Did God make other saceint life in the Cosmos? (other than human or angles)

[Alcott]

... it seems like a big waste to have such a big universe and for nobody to be home.

Then how small would the universe have to be in order for it not to be a big waste? I will assume the 'near-emptiness' of space, of the distances between stars and planets, is acceptable for your standards.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Then how small would the universe have to be in order for it not to be a big waste? I will assume the 'near-emptiness' of space, of the distances between stars and planets, is acceptable for your standards.

I am sorry brother, I don't understand what you are asking?

I have no standards to which the universe must abide.

 

[Alcott]

I don't quite understand, brother, why you don't understand the question. You made the point of the universe being "such a big" universe for nobody to be 'home.' Adjectives such as "big" and "small" are relative-- but you must have some reference for the universe being too big to not have life [extraterrestrial; the point of all this], or your statement is without meaning. So give whatever relative reference of the universe being too big to not have such life. That's what the questions asks.... Just how big is that?

And, if you wish, answer it in terms of the number of particles therein, rather than the quantity of light years (or nanometers) across or circumventing, neverminding that that changes faster than what we could use to accurately measure it.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Alcott, I am just not getting it here. How big is too big? I don't know. But I know it is so immense that I would be surprised if we were the only planet with life. Of course, none of us know the answer to the question of "are we alone", but I would expect there to be life elsewhere. I also doubt we will ever make contact.

 

[Alcott]

Okay... there should be other life because "it's so big." How big? "Big enough to have other life." Hopefully a lot of other posters will remember this and remind you of it if you accuse them of non-sequitors.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Okay... there should be other life because "it's so big." How big? "Big enough to have other life." Hopefully a lot of other posters will remember this and remind you of it if you accuse them of non-sequitors.

Remember, I am stating my opinion, not trying to make an argument for or against anything. Therefore you are mistaken. I didn't assert there IS life...just that I think there probably is. Just a simple opinion.

 

[Marcia]

A little of both, actually. We also know that organic molecules tend to form spontaneously in certain environments, and while that doesn't equate to life, it seems like a big waste to have such a big universe and for nobody to be home. Kind of like God building a huge subdivision with lots of houses, and only selling one for someone to call home, leaving the others vacant.

The vastness of space is not wasted because there might not be intelligent life - or even any life - out there, because this vastness reflects the infinite nature and limitless nature of God.

As man realizes more and more how vast space is, how there are countless stars, how there are galaxies we have not seen, numerous suns, planets spinning around, etc. it just shows us what an incredible and awesome Creator we have. For this purpose alone, the immensity of space and the countless heavenly bodies are well worth it!

The creation glorifies God, it does not need to have a practical purpose in being home for some kind of creaturely life.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Unfortunately, apparently my humorous post of the "Star-Trek" crowd in the church service, with "Pastor Worf" pounding away on Odo, as the pulpit, Spock, Counselor Troi, Captains Kirk, Picard, Janeway, et al. has been permanently deleted from even the archives of the BB. :tear:

Ed

That would have been a fun read. To bad....

 

[Alcott]

Remember, I am stating my opinion, not trying to make an argument for or against anything.

You are making the argument for the position that the universe is so 'big' that it's "improbable the earth is the only place for harboring life," even if you get tongue-tied when asked how big or small a universe must be to make that suppostion. And if that's an opinion, what argument ain't?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are making the argument for the position that the universe is so 'big' that it's "improbable the earth is the only place for harboring life," even if you get tongue-tied when asked how big or small a universe must be to make that suppostion. And if that's an opinion, what argument ain't?

If you believe in the Economy of God. Can you then suppose in his economy that nothing is wasted. And if you have a universe of the size we are part of can you assertain that because of God's nature with regard to his economy that he would not waste space. Since, we determine that the universe in its size with the economy of God provide a significant purpose to design which other life may be a part.

 

[webdog]

If you believe in the Economy of God. Can you then suppose in his economy that nothing is wasted. And if you have a universe of the size we are part of can you assertain that because of God's nature with regard to his economy that he would not waste space. Since, we determine that the universe in its size with the economy of God provide a significant purpose to design which other life may be a part.

You are starting with the presupposition that space is wasted if it does not contain life other than human life.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are starting with the presupposition that space is wasted if it does not contain life other than human life.

are you contending that space is filled with human life other than on earth?

 

[Marcia]

If you believe in the Economy of God. Can you then suppose in his economy that nothing is wasted. And if you have a universe of the size we are part of can you assertain that because of God's nature with regard to his economy that he would not waste space. Since, we determine that the universe in its size with the economy of God provide a significant purpose to design which other life may be a part.

It's not wasted if it reflects and glorifies God.

Don't you think that scientists who see this vast space and yet deny God will be questioned by God one day: How could you see all that space and all those heavenly bodies and still think there is no Creator of it?

 

[webdog]

are you contending that space is filled with human life other than on earth?

No, I'm contending that regardless of whether there is any life besides our planet, the lack of life does not mean that "space is wasted".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It's not wasted if it reflects and glorifies God.

Don't you think that scientists who see this vast space and yet deny God will be questioned by God one day: How could you see all that space and all those heavenly bodies and still think there is no Creator of it?

Possibly if you believe God is a narcisist. I'm not saying necissarily that there is sacient live in the cosmos. I'm making a statement supporting Magnetic Poles statement with wasted space.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, I'm contending that regardless of whether there is any life besides our planet, the lack of life does not mean that "space is wasted".

What function does all that space serve?

 

[Alcott]

And if you have a universe of the size we are part of can you assertain that because of God's nature with regard to his economy that he would not waste space.

Whether that, and the rest of your post, is meant as a question or an answer, it is meaningless. What does "wasting space" mean? We have sent probes to Mars and Venus, and they are barren terra firma; no life process, but there are physical processes-- wind, duststorms, seismic activity, gases compressed or evaporating. Is that "wasted" or not?

Furthermore, what is this "God's economy?" If he can speak the worlds into existence, then what economy? In with his word; out with his word. We have an economy; he doesn't.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Whether that, and the rest of your post, is meant as a question or an answer, it is meaningless. What does "wasting space" mean? We have sent probes to Mars and Venus, and they are barren terra firma; no life process, but there are physical processes-- wind, duststorms, seismic activity, gases compressed or evaporating. Is that "wasted" or not?

Furthermore, what is this "God's economy?" If he can speak the worlds into existence, then what economy? In with his word; out with his word. We have an economy; he doesn't.

You and I disagree with that point. God does have an economy.

Economy is the anglicized form of the Greek word oikonomia, which occurs throughout the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:4; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2; 3:9; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Colossians 1:25). Oikonomia is a compound of two nouns:

oikos, which means house, and
nomos, which means law.

Hence, economy denotes a household administration,
management, or
arrangement.

More generally, an economy is a plan to carry out a certain purpose

 

[Alcott]

Merriam-Webster says "the management of household or private affairs" is an archaic definition of the word; it's principle meaning is: thrifty and efficient use of material resources . Since God has no limits on material resources such that they must be used efficiently (though he puts such restrictions on us, which then become ours), how does he really have an economy?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Merriam-Webster says "the management of household or private affairs" is an archaic definition of the word; it's principle meaning is: thrifty and efficient use of material resources . Since God has no limits on material resources such that they must be used efficiently (though he puts such restrictions on us, which then become ours), how does he really have an economy?

The bible is kind of an arcane book. It wasn't writen in the modern context.