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

I suppose it boils down to "Tolerance".

I have tolerance for the views of others, therefore if someone seriously wonders if we are alone in the universe, I will tolerate them and respect their question. I will not call their question "silly", even though I personally feel we are NOT alone.

reply to post by Mike_A


Again, you're debating in a vacuum. You're the one making the claim that life is an improbable event but you're not providing a shred of evidence to support this claim so you're expecting me to debate against a strawman. This is an old 1960's argument.

We know now that life can exist in extreme conditions based on extremophiles, we have exoplanets, liquid water found on other planets, the building blocks of life found in comets which gives more weight to Panspermia and more.

If there's evidence that earth is a unique place among billions of planets and galaxies then present it. If you have evidence that no other place in the universe has a place to dump entropy and allow organisms to flourish then present.

You're debating something that has no evidence. There has to be evidence that shows why we need to restrict life in the universe to earth. You even think this sounds silly because you said in all likelihood we are not alone in the universe.

So are you trying to debate just to debate or do you have an actual point? If you have reached the conclusion that,"In all likelihood we are not alone in the universe", then what are you talking about?

This is because there isn't any evidence that earth is unique and the only place in the universe that can give rise to microbial or intelligent life.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by MarkusMaximus
We can, however, point at indirect evidence. By using satellite telescopes, we can observe planets in areas where life could be reasonably expected to exist...And by watching these planets, we can observe fluctuations in their atmospheric makeup. In other words, we'd see fluctuations in the gases that comprise their atmospheres. And that's interesting, because on earth that happens due to seasons and plant cycles.......

Well, have any planets been found yet with these same fluctuations of gasses, that would suggest there is life on it? Nope.

Should I just assume that's because we "just haven't found it yet?" Like I said, I'm not big on religious belief.

Umm. yes they have.

On Mars.

Could be geological as well though.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You're the one making the claim that life is an improbable event

No I’m not, go back and read my posts. Never have I said that life outside of Earth is improbable, I have only said that you cannot say that it is probable because you lack the requisite information.

I have said a number of times that my position is that we don’t have enough information to assign a probability at all, whether probable or improbable.

I have read every post in this thread and responded to every point put to me; please do me the courtesy of doing the same. So far you have attributed someone else’s words to me and now completely butchered what it is I am asserting; please, please re-read my posts and understand what it is I am trying to get across.

Now that is clarified…

We know now that life can exist in extreme conditions based on extremophiles

We know that life can evolve to survive in these conditions; we don’t know that they can spontaneously form in them. It is the rate at which the latter occurs that is the crucial variable.

we have exoplanets, liquid water found on other planets, the building blocks of life found in comets which gives more weight to Panspermia and more.

Indeed and this shows that life could occur outside of Earth but that is not the same as it being likely to occur. If I have a bag with red and green balls in it and ask you to randomly pull out a red ball, you know that it is possible to do but you have no idea of how probable it is to happen without knowing how many balls there are. Note that in this analogy the balls are not planets but abiogenesis events.

You even think this sounds silly because you said in all likelihood we are not alone in the universe.

You clearly did not read my last post as not only have you not understood, at all, what I am saying but you have now twice attributed something that another poster said to me.

For the second time Navieko is the one who said the above on page 5, 9th post down. Please at least read the thread.

AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT LIFE IS IMPROBABLE, ONLY THAT YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS PROBABLE BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE AVAILABLE. SECOND, I DID NOT NOR HAVE I EVER SAID “IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WE ARE NOT ALONE”; THIS WAS SAID BY NAVIEKO AND NOT ME.

Sorry for the all caps but frankly you have already twice demonstrated an inability to understand regular text!

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
The universe is so large there has to be more life out there than that confined to this rock.

Why is size all that important? You want me to go though the logic again? Okay...

You have a box. There's a red ball in it.
You have NO IDEA how it got there.
You double the size of the box. Look inside.
How many red balls will be there? One.
You triple the size of the box. How many balls in there now? One. Okay.
A hundred times as big.
A million times as big.

