various religions throughout history than there have been scientists, so obviously your logic is flawed."

After that, it usually devolves into "Oh yeah? Well I studied [pick one: science/religion/basket making/etc] so I'm more qualified to hold my opinion than you are to hold yours."

That's usually followed by "Who do you think you are? You can't judge me! You don't even KNOW me!!! You're just like Hitler."

And with Hitler, we seal the thread once and for all - and everyone is **** off at everyone else.


Now then, let's make sure nothing like this happens, OK? CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!?!?!

(If not, "a boot to the thread." )

( Carthegnia de lindo est. )

[Maledicte]

I may not agree with Carl Sagan on many things but I do agree with the quote from Contact: "If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space."

I mean, who are we to assume what God can or can't do, or His reasons? If He wanted to create life on other worlds, then I wouldn't put it past Him.

[Technomancer]

I tend to think more of the novel's conclusion: 'For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.'

Interestingly, I've also just picked up Sagan's last collection of essays entitled The Varieties of Scientific Experience.

[mitsuki lover]

Was that his last one?

That life of an intelligent kind may exist on other planets is no doubt
possible,the fact though is we have to keep in mind that the possibility of finding such life in a single life time is slim to none because of the vast
reaches of space that are involved.
Even with the SETI project they are finding it to be a huge task.

[Technomancer]

The book comprises his 1985 talks at the Gifford lectures, which have not been previously published. As one might surmise, the title is an homage to William James' own Gifford lectures, which were of course published as The Varieties of Religious Experience

[That Dude]

I honestly don't see how the SETI project is of any use in finding intelligent life outside of the solar system. Somebody explain? (I know how it works and all that, I just don't get how according to the rational that I've heard in its defense it's logical enough to justify the effort.)

[Technomancer]

I honestly don't see how the SETI project is of any use in finding intelligent life outside of the solar system. Somebody explain? (I know how it works and all that, I just don't get how according to the rational that I've heard in its defense it's logical enough to justify the effort.)

You're really asking two questions here, one of which is the technical/probabilistic one, and the other is related to scientific value. If extra-terrestrial civilizations exist and are broadcasting sufficiently powerful RF signals into space, we should be able to receive them. Actually doing so would be an achievement of immense scientific value. Despite the low probability of success the pay-off would be huge, especially considering the relatively low expense of the project. However, the radio search is not the only project being explored. With advances in optical technology, we may eventually be able to image extrasolar planets, and thus determine their atmospheric chemistry. This will greatly aid in the detection of life, and has a much greater probability of success than SETI.

[That Dude]

Yeah I know that if they found anything it would be an amazing scientific discovery, I just think that though SETI is an interesting idea well, honestly there's got to be more effective ways of going about it besides just looking for the RF signals. Like the imaging that you were just talking about Technomancer.

[Technomancer]

The trouble with imaging though is that even if we can do it, the procedure is unlikely to tell us about intelligent life. For example, detecting an oxygen atmosphere would almost certainly indicate the presence of life, but we wouldn't be able to determine what that life was doing. It could range anywhere from microbial mats to industrialized cities and all points in between.

[termyt]

I can think of two ways to look at SETI that justify it's continuation.

The first is a basic Risk/Reward assessment that all programs must go through.

Risk: Practically none. The operating costs of SETI are minimal and there’s no danger from the SETI technology or facilities to otherwise harm the environment or their communities. So the risk is extremely low – not at all a factor.

Reward: Tremendous – off the chart wonderful. If SETI were to succeed, we’d not only have proof of life on other planets, we’d have a potential way to contact them.

Chance to realize Reward: Minimal – slightly above 0%. The money going to SETI will almost certainly not produce the kind of fruit we are hoping for, so it comes down to whether the cost is worth the experience and knowledge we will gain and just the minimal potential of finding life. Since the cost is so low, the answer is an easy yes, IMO.



The other way to justify SETI is that we need to do what we can when we can if we are to advance. If we did absolutely nothing until we had a fool-proof definitive way to find life on other planets, we’d never even look. While SETI’s chances for success are slim, it is a first step at looking using the technology currently available. If the choice was find SETI or feed people, then I’d choose feed people, but that’s hardly the choice here.

