-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are We Alone In The Universe?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
There are likely many billions of planets.
Sentient life would be on only one?
I don't think so.
Sentient life would be on only one?
I don't think so.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
This. There are trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars. It seems probable that our star wouldn't be the only one with a life bearing planet.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because of what we now know about quantum mechanics, it seems more likely that we are in a multiverse, so with the billions of possible different planets I have to believe it's likely there are other life forms. And even more logically, there has to be more intelligent life forms than those of us who post here at RF.
I think it would be arrogant to assume that even in the observable universe, which contains at least 2 trillion galaxies, that in 13.8 billion years, there hasn't been, or won't be sentient beings outside of Earth. I think, however, it would be difficult to obtain evidence to support or disprove sentient life exists, ever existed, or will exist outside this planet.
Where?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I feel sure that apart from life on earth, the only other existing life form is those that are vastly higher - spirit.
I believe the scripture contain the answers that are truthful.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
In other galaxies in a goldilocks zone.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Looked it up on Google, but the closest I could come to was "Lotteria" a chain of fast-food restaurants in East Asia.
.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Galaxies? Certainly you mean planets.
I think given the sheer number of solar systems in these galaxies, the possibility of a planet residing in a Goldilocks zone would be more likely than not.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Other life forms....?
Spirit - lifeforms vastly higher than what we know.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I agree with that.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sorry, I should have been more precise.
"Does Earth Harbor The Only Physical Sentient Life Forms In The Universe?"
.
I'll conclude that those of you voting 'yes' or 'no' in the poll have evidence to support your assertion.
I'll wait here for you to present it.
I'll wait here for you to present it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
As far as we are aware.
I feel sure this is how it is.
While I would *bet* that there is other life in the universe, I am not *sure* of it because it hasn't been observed yet.
We have two competing ways to think about this: the Fermi paradox and the Drake equation. In the Drake equation, we know that stars like our sun are common and that planets are very common around other stars. We have already found planets in the 'Goldilock's zone' around other stars. What we do NOT know is how frequently life is formed on a planet in the Goldilock's zone, nor how frequently such life gets to a sufficient technological level that would allow its detection, nor how long such a species typically survives.
But, we *also* know that we have not yet seen any other life in the universe. This could potentially be for several reasons: 1. Life doesn't form very often. 2. Life that forms seldom gets to a high technology level, 3. Life that does get to such a level kills itself off before it can migrate to other star systems, 4. Life that migrates to other systems is able to silence itself to our methods of detection.
Given how fast life started on Earth, it is hard to see why it would take much longer to form on other Earth-like planets (which should be common). On the other hand *multicellular life* took about 3 billion years to form on Earth once life got started. That seems to be a significant leap and suggests that multicellular life would be far less common in the universe than simple (iunicellular) life.
Once we got to multicellular life, technological life took less than a billion years, so it should be possible, but not trivial to form.
Now the depressing aspect. We have been technological for about one century and we currently have the technology to destroy ourselves. If it takes another thousand years to get to another star system, how likely is it that we will survive to that point? I, for one, am not convinced. And the fact that we have not seen *any* other technological life *suggests* that long term survival of technological species doesn't happen often. And that could readily be why we don't see anyone else out there.
So, are we alone? I'd say it is quite possible we are the only technological species in our galaxy at this time. For other galaxies, we don't currently have the technology to detect civilizations similar to our own. So, maybe such exist in other galaxies. I'd bet on it, in fact.
But I can't be sure until we see someone else out there.
We have two competing ways to think about this: the Fermi paradox and the Drake equation. In the Drake equation, we know that stars like our sun are common and that planets are very common around other stars. We have already found planets in the 'Goldilock's zone' around other stars. What we do NOT know is how frequently life is formed on a planet in the Goldilock's zone, nor how frequently such life gets to a sufficient technological level that would allow its detection, nor how long such a species typically survives.
But, we *also* know that we have not yet seen any other life in the universe. This could potentially be for several reasons: 1. Life doesn't form very often. 2. Life that forms seldom gets to a high technology level, 3. Life that does get to such a level kills itself off before it can migrate to other star systems, 4. Life that migrates to other systems is able to silence itself to our methods of detection.
Given how fast life started on Earth, it is hard to see why it would take much longer to form on other Earth-like planets (which should be common). On the other hand *multicellular life* took about 3 billion years to form on Earth once life got started. That seems to be a significant leap and suggests that multicellular life would be far less common in the universe than simple (iunicellular) life.
Once we got to multicellular life, technological life took less than a billion years, so it should be possible, but not trivial to form.
Now the depressing aspect. We have been technological for about one century and we currently have the technology to destroy ourselves. If it takes another thousand years to get to another star system, how likely is it that we will survive to that point? I, for one, am not convinced. And the fact that we have not seen *any* other technological life *suggests* that long term survival of technological species doesn't happen often. And that could readily be why we don't see anyone else out there.
So, are we alone? I'd say it is quite possible we are the only technological species in our galaxy at this time. For other galaxies, we don't currently have the technology to detect civilizations similar to our own. So, maybe such exist in other galaxies. I'd bet on it, in fact.
But I can't be sure until we see someone else out there.