Feedback archive → Feedback 2014
Why so many planets?
Can populated planets arise by chance, and are empty planets a waste of space?
Published: 18 January 2014 (GMT+10)
Mihai A. from Romania asks us to address his concerns about the huge number of planets in the universe and their implications for biblical creation:
Hello, I was raised as an Orthodox Christian and both my father and my grandfather were very devout believers. They have taken me to church since I was very little. However, I started questioning the existence of God for several years now. I appreciate very much what your website does and that it provides a bridge between science and God that nobody actually teaches you in school. And it brought a little faith back.
However, one of the topics I have the biggest problem with is cosmology. Evolution seems like a longshot, but there are so many planets in the Universe that we might actually be the result of a lucky shot.
And if all these planets exist just because we have a creative Designer, why would this Designer waste all the space for only ONE planet.
I would welcome the prospect of aliens being true, it would make more sense that God created more living planets than just to waste all the space for us. The question WHY must be applied to space too.
Thank you,
Mihai.
CMI’s Keaton Halley responds:
Hi Mihai,
Thanks for the kind words. Glad our site has been helpful to you, and I hope you will see that there are good answers to your cosmological concerns as well.
Before I address those questions, however, let me encourage you to keep them in proper perspective. What I mean is, we have good reasons from many other fields to believe in the God of Scripture. As we’ve written about on creation.com, there is powerful evidence for God from the universe’s finite past, the genetic information present in living things, the realm of moral obligations, the accuracy of Scripture, and much more. See also The Creation Answers Book, chapter 1.
Against that backdrop, let’s examine your specific concerns. First, you say that we might result from “a lucky shot” because there are so many planets in the universe. Well, have you considered how many factors need to be in place before a planet can be suitable for life? For starters, a life-friendly planet must orbit a very stable star, have a nearly circular orbit in the ‘just right’ Goldilocks zone, be a terrestrial planet made of rare heavy elements, contain liquid water, possess a large moon to circulate water in its oceans, be protected from impacts by large outer planets, have a protective atmosphere with the right chemistry, be shielded from solar wind by a strong magnetic field, etc. See Did life come to Earth from outer space? Secular astronomers are desperately searching for earth-like planets, but so far have come up empty. And calculations of the chance of getting all these factors in one place suggest that if a particular galaxy came about by chance it would almost certainly not contain any habitable planets. So, you might say that taking into account all these conditions that are necessary for life is akin to visiting Oz; you are likely to conclude that there’s no place like home.
Of course, since the universe contains trillions of galaxies, one could still speculate that there might be rare habitable planets out there somewhere—except that we have not yet considered the problems with forming all these astronomical bodies naturalistically. It turns out that evolutionary astronomers have to invoke countless freak accidents to explain the existence of various astronomical bodies. For example, see Cosmic catastrophes, Earth is ‘too special’?, Solar system origin: Nebular hypothesis, and Problems for ‘giant impact’ origin of moon. With these problems factored in, I think we can definitively say that we are not the result of “a lucky shot”.
But there’s more. It also appears that the same conditions that are conducive to life are also conducive to making scientific discoveries. This is the thesis of a book called The Privileged Planet, which was not written by young-earth creationists, and yet much of the book’s content can be adapted into a biblical, young-earth framework. An example would be that the combination of gases in Earth’s atmosphere is not only optimal for sustaining life, but also happens to be transparent—allowing us to peer out into the universe beyond. The remarkable correlation of so many factors like this suggests that our local cosmic neighborhood was not the result of chance, but design.
And that’s not all. There are other factors governing the entire universe which have to be just so in order for life to exist anywhere, like the strength of the gravitational force or the electron to proton mass ratio. See The universe is finely tuned for life and Multiverse theory.
Finally, even if habitable planets could arise by chance, and even if they were ubiquitous throughout the universe, that still would not imply that “we” human beings got here by chance. Just because a planet is habitable doesn’t mean it’s inhabited. Many secular astronomers seem to think that if we find a planet with liquid water, then it will also, by chance, contain life. But the recipe for life is more complicated than: “just add water”. See Origin of life: An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis. Plus, there are many other insurmountable hurdles to the idea that humans evolved from simpler life forms. See, for example, Plant geneticist: ‘Darwinian evolution is impossible’. So, in sum, our existence is much better interpreted as the product of intelligent agency, not a cosmic lottery.
As for your question about why God would create such a big universe, keep in mind that it’s no harder for an omnipotent God to make a big universe than a small one. God could have many reasons for making a big universe, like giving us much to explore and discover, or emphasizing His power and majesty (Psalm 19:1). It’s actually quite presumptuous to claim that, if the rest of the cosmos is uninhabited, then it exists for no reason or is a waste of space. We simply aren’t in a position to know all of God’s purposes (Deuteronomy 29:29; Job 42:3; Ecclesiastes 3:11), so even if we can’t immediately identify one, that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. For more on this, see Did God create life on other planets?, which also explains why the presence of intelligent ETs would be inconsistent with Bible’s big picture.
