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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Thanks Matrix. But you still haven't answered the question. Might I venture to guess that it is "probable" that this is beginning to feel as it someone is holding your feet to a fire??

Here's Mike_A's question again...




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


I don't really feel I can do better than Mike_A here, but perhaps I can add just a small bit.

What Mike may be saying here is that this is a QUALITATIVE matter primarily, not merely quantitative. Not sure those terms resonate with you. I'm just trying to be helpful.

Anyway, he also expanded on his question, hoping you weren't just going to repeat something about a vast quantity again, or worse, how opinions to the contrary are "silly", and pahleeze don't say it's "common sense" again (or is it just me that is bugged by that?)

Sorry, I really don't want to come off as too confrontational. In a way, I see this sort of thing all the time. People with deep convictions, phrasing things as if there was more reason than is warranted, perhaps picking scientific words, in the hopes that it can help make their case.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to just slow down, and take ONE thing at a time.

Like the one question from Mike_A that I repeated.

And don't answer it for me, or even for Mike_A. I might suggest that you answer it (just that one question), for yourself.

And by all means, you and Mike_A should carry-on without me, he certainly is doing a fine job, and there isn't much more I can add.

Good luck!

JR




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I am not talking absolutes, exactly the opposite. You seem to be under the impression that you have to come up with an answer when you don’t.

You don’t take a look at what you have and then try to come up with an answer no matter what; it is perfectly acceptable to say that we don’t know. In this case we don’t know because we just don’t have the information.

You keep talking about the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and I am saying that the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is not sufficient.


We don't have ANY evidence that life in the universe is restricted to earth.


But that doesn’t mean that you can say it’s abundant. As I said, we have no evidence to say that there isn't an exact replica of the statue of liberty on some distance world but that doesn't mean I can say it's probable that one exists!


We don't know if it's abiogenesis, Panspermia, biocentrism or something else.


Exactly, if you don’t know how life came to be in the first place how can you say that it is likely regardless of how much you know about conditions after that event?

It’s like saying I am likely to have a heart attack without even knowing what a heart attack is or what causes one. It makes no sense.


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.


And that is where you are going wrong. Until one of these theories is confirmed then you can’t saying anything about the probability of life existing outside of the Earth.


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?


And you have misinterpreted the evidence. We know all of that but it does not support your case.


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 know it isn’t either, thus you cannot assign a probability.

However you have misunderstood what I meant by “in absolute terms”; when you say something is probable you mean that its probability is greater than 0.5 but when you say that something is more probable you are saying only that it is probability is greater than something else. So when I say in absolute terms I am referring to the former to distinguish it from the latter. For example some occurance with a probability of .3 is more probable than one with a probability of .1 but you cannot say that the first is probable in absolute terms.


If you're conducting a Police investigation


Science is not a police investigation nor a trial nor a bit of casual guesswork.

However even so, in your analogy the available evidence does not say Charles did it. The could also say that the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is inconclusive.

The size of the universe, exoplanets, etc do not suggest that life is probable, on that issue it is inconclusive. It only lends weight to the notion that life is possible.


It's just when it comes to things like Ufology or the Paranormal the skeptics want to speak in absolute terms.


We’re not talking about ufology or the paranormal, we are talking about science, a subject that demands far greater rigour than you seem to be prepare to give it.


Now please, answer that niggling little question that would completely bust open your logic...

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?

It shouldn’t be hard and it is a question that you must be able to answer since you have assigned a probability to it (i.e. greater than .5). It requires no mention of abiogenesis or anything to do with the origin of life; all you need use is the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

I await your equation.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Mike A you're not making any sense. I have to ask have you even read any of my post or are you just typing nonsense?

You said:


You keep talking about the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and I am saying that the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is not sufficient.


You keep saying it's not sufficient based on your fantasies about abiogenesis. All abiogenesis will tell us IF it occurred on earth, is how life was started on earth.

I have not heard anyone that even supports abiogenesis say if it's correct it means life throughout the universe has to evolve in the same way.

This is why you're not making any sense.

Abiogenesis will only tell us how life got started on earth not that life in the universe has to evolve in the exact same way.

So let's say we find out that abiogenesis occurred. How would you measure the probability of life occurring on the billions of other planets based on how life started on earth?

