Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have always been a lover of all things "Science", space, other life forms, etc. I excelled in Science in School but a few years ago I started questioning things and now believe that "Science" and God can coexist - something that most people I've spoken to disagree with.

Anyway. There are other planets out there, we all know that. But does Life exist on any of those planets? Does God ever mention anything about his other creations (outside of Earth)?

When we look at Earth from outside of it (correct me if I'm wrong), we can see the lights all across the world. But when we look at other planets, there are no lights. This alone leads me to believe that there are no other forms of life on planets that we can see - unless they are completely different from us and are of colors that our eyes cannot see, or is it that God made it so that forms of life on one planet cannot communicate with or see forms of life on another planet?

I would very much like this to be a discussion but since that's not appropriate for this website I would like to know if there is anything in the scriptures about any of this?

share|improve this question
2  
Are you considering angels and demons as "other creations" or limiting this just to what one would normally call "extra-terestrial life," complete with M&M's? –  Affable Geek Apr 23 '13 at 12:43
1  
The planets we have seen are not clear as day kinds of images. They usually use certain tricks involving the star that it is rotating around to infer that the planet is there. –  fredsbend the Grinch Apr 23 '13 at 19:37
2  
C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy is in some ways an extended and very beautiful meditation on this question. The three novels in the trilogy are Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength. I could not put these books down -- literally (stayed up all night reading two of them) –  Ben Dunlap Apr 24 '13 at 22:21
1  
@AffableGeek - I think you mean Reese's Pieces –  warren May 8 '13 at 21:09
1  
@warren You got ET... (et. it.. ok, I'm done really :)) –  Affable Geek May 9 '13 at 12:32

5 Answers 5

This is not an answer but a scientific clarification, please delete if inappropriate. But since the OP asked

(correct me if I'm wrong)

  1. Lights on earth are only visible from space if you are very close.
  2. The only planets we can actually "see" are the ones in our solar system. As far as we know these don't carry any life at all
  3. With the aid of Kepler telescope, NASA has recently discovered three "earth like" planets that are not too far away http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177774505/kepler-telescope-spots-three-new-planets-in-the-goldilocks-zone
  4. If these planets had lights we would not be able to see them from that distance. It's just too far away.
  5. Visible light for humans only covers a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Even on earth there are animals that use different frequencies for vision. We have no reason to believe that life on other planets would "see" the same way
  6. However, we would expect some sort of electromagnetic radiation from a technological advanced civilization. We sure produce a heck of it.
  7. Then again, the planets that Kepler has found (and there are most likely lots more out there) are about 1000 light years or so away. That means it takes about 1000 years for any type of radiation to get here and we'd only hear/see/detect what happened there 1000 years ago. So far we've come up empty.
  8. If today there would be an alien at a Kepler planet pointing their radio-telescope at earth they would detect absolutely nothing. 1000 years ago, earth didn't radiate any electromagnetic waves.
  9. The whole definition of "Life" is a tricky problem in itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions. For example it's not entirely clear whether a virus is a living thing or not (according to most, but not all, definitions it's not)
  10. We don't have very credible idea of how life on other planets may look like or express itself and how we would recognize it as such if we came across it.
share|improve this answer
    
Great answer @Hilmar thank you very much. –  jay_t55 Apr 23 '13 at 16:04
    
Point five is not exactly right. All animals we know of see roughly the same spectrum. The difference is with di, tri and quadrochromatic vision, which is the definition of color perception (number of colors perceived within the same spectrum). Otherwise +1. –  fredsbend the Grinch Jun 2 '13 at 13:52

I had this question myself a few years back, and spent quite a while reading through the Bible to get an answer. What I found was that there is no explicit mention of other life in the universe apart from what is on earth and the spiritual/heavenly realm.

And by spiritual realm I mean a wide category of creation mentioned in the Bible, from angels to demons to the horsemen in the book of Revelation and everything in between.

The Bible also tells us that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and by that we are a unique part of creation, so that even the angels are envious of us. So even if there is other life in the universe, we shouldn't expect it to be like us.

As for finding other life, as Hilmar pointed out our current detection methods are restricted mainly to visible light and radio-wave telescopes, which both have the same fundamental limitation: the speed of light vs distance ratio. Because of the immense distances, we are very unlikely to find anything of interest even if it is there.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks so much @user2307487 :) I've been watching a lot of movies lately where everyone is in the future and they have become immortal due to technology, and it's kind of depressing - because I can see that actually happening in the future (albeit very distant future), and I know I won't be around to be able to explore whatever's outside of Earth –  jay_t55 Apr 23 '13 at 16:07
1  
if you believe Jesus died for your sins so you can live for eternity then you are more or less immortal, are you not? also note the bible says its not good a man lives longer than 120 years (Noah). By which i mean, i think jesus might return before we find this technology, if we find this technology –  joel harkes May 8 '13 at 14:15
1  
You are right, @joelharkes. Thank you. –  jay_t55 May 8 '13 at 23:28

The Bible never explicitly refers to anything other than the angels and life on earth. This does not necessarily demand that there is no life elsewhere. It does suggest, however, that it was not important for us to know.

There is one passage which some have referenced as perhaps suggesting that there is life on another planet. That is in John 10:16

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. John 10:16 ESV

However, Jesus was talking to Jewish people at this time, and the other sheep seems to be pretty obviously referring to Gentiles. In other places, it is explicitly identified that God has, indeed, brought both Jews and Gentiles together in Christ.

share|improve this answer

God did mention multiple or plural worlds as created through Jesus Christ.

"has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;" Hebrews 1:2 NKJV

share|improve this answer
1  
"Worlds" can have many meanings, including simply "other places" or "other planets" or "the heavens and the earth." To really analyze the intended meaning of this scripture, a question could be asked on BH.SE. –  Flimzy Oct 12 at 22:04
1  
Considering ancient people's had little understanding of the planetary nature of Mars, Venus, et al, I very seriously doubt that when they used this word translated "worlds" that they had visions of other planets in space. –  fredsbend the Grinch Oct 12 at 23:14

The possibility of a plurality of words was a hotly debated question during the Middle Ages.

The bishop, philosopher, theologian, economist, and physicist Nicole Oresme (1320-1382) wrote what is considered the best exposition of the possibility of a plurality of worlds, translated in:

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.