Now you tell me how big that box has to be before there is going to be another ball in it. Are you assuming that some how, at some point, another red ball will magically appear in it? Why? How?

HOW DID THE FIRST RED BALL APPEAR?
WAS IT"MAGICALLY'TOO OR OTHERWISE?YOU DON'T KNOW AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF FOR WHATEVER THEORY YOU ARE FOLLOWING.
THE SECOND RED BALL ETC.WILL APPEAR THE SAME WAY AS THE FIRST....EVERYWHERE!ITS CALLED LIFE!

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by MarkusMaximus
What reason would we have NOT to believe that life exists out there? It exists here, so there's proof of life in the cosmos....

Unless you've found some reason to believe that it doesn't...which we'd like to hear...

I don't believe there is life out there, because there's never been any proof of it presented. There is a lot of suggestive evidence, but not a single iota of proof. There are unique things in the universe, you know.

As it is, nobody knows how a bunch of dead chemicals can wrap themselves up on themselves and decide to reproduce. Nobody. So maybe life starting on this planet was just a tremendous fluke. A one-shot deal.

I'm not saying ET life might not be possible. But I haven't seen any strong evidence to suggest that it actually exists. So I'm not just going to blindly believe it. I'm not a religious person.

Did microorganisms exist in the time of cavemen?
Just because we cannot see them, or have no proof of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that there is no life out there just because you or I say so.

We, as a whole, discover new species on this planet alone every day. Did they exist before we knew about them? Of course they did, just because there was no proof prior to that creature's discovery doesn't mean that it simply wasn't there.

reply to post by Mike_A


Yes, there's enough information to weigh what's most likely and what's less likely. Like I said, when it comes to Ufology many skeptics get a case of the stupids. They act like we as human beings don't know how to use reason and logic to weigh the probabilities as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence. We do this in all walks of life because there's usually an absence of absolute proof.

This is why we are looking for exoplanets and planets with the right conditions to support life then we weigh that against the billions of galaxies and billions of planets.

We also have to take into account extremophiles which tell us life finds a way. There's also no evidence that life in the universe has to have the exact conditions of earth in order to get life started.

Maybe life didn't originate on earth or maybe biocentrism is correct and life is a fundamental property of the universe. Maybe the universe is fine tuned for life because the bubble universe that gave birth to our universe had life and passed down this characteristic to us.

My point is there's nothing to restrict life to earth and there's nothing that says earth is the only place in the universe that has the right conditions to support life.

When weighing the probabilities you have to take into account the evidence that supports life in the universe and evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth.

So far there isn't any evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth or any evidence that says earth is the only place in the universe that can support life.

You can always claim something is "unique" when looking at it from an egocentric point of view.

A methane based species on Titan could say,"Titan is a unique place. We're in the perfect position under the methane lake to support life and we're at the right distance from the surface of Titan which would be to cold to support life. Titan is UNIQUE."

You can do this with anything. A person could say,"I have the perfect mother and father and the perfect siblings. I have a UNIQUE family."

This is just silly and any species on any planet can look at how they evolved and then claim it's unique to their planet.

This is why you have to weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely.

So far, all the evidence points to a universe teeming with life and there's zero evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth or evidence that says earth is the only place in the universe that could give rise to life.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I don't understand your need to get people to commit to an absolute answer to Are we Alone?.

Isn't it good enough to say "I think ET life does exist, but I can't be 100% sure"? Why do you want to call it "silly" when a person says this?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


You're debating a strawman. I never said anything about being 100% sure.

This is why I keep saying you have to weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely. Like I said, many skeptics catch a case of the stupids when it comes to Ufology.

Of course they know that weighing the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely has nothing to do with being 100% sure.

But human beings reach conclusions as to what's most likely and what's less likely all the time and in all walks of life.

It's just with Ufology skeptics want to speak in absolutes. They want 100% proof or nothing and most things in life don't work this way.