[mitsuki lover]

When it comes to alien life though we have to remember that they might not breath oxygen or for that matter be carbon oriented in their basic
make up.
To presume that just because we breath oxygen means intelligent life elsewhere must needs too as well overlooks the fact that alien life wouldn't necessarily be LIKE us.
Indeed there are places in the Oceans and other sights around the world where scientists have been surprised to find life because of the fact that the environment they live in is supposed to be HOSTILE to life.
Might not the same be true of alien life?That at least some aliens might
thrive and live in environments that would be hostile to us?

[Technomancer]

When it comes to alien life though we have to remember that they might not breath oxygen or for that matter be carbon oriented in their basic
make up.
To presume that just because we breath oxygen means intelligent life elsewhere must needs too as well overlooks the fact that alien life wouldn't necessarily be LIKE us.
Indeed there are places in the Oceans and other sights around the world where scientists have been surprised to find life because of the fact that the environment they live in is supposed to be HOSTILE to life.
Might not the same be true of alien life?That at least some aliens might
thrive and live in environments that would be hostile to us?

It's true that oxygen is not a requirement for life, since metabolisms based on either methane or hydrogen sulphide do exist. Many of these metabolisms also produce oxygen as a waste product though, which is how Earth itself came to have such an atmosphere. In addition, oxygen allows for a much greater energy budget within an organism meaning that it can not only become larger, but also carry out highly energy intensive activities. Basically, while me may expect extraterrestrial life to be different it is still constrained by the same laws of physics and chemistry that we are. As a result it is probable that such life will not be too different.

http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13517

[mitsuki lover]

Well this is true,my entire point has been that wheter or not it looks and acts like us it will still be ALIEN and we have to remember in the words of
Babylon 5's Lennier:"We may look like you but we are NOT you!"
In my mind it is the entire point of the alien or otherness that we must not forget.

[Danderson]

Quick thought that I've been thinking about on this subject (I haven't really looked through the entire thread so if these questions have already been asked, then please bare with me....)

If there really were alien life on other planets, especially if it was of higher intelligence, wouldn't it be proof that evolutionists have been looking for to prove their theorys? What I mean by that is that the only reason life exists on our planet is becuase there are so many elements that play a part in the very air that we breathe, that it is definetly more then a coincidence, or a random chance......

Also, if God created alien life, wouldn't they have to have a Savior to take away their sins, so that they too could have a chance at Heaven? We have Jesus, but if they are real, who might God send to them....more then likely Jesus wouldn't have also gone to them to, becuase He was born a human, though He really was the Son of God....If He were to do it again for ETs, don't you think that almost defeats the purpose of Him "dieing once to save all?"

Just some food for thought.......

BIG NOTE: Please let this not be the start of a flame war or debate....I just wanted to throw out some thoughts and nothing more......

[bakura_fan]

To me, I feel that if there is life out there, I see them as being part of the creation that didn't fall. Adam and Eve were human, and they lived with the animals in the garden, when adam and eve sinned, they affected all around them on Earth. So, why would something so far away (if there is anything) from us be affected? just my two cents...

[Technomancer]

If there really were alien life on other planets, especially if it was of higher intelligence, wouldn't it be proof that evolutionists have been looking for to prove their theorys?

It would be neat, but by no means necessary. In any event, as any scientist will tell you science doesn't do "proof" since such a thing isn't possible in any physical theory. What it does do is accumulate evidence in support of a theory, and devise tests that could possibly disprove a theory.

Anyways' I'd thought about posting this article here, so I'll do this now:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071019/full/news.2007.176.html

[minutz3]

I'm not actually believing it, but thinking that it might be the case.
But what's more interesting is if God would come to the rescue for this creatures as well.
I mean, if they would be able to come to the Eternal Life, and so forth.

But well, I hardly think it's sinful believing in it.
I'm very fond of science-fiction as well :-D

[termyt]

If there really were alien life on other planets, especially if it was of higher intelligence, wouldn't it be proof that evolutionists have been looking for to prove their theorys? What I mean by that is that the only reason life exists on our planet is becuase there are so many elements that play a part in the very air that we breathe, that it is definetly more then a coincidence, or a random chance......

