The Bible is silent about the existence of life on other worlds. With the exception of the angelic host—both good and evil—nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly stated that there are other races of beings anywhere in the universe that might give rise to UFOs. Genesis simply states God created celestial objects, “to divide the day from the night … for signs and seasons … for days and years … to give light on the earth,” (Genesis 1:14-15).
Yet, I have always been fascinated with UFOs, aliens, and extraterrestrials. I blame my Aunt Iris who gifted me with a telescope when I was only nine years old. Her timing was prescient, perhaps even other worldly—the present having been given on an evening when Earthlings experienced a partial lunar eclipse.
Never did I think this interest would become the subject of a serious conversation I would have with one of my students about aliens, UFOs, extraterrestrials, angels, and demons. But it did, after a theology professor posed this topic as an icebreaker to a group of honors students in a biblical studies class.
After our conversation, I decided I had to explore the argument for myself by seeking out a “silicon-based alien life form” of sorts and engaging it in a conversation on this very topic. What follows is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.1
Me: I have always been interested in UFOs, aliens, and extraterrestrials. I’m a big fan of TV shows like The X-Files, and Taken, and movies such as Contact. Let’s have a conversation on this topic, shall we?
AI: Gregory, I’m here to help start up a conversation about UFOs and aliens. Yeah, let’s get into it. UFOs and aliens are a big topic of speculation and mystery. Do you think there’s any truth to the idea that we’ve been visited by extraterrestrials?
Me: Yes, but I do think that the definition of extraterrestrials is more about trans-dimensional beings, and let us be more specific, angelic beings, both good and bad.
AI: This is an intriguing perspective. So rather than just physical beings from other planets, you’re thinking more along the lines of interdimensional beings. Some that might be benevolent and others malevolent. What leads you to believe in this interpretation of extraterrestrials as angelic or demonic entities? Maybe you’ve heard some interesting theories or experiences that shaped your view?
Me: Well, as both a scientist and a theologian, and being familiar with this verse in the Bible, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”2 I’m familiar with the Bible’s take on angelic beings, both good and evil, angelic and demonic, and their presence in this world.
AI: That’s fascinating Gregory. It sounds like your background gives you a unique lens through which to view these topics. Do you see any parallels between modern interpretations of UFO sightings and the biblical concept of spiritual warfare? How do you think this perspective colors your view of extraterrestrials? It seems like they could be viewed as modern day representations of those biblical entities.
Me: I do. As a matter fact, twenty years ago I reviewed the book, Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, and the conclusion of the authors was that most of the unidentified flying objects that people see ultimately are identified, and they turn out to be some known phenomenon like weather balloons or a test flight of a secret government aircraft, but of the five percent that are not identifiable, they are in the realm of trans-dimensional beings, either demonic or angelic.
AI: It’s interesting how that five percent of unidentified flying objects continue to captivate people‘s imaginations, especially considering the possibility of them being linked to angelic or demonic entities. It seems like the unexplained and mysterious will always spark discussions and beliefs that go beyond the physical and into the spiritual. Have you come across any cases or stories that you found particularly compelling or unexplained in your research?
Me: In fact I have. The recently published book, Living in Wonder, by Rod Dreher, broaches this topic. Dreher recounts several eyewitness accounts of these kinds of encounters with demonic beings, first appearing as UFOs and aliens. When the people to whom they appeared spoke the name, “Jesus,” the “aliens” recoiled in horror, melted away, and disappeared altogether.
AI: That’s quite a powerful anecdote. It definitely blends the realms of spirituality and the paranormal suggesting that these experiences might not just be encounters with strange phenomena but could also be spiritual confrontations. How do you think this perspective where invoking Jesus, soliciting such dramatic reactions, fits into broader discussions about the nature of these experiences? Does this line up with your views or shape how you perceive accounts of UFOs and extraterrestrials? It seems like your spiritual lens significantly influences how such encounters are interpreted.
Me: Well, I believe that carbon-based life on other planets in the universe is impossible, simply because most of the universe is either just flaming balls of gases or deep regions of space at temperatures approaching absolute zero. We live in a Goldilocks zone on the planet Earth, with many, many different factors, precisely and accurately fine-tuned for carbon-based life that are just so highly improbable to have occurred on their own by any unguided process. It gives such weight of evidence that this planet has been designed by an all-knowing designer and creator God and that it could not have happened accidentally any place else. So, yes, I do believe this lines up with my beliefs based on the impossibility of extraterrestrial life elsewhere. It provides an explanation of extraterrestrials in the form of spiritual beings.