I could say it's about a 98% chance that the universe is teeming with life vs a 2% chance that we're alone based on the available evidence.

This just means that it's more likely that life exist throughout the universe and less likely that we're alone based on the available evidence.

This type of debate never ceases to amaze me. The atheists argue that God doesn't exist because everything on earth can be proven by science and there is NO evidence of God, (Ignoring the wonders of the world and the universe we face every day). There is evidence everywhere that God does exist and I would argue that it is ludicrous to suggest that everything happened by chance.

Then, those same people will argue that UFO's and aliens are real, without a trace of evidence. We are supposed to believe it based on faith really, because that's all we have. The argument that "...because the universe is so big, there HAS to be life out there", doesn't hold water. The "alien" evidence is based on what has been claimed and written by the common man and people believe it, yet those same people don't believe a word of what has been written by the great Saints and prophets. Yea, there's a ton of logic in that.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


You still are not reading my posts are you. I have already responded to each of the points you have brought up and stated exactly why they do not lead to life being probable.

Like I said, when it comes to Ufology many skeptics get a case of the stupids.

As I said, ufology is not a science, if you base your probability on that then fine but it’s not going to be widely accepted for, imo, very good reasons. Since this is the science group and we are discussing science, let’s stick to science.

This is why we are looking for exoplanets and planets with the right conditions to support life then we weigh that against the billions of galaxies and billions of planets.

Indeed there seem to be many exoplanets that could support life as we know it. However why should this mean that abiogenesis occurred on these planets or that life managed to come to them?

This information does not tell you how probable this key event is to occur. We cannot say that conditions to form life are enough for that to actually happen.

We also have to take into account extremophiles which tell us life finds a way.

Again, extremophiles show that life can evolve to survive in a very wide array of conditions, they do not show that genesis is likely to occur in these conditions.

We know that humans can survive in practically every environment on Earth but they could not have evolved in those environments. So to life may be able to survive in many conditions but abiogenesis may not be able to occur in them all. Abiogenesis might require much more restricted conditions than we know.

There's also no evidence that life in the universe has to have the exact conditions of earth in order to get life started

There’s no evidence that it doesn’t either. We are in the dark as far as that question goes, thus you cannot assign a probably to the event.

Maybe life didn't originate on earth or maybe biocentrism is correct and life is a fundamental property of the universe. Maybe the universe is fine tuned for life because the bubble universe that gave birth to our universe had life and passed down this characteristic to us.

Maybe it is, but then again maybe it’s not. How does this possibility help you come up with a probability for life occurring outside of the Earth?

My point is there's nothing to restrict life to earth and there's nothing that says earth is the only place in the universe that has the right conditions to support life.

If you don’t know how genesis occurred how do you know that?

You haven’t really got any evidence that says life is probable, only that it is possible.

Answer me this, what if the chances of abiogenesis occurring over a given period (say 6bn years) are 10^24:1 and how do you know it is not? Edit to add that I am not saying that this is the case.

You're debating a strawman. I never said anything about being 100% sure.

Don’t you just hate it when people do that!


[edit on 28-8-2010 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A


First you have to treat Ufology as science.

Ufology is just the study of Unidentified Flying Objects. This is the study of an observed phenomena that some say has an extraterrestrial origin and others say there's an terrestrial explanation for unidentified flying objects.

I don't know a skeptic or pseudoskeptic that will say U.F.O.'s (unidentified flying objects) don't exist. Maybe you will be the first.

Ufology is just the study of an observed phenomena called U.F.O.'s . There not N. I. F.O.'s (Never Identified Flying Objects). We can build a hypothesis to try and explain this observed phenomena. That's all Ufology is. From Websters Dictionary:

Ufology: the study of unidentified flying objects

www.merriam-webster.com...

Secondly, you act like you don't know what probability is. We weigh the probability as to what's most likely and what's less likely all the time based on available evidence.

Notice I said AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. You keep trying to treat what if's as if they are evidence.

