We Are Alone in the Universe!

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And so far there are a trillion cases that intelligent life cases have not evolve. Those are some heavy odds. Neither Vegas nor the Ferengi casinos on Rigel Prime would take those odds.

Quite an astonishing claim, really. A trillion? You've done the research and counted them yourself? Wow!

Out of curiousity, where do you keep your instrumentation?

 

[SalixIncendium]

To be fair, there wasn't evidence of black holes in 1916 either. There was a theoretical possibility at that point, but no actual evidence.

The first candidate black hole was Cygnus X-1 in 1971. It was not confirmed until 1990. The first images of black holes came later still.

Thank you.

So there were no black holes until 1990.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you.

So there were no black holes until 1990.

Precisely! And no Higg's boson until well after that.

Also, the first extrasolar planet wasn't discovered until 1992. But that was a pair of planets orbiting a neutron star. Planets around 'ordinary' stars came much later.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's a nice list of exoplanet firsts:

List of exoplanet firsts - Wikipedia

Notice that all have been in the last 30 years. Most have been in the last 20.

When I was a kid, the question of whether our solar system was the only one was still very much up in the air, with no evidence otherwise.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here's a nice list of exoplanet firsts:

List of exoplanet firsts - Wikipedia

Notice that all have been in the last 30 years. Most have been in the last 20.

When I was a kid, the question of whether our solar system was the only one was still very much up in the air, with no evidence otherwise.

And yet you "knew" (you get how I'm using that word) that they were there, anyway, didn't you? I did, and most reasonable people did.

 

[shunyadragon]

Have we seen any evidence that intelligent life exist anywhere else but here? Where are they? We should be getting reruns of alien versions of I Love Lucy by now if they progress to a technological level to invent radio or television. We keep listening and sending but so far nothing.

Again: the fallacy 'Arguing from ignorance.'

 

[Polymath257]

And yet you "knew" (you get how I'm using that word) that they were there, anyway, didn't you? I did, and most reasonable people did.

I considered it a very safe bet. Sort of like the bet that there is at least bacterial life elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Heyo]

Darn, I'm just too trusting. I never think to look for ulterior motives. (That's true, by the way.)

That's laudable but naïve. Better to be aware of the possibility and dismiss it in most cases.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by stupidity.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There is absolutely no evidence that intelligent and/or complex life exists elsewhere in the universe. So we must assume that we are alone in the universe and must be the only intelligent life that exist in it. Couple that with the fact that God does not exist, I feel somewhat sad and more convince that life is indeed absurd.

Such blindness!

 

[PureX]

The opposite. I don't believe in god based on the lack of evidence and the complete absurdity of the idea actually existing and I apply the same criteria to intelligent alien life. I like Star Trek too but I realize that it is fantasy and not fact.

The fact is that we have no idea if or what forms of life might exist in the universe. Yet you're proposing that we presume none at all until "proven" otherwise. That's the logic of an atheist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Wow = 150 n posts in a under eight

The fact is that we have no idea if or what forms of life might exist in the universe. Yet you're proposing that we presume none at all until "proven" otherwise. That's the logic of an atheist.

Nonsense.

 

[MikeF]

The fact is that we have no idea if or what forms of life might exist in the universe. Yet you're proposing that we presume none at all until "proven" otherwise. That's the logic of an atheist.

Why is it that we never presume that we just don't know, get on with the business of life, and it something turns up, simply be pleasantly surprised?

 

[PureX]

Why is it that we never presume that we just don't know, get on with the business of life, and it something turns up, simply be pleasantly surprised?

We do that all the time. But occasionally, the fact of a possibility allows us to move in directions that we would not otherwise have the courage to move. And having done so, we create the very thing that we previously could only hope to be possible.

 

[ecco]

Why is it that we never presume that we just don't know, get on with the business of life, and it something turns up, simply be pleasantly surprised?

If everyone did that we'd still be foraging for our food.

Not knowing is a damn good reason to begin trying to find out.

 

[Polymath257]

The fact is that we have no idea if or what forms of life might exist in the universe. Yet you're proposing that we presume none at all until "proven" otherwise. That's the logic of an atheist.

There are very clear differences in the two situations.

In one, we know what sort of technology would be required to answer the question. We simply don't have that technology as yet. And, at each stage in learning about what life is and how it works, it becomes *more* probable that other life exists in the universe.

In the other case, at each step, the explanations relying on deities have been shown to be wrong and other, better explanations have been found. We no longer attribute diseases and lightning to deities, for example. At each step, the 'gap' in the 'god of the gaps' has narrowed, not widened. At each stage, the 'god' explanation has been found wanting. No technology, even in theory would be able to show the existence or non-existence of a deity.

So, in one case, it is reasonable to think that the question is open while in the other case, further search is unlikely to provide evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact is that we have no idea if or what forms of life might exist in the universe. Yet you're proposing that we presume none at all until "proven" otherwise. That's the logic of an atheist.

Logic called.
It told me that you made it cry.
Then atheism called.
It said something un-printable about you.

I'm not taking a side....just reporting things.

 

[PureX]

There are very clear differences in the two situations.

In one, we know what sort of technology would be required to answer the question.

No, we really don't have any idea what sort of "technology" an alien "life form" might employ. We don't even know how to define an alien "life form". The model we know is our own. And we have no idea what other possible models there might be, or how to look for possible evidence of them. I expect that there may be forms of energy in the universe that we humans are as yet completely unaware of, that could be responsible for beings, and for methods of existing that we can't even dream of.

In the other case, at each step, the explanations relying on deities have been shown to be wrong and other, better explanations have been found.

We have no "explanations of deities" because we have no "deities" to explain. All we have are concepts and images various people and cultures have used to try and represent the possibility of deity. So nothing has been explained or disproved. And in fact, like alien beings, we don't really have any idea what to even look for.

We no longer attribute diseases and lightning to deities, for example.

Of course we do! Billions of us still do. Because how a disease functions does not explain why it exists, or what it means that we have to suffer from the fact of it's existence.

At each step, the 'gap' in the 'god of the gaps' has narrowed, not widened.

That's nonsense. The "gap" is as huge as it ever was. In fact, the more we learn about how physical things, the greater the mystery of it all, becomes.

 

[ecco]

Because how a disease functions does not explain why it exists

We don't need to know how a disease functions to understand why it exists. It exists because a petty God wants to continue to hurt His creations to remind them of how really puny and disposable they are. That's also the reason he makes hurricanes and tornadoes and volcanic eruptions and cancers and plagues.

Everyone knows that.

 

[PureX]

We don't need to know how a disease functions to understand why it exists. It exists because a petty God wants to continue to hurt His creations to remind them of how really puny and disposable they are. That's also the reason he makes hurricanes and tornadoes and volcanic eruptions and cancers and plagues.

Everyone knows that.

As long as you keep choosing to see it that way, it will make you miserable. So WHY CHOOSE IT?

 

[MikeF]

If everyone did that we'd still be foraging for our food.

Not knowing is a damn good reason to begin trying to find out.

I suppose I consider problem solving to be a horse of a different color as opposed to speculation on the unverifiable. If our current level of understanding and technology does not permit us to properly survey the universe for life, then I suggest we focus on those issues that can be addressed. If life sprung up once, could it happen again elsewhere? Sure. But if it is physically impossible for us to leave our solar system, it does not make sense to argue over it, does it? Lot's to be getting on with right here at home.