Skip to main content

Do Aliens Exist? Part Two: A Classical Apologetics Approach for Those Who Believe in Greys

Image
By

An appeal to probability is a logical fallacy where a person assumes probability from possibility. For instance, I often hear that because the universe is so vast, there must be extra-terrestrial life somewhere existing in the cosmos. But, the problem is, just because they may possibly exist, does not mean that they probably exist.

I have seen “grey” aliens in media, as I am sure you have as well, since the 80’s and in the 90’s, and when the grey alien face became a fad (often green, with black eyes), nearly every skateboard and Ford Escort bumper had on it a sticker of such. Since then, it seems that the question of the greys’ origin has come up as a question in Christian discussions across the globe. I have heard more than enough that some people believe they are fallen angels, but I am not convinced.

I have listed below some differences between angels and greys, and yes, I realize that a fallen angel is different than an angel, but nowhere do we find in the Bible that the appearance of an angel has changed after falling. Not only that, but spaceships are often associated with greys, signifying something physical, which angels are not, but instead are spiritual beings. 

 

“Grey” Aliens

·       Grey

·       Big, black eyes

·       Naked

·       Shrouded in darkness 

·       Rare communication/fueled by fear


Angels 

·       White 

·       No mention of shocking eyeball description

·       Clothed

·       Shrouded in light

·       “Fear not” (See Luke 1:13; 30; 2:10)


 

Consider the following verses:

Matthew 28:3, “His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow”.

Mark 16:5 “And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed.”

Luke 24:4 “While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel.”

John 20:12 “And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet.”

 

What I find interesting about this division between spiritual and physical creatures is that it seems that in order for a physical person to see a spiritual creature, it requires an act of God. 

 

“When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. And when the Syrians came down against him, Elisha prayed to the Lord and said, “Please strike this people with blindness.” So he struck them with blindness in accordance with the prayer of Elisha. And Elisha said to them, “This is not the way, and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek.” And he led them to Samaria.”[1]

 

Similarly, if people are seeing greys, they are not seeing spiritual creatures because there are no acts of God surrounding the events. We must also consider that “God is not the author of confusion.”[2] If they are not acts of God, in which every case of an angel in the Bible, it was understood as such an act, then what are they? In any event, because greys are often associated with spaceships according to many abduction testimonies, is the spaceship also a spiritual object? This seems absurd. We never see biblically where there are spiritual spaceships in the Bible. Even when Ezekiel mentions the wheels, he is describing a spiritual structure on top of those wheels, namely, a throne that is able to move about freely because of such (See Ezekiel 1:26). 

 

Now, concerning governmental coverups, I think an interesting statement to consider is attributed to the late Stephen Hawking, which is that “If the government is covering up knowledge of aliens, they are doing a better job of it than they do at anything else.” Whether Hawking said this or not, it still makes a great point. Take the Watergate scandal for instance. Chuck Colson has famously said that,

 

“I know the Resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Everyone was beaten, tortured, stoned, and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it weren't true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world and they couldn't keep a lie for three weeks. You're telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.”

 

It was impossible for them to keep a secret of something so minute in comparison to the existence of extraterrestrials. How much faster, how much more explosive, would the actual evidence of such be publicized to the point of exhaustion today?

In the possibility of the existence of the greys themselves, neurologist Steven Novella says that "The probability that an alien race, the product of a completely separate evolutionary history, would look even vaguely humanoid is vanishingly small. The aliens, however, do not just appear as humans, they appear like humans with those traits we psychologically associate with intelligence exaggerated."[3] He seems to think that grey aliens are an invention of human beings, with their big heads, big eyes, unmatched technology… things that people normally equate with intelligence. This is interesting as it leads to the questions regarding the appearance of such. 

He continues, “…If, for example, we compare humans to apes we can observe that humans have larger relative craniums, smaller faces with more gracile features, and less hair. If we take a human and then increase the cranium size, make the face smaller and all features more gracile, and take away the hair, you end up with a typical gray alien.”[4]

From the evolutionary perspective, there is something called the Rare Earth hypothesis which maintains that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity in life on Earth required an almost impossible combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. This just acknowledges that the chances of life on earth was extremely low. The chances of life on earth required layers upon layers of combinations of fine tuning in order for life to exist. The thing about this is that the evolutionary tree would look completely different on another planet than what it does for earth if it were true. 

I have had conversations with evolutionists who believe that the earth was seeded with life by extraterrestrials. Not only is this reduced to absurdity, since there will always be a question of who seeded that planet, and who seeded that planet where they came from, ad infinitum, which ultimately answers nothing, but we also must deal with what the extraterrestrials look like. The issue, I believe, is legitimate because many supposed sightings are of humanoid creatures, that is, bipedal/upright, sentient beings, create problems regarding the evolutionary model.