I'm not trying to debate life as being this unique, improbable event when there isn't a shred of AVAILABLE EVIDENCE to support that notion.

The most you can say about abiogenesis (if it occurred on earth) is that it's unique to our planet if you look at it from an egocentric standpoint. You can't extrapolate that out to the rest of the universe.

So I'm not going to debate your what if's vs actual evidence. If you have evidence that earth is a unique place to dump entropy and to get life started then present it.

If you have evidence that abiogenesis(if it occurred on earth) means that life in the universe is restricted to start the way life did on earth (that's IF life started on earth).

Even if, and it's a BIG IF, life was started on earth it will not tell us anything about how improbable or probable life is. This is because any species in the universe could look at how life got started on their planet and claim it's unique and improbable if they look at it from an egocentric point of view.

So it's silly for me to debate your what if's when we are weighing the probability as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and not based on your what if abiogenesis scenarios.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


When the people who “study” ufology treat it as a science then I’ll treat it as a science. However right now the standards are low. So if your assertion is only really based on UFO evidence then say so and we can end this right here.

We weigh the probability as to what's most likely and what's less likely all the time based on available evidence.

I agree but in this case the evidence is not sufficient. In science you need the correct information before you can assign a probability to an event.

To repeat the ball analogy; if I have a bag full of red and green balls and ask you to pick out a red ball can you tell me what the probability is of you doing so? Clearly you cannot because in order to do so you would need to have some idea of how many red and green balls there are. You also cannot arbitrarily assign a probability either.

You need to know how likely genesis (by whatever means) is to occur. Without that talk of probability is pointless.

Do you know how likely genesis is to occur? If not then how can you say that life is likely?

I'm not trying to debate life as being this unique, improbable event when there isn't a shred of AVAILABLE EVIDENCE to support that notion.

The most you can say about abiogenesis (if it occurred on earth) is that it's unique to our planet if you look at it from an egocentric standpoint. You can't extrapolate that out to the rest of the universe.

And I fully agree, it would illogical and unscientific to do so. However what you don’t seem to understand is that it would also be illogical and unscientific to do the opposite.

There isn’t a shred of available evidence to support the notion that life is abundant or a probable event. I have already explained why the size of the universe and biodiversity do not, on their own, support your assertion and as far as I can see that is all you’ve got.

You can’t extrapolate life on Earth to the rest of the universe.

Your (correct) logic in those two paragraphs works both ways and that is why you cannot talk about probability without more information.

So I'm not going to debate your what if's vs actual evidence. If you have evidence that earth is a unique place to dump entropy and to get life started then present it.

OK here comes the big bold text again…

I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER SAID THAT THE EARTH IS UNIQUE, ONLY THAT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT LIFE OUTSIDE OF IT IS PROBABLE. READ THE DAMN THREAD, PLEASE!

You are completely missing the point at every turn in this thread. If you read this post (and you’ve been a bit hit or miss on that in the past) pay most attention to the following.

I am saying that you do not have the information you need in order to assign a probability to life existing outside of Earth. When I ask what if the chances of genesis occurring are 10^24:1 I am not really asking a what if question, I am illustrating the fact that you don’t know what the chances are and thus you cannot come up with any sort of probability. You can no more say that I would be wrong to claim that the odds are 10^24:1 than I can say you would be wrong in saying that they are 10:1. Neither of us know or can reasonable estimate and until we have a much larger sample size this will always be the case.

Do you or do you not agree that this piece of information is key to understanding how likely life is?

If not then can you explain how you would calculate (actually calculate not just say “based on the evidence”) how likely life outside the Earth is without this information?

And please, please re-read my posts and try to understand what it is I am actually saying. Yet again for the record it is not that life is unlikely!

reply to post by Mike_A


Again, you're not making any sense.

Human beings weigh the probability as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on available evidence all the time in all walks of life.

It seems skeptics get a case of the stupids when it comes to ufology and they try to make it an all or nothing deal.