It's a very silly argument and you keep making it for some reason. Abiogenesis and how life got started on earth doesn't tell us how life had to evolve on other planets.

So all of your rants about your fantasies involving abiogenesis is moot.

You said:


But that doesn’t mean that you can say it’s abundant. As I said, we have no evidence to say that there isn't an exact replica of the statue of liberty on some distance world but that doesn't mean I can say it's probable that one exists!


Yet another silly statement.

The statue of liberty is not a biological organism. Nature produces hurricanes, solar systems, life and more not Statues of Liberty, so you're not making any sense yet again.

You said:


Exactly, if you don’t know how life came to be in the first place how can you say that it is likely regardless of how much you know about conditions after that event?


Again, you're basing these things on your personal notions about abiogenesis.

NEWSFLASH!!

HOW LIFE GOT STARTED ON EARTH WILL TELL US NOTHING ABOUT THE PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF LIFE EVOLVING ON OTHER PLANETS.

You said:

[

However you have misunderstood what I meant by “in absolute terms”; when you say something is probable you mean that its probability is greater than 0.5 but when you say that something is more probable you are saying only that it is probability is greater than something else. So when I say in absolute terms I am referring to the former to distinguish it from the latter. For example some occurance with a probability of .3 is more probable than one with a probability of .1 but you cannot say that the first is probable in absolute terms.


See, your not debating what I said but you're just making it up as you go.

I'm talking about weighing the probability using reason and logic. We do this everyday in all walks of life. We do it in science and courtrooms.

We can weigh the probability as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on reason, logic and the available evidence.

So if I come outside and I see clouds forming and it's getting dark at 4 P.M. I can say that it will probably rain based on the available evidence.

In a courtroom they use reason and logic to say the defendant most likely did the crime or they most likely are innocent based on the available evidence.

Before Einstein formulated Relativity he imagined how a beam of light would look if he rode next to it on his motor bike.

This is why he said Imagination is more important than knowledge. Einstein weighed the probable outcome if this event occurred then he began building his theory of Relativity.

So I'm weighing the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on reason and logic and the available evidence.

We do this as human beings in all walks of life.

The problem you're having is you keep trying to add abiogenesis and the improbability of life into the equation when there isn't any evidence that even suggests if abiogenesis is correct it will tell us anything about the probability or improbability of life in the universe.

Again, you have no idea what probability means.

Here's what Webster said:


Definition of PROBABILITY

1
: the quality or state of being probable
2
: something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable
3
a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
4
: a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree
Examples of PROBABILITY

1. There is a low probability that you will be chosen.
2. There is some probability of rain tomorrow.
3. With the dark clouds moving in, rain seems more like a probability than a possibility.
4. The probability of a coin coming up heads is one out of every two tries.


www.merriam-webster.com...

Again, I think you understand what I'm saying but skepticism about Ufology will usually blind a skeptic to any notions of reason or logic.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Mike A's question was a silly one. He asked:


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


He asked a question and then tried to restrict the answer.

He keeps saying he wants the probability in absolute terms and that's just silly. Abiogensis and how life started on earth doesn't give you absolute terms on how life started in the universe.

You have to take into account the billions of galaxies and billions of planets in the universe because the more places there are for life to take hold the greater the probability is that life exist on other planets.

It's just common sense.

If the Lottery could only be played one day a week your chances of hitting the Lottery decrease vs the Lottery being played 6 days a week.

If, and it's a BIG if, abiogenesis is correct and life started on earth, it will just tell us how life started on earth not if life is improbable or probable throughout the universe.

If ABCD conditions started life on earth, it doesn't tell us that BACD can't start life on another planet.

So you and Mike A's notions about abiogenesis is meaningless in the context of this conversation.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



You keep saying it's not sufficient based on your fantasies about abiogenesis. All abiogenesis will tell us IF it occurred on earth, is how life was started on earth.


Abiogenesis must have occurred somewhere even if life was then spread by other means (unless you believe in god). However regardless of how it happened or whether it could happen in multiple ways we still need to know the likelihood of this event occurring and the rate at which it may spread in order to come up with a probability.

The problem is we don’t know any of this, so you can’t talk about probability yet.

There a number of possible scenario;

1) Abiogenesis is a very simple and likely process and life is probable.
2) Abiogensis is not simple or likely but life spreads easily by other means and is thus probable.
3) Abiogenesis is not simple or likely and panspermia just doesn’t happen and thus life is improbable.