If the supposed evolutionary tree brought us to where we are now as human beings, the question is, why would there be another bipedal/upright, intelligent creature on another planet with a different evolutionary tree? If it were the case, then we would see a pattern in such, but what would be the cause of such a pattern? The point is, that if this were the case, then it would point to a common designer. In other words, why would an extraterrestrial resemble a human being in shape? The answer is that God designed it to be that way. This is helpful in helping those evolutionists move from atheistic to theistic, for those who believe that extraterrestrial life must exist. 

I find that many evolutionists are attracted to sci-fi, and even though alien life is only possible as opposed to probable, many still believe that alien life is probable. Which is fine. The thing about it is though, if they are set on believing that intelligent life exists and appears in the form of a humanoid being, then not only must the answer to the existence of life itself be answered, but the existence of life with a similar evolutionary tree. Thus, there are two layers of extreme chance that have been accomplished from an evolutionary perspective. The chances of life existing at all from an evolutionary perspective is nearly impossible, but what are the chances that an evolutionary tree from another planet is so similar that at the top of the tree, we find humanoid creatures? The chances are also astronomical. This seems like it requires more faith to believe that an evolutionary model will produce nearly the same results on another than the faith required to believe that God created the universe.

This all means that the existence of humanoid aliens make the belief in God much more reasonable than believing in such unfathomable extremes of improbability. But further, I believe we can make a case for the existence of God through such. 

For instance, when we are conversing with naturalists and evolutionists who believe in specifically humanoid aliens, we can use this information to show them that God exists. If we bring them from atheistic evolutionary position to a theistic evolutionary position, is that not a win? I would argue that it is. 


So, this would technically be the second step in the classical apologetics method. We begin with the first step by explaining that the truth can be known through the fundamental laws of logic with the idea of self-refuting statements, and then from there, we move to the second step, the idea that if there are multiple evolutionary tree models that end up with humanoid intelligent species, then we can know that this is no random act, but is in fact a pattern set in place by something. According to the principle of causality, if this were the case that there is more than one planet with humanoid species residing on them, then this would mean that there is a cause for the effect of this pattern of evolution. 

The logic would appear as follows:

1.     If there are humanoid species that evolved to be such on other planets, then the pattern of evolution has a cause. 

2.     There are (hypothetically) humanoid species that evolved to be such on other planets.

3.     Therefore, the pattern of evolution has a cause. 

So, we may be able to lead a person who believes in extraterrestrials to theism through the principle of causality, and from here, we continue our barrage of arguments for the existence of God in order to fuel the fire that has been kindled, but doing so in a gentle and respectful manner, and then we lead them to an understanding that the Bible is true. 

 

 

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." 

–Psalm 19:1-4

Written by Nace Howell through the grace of the Lord Jesus


© Nace Howell, 2022

[1] 2 Kings 6:15-19 ESV.

[2] 1 Corinthians 14:33.

[3] Novella, Dr. Steven (October 2000). "UFOs: The Psychocultural Hypothesis". The New England Skeptical Society. Archived from the original on 15 September 2010. Retrieved 2 February 2010.

[4] Ibid.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to Show a Mormon the Difference Between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus

By
I find that Mormons frequently claim that they are Christians, and that they want to be referred to as Christians, and that they have even recently sought to distance themselves from the word “Mormon.” The problem is, they worship another Jesus, and here is how to show them the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Biblical Jesus. Before we get to that, some clarifications are necessary. Specifically, that they cannot even distance themselves from being called "Mormons."   The Mormon President Russell Nelson said,    “What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.” [1] ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Objectivity is the Language of Heaven

By
NDErs (i. e. people who have claimed to have had a   Near Death Experience ) often report that when they go to Heaven, they frequently see and recognize people such as friends and family members. It is often also reported that when they were communicating with friends and relatives, they realized that they weren’t speaking English, but that they were telepathically speaking to one another.   It seems it would be impossible to have communication with others without learning every language that has ever existed under the sun, but since heaven is a perfect place, [1]  then communication should be perfect as well. In other words, it seems unlikely that there are barriers to communication. So, I should be able to communicate with the Apostles, upon my arrival for instance, but how? I personally only really know how to speak English fluently. My Spanish, Japanese, German, Russian, Chinese, and Latin is like that of a child, and my Greek is only in reading and writing.  If ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Dividing Line of Doctrine

By
How and Where to Make Divisions... Sometimes, I get asked “Why do you get so up at arms about other religions?” or, “Why do you pick on other religions so much?” I think the following will help you see where I’m coming from, before I spill the beans on such.   We have difficulty sometimes in discovering where to make divisions when considering where to spend our money, and who to support, where to make purchases, and where not to do such. We also often have difficulty on how to know if a church or a congregation is a place where someone can actually become saved. Like, how can we know that a Mormon is likely not saved but we can know that a regular church attender at a gospel sound church is likely saved? What is it that would make my church attendance at a specific body no longer appropriate? Both answers to these questions deal with doctrine. If a company is pushing false doctrine using their influence and power to push a heretical doctrine or teaching, this is often when the red...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Highest Virtue

