Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...


I really don't believe faith is what is in play here....

So, you're telling me that you do not believe that there is other intelligent life out there? And that we are alone in the universe? Are you seriously that narcissistic?

I think it's extremely self centred to believe that we are it, and highly improbable.
 
These planets in the habitual range, also really needs a moon and gas giants. There's thousands of things that need to align for the chance of life as we know ATM. If we find life in mars or other moons, then that massively increases the number of potential planets.
so what makes our planet so special that almost every area of it is capable of different life forms? even the antarctic which was once thought ot be a place where life couldnt possibly exist nevermind thrive.

even an ice planet that never sees sunlight is capable of life if the antartic is hundreds of miles below the surface
 
I really don't believe faith is what is in play here....

regardless you are taking a faith position because you cannot prove that what you believe to be true is true.

So, you're telling me that you do not believe that there is other intelligent life out there? And that we are alone in the universe? Are you seriously that narcissistic?

I think it's extremely self centred to believe that we are it, and highly improbable.

How on earth is being agnostic about whether Extraterrestrial life exists or not narcissistic and self centred?

Is it necessary to insult someone just because they may not agree with you and doesn't take that faith position that you do.....I do not ascribe any positive or negative definitive answer to the hypothesis, because unlike you, I cannot prove whether the assumptions of each hypothesis are true or not....I remain open minded to the possibility and remain conscious of the relative probabilities inherent in each hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
regardless you are taking a faith position because you cannot prove that what you believe to be true is true.



How on earth is being agnostic about whether Extraterrestrial life exists or not narcissistic and self centred?

Is it necessary to insult someone just because they may not agree with you?

I am not talking about the existence of a deity or god. I am simply saying that in my view there is no chance we are alone in the universe. If you don't like that that's fine.
 
so what makes our planet so special that almost every area of it is capable of different life forms? even the antarctic which was once thought ot be a place where life couldnt possibly exist nevermind thrive.

even an ice planet that never sees sunlight is capable of life if the antartic is hundreds of miles below the surface

Larger celestial bodies in reasonably close proximity to Earth basically shield it from a lot of meteors etc. If they weren't there, we probably wouldnt be. This is just one reason of many, but I'm not an astrologist.
 
I am not talking about the existence of a deity or god. I am simply saying that in my view there is no chance we are alone in the universe. If you don't like that that's fine.

I am not talking about a deity or God either.

You are insofar that you state categorically that extraterrestrial life must exist and their is absolutely no chance that we are alone in the universe, you are taking a faith position because you are making a definitive positive assumption.

It has nothing to do with religion, God or Faith in those subjects.

And it isn't about whether I like it or not, I am not invested enough in you personally to care what you believe, I am merely pointing out that you believe something based on assumptions of a single hypothesis, and that it is not necessarily the truth and that their are other hypothesis that should be considered (I gave you one example earlier) before you can make such a judgement.
 
I'd have thought it all a moot point anyway. Even if there is life out there, it would be like trying to find a grain of sand without even knowing what beach you are supposed to be looking on.
 
so what makes our planet so special that almost every area of it is capable of different life forms? even the antarctic which was once thought ot be a place where life couldnt possibly exist nevermind thrive.

even an ice planet that never sees sunlight is capable of life if the antartic is hundreds of miles below the surface

Right temperature, right mavity, magnetic field to shield radation, liquid water, thick atmosphere, gas giants and moon to sheiks from meteorites, moons gravational pull. The list is pretty undless on why are planet is special and unless we find life on other planets it's the only yard stick we have.
 
I am not talking about a deity or God either.

You are insofar that you state categorically that extraterrestrial life must exist and their is absolutely no chance that we are alone in the universe, you are taking a faith position because you are making a definitive positive assumption.

It has nothing to do with religion, God or Faith in those subjects.

And it isn't about whether I like it or not, I am not invested enough in you personally to care what you believe, I am merely pointing out that you believe something based on assumptions, and that it is not necessarily the truth.

But are you not also assuming that we are alone?

The evidence to the contrary, in my mind, is there shear size of it all.

There are several different camps for this argument, some who believe that probability dictates that there is other life out there (me) , others that believe that there isn't (you). Others believe that any civilisations that may have formed have wiped themselves out already (Carl Sagan).

It's in human nature to destroy ourselves, the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have existed is barely even a cosmic pin ***** in the whole tapestry of the universe, within 17 years of the creation of nuclear fusion we were almost at a breaking point, and that is far far before we are even capable of interstellar travel.
 
Last edited:
But are you not also assuming that we are alone?

No I am not assuming anything......I do not know whether we are alone or whether the Universe is teeming with life, so I make no definitive judgements either way.

The evidence to the contrary, in my mind, is there shear size of it all.

But that is not conclusive, and can also be applied to the sheer size of the variables involved in the spontaneous creation of life....most of which we do not even understand and some of which we do not even know whether they exist or not.....

The sheer size argument is only another assumption, not conclusive evidence. You are making a statement of fact, when science simply doesn't support that and their is as yet no direct evidence to support your position of fact, despite the assumed plausibility of that position.

There are several different camps for this argument, some who believe that probability dictates that there is other life out there, others that believe that there isn't.