Any of this and more can be true; the evidence we have available precludes none of them. The point is we just don’t know.


Abiogenesis will only tell us how life got started on earth not that life in the universe has to evolve in the exact same way.


I agree but that doesn't detract from the need to know at least one way in order to attempt to answer the question is life probable.


The statue of liberty is not a biological organism. Nature produces hurricanes, solar systems, life and more not Statues of Liberty, so you're not making any sense yet again.


No it’s not, if you can say that life is probable with the argument you have given then I can equally say that intelligent life is probable and so I can say it is probable that they will create my statue of liberty.

All the conditions exist for this to occur and you have no evidence to say that it is not true. This is the argument that you have used.


Again, you're basing these things on your personal notions about abiogenesis.


What personal notion? All I am saying is that you need to know how life comes into existence. You are the one assigning the probability without the requisite information.

You don’t know how life got started yet you are claiming you know that it is probable.

I agree that there may be a number of ways that life could come into existence but neither of us know this to be true or likely. To use this as a factor in determining how likely life is to exist is illogical. It is you who is basing your argument on personal opinions.


Before Einstein formulated Relativity he imagined how a beam of light would look if he rode next to it on his motor bike.


Yeah and he then did a crap load of equations to see if he was correct. Imagination is great, so are gut feelings and guestimations but that isn’t what you are doing in this thread; you are brushing aside one of the biggest questions of modern science claiming it to be silly. If you can’t come up with a proper mathematical process to back up your assertion that life is probable then it is your assertion that is silly not the question.


The problem you're having is you keep trying to add abiogenesis and the improbability of life into the equation


No I’m not, first of all as I have repeated no less than three times in this thread I am not saying that life is improbable; unlike you I am not prejudging the answer to the question.

Second I am bringing abiogenesis into the equation because you can’t do the equation without it. That is why I asked you to try (which you haven’t done).

As to what probability is, it is a fricking complex mathematical concept, there are casual uses but this is not one of them. Sticking your head out the front door, looking up, and saying “hmm I think it’s probably going to rain” is not the same as saying “hmm I think life is probable”. The latter requires a great deal more rigour especially if you are going to close the book on the question as you have done.

More over you can’t look up and say it’s going to rain if you don’t know how rain happens can you? Neither can you say life is probable if you don’t know how life happens.


Again, I think you understand what I'm saying but skepticism about Ufology will usually blind a skeptic to any notions of reason or logic.


What has ufology got to do with anything? We are talking about science!


He keeps saying he wants the probability in absolute terms and that's just silly.


Read the damn post, you even quoted this bit in your reply to me.

When I say absolute terms I mean greater than .5 and nothing more. More probable does not mean probable, that is what I am saying in that question, forget the “absolute terms” if it is too difficult a phrase to understand.


You have to take into account the billions of galaxies and billions of planets in the universe because the more places there are for life to take hold the greater the probability is that life exist on other planets.


But it does not make it probable. If the odds of life coming into existence by whatever means are 10^24:1 then life is more probable in a universe with a billion planets than one with 100 planets but you still cannot describe it as probable. Surely you must be able to understand that.


Now please answer this question, if you don’t answer this question don’t bother replying because I will just repeat this question.

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?

It shouldn’t be hard and it is a question that you must be able to answer since you have assigned a probability to it (i.e. greater than .5). It requires no mention of abiogenesis or anything to do with the origin of life; all you need use is the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.


[edit on 30-8-2010 by Mike_A]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




Mike A's question was a silly one. He asked:

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

He asked a question and then tried to restrict the answer...

You have to take into account the billions of galaxies and billions of planets in the universe because the more places there are for life to take hold the greater the probability is that life exist on other planets.


AND SO, the reason you won't answer Mike_A's question is because it's "silly".

Or, the question is too small perhaps, since you're complaining about it being restricted?

That's what you have to do sometimes, take a small bite at a time.

If you can't take even such a small bite, what makes you think you can stuff down the whole cake?

AND, you clearly missed my small point about "Qualitative", vs. Quantitative, when you launch right back into "billions of galaxies" (again, for the 15th time).

I honestly don't think you're serious at this point. You're just jerking people around.