By
A virtue is a trait of excellence. What is the highest virtue? It seems that based on the nature of truth, that truth itself is perhaps the highest virtue. For instance, I could say that love is the highest virtue, but then I could ask the question of whether that is true or not. If it is or isn’t true, this places truth virtuously higher than love, at least in some sense. The fact that I can question love through the lens of truth seems to place truth above love in height of virtue. On the other hand, if I said that truth is the highest virtue, then it seems that it would be loving to tell others the truth! Perhaps truth and love go hand in hand, but this also concerns the nature of what truth is.  Truth is a requirement for love, which I argue here , but is love a requirement for truth? Love must contain truth in order to be  true  love. But truth does not have to contain love in order to be true truth. Take for instance, mathematics, or numbers in general… Sometimes, t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Self-tests of Some of the World's Religions

By
It is fairly common for a religion of the world to give itself a sort of test for truth, since this is one question that is asked of any religion: “Why should I believe what you are telling me is true?” After all, the answer to such a question will ultimately result in followers of specific beliefs and doctrines, let alone religions, or will result in a lack of followers.  If a religion can answer this question posed by seekers and thinkers, and therefore train its adherents to be able to answer why a religion is true, this will inevitably help people believe in such, even if the claims are false. If there is no answer, this is where a religion will perhaps find more trouble for itself.  Many religions make an appeal to a higher authority, namely,  God , for the veracity of their existence and as a result, no one can question the truth from such an authority. This is correct in a sense, that  if in fact God is making such a claim, then what is said or stated is true ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Who Made God? Identifying Categorical Errors

By
A category is simply a distinct class to which something belongs… A set of objects that can be treated as equal in some way. A Macintosh apple belongs to the category, apple, and not what we categorize as an orange. Similarly, colors are in a different category than taste.   When we say, “apples and oranges” what we mean is that there has been a confusion of categories. Sure, they are both fruit, but when you examine both, there is an obvious difference. An apple is not an orange, and an orange is not an apple. Macintosh, Granny Smith, and red delicious are all apples. Navel, blood, and Valencia are all oranges. To mix the two, for instance, to call a navel orange an apple, would be a categorical error, sometimes referred to as a category mistake.      How Identifying Categorical Errors can Help with Apologetics It seems that simply learning about or being reminded of categorical errors can help us be more aware of them. We have all heard or thought of ourselves, the...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Two Systems: A Confused Definition of Love

By
A couple years ago I wrote an article called  the Jehovah’s Witness training videos . The article was meant to be humorous in a sense, because there are likely not any actual training videos, but it seems that they have all watched them. We can suspect this because they all often have the same points of conversation. When you talk about the Trinity, they will use the Bible like a machine gun and shoot you with verses. The verses are always the same: Colossians 1:15, Mark 10:18… So, there is an implication that they all have the same information. There is one source from where they gather their patterns and behaviors. Similarly, I think we can see the power behind the system of the world as well. We can see what this power is like by the tracks he leaves behind. The contrast of the two systems is really seen in Revelation 14:8. “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.” John is using the word  Bab...
Post a Comment
Read more

Two Problems Jesus has with the Mormon Doctrine of Eternal Families

By
Mormonism teaches that those who are married in a temple can be married for eternity. In Doctrine and Covenants 132:15–20, we find the following:   15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word , and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead , and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God for...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Evidence and Power of Testimony

By
What to say to People who Demand more Evidence for God. Why is there something rather than nothing? Glacier National Park. © Nace Howell, 2018. The question is, how much evidence do you require? Would Jesus have to come back and slap you in the face with evidence that He is God? It seems to me that there is a line we must draw. We do this in all other areas of our lives, so why would we treat theism any different? When a court convicts, they do so “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I would like to take a few moments to explore this a bit. But before we get to that, I want to pose a question, which is… why are you the standard? What makes you think He has to prove His existence to everyone individually? He already created the universe from nothing. In the beginning, there was a big bang. Seriously… do you believe your mom when she tells you a story about her day? Did you believe the reports of 9/11 when they were happening? Do you accept the testimony of anything you hear on social ...
33 comments
Read more

Baptism is Not Necessary for Salvation According to the Early Church

By
Let’s dive right in. The Bible says in Acts 2:37-41,    Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.   The phrase in Acts 2:38 that reads, “for the forgiveness of your sins” modifies the word repentance, not the word baptism.  See more about this Here .   What is interesting is that those who translate the above verse as meaning that baptism is a requ...
Post a Comment
Read more