It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One of the silliest questions in the world - Are we alone in the universe?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is a question that made sense in 1960 or 1970 because of our lack of knowledge and understanding. In 2010 it's one of the silliest questions in the world.


I do agree it is a silly question, what with all that is common knowledge about them now.


The question is not are we alone but where are they at? This is just a matter of statistics and probability. We have extremophiles, exoplanets, water found on other moons and planets, the building blocks of life found on comets and more.


Stop thinking in third dimensional Earth laws of physics and start thinking in multidimensional terms instead. [They] are everywhere, friend. As for the "other" planets and moons, again you see them with human eyes and human thought.
think about this question: could human life exist on Venus?
Take a look at this:
Valiant Thor The Human Alien From Venus

The Valiant Thor Landing 002741-57 Room 4D-717 Project Blue Book

Valiant Thor from the Planet Venus

There will always be some who will deny the ET existence, right down to a physical landing right in front of them. For many years now humans have been conditioned to think with a belief structure according to what "they" said about it. I'm sure you all have heard this, "Where did you hear that?" "They told me." I have yet to figure out who this "they" are, but I would like to, "they" seem to know everything there is to know!
I know that ET is real because I have seen ET, touched ET, and talked with ET. I did not hallucinate it, nor were drugs a factor, I am not "crazy," although some would swear to that, and I don't go making up things to impress people, I simply don't care what you, or anyone else thinks, I know what I think, and that is all that matters, to me anyway. Some of deny, some suspect, some have seen craft, some just know.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
A jury is tasked with coming up with a verdict based on the available evidence presented before them. Guilty or not guilty? More than often the evidence is not enough to prove the final verdict was a correct one... it just has to be good enough to convince the minds of each juror whether or not there is a reasonable doubt. For if there is ANY reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, the verdict must be made... "not guilty".

If we take the question of "Are we alone in the universe?" and use a jury to come up with a verdict, I'm quite certain we have enough evidence to put a reasonable doubt in each jurors mind, that we are alone. And just as their verdict was good enough to decide the fate of someone's life, I think it's just good enough to give us an answer to this age old question; something we can confidently run along with until the evidence says otherwise.

Based on the available evidence, the probability that we are not alone is greater than the probability that we are alone.

The verdict? We're not alone in the universe.

Right now, that's about as good as it'll get.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


Science is not a court of law and treating it as though it is is the cardinal sin of ATS.


Based on the available evidence, the probability that we are not alone is greater than the probability that we are alone.


So what’s the probability then? Please show your working out.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


not very intelligent are you



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
we are per fact not alone in the universe. History,rune carvings,historical facts ect easy shows that. The government has also said they are working with a special race, wich we are soon to be introduced to.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
And now let's kill this thread with this sentence:
Please rather proof that we are alone than elsehow, because that is the more unprobable statement. Finito.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Archirvion
 


Show the evidence of the government working with alien races.
There is none.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
Science is not a court of law and treating it as though it is is the cardinal sin of ATS.

Actually science uses pretty much the same method in order to come up with yes/no answers to questions where the available evidence is not sufficient enough to prove the answer as fact. They use probability as means of finding the best answer, and they don't make progress by coming up with a "maybe" or "we don't know".



So what’s the probability then? Please show your working out.


It's already been pointed out numerous times in this thread, and many other threads, why the probability is -- by far -- in favor of life existing elsewhere in the universe.

The facts we've learned by observing the existence of life, here on Earth, partnered with the facts we've learned by observing the universe, is alone good enough for the greatest mind's to agree that it's almost impossible to imagine that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe.

That's not even getting into the countless UFO sightings, abduction stories, ancient texts, pictures, etc.

I don't really think the question of "are we alone in the universe?" is silly... but to think that the probable answer to that question is "no", is most certainly silly.


[edit on 25/8/10 by Navieko]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Navieko
 


Science is not a court of law and treating it as though it is is the cardinal sin of ATS.


Exactly.
I think a jury would in fact decide that we are not alone, based on the available evidence.

However, we are talking "absolutes truths" here -- Either ETs exist or ETs do not exist. A jury can only decide what they believe the evidence told them. They cannot dictate what is "True" and what is not.

For example -- To be metaphysical about it, if something does not exist, a jury does not make it "pop into existence" just because there is enough evidence to believe it exists.

I'm not saying ETs do not exist -- I'm saying I don't KNOW (absolutely) that they do, even though the evidence points to their existence.



[edit on 8/25/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


No I asked what the probability was. 100:1, 10:1, 10^24:1? What? The answer to that question is “by far”.

So, what is the probability and how did you arrive at it?

If you can’t answer this then you can’t say that it’s probable.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Exactly. I think a jury would in fact decide that we are not alone, based on the available evidence.

You do know that IS the conclusion I as well made, right? ...just making sure you didn't misunderstand me.


However, we are talking "absolutes truths" here -- Either ETs exist or ETs do not exist. A jury can only decide what they believe the evidence told them. They cannot dictate what is "True" and what is not.


My point was that though we wish to talk "absolute truths", it is quite pointless as we do not have the "absolute proof". And in such cases, I think we can only arrive to a conclusion based on probability.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko

Originally posted by Mike_A
Science is not a court of law and treating it as though it is is the cardinal sin of ATS.

Actually science uses pretty much the same method in order to come up with yes/no answers to questions where the available evidence is not sufficient enough to prove the answer as fact. They use probability as means of finding the best answer, and they don't make progress by coming up with a "maybe" or "we don't know".