Pathetic.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Mike A, your making yourself look bad. You can ask the question a thousand times and it has been answered. It's obvious now that you're trying to cling to abiogenesis and that's just silly.

Maybe abiogenesis didn't occur anywhere and life is a characteristic of our hubble bubble. Maybe Biocentrism is correct and Life is a fundamental property of the universe.

What you keep trying to say is that we can't weigh the evidence if we don't know how life got started and this is just silly. We can weigh the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence.

You still haven't answered the question, how will abiogenesis, if it occured on earth tell us about the improbabability or probability of life occurring in the universe?

It will just tell us how life occurred on earth. t will not change the probability or improbability of life happening in the universe.

If the conditions to get life started are abcd that doesn't tell us that bacd can or can't get life started on planet X.

So again, you're stuck on Abiogenesis as an excuse. There isn't any evidence that if Abiogenis occured on earth that it will restrict or dictate the way that life can or can't occur on other planets.

Again, I'm talking about the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

I'm not talking about your fantasies about abiogenesis.

We know there's exoplanets
We know there's extremophiles
We know there's billions of planets and billions of galaxies
We know the building blocks of life have been found on comets
We know water has been found on other planets

We don't know how life occurred on earth. That will be a great thing to know but it will not tell us or restric the way that life can or can't start on other planets.

I'm sure you will bring up Abiogenesis again but that's just silly in the context of this thread.

I want you to give me one scientific source that says that if abiogenesis occured it will restrict the way that life can start on other planets in the universe.

This is your whole silly argument.

It's strictly your fantasies about abiogenisis but you haven't provided a shred of AVAILABLE EVIDENCE that says if Abiogenesis occurred on earth it will dictate and restrict the way that life can form on other planets.

If you can't provide a shred of AVAILABLE EVIDENCE that supports this silly notion then you're just wasting time.

Anyone can read the available evidence about the the things that I have been talking about.

The building blocks of life found in comets
news.bbc.co.uk...

Billions of galaxies and planets
www.youtube.com...

Exoplanets
www.overthelimit.info...

Water on other planets and moons
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Extremophiles
www.astrobiology.com...

We know these things have occurred and these things are AVAILABLE!!!

I want you to give me one shred of AVAILABLE EVIDENCE that says abiogenesis occurred on earth and the way it occurred or if it occurred that it would dictate and restrict the way life could form on other planets in the universe.

You're not making any sense because you're trying to debate a hypothetical scenario about Abiogenesis and I'm doing what humans do all the time which is weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Of course the way life started will be great to know and it will tell us a lot of things but it will not restrict the way life can or can't start on other planets.

So please stop talking about something that doesn't have a shred of evidence. I know you will keep bringing up your fantasies about abiogenesis because you have no where else to go in this debate but you look very silly.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I think you and Mike A need to learn what billions of galaxies and planets mean.

Let's just say there's 1 Billion planets, if life exist on .01% of these planets that would mean there's 100,000 planets with some form of life.

We're talking about billions of galaxies and planets.

In order to reduce that number to zero and say we're alone in the universe, you would have to show why earth is the only place in the universe where life can get started and why every planet in the universe is restricted and can only form life in the exact way that it occurred on earth and earth is the only place in the universe where organisms can dump entropy and form an atmosphere.

Typing this just sounds silly and a argument about the what ifs of abiogenesis mean nothing in the context of this debate.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I appreciate discussions like this it really brings out peoples true colors. They write them down and post them but do they reflect on them?

People who dont believe there is life anywhere are the kind of rigid people who go through life unhappy with things because they only see them as black and white. That and they lack a higher education to understand the underlying scientific principals of life.

The majority of people I meet think there are aliens. In bars or clubs or if I am out and somehow work it into the conversation which isnt often I find the person believes in aliens. never met someone who didnt. I mean I have met black and white people but even the ones I meet believe in them. I met a couple who didnt believe in aliens then weirdly I found all these books about aliens at his desk and he gave in that he was studying them for around 15 years.

I would put myself in the camp that they do exist. People who dont believe in them have no credibility or standing to espouse their opinions. They look at posting like a soapbox and merely come off as unhappy people who are content to sit around while the rest of us in science do the hard work for them. I say that because these are the same people who dont have degrees and dont understand what is going on and dont contribute to studies or research. I would implore all those black and whiters to get involved go get real degrees in chemistry or physics and contribute to the discussion.