I hope this is helpful to you, Mihai. Please explore the links for the details. And next time you write in be sure to search the site first because, as you can see, we already have a lot of published materials that address these questions.
I will say a prayer for you right now, that God will help you to trust fully in Him, and I wish you the best.
In Christ,
Keaton Halley
Readers’ comments
Note, Seth Shostak of SETI believes in ETs because "To believe that they don’t exist requires positing that what’s happened on Earth is some sort of miracle." See ET vs 'Miracle'. And co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, says that "the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." See Designed by aliens?
Evolutionists who think you can have life on this planet without God should answer our 15 Questions for Evolutionists.
The short answer is: "He Didn't."
The longer answer comes from Scripture. The real reasons why God may have set out the other planets in our Solar System is found in Genesis 1:14 "14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years."
The Sun, planets, moons and comets perform according to this verse. Understanding and believing this verse is the explanation the Bible offers as to the function of all the planets which to us appear to be lights in the heavens.
Now then, is there only one Earth in all of Creation?
What if God created a million other planets in environments favorable to carbon based lifeforms. The real question isn't 'Why?' but 'Why NOT?'
Just because the descendants of Adam failed does NOT mean God just decided to 'forget it'. It was man's sin that brought ruin to the Earth. God just cleaned up the mess.
Would God repeat this process every time he made a new habitable planet somewhere in the Universe? My guess is no. God does not rely on chance and evolution to Create. There could be millions of other, precisely designed, Earth-like planets in our Universe with carbon-based life, or other life forms inhabiting them in sinless peace, love and harmony... just like the Earth will be when Christ returns to rule.
I mean, "What if Adam had been Jesus?" The Earth would have started out and ended up the same way. A perfect place for all of us to live in. That was not God's plan for the Earth and we Earthlings but is that plan applied to all of the Universe
Come Lord Jesus.
Suppose God had created the world in a bubble where nothing existed beyond it? Then the doubters would be questioning God's existence because any true God would have more power and imagination than to create such a limited creation!
Yes, life will always be a mystery.
Someone once used a similar argument when speaking to me. My answer was, roughly, "The difference between God & a man is infinite, the difference between God & an electron is infinite, the difference between God & the universe is also infinite. You think the universe is too big? I think your idea of God is too small."
Whether man had space travel in the past-say before the flood, we do not know, but antidiluvians had huge lifespans and great intelligence, and initially while they were believers, their civilisation would have been blessed by God and declined only once the world became filled with violence.
I would say the reason we do not have colonies on the moon or Mars by now is because of a rejection of our Christian heritage in the West. Evolution in all its forms-eg Darwinism, pantheism and so forth, destroys science and the need or will to explore an ordered worls or cosmos. For scientists and others of an evolutionary bent, colonising other moons or planets forces them to be face to face with God's glory, a situation they may not like to be in.
Also, Barry Setterfield had a theory the speed of light has declined from what it was in the past-which is interesting.
One thing is certain, God has wondrous things in store for us in eternity. Seeing He loves us so much He sent Jesus to the cross to take our sins upon Himself, and Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us, we would not have words in our language adequate enough to explain the joy awaiting us.
The same is true with time as with space. For a Being who has no beginning or end, today is as close to the beginning as a thousand years ago was, or a million years ago (if there were a million years before God created years.)
We might understandably wonder what God did for entertainment in the eons before He made us a few thousand years ago. We assume He would have had to have made other worlds and other peoples. But in so thinking, we are only expressing our inability to fathom concepts such as eternity and infinity. God would be no more "entertained" or pleased with his handiwork if He made a million inhabited worlds as He is with one. A million worlds would not dent his attention span one iota more.
The Book of Revelation says, "and time shall be no more." There was no such thing as time. Then there was time and then time will cease. An eternal God can do that. Eventually everything will be the eternal present and we will maybe begin to comprehend the meaning of his eternal name, "I AM."
For the present, we can only ponder such things and in pondering them humbly acknowledge our limitations.
Evolution is a theory, science is based on laws. Theories still need to be proven. If you base the world on God's creation you are on solid ground. The theory of evolution has a number of exceptions especially in biology, but also especially in nuclear physics. Just after the turn of the twentieth century Albert Einstein developed the theory of changing energy to mass and the reverse of that. His formulas are good but not perfect. The error is that these reactions are far less that 100% of what is expected. But, if you take evolution to its basis with the big bang theory where did all the energy come from to create the mass that was required to develop the universe. It did not come from nothing. I will believe in creation and everything else that the Bible expounds.
