Aliens and the Unknown

Europa

Moderator
Senior Moderator
Dec 12, 2008
28,453
5,578
113
Utah
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.
I never said I have proof of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. But that goes both ways, you don't have proof against it. I just don't deny the possibility of it.
 

Rugaby

Genius
Gold
Feb 18, 2011
7,122
1,220
113
Washington state
Jacob the guy that went off about his religion. Believe he was Mormon. I don't recall. Regardless that other guy came to his house and beat home up pretty good over it. Thought this happened before u left.
Is a joke Kevin.
 

Rugaby

Genius
Gold
Feb 18, 2011
7,122
1,220
113
Washington state
I never said I have proof of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. But that goes both ways, you don't have proof against it. I just don't deny the possibility of it.
Very good point mindi.
Just because I don't deny the possibility of it doesn't mean I have to believe in it does it?
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,385
1,089
113
DC
No but u argued that due to the size of the universe there was a high probability that others existed. Not that there was facts that others existed. That was my point.
yeah... like i said, a reasonable scientist would allow for the possibility (however large or small) that alien life does not exist. What reasonable scientists do not allow for is arguing a position without evidence to back it up.

The parallels between the arguments for/against a creator and for/against aliens is amusing (and ironic).
There aren't really any parallels. Unless you believe that the probability of alien life is based on myth and superstition.
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
... The point is that we all base our beliefs on different things...
And from a personal POV, this is wholly valid. The spiritual is no less important than the scientific as far as human nature is concerned. And for me the two no longer needs to be reconciled. I see the first as being about trust outside the scope of science and the later limited to truth within the scope of nature. Both actually have roots in human intuition before any of the details were attempted. The overlap to me is smaller than what appears in our debate.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 

Rugaby

Genius
Gold
Feb 18, 2011
7,122
1,220
113
Washington state
yeah... like i said, a reasonable scientist would allow for the possibility (however large or small) that alien life does not exist. What reasonable scientists do not allow for is arguing a position without evidence to back it up.
I think u just contradicted yourself. Want to make sure I understand. A reasonable scientist would argue alien life exists because the possibility is there without any fact. But then u say a reasonable scientist won't make an argument without proof?
 

iP5

Evangelist
Gold
Sep 7, 2010
2,964
136
63
Toronto
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.
Wasn't it admitted early in this thread that science has always been open to complete 180s if that's where the evidence and thereforee truth of nature goes.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
278
83
I never said I have proof of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. But that goes both ways, you don't have proof against it. I just don't deny the possibility of it.
I agree with this statement. And, as originally stated by me, I don't know what I believe when it comes to other life. I'm open to both possibilities.

My point is that it's not quite as easy as saying that hard science and things derived from hard science are the only things that should be taken seriously. In your case, your reasoning skills tell you that due to a number of different factors, some of which are speculation and some of which are scientific evidence, it is likely that other life exists. I'm just suggesting that this should apply to everyone's opinions. I may not agree with your opinion, but I take it seriously and I don't disregard it just because it doesn't fall in line with my method of reasoning.
 
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
278
83
Wasn't it admitted early in this thread that science has always been open to complete 180s if that's where the evidence and thereforee truth of nature goes.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
Yes, it was. I'm referring specifically to one argument (being creationism).
 

acosmichippo

Genius
Platinum
Sep 10, 2007
15,385
1,089
113
DC
I think u just contradicted yourself.
No, i didn't.

Want to make sure I understand. A reasonable scientist would argue alien life exists because the possibility is there without any fact.
No. You seem to mean "proof" instead of "fact". If there was proof, there wouldn't bee a need for argument. The facts are there are billions of trillions of star systems out there, and that life DOES exist here, so the probability of it occurring again is greater than 0.

But then u say a reasonable scientist won't make an argument without proof?
No, i didn't say "proof". I said empirical evidence.
 
Aug 31, 2010
1,295
278
83
And from a personal POV, this is wholly valid. The spiritual is no less important than the scientific as far as human nature is concerned. And for me the two no longer needs to be reconciled. I see the first as being about trust outside the scope of science and the later limited to truth within the scope of nature. Both actually have roots in human intuition before any of the details were attempted. The overlap to me is smaller than what appears in our debate.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
You bring up a great point. I strongly agree with you on this.