Aliens and the Unknown

CanadianNemo

Genius
Gold
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
267
83
Because of the immense distances involved, they likely don't know we're here or have any way of getting here or sending a message. The closest star is more than 4 light years away (trillions of miles). There is no evidence or proof of a supreme being, either.

Because you are denying a possibility.

Case in point. If you are certain you're part of a group that is the only being, you "are" superior.
So you're arguing your point based not on scientific evidence, but rather on "likelihood"? This contradicts many of the other things that you have said.
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,385
1,023
113
DC
It isn't arrogant. Why should I believe other life forms exist without proof? How is me believing there isn't any different than believing there is? My superiority is based on being the only being that does exist. It has nothing to do with not believing in something that doesn't exist.
it's a matter of probability. A scientist doesn't "believe" in alien life in the same way a person "believes" in a deity. A reasonable scientist would acknowledge there's a possibility that alien life does not exist.

we know there are at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. That's 10 billion trillion: an almost impossibly large number.

Many people have trouble even forming some notion of what such numbers as billion and trillion mean. One way to get some idea of the magnitude of a trillion is to ask: How long ago was a trillion seconds?

A trillion seconds ago, no one on this planet could read and write. Neither the Roman Empire nor the ancient Chinese dynasties had yet come into existence. None of the founders of the world's great religions today had yet been born.

That's what a trillion means.
And we're talking abut 10 billion of those. So the question is, what is the probability that life develops in a given star system? I'd say it's greater than .00000000000000000000001.
 

Rugaby

Genius
Gold
Feb 18, 2011
7,122
1,172
113
Washington state
Because of the immense distances involved, they likely don't know we're here or have any way of getting here or sending a message. The closest star is more than 4 light years away (trillions of miles).

There is no evidence or proof of a supreme being, either, but you believe that.

Because you are denying a possibility.

Case in point. If you are certain you're part of a group that is the only being, you "are" superior.
Who said I believe in a supreme being?
And being the only being doesn't make us superior it makes us the only. If there isn't anyone else there is nothing to be superior over.
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
So you're arguing your point based not on scientific evidence, but rather on "likelihood"? This contradicts many of the other things that you have said.
That "likelihood" is based on applying what is known to it's sensible conclusions. Much more than just baseless conjecture which you imply by seeing a contradiction.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

Rugaby

Genius
Gold
Feb 18, 2011
7,122
1,172
113
Washington state
That "likelihood" is based on applying what is known to it's sensible conclusions. Much more than just baseless conjecture which you imply by seeing a contradiction.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
Sensible to you is not particalry sensible to others.
 

CanadianNemo

Genius
Gold
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
267
83
That "likelihood" is based on applying what is known to it's sensible conclusions. Much more than just baseless conjecture which you imply by seeing a contradiction.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
Who decides what are "sensible conclusions"? Fact is fact, right?
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto


it's a matter of probability. A scientist doesn't "believe" in alien life in the same way a person "believes" in a deity. A reasonable scientist would acknowledge there's a possibility that alien life does not exist.

we know there are at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. That's 10 billion trillion: an almost impossibly large number.



And we're talking abut 10 billion of those. So the question is, what is the probability that life develops in a given star system? I'd say it's greater than .00000000000000000000001.
More importantly, a scientist believes that the rules governing the existence of life and intelligence are "natural" regardless of the probability of it.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
Sensible to you is by sensible to others.
Not just to me, but to those that consider what is known, is sensible.

Generally those that refute the conclusions as impossible also question the components leading to said conclusions.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

CanadianNemo

Genius
Gold
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
267
83


it's a matter of probability. A scientist doesn't "believe" in alien life in the same way a person "believes" in a deity. A reasonable scientist would acknowledge there's a possibility that alien life does not exist.

we know there are at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. That's 10 billion trillion: an almost impossibly large number.



And we're talking abut 10 billion of those. So the question is, what is the probability that life develops in a given star system? I'd say it's greater than .00000000000000000000001.
A reasonable religious person would admit there's a chance they're wrong, myself included. I haven't seen one person with a primarily science-based opinion on here that has admitted there's a chance that they're wrong about creation.
 

Napoleon PhoneApart

Genius
Platinum
Jun 19, 2007
33,493
4,417
113
Upper Marlboro, MD
Are we discussing creation theory now?

I say this because this thread is already treading perilously close to the forum guidelines regarding discussion of religion and politics. However, it has stayed pretty civil and intelligent on both sides so far.
 

Rugaby

Genius
Gold
Feb 18, 2011
7,122
1,172
113
Washington state
Not just to me, but to those that consider what is known, is sensible.

Generally those that refute the conclusions as impossible also question the components leading to said conclusions.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
How can u possibly infer that u know what is sensible to anyone other than you? Sensible is referenced based decision that is different for everyone.