Just thinkin...
But, one day, after Christ's return and things are the way they were meant to be in the first place, God will allow us to travel out and the wonders of the Universe will finally be open to us. We will actually be able to go out to other planets and live and spread through the solar system and Universe. They will be habitable. Rather by God's supernatural means or he allows us to do it ourselves (terraforming, if you will), who knows. It's fascinating to think about.
That's what I believe anyway. It isn't a waste of space. The Almighty's ultimate plan has yet to be completed. One day...
I look at the vastness of creation, the physical universe, and I believe God created the physical universe to be home for physical beings: us. We were originally created to be immortal and to obtain mastery over the physical universe. It's intuitively obvious to me that this universe was more or less made as our playground and as a blank canvas for us to utilize our God given talents for creativity.
Immortal beings, as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand in the sea, made in the image of God would need a place larger than the Earth in which to work, IMHO. I know there seem to be limitations, based on our contemporary physics, to our ability to travel to the stars. But ... somehow I can't help but believe that all the perceived problems are solvable. At least they would be by minds unhindered by sin, corruption, and short life spans.
So for me, the question as to why the universe is so big is clear: it was made for us to explore, build, and perhaps to engage in stellar and planetary engineering. Maybe there's a little of Douglas Adams in me (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.)
Sure you remember that god created life form called Jinn from fire.
As for the Quran contradicting trinity please note that logic contradics trinity and as such the Quran just declares Truth .
To prove my point would you please explain the following logical facts :
1- Is the divine ousia have an attribute of generating persons , then there are infinite number of persons .
2- If the generation was by the will of one of the persons , then the others are inferior , not divine.
3- when we say A+B+C=group , then A,B,C are
Real entities numbered three while (group) is an abstract concept with no independent reality or existance ....then trinity =Three gods not one
That is why the Quran refutes trinity .
Thanks .
Regarding the Trinity, you appear to have some severe misapprehensions about what it means for God to be triune. Each person in the Trinity is eternal, so none come into being as the result of a prior entity. Also, we believe in 3 persons, not 3 gods, so your A+B+C=group argument contains a bait-and-switch move.
Furthermore, your arguments fail to interact with the articles I linked to, and we're way off topic now, so I will end this exchange here.
Geometry and perspective.
My solution means stars can be smaller, thus for same apparent size less distant. Giving less distance for stars to travel and less time if light has a set speed.
And no harder to make a small than a big one.
One problem secular astronomers - tied to an atheistic methodology - have with a small universe is that stars smaller than the mass of Jupiter would not have reached the critical mass for Hydrogen to start getting hotter and selfignite into nuclear fusion. The thing with this argument is that if we accept God and angels, there is no need for stars to be big enough to self ignite.
All they need is to have enough Hydrogen to keep a fusion going for the time (7 thousand 2 hundred years and some) that the universe has been a going concern and for the time that remains for it. Getting the fusion started was done by God or by the angel of the star acting on orders of God who made it.
This also disposes of the distant starlight problem.
And may he quickly graduate from the theory of cosmology etc to the theophany of soteriology, in short, alliteration's artless aid aside, may he soon start to believe and obey the Lord Jesus Christ, and become useful to man and to God. There's far too much selfishness about us.
[Link deleted according to comment rules]
All of this, of course, is hypothetical. But such hypotheticals are necessary, because the imagination of God is far more creative than the imagination of man.
The whole of the cosmos was created for God's glory, and the opening line of the 19th Psalm encapsulates this perfectly. Humans are the jewel in the crown, sure, but we are by no means the be-all-and-end-all. There is another Psalm, 147, which assures us that God knows each "star" (and the Hebrew word simply means "bright object in the sky" so this presumably extends to planets, asteroids, meteors and other significant debris as well) individually.
Of course, there's also no good theological reason why God couldn't have created inanimate life on other planets. Intelligent life elsewhere is, naturally, ruled-out. But there are countless potential reasons for the rest of the cosmos outside our Solar System.
And remember, the vast majority of the cosmos consists of the intergalactic void; the vast majority of all galaxies is interstellar voids; and stellar systems are almost all taken-up by interplanetary voids! So most of the cosmos is empty of matter anyway. What a waste of space eh? Yet I'm quite sure that the distribution of all matter is an intricate arrangement of portions which we've only just begun to detect to date. Our Father has a way of keeping on surprising us. :)
This explains the wisdom of God in creating so many planets taking in consideration that carbon life form is NOT the only one possible as the Quran mentioned the Plasma life forms .
Is it possible that being really fair would result in publishing this facts .
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.