There's evidence that points to a universe teeming with life.

Billions of galaxies and billions of planets, extremophiles, exoplantets, water found on other planets, the right conditions for life and the building blocks of life found in comets.

These are all things that point to a universe teeming with life when you weigh it against the evidence that life in the universe is restricted to earth and earth is the only place where life could get started.

This is because there isn't ANY EVIDENCE that says we should restrict life in the universe to earth.

If some ever comes along I will look at it.

But for now there's ZERO evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth so why should I take this into account when I'm weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE as to what's most likely and what's less likely?

Like I said earlier, Ufology is just the study of an observed phenomena called unidentified flying objects. You also have the scientific field of Astrobiology which looks at life in the universe and studies things like extremophiles to see how life may have evolved outside of earth.

We can no longer just stick our heads in the sand when there isn't any evidence that says life in the universe is restricted to earth or that earth is the only place among billions of galaxies and billions of planets that can give birth to life.

If there's no evidence to support this notion then why should I consider this when weighing the available evidence?

It's like in a court case. Why should the jury consider that Tom the murderer was in California and not Chicago when the crime was committed when there isn't any evidence that says Tom was in California and all the available evidence points to Tom being in Chicago?

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I really don’t know how to make my points any clearer so I’m not going to bother. Instead I would like you to answer the following questions.

Why does a large universe mean that life is probable (note, not more probable than a smaller universe but probable in absolute terms)?

Why does the evolution of extremophiles on Earth mean that life elsewhere is probable?

Why does the existence of conditions making life possible make life probable?

Do you know how likely life is to occur in a given system over a given period of time?

If yes then can you tell me, in detail, a) how likely it is and b) how you came to this conclusion?

If no then can you explain how you would calculate (actually calculate not just say “based on the evidence”) how likely life outside the Earth is without this information?




[edit on 29-8-2010 by Mike_A]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A


Easy,

Why does a large universe mean that life is probable (note, not more probable than a smaller universe but probable in absolute terms)?

This is a funny question because you ask a question then try to take away the obvious answer LOL. Of course size matters. If life happened once in a universe with billions of galaxies and billions of planets that gives life a higher probability to occur again vs. a universe with say 1,000 galaxies and 1,000 planets. So you have to take the size of the galaxy into account when weighing the probability as to what's most likely and what less likely based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

This is just basic common sense. Unless you have evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth and that says earth is the only place in the universe where organisms can dump entropy, and if you don't than the size of the universe has to be weighed as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Why does the evolution of extremophiles on Earth mean that life elsewhere is probable?

Extremophiles give us even more options. Not only do we have billions of planets and billions of galaxies, we also can look for conditions on other planets where life that evolved may exist based on extremophiles.

This is just basic common sense yet again. This is why Astrobiologist take extremophiles into account when studying where life may exist outside of our universe.

Are there environments on Earth, which may resemble those we expect to find on other worlds? Herein lies the strongest connection between Earth's extreme environments and life on other planets. When we look at our own planet's most challenging environments, we are really looking for clues to what may be the normal conditions on other planets. We want a hint of what we may be searching for when we investigate those other worlds for signs of life.

We know that there are a number of environments that mimic some features of the dry, cold surface of Mars. The Antarctic Dry Valleys and their permanently ice-covered lakes may represent one stage of Mars' past development. While we have only recently become aware of the deep subsurface microbial inhabitants of Earth living at many kilometers depth, their possible counterparts in the deep surface of Mars may be all that is left of a once more extensive Martian biology.

www.astrobiology.com...

Why does the existence of conditions making life possible make life probable?

Already answered. There's no evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth or says earth is the only planet in the universe that have the conditions for life to exist so we have to take this into account when weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Do you know how likely life is to occur in a given system over a given period of time?

This is a hypothetical that doesn't make any sense in the context of weighing the available evidence. This is because some planets may evolve life faster than other planets. Things like Plasma Crystals may be inorganic lifeforms.