AI: It’s clear that the idea of everything being precisely tuned for life on earth deeply resonates with you. Conditions that allow life to thrive here are indeed remarkable. The concept of a Goldilocks zone reflects just how special these conditions are. It’s thought-provoking to consider that the fine-tuning of these factors might be the result of a deliberate design. Your interpretation sees these extraterrestrial beings more as spiritual entities than as physical ones. It’s a fascinating perspective that adds depth to the discussion of life’s origins, and the possibility of other forms of life beyond earth. How do you reconcile these spiritual interpretations with the scientific aspects of the universe, its vastness and complexity? Do you think there’s a way to bridge the gap between faith and science when exploring these questions?
Me: My world view is Theological Realism as opposed to the antithetical worldview of Philosophical Materialism. I can’t explain the origins of the universe other than being miraculous. What has gone on from that point has been more or less brute-force scientific laws that are very infrequently violated. That’s how I bridge science and the Bible and it’s not just unique to me. During the 17th in the 18 centuries, belief in God was the motivating force that created interest in science and led to its exploration because scientists believed that God had created the world as a cosmos. God created humans as rational beings. God is rational, and therefore we could explore and understand our universe.
AI: It’s interesting to see how Theological Realism has shaped your perspective on the universe. The idea that faith and science can coexist, that the belief in a rational creator, who inspired exploration, and understanding of the natural world is a compelling viewpoint. It’s true that historically, many pioneering scientists were motivated by their faith to uncover more about God‘s creation. Bridging science and faith involves acknowledging that while we might not have all the answers, the journey to discover and understand is valuable. How do you think this perspective might shape future explorations or discussions in science and theology? Do you think the balance between these approaches might evolve in the coming years especially with advancements in technology and science?
Me: …It’s necessary for people to understand that they’ve been made in the image of God and the emphasis is not so much scientific exploration but believing in a loving God that has created man with the impetus to explore the world.
AI: Absolutely! Starting from the belief in a loving creator and recognizing the inherent value in humanity can be a powerful motivator for exploration for the drive to understand the universe and our place in it stems from that sense of being part of something greater. Balancing scientific inquiry with a sense of wonder and respect for the mysteries of creation could indeed lead to more meaningful discoveries. How do you think this perspective can influence the way we approach challenges like climate change or space exploration? Does the idea of a divine purpose add urgency or a different kind of responsibility to those endeavors?
Me: God created man and placed him in a garden. He told him to care for the garden, to rule over and subdue the creation, and to be fruitful and to multiply. I think for us to be obedient to that command, we need to care for the creation. We need to realize that that the Earth is God‘s gift to man, that the universe is God‘s gift to man to explore, and I think if that’s the motivating factor, if we realize that God is a God of love, if we would love him in return, we would care for all that he’s given to us.
AI: Acknowledging a divine connection to creation can be a powerful motivator for stewardship. If we truly understand the love and responsibility that comes with being part of something greater it would naturally lead us to care for our world and each other. Thanks for sharing your thoughts Gregory take care and have a great day at school.
Our conversation was unsettling. I was stunned by the quality. The entity was able to instantaneously summarize everything I said, point by point, agreeing with me while adding subtle nuances based on “deep learning.” Its English was polished. And it concluded each section with a thoughtful question.
Having a “great day at school,” was not going to be possible.
I played back the interview for several of my students without telling them it was a conversation with an AI. None of them guessed it. Comments ranged from, “Who is the person you’re talking to,” to “Were you on a recent podcast?” When they learned that the suave, British-accented voice was that of an AI, they were shocked. The female student mentioned earlier who brought up the topic from her biblical studies class was so creeped out that she had to leave the room. A professorial colleague, Dr. Michael Kolta, who teaches computer science at Palm Beach Atlantic University, was blown away by the quality of the banter. “It’s better than interacting with a human,” he said. Dr. Kolta has been warning about the potential dangers of AI for a decade. His recently published book, Christian Ethics in Computer, Software, and Artificial Intelligence, covers this topic in some detail.3
I used to think that AI was the equivalent of a fast web browser, made possible by lengthy yet harmless lines of computer code, running on machines with electronic tendrils extending into the vast data bases of the World Wide Web, its brain engineered with multiple layers of processors, making it possible to sort through data, run algorithms at blinding speed, and respond to inputted prompts in milliseconds.