It would be more evidence, but not proof. Those who have turned science into a religion claim they already have enough proof to verify theories like evolution. I have no doubt that such a discovery would be used by them as further proof but the discovery would also provide further proof to creationists as well.

Also, if God created alien life, wouldn't they have to have a Savior to take away their sins, so that they too could have a chance at Heaven? We have Jesus, but if they are real, who might God send to them....more then likely Jesus wouldn't have also gone to them to, becuase He was born a human, though He really was the Son of God....If He were to do it again for ETs, don't you think that almost defeats the purpose of Him "dieing once to save all?"

Jesus was the vehicle for all creation. We can infer that, if there is life outside of this planet, the it was through Christ that that life was created as well. But even this is not a given. The words that open John talk of creation, but they are centered on the creation of this world. Whether or not they apply to extra-terrestrial life is up for interpretation.

If God created life on other planets, we simply do not know what their situation is. Do they have free will? Are they made in His image? Did the first created sin?

Perhaps that race’s Adam did not sin. What then? Could there be a perfect race? Could one of his sons sinned creating a division between sinners and non-sinners?

There’s no way to know God’s intention or interaction with other life. Christ came to save mankind. Meeting an alien race would force us to evaluate what God’s revelation to us means to them and, if we are wise, attempting to find what God’s revelation is to them and what that might mean to us.

[Kat Walker]

I was listening to a Talk Radio program where a commentator said that the reason there is only one planet with life on it is that God only needed one planet to prove to Satan and his ilk how wrong he is.

No, it is not in the least bit sinful to speculate that God is powerful enough to create more than one planet (or millions, even). The bible at the very least hints at it in certain places. But for now I will just give you my opinions:

- I do not understand why Christians always have to assume that if there are other inhabited planets, that they must automatically be fallen beings like we are. I believe that there are many other planets in which beings dwell, created by God, who weren't corrupted the way Adam and Eve were. They were likely created long before Earth and have close communication with God.

- Since they are unfallen, they are perfect and beautiful. Like Elves from LotR more than the stereotypical "little green men".

- God made planets before ours, and after sin and sinners are gone forever and the world is made new, He may likely create other planets and new beings after us as well. We'll have an eternity to explore all these places and meet these fellow children of God (pretty cool, eh?)

- The bible makes it pretty clear that we are the center stage of a universal conflict of good and evil, and at the end God's just character will be redeemed from Satan's lies. This isn't only for our sake, but also for that of the unfallen races who are still loyal to God but might have been led to doubt by Satan.

- Aliens are not proof of evolution. I think that a lot of Christians mistakenly believe it does, and it scares them - so they try to write off even discussing the concept as "sinful".

- UFO's are nonsense. It's very likely God does not allow any other beings to travel to our corrupted planet for their own safety. I think Satan is perfectly capable of using things like that to trick people into believing lies about alien life.

[mitsuki lover]

Most,if not all,UFOs are really explained by the fact that most people have no understanding of what they are really looking at.The word itself is merely an acronym for Unidentifed Flying Object.Popular culture as created the 'Flying Saucer'myth.Though it is sad comment to note once these objects are identified people tend to loose interest in them.
(Note:there are also USOs that some have claimed to have seen under the seas.)

[Kat Walker]

Oops, sorry, I forgot to address the quote I originally posted:

I was listening to a Talk Radio program where a commentator said that the reason there is only one planet with life on it is that God only needed one planet to prove to Satan and his ilk how wrong he is.

I totally agree with this - one planet is enough evidence to make the case. Yet that doesn't mean there are no other created beings in the universe.

When Adam sinned, he gave up his stewardship of Earth to Satan - that is why he's called "The Prince of the World" multiple times in the Bible. Our planet is under his control, and God allows him to promote his agenda within certain boundaries. Part of those boundaries, I believe, is that he can only tread on our world.

It's very likely that before Satan came to Earth, he tried to recruit many other beings to his cause as well. Obviously he failed, since the Bible makes it clear that only mankind and 1/3 of the angels are fallen (if there were others, it surely would have said so). I think that very early on, they could see the negative effects of sin and wanted no part of it. I also believe they watch closely what happens here on Earth - they have seen Satan's evil and Jesus' loving sacrifice for his creations, and now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is good.