Which illustrates why you cannot make a definitive positive position without placing faith in your chosen camp. You are even making assumptions as to what I believe and what my position is....assumptions that are patently not true, therefore how can you support any other assumption you may make.

Read Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe by Peter Ward and Donald E. Brownlee

other scientists and literature that may be of interest:

Books that advocate the Rare Earth hypothesis:


Stuart Ross Taylor, a specialist on the solar system, firmly believes in the hypothesis, but its truth is not central to his purpose, which is to write a short introductory book on the solar system and its formation. Taylor concludes that the solar system is probably very unusual, because it resulted from so many chance factors and events.

Stephen Webb, a physicist, mainly presents and rejects candidate solutions for the Fermi paradox. The Rare Earth hypothesis emerges as one of the few solutions left standing by the end of the book.

Simon Conway Morris, a paleontologist, mainly argues that evolution is convergent. Morris devotes chapter 5 to the Rare Earth hypothesis, citing Rare Earth with approval. Yet while Morris agrees that the Earth could well be the only planet in the Milky Way harboring complex life, he sees the evolution of complex life into intelligent life as fairly probable, contra Ernst Mayr's views as reported in section 3.2 of the following reference.

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, cosmologists, vigorously defend the hypothesis that humans are likely to be the only intelligent life in the Milky Way, and perhaps the entire universe. But this hypothesis is not central to their book, a very thorough study of the anthropic principle, and of how the laws of physics are peculiarly suited to enable the emergence of complexity in nature.

Ray Kurzweil, a computer pioneer and self-proclaimed Singularitarian, argues in The Singularity Is Near that the coming Singularity requires that Earth be the first planet on which sentient, technology-using life evolved. Although other Earth-like planets could exist, Earth must be the most evolutionarily advanced, because otherwise we would have seen evidence that another culture had experienced the Singularity and expanded to harness the full computational capacity of the physical universe.

John Gribbin, a prolific science writer, defends the hypothesis in a book devoted to it.

My point is that there are alternative hypotheses and the Mediocrity principle is not the only one.
 
Last edited:
"While only about a dozen planets have been confirmed in the habitable zone, the Kepler spacecraft has identified a further 54 candidates and current estimates indicate "at least 500 million" such planets in the Milky Way.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone

As to battered with asteroids yes they will have been or still are, but so was earth

As I said before:

The closest we know of is a handful of planets that very likely exist, are probably rocky and probably only a few times larger than Earth and which get very roughly about the same sort of amount of energy from their star as Earth does.
"about a dozen" planets that get very roughly the same sort of amount of energy from their star as Earth does is not "There are many planets out there that we know of in the same situation as earth". It's about a dozen not entirely known(*) planets that have one single factor roughly the same as Earth.



* No extrasolar planet has been observed directly. Their existence is inferred as the most plausible explanation for variations in observations of stars.


EDIT: Regarding asteroids, that was just one example of how even an apparently Earthlike planet might be in a very different situation to Earth. Any serious degree of asteroid impact would make any life difficult and any complex life impossible. One single asteroid impact could destroy human civilisation, even make humanity extinct. If that sort of thing happened fairly often, intelligent life wouldn't have evolved and the planet might be uninhabitable to anything, even stuff like lichen and algae. There are a multitude of factors that make Earth like it is - to say that any planet that gets roughly the same amount of energy from its star as Earth does is in the same situation as Earth is very wrong.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit of a pointless discussion as it's a statistical certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, both basic and intelligent (at least our level), we can say it is so just like we can say the physics is the same elsewhere or any other number of things science knows to be true.
 
It's a bit of a pointless discussion as it's a statistical certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, both basic and intelligent (at least our level), we can say it is so just like we can say the physics is the same elsewhere or any other number of things science knows to be true.

I do not think that you will find a scientist who will say it is a scientific truth based on the assumptions of the Drake Equation. While they may well say that it is entirely plausible to vary degrees it is not a scientific truth.
 
The drake equation isn't even an estimated guess. It's pretty much a titally random number. I could pick any number and it would be just as accurate. Untill we have some idea how rare or common life is, where it can start and grrow we are clueless.
 
The drake equation isn't even an estimated guess. It's pretty much a titally random number. I could pick any number and it would be just as accurate. Untill we have some idea how rare or common life is, where it can start and grrow we are clueless.

Michael Critchton said:

M.Critchton said:
The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

And Drake himself said that it is not meant to be science, but a way of stimulating an agenda for discussion.

And there is always the Fermi Paradox to consider......
 
Last edited:

We have different opinions, so no use arguing about it :)

You assume we are alone, admittedly, based on no evidence to the contrary.

I assume we are not alone, based on the sheer size of the universe and probability.

I like the idea that we are not alone, and one day, we will find out that we're not. But probably not in our life time :(
 
What probability? Probability means we now stuff. We don't know anything. And no castiel position is not the opposite of yours. He doesn't know.
 
It's a bit of a pointless discussion as it's a statistical certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, both basic and intelligent (at least our level), we can say it is so just like we can say the physics is the same elsewhere or any other number of things science knows to be true.

Going on the extremely limited information we have, it currently seems likely to be highly probable that life, including intelligent life, exists elsewhere in the universe.

That's as far as science or statistics actually goes. Going beyond that is speculative and stating it as a certainty is, as Castiel has explained, a faith position.
 
Back
Top Bottom