AFA the Earth being unique, have a look at Giglio's video that I linked on my previous response to your comments. Here is a link to an apologetics website that suggests the odds are 1:10~99 (1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 give or take a decimal place) that a planet with a similar set of characteristics exists. There are estimated to be 10~24 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets, so the odds are reduced to 1:10~75 of finding one similar planet. Better odds, but I wouldn't waste a dime on such a bet.
Based on the Bible, it can be argued logically against any physical life existing on any other planet. I'll leave that up to an article from The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (blue text) that handles the question with greater finesse than I. The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24). If there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well. Only God can forgive sins. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14; Col. 2:9), is forever a man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:17, 21), and died for the sins of people here on earth (Rom. 5:8). Therefore, I conclude that the only members left in the Trinity to die for the sins of another race would be the Father and the Holy Spirit. But this doesn't seem credible since the focus of the Trinitarian effort in this world has been for the Father to elect a people (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33), the Son to redeem them (John 6:39; 17:9, 24; Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24), and the Holy Spirit to fill, guide, and indwell them (Acts 4:29-31; John 16:13; Rom. 8:9-14). The focus of their effort has been this world and the redemption of mankind--not anywhere else. Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer? I think this question can be answered by the Bible where it says that creation is groaning, waiting for its redemption at the return of Christ (Rom. 8:22). That would mean that all of creation was affected by the fall. When Adam sinned, the ground was cursed and death entered the world. If that is so, then any other beings out there that were made in God's image, would have fallen too since they would be part of creation. I don't see how they could escape the effect of the fall. They would be sinners, too, and need a redeemer. Then they would fall under the first objection above. Third, there are only two options available to explain our existence: creation and evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution and do not believe it is a viable option to explain how we got here. I do not accept evolution for two reasons: (1) the Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did not evolve, and (2) the problems of spontaneous life formation are so immense that it is impossible. Also, missing links abound, the fossil record is spotty at best, DNA mutation theory is insufficient to account for life-form development, and more . . . but this paper is not a refutation of evolution.
I am up way too late, so I'm calling it a night. If needed, we can continue this tomorrow.
Better odds, but I wouldn’t waste a dime on such a bet.
See, I have seen scientists use odds like this to explain the existence of Earth, and humans.
The can do this with a straight face, and still deny the existence of a Creator. Essentially the odds represent a mathematical impossibility, and yet... here we are. I haven’t watched the video, but I fear this guy may be using the same argument the atheists use to explain how we are the only ones. Just today, scientist announce another discovery of a planet capable of supporting life. It’s been on FNC all day.
The fact we have found these planets kind of blows those odds out of the water, don’t they? Remember I’m only saying the possibility of extraterrestrial life exists.
As for your statements on God, I don’t disagree.
The only thing I would add is this.
We now know, Heaven is not a kingdom in the clouds, and hell is not underground. Yet as believers we accept that they exist. If something exists, that means it’s real, a tangible place, not a “state of mind”.
Many scientists now theorize that there are far more dimensions than the 4 we are able to perceive. Why can’t God be an omnipotent being who exists in a different dimension than ours. Couldn’t that be God’s Kingdom? Hell being described as a “lake of fire”, sounds much like a star. Maybe one that exists in a different dimension?
Does the study of these possibilities strengthen, or weaken Faith?
I believe it strengthens it. All of the atheists who use the “magic ghost in the sky” argument against the belief in God, are diminished. The belief that what we refer to as Heaven could exist in science, as well as Faith excites , and energizes me to further explore God’s word.
As a matter of fact the Bible describes the universe as a sheet, in one instance. Again, scientists now generally accept this as fact.
As to God and Jesus. Why can’t God have created many life forms throughout the universe, and across the dimensions? God is omnipotent. Why couldn’t God’s Son, the flesh and blood embodiment of God be sent to any intelligent beings either simultaneously, or at different points in time? We believe that God lives in all of us simultaneously.
All of this is not meant to be presented as fact, just a giant “what if”. I thank God everyday for allowing me to have a mind willing to ask that question. If I veer off course, God always pulls me back onto the path. He has never failed to do so. I will see something new, that proves His existence.
I don’t believe in evolution to explain why we are on this planet. God created life. However, man and animal both adapt to living conditions, and those adaptations are passed to offspring through genetics. The fact that some atheists have co-opted the meaning of these adaptions to foment a theory is wrong. In science if your theory breaks down you should back up and try a different hypothesis. Instead they have taken a “leap of faith” concerning Darwin’s theory. At this point it stopped being scientific theory and became a “religion”.
My point in this is not to argue, it’s just to say that I can’t look at scientific exploration, of any kind as sin. (before you call me on embryonic stem cell research, I think beginning the science with a cruelty devalues it. scientific exploration should be for the betterment of mankind, and can’t have the destruction of mankind as a beginning or an outcome. Otherwise, what’s the point.) Because I believe in God, I don’t believe any exploration will either prove, or disprove the existence of God because God requires us to have Faith to accept him. Faith is tested in many ways, but all of those ways involve evil in some form or another. Continuing to understand the world, and universe in which we live, in my opinion, can not possibly be considered evil, or violation of God’s wishes for us.