This question is meaningless because there isn't any set definition of life on earth or the universe.

I think you're doing what most skeptics do. You're looking for absolutes when in most cases in life we don't have absolute evidence so we take the available evidence and weigh it as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I’ll starting off by noting you didn’t answer all my questions.

This is a funny question because you ask a question then try to take away the obvious answer LOL. Of course size matters. If life happened once in a universe with billions of galaxies and billions of planets that gives life a higher probability to occur again vs. a universe with say 1,000 galaxies and 1,000 planets.

I’m not trying to take away an obvious answer I’m trying to take away the wrong answer that I have already addressed a number of times.

I don’t disagree that life is more likely in a universe with billions of planets than in a universe of 1000 planets. However this does not help us say whether life is probable in absolute terms.

If the odds of life occurring are 10^24:1 then it is more probable in a universe with a billion planets than it is in a universe of 1000 planets but it is still not probable. The critical factor is the likelihood of genesis occurring, not the size of the universe.

Size is a factor but not the critical one.

Now I’m sure you’re going to say that I don’t have any evidence that these are the odds of life occurring and I will pre-empt that by saying I know but neither do you have any evidence to say what those actually odds are.

Extremophiles give us even more options. Not only do we have billions of planets and billions of galaxies, we also can look for conditions on other planets where life that evolved may exist based on extremophiles.

As previously posted extremophiles prove that life can evolve to survive in extreme conditions but this is after life has already come into existence.

Life may be able to survive in practically any condition but for all we know it may only be able to come into existence in the first place in a very limited set of conditions. That is the problem with your extremophile argument.

Already answered. There's no evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth or says earth is the only planet in the universe that have the conditions for life to exist so we have to take this into account when weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

You haven’t answered it. Why does the existence of these conditions make life probable? You can’t just say that there is no evidence against it so it must be so.

Are you saying that if there is no evidence against something then that is evidence for it? If that is the case then it is probable that there is an exact copy of the statue of liberty except this one has Hillary Clinton’s face. There’s no evidence against that is there and the conditions exist to make it possible.

You are claiming that if the conditions exist then it is likely that life will have formed, why?

This is a hypothetical

No it isn’t. In what way is “Do you know how likely life is to occur in a given system over a given period of time?” hypothetical?

that doesn't make any sense in the context of weighing the available evidence.

lol I’m trying to determine what evidence you actually have and what you need.

I agree that it is a difficult question and I do in fact already know you can’t answer it. However it is not an impossible question and differing rates don’t make it impossible to answer, in fact that is the very reason you need a large sample, which you don’t have.

So you don’t know how likely life is to occur (yet somehow can say that it’s probable!). That established, we move on to the question that you ignored.

Can you explain how you would calculate (actually calculate not just say “based on the evidence”) how likely life outside the Earth is without knowing how likely genesis is to occur?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Mike_A

 

Easy,

Why does a large universe mean that life is probable (note, not more probable than a smaller universe but probable in absolute terms)?

This is a funny question because you ask a question then try to take away the obvious answer LOL. Of course size matters. If life happened once in a universe with billions of galaxies and billions of planets that gives life a higher probability to occur again vs. a universe with say 1,000 galaxies and 1,000 planets. So you have to take the size of the galaxy into account when weighing the probability as to what's most likely and what less likely based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

This is just basic common sense. Unless you have evidence that restricts life in the universe to earth and that says earth is the only place in the universe where organisms can dump entropy, and if you don't than the size of the universe has to be weighed as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

...I think you're doing what most skeptics do. You're looking for absolutes when in most cases in life we don't have absolute evidence so we take the available evidence and weigh it as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Several pages of back and forth.

Yet still no answer to Mike_A's question. Is it because it's such a "funny" question, as you put it?

Matrix Rising, what you have done, over and over, is demonstrate that you simply don't know what "probability" is about.

My recommendation is that you just stop using the word, since you don't understand it.

SO why so many pages?