Yes, but a scientific theory -- no matter how good the evidence is supporting that theory -- is still technically just an educated guess.

There may be scientists who want to treat a theory as a true fact, but they would be wrong in doing so. The actual scientific process does not consider a proven theory as the "absolute truth", even though the term "proven" is used. The scientific method's use of the term "proof" is slightly different than the term is to others.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Navieko
 


No I asked what the probability was. 100:1, 10:1, 10^24:1? What? The answer to that question is “by far”.

So, what is the probability and how did you arrive at it?

If you can’t answer this then you can’t say that it’s probable.


I don't need to know the exact probability to know if something is probable or not. I'm sure someone has done the math based on the evidence, and if I really wanted to know, I could probably find the numbers... but it makes no difference. I know which answer probability favors and that's all that matters here.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko
My point was that though we wish to talk "absolute truths", it is quite pointless as we do not have the "absolute proof". And in such cases, I think we can only arrive to a conclusion based on probability.


Right. And my point is (and the topic of this thread is) that the question of "Are we alone" is NOT a silly one, because until we discover otherwise, a person has every right to believe that ETs may not exist, even in the face of the evidence that says they probably do.

So, no -- asking the question "Are we alone" is not silly. It's a perfectly valid question.
It's not a question I would ask, but that's me. My beliefs does not make the question less valid.



[edit on 8/25/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Yes, but a scientific theory -- no matter how good the evidence is supporting that theory -- is still technically just an educated guess.

There may be scientists who want to treat a theory as a true fact, but they would be wrong in doing so. The actual scientific process does not consider a proven theory as the "absolute truth", even though the term "proven" is used. The scientific method's use of the term "proof" is slightly different than the term is to others.


I agree -- but as I previously stated, progress cannot be made without nominating an answer or theory to the top. It's how science works. They find the most probable answer and use it as a target to shoot for until something comes a long to paint a new target, or cement the existing target as fact.

A target cannot be made using "maybe" or 'I don't know" answers.

Progress is made by moving forward with whatever we have, not sitting idly by and waiting until the evidence presents itself.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


lol that’s a terrible answer, “I don’t know why it’s probable but it is so there!”

Did you read my earlier post on page 3?

If not I pointed out the fact, for it is a fact and not a vague made up probability, that we don’t know how life began on this planet and as such we cannot determine how probable this event is. If we don’t know the probability of this event occurring then we cannot know how probable life outside of this planet is.

If the odds of abiogenesis occurring are 10^24:1 then the probability of life occurring elsewhere is infinitesimally low.

So why is it, in your opinion, probable that there is life elsewhere? The number of stars or the biodiversity of life on Earth means nothing without knowing how likely abiogenesis is to occur.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
So, no -- asking the question "Are we alone" is not silly. It's a perfectly valid question. It's not a question I would ask, but that's me.

I also agree, as stated previously. I don't think the question is silly, but what I do find silly is that someone would think the probability favors the answer being "yes".

[edit on 25/8/10 by Navieko]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Though im more than tired with the arguments this OP raises, i just wanted to add for whatever it may be worth lol that i have always thought it to be both ignorant and arrogant for humans to assume we are the only life to exist in the infinite unknown..not every being needs the same basics for life that we do.. this is, at least, to me a simple case of 'nothings impossible' and for those people (which there are many of) who have had contact in some form, or those as witnesses of UFOs believe strongly in what they experienced...others have never had any such experiences (that they are able to remember at all that is), have no basis or grounds to go by and thus disbelieve those who have experienced differently..and no one will ever be able to change the others mind..
if any of that makes sense!



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
lol that’s a terrible answer, “I don’t know why it’s probable but it is so there!”

Please show me where I said "I don't know why it's probable but is is".



If not I pointed out the fact, for it is a fact and not a vague made up probability, that we don’t know how life began on this planet and as such we cannot determine how probable this event is. If we don’t know the probability of this event occurring then we cannot know how probable life outside of this planet is.


Your right. We don't know how life first formed on this planet, but we do have a pretty good guess, once again -- based on probability. Whether you would like to believe it or not, this is how science works, and it works like that for a pretty damn good reason. We put faith (something I imagine your more familiar with) into the probable answers, and use those answers to construct new ones for different questions. It's how we've managed to progress to where we are today.


So why is it, in your opinion, probable that there is life elsewhere? The number of stars or the biodiversity of life on Earth means nothing without knowing how likely abiogenesis is to occur.


Even without knowing how life originated here on Earth, the probability still sways in favor of life existing elsewhere. And yes, the shear size of the universe and the amount of planets alone is enough to hold it's own weight in providing that answer.

I'm curious, what are your beliefs?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
So, no -- asking the question "Are we alone" is not silly. It's a perfectly valid question. It's not a question I would ask, but that's me.

I also agree, as stated previously. I don't think the question is silly, but what I do find silly is that someone would think the probability favors the answer being "yes".

Yes --

but if the question of life in the universe is approached from a purely agnostic standpoint, then the answer to the question could be "I don't know -- we may in fact be alone".

I agree that the probability is high that we are NOT alone, but a true logical thinker would never say the answer to the question "Are we alone" has an absolute answer -- at least not yet.

And I agree that it would be silly to answer the question with the absolute "Yes - we ARE alone" for the same reason. Like you said, that would be a silly answer -- but answering "I don't know" is not a silly answer.

What I'm trying to say is you don't need to answer the question as "YES -- I think that ETs 100% absolutely exist" to avoid being silly. You can answer "I don't know".
So because there are at least two valid answers, the question is not silly.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join