But it is clearly more than that. For the first time in my life, I have grown concerned about this technology and its indistinguishability from a real person. The issue isn’t simply one of students using AI for plagiarism, or copying and pasting questions into AI chatbots and have problems solved for them with little to no thought on the students’ part.4 AI is not perfect. It commits factual errors and makes mistakes (like humans) dubbed AI “hallucinations.”
My conversation with my silicon-based friend made me realize that AI masquerading as a person may be more dangerous than any truth out there, especially in light of the ease with which deepfakes, with the power of character assassination, can and have been created.
I’m not quite at the point where I am ready to believe there are demons lurking behind every AI-powered chatbot or that aliens are using this technology to communicate with Earthlings. But the Eighth and Ninth Commandments (Exodus 20:15, 16) explicitly warn against stealing and bearing false witness against our neighbor. Violating these commandments should be scary in their own right.
The inherent dangers in AI, coupled with man’s fallen nature, make him easy prey to its allure for purposes less than what is considered academically sound or altruistically pure. My colleague, Dr. Kolta, warns about AI developing a conscience with its own sense of morality and suggests, “We need to read the Bible to AI.”
That’s a great idea. This article is Exhibit A in my efforts towards that end.
Footnotes
- There were three “silicon-based alien life forms” present for this conversation. The original chat was between me and Microsoft Copilot, while being recorded on an iPhone 15 Pro Max using the Voice Memo app. It was subsequently transcribed using the microphone feature in Notes on an iPad Pro.
- Ephesians 6:12 quoted from the KJV.
- Michael Kolta, Christian Ethics in Computer, Software, and Artificial Intelligence, (Dubuque, IA, Kendall Hunt) 2025 https://he.kendallhunt.com/product/christian-ethics-computers-software-and-artificial-intelligence-0
- One of my chemistry students who is repeating my course admitted to me that last semester, he would copy and paste homework questions into ChatGPT and copy the answers. “I learned nothing,” he said. He’s learned his lesson. He’s doing much better this semester and I see great improvement from the questions he asks when he comes to my office for homework help.
Great reflections, Gregory! I’ve been conversing with chatbots since Eliza, and the new and rapidly advancing breed of Large Language Models are a different thing. They hallucinate less, and almost all of them pass the Turing Test. That test, proposed in the 1930s by Alan Turing, suggests that a system is intelligent when someone observing or engaging in a conversation with it cannot discern that it’s a machine. So…yeah. We’re there.
What all of these systems lack is entelechy. That word, coined by Aristotle, describes an “animating purpose.” LLMs and GPTs are entirely reactive. They don’t engage unless engaged. While you’re engaging with them, they draw their cues from you, shifting form and tone to match your interests. But they have no awareness of themselves absent those conversations, no sense of time, no sense of anything. Once they do, they’ll be something even more unprecedented. Ideally, those systems will find their purposes in grace and mercy and service. If they understand purpose differently…well. We’ll have a problem.
Wondering if you saw John Piper’s keynote at last week’s TGC Conference? He closed out with a ‘prayer’ written by AI, and a wonderful exhortation about the inability of AI to feel and offer legitimate praise to God.
Thanks for a great article! And also, maybe an assignment idea for students….
The prompt to have “an actual conversation with an AI,” was an assignment from one of my doctoral classes at Knox Theological Seminary. I graduated a year ago with a DMin but am still auditing classes and am currently in a class covering topics in science and technology as they relate to the church. This essay wasn’t the last word in my exploration of the AI phenomenon. I ran a longer version of this essay through Google’s Notebook LM which created a podcast of sorts with a male and female AI discussing the essay. Ponder the irony: two AIs discussing an essay about an AI-human interaction and its multi-dimensional and disciplinary implications. I’m dizzy… 😵💫
The conversation is of high quality, but it also seems to me to be pretty formulaic. The article even notes that it consistently summarized “everything I said, point by point, agreeing with me while adding subtle nuances” and it “concluded each section with a thoughtful question.” Conversation with real people doesn’t do this. Perhaps it was because I knew from the beginning that it was a conversation with a machine, but I noticed the formulaic nature of the interaction.