I think that Mike_A has done a fine job of spelling it out, but your responses are looking more like you've put too much into it already to back down. We all do that sometimes.

There's an old saying, "When wrong, promptly admit it."

OK, not so prompt after all these pages, but I'm sure I'm not the only one waiting on the sidelines for you to get a bit humble, and have your slice of pie.

Oh and your remark about "absolutes"? Seems to be right in line with your disdain for probability, and mathematics.

Which is OK, when you "just" believe something, because we don't always have completely sound reasons for what we believe after all.

JR

reply to post by Mike_A


I have answered your questions but it's obvious you don't read the answers. You just keep repeating the same nonsense.

Like this:

I don’t disagree that life is more likely in a universe with billions of planets than in a universe of 1000 planets. However this does not help us say whether life is probable in absolute terms.

This makes zero sense in the context of what we're talking about. I keep talking about the available evidence and you keep talking in absolute terms which is just silly.

We don't have ANY evidence that life in the universe is restricted to earth. Therefore when I weigh the available evidence I can't take something that's only in your head into account.

We don't know if it's abiogenesis, Panspermia, biocentrism or something else. Until one of these theories is confirmed and the theory says that they restrict life in the universe to earth and that all life in the universe had to evolve under the exact conditions of earth, I'm not going to take that into account when weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT AVAILABLE EVIDENCE MEANS?

A third grader could understand this.

We know there's exoplanets.
We know there's extremophiles.
We know there's billions of galaxies and billions of planets.
We know the building blocks of life have been found on comets.
We know that water has been found on planets and moons.
We know the conditions for life to exist have been found on other planets.

Do you understand what WE KNOW means?

We don't know in ABSOLUTE TERMS (your words) if life on earth is improbable to the point where it's the only planet in the universe where life can start.

We don't even have a set definition for what constitutes life.

So you keep coming back to what if scenarios about abiogenesis when I keep saying I'm weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and not your beliefs about abiogenesis and how improbable or probable life is based on something that we don't know.

This has everything to do with the absence of evidence.

If you're conducting a Police investigation and the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE says Tom did it and there isn't any AVAILABLE EVIDENCE that says Charles did it. Then why would the Police go after Charles when they are weighing the available evidence?

Now evidence may come along that points to Charles but the Police are not Psychics so they have to draw conclusions based on the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

We do this in all walks of life and I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. It's just when it comes to things like Ufology or the Paranormal the skeptics want to speak in absolute terms.

If life happened once and there isn't any AVAILABLE EVIDENCE that restricts life in the universe to only happening once, then your musings about abiogenesis and how improbable life may be are meaningless in the context of weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


I don't think you understand what Probability means. Scratch that, I think you understand because human beings weigh the Probability as to what's most likely vs what's less likely based on the available evidence in all walks of life. It just seems like skeptics get a case of the stupids when talking about Ufology and they want to talk in absolute terms.

Probability:

1. The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood.
2. A probable situation, condition, or event: Her election is a clear probability.
3.
1. The likelihood that a given event will occur: little probability of rain tonight.
2. Statistics. A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.

www.answers.com...

Her election is a clear probability.

This would be based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!

What you and Mike A blindly ignore is when we're weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, we're not weighing your imagination about abiogenesis.

I know this isn't hard to understand but skeptics have to speak in absolute terms or they would have to accept the probability that there's life throughout the universe.

I guarantee that Mike A will talk about abiogenesis and how improbable life may be if his imagination is correct. This has nothing to do with weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

This is why many scientist today will say Extraterrestrial life is likely even if they are just talking about Microbial life. These conclusions are not made in a vacuum but they are based on the available evidence.

Hawking said this:

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has repeated his long-held belief that intelligent aliens are likely to exist, and that a visit by them to present-day humanity would probably have unfortunate consequences for us.

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational... If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

www.theregister.co.uk...

Again, we're not talking about weighing you or Mike A's fantasies about abiogenesis.

We're talking about the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.