Science is about the unknowns, NOT the knowns.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Where’s the equation then? You haven’t answered the question because it requires an equation.


What you keep trying to say is that we can't weigh the evidence if we don't know how life got started and this is just silly.


No you can weigh the evidence you have all you like but you can’t answer the question of whether life is probable or not because the evidence you have is not enough.

I think the fact that you won’t even attempt to answer my question shows that you know this.


You still haven't answered the question, how will abiogenesis, if it occured on earth tell us about the improbabability or probability of life occurring in the universe?


Well then let’s forget abiogenesis, how have you calculated the probability of life existing outside of the Earth with the evidence you have available?

Answer that then I’ll answer you. After all this is your claim.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
...People who dont believe there is life anywhere are the kind of rigid people who go through life unhappy with things because they only see them as black and white. That and they lack a higher education to understand the underlying scientific principals of life....

I don't know if you are talking about Mike_A and JR MacBeth here -- because neither of them have said the don't believe there is life elsewhere.
They are just saying that it isn't an absolute given that there is.

They are pointing out that it isn't silly to say "I don't KNOW if we are alone in the universe or not".

My personal opinion on this is that we are NOT alone. However, that's just what I believe -- it's not what I know. For me -- or anyone -- to know this as fact, we would have had to actually found ET out there, and that has not happened yet.

The answer to the question is either a definite "yes" or "no". This is NOT a court of law where the preponderance of the evidence makes a difference. If the answer to this absolute question is "no", then the preponderance of evidence was irrelevant.

The preponderance of the evidence does not magically make the answer to the question "Are we alone" change.


[edit on 8/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Just to clarify, I’m happy, in principle, with saying that life is likely. My argument is that we don’t have the required information to say this yet due to our lack of understanding about how life comes into existence. Everything that the OP has mentioned (the size of the universe, exoplanets etc) all play a part but cannot on their own tell us whether or not life is probable.

Given these objections I think the question of whether life exists outside of Earth is far from silly.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Thanks for clarifying.

We agree in principle that the question "Are we Alone in the Universe" is not silly based on the fact that we don't know absolutely if we are or not.

We disagree on the likelihood of life elsewhere -- I believe it is likely, and my evidence for that is the the sheer size of the universe. However, as I said, this is not a court of law, and the preponderance of the evidence won't change my belief into a "truth"

The "Truth" (with a capital "T") of the matter is totally separate from the preponderance of evidence.

I suppose I'm arguing this from a purely metaphysical standpoint -- i.e., the Truth of Reality is absolute and pre-existing, and finding evidence for or against a certain Truth will not change the status of that pre-existing Truth.

There is no shame in answering the question in the OP's title "I don't know".


[edit on 8/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I don't think you understand what probability means. I don't need to calculate the probability. I can weigh the probability as to what's most likely and what's less likely based on the available evidence.

We do this as human beings in all walks of life because in most cases we don't have absolute evidence.

From Websters:


Probability

: the quality or state of being probable
2
: something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable
3
a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes (2) : the chance that a given event will occur b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
4
: a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree

Examples of PROBABILITY

1. There is a low probability that you will be chosen.
2. There is some probability of rain tomorrow.
3. With the dark clouds moving in, rain seems more like a probability than a possibility.
4. The probability of a coin coming up heads is one out of every two tries.


I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, it's just when it comes to Ufology skeptics get a case of the stupids.

Yes, Ufology is science - It's just the study of an observed phenomena called Unidentified Flying Objects. Do U.F.O.'s exist? Of course they do and Ufology tries to explain them and some give it a terrestrial explanation while others give it an extraterrestrial explanation.

You also have the field of Astrobiology that looks at how life may have evolved in the universe.

So I don't need to calculate the probability, I just need to weigh the available evidence to what's most likely vs what's less likely.

If I come outside and my tires are slashed, I can weigh the available evidence and reach the conclusion that somebody slashed my tires.

What you're trying to say is:

If I come out and see my tires slashed, I can't determine who slashed them without more information.

I showed you why this argument is silly.

It's silly because abiogenesis is speculative and if it occurred on earth it will not restrict how life can or can't form on other planets.

If you don't have any evidence that would reduce life in the universe to earth then you're just blowing smoke.

All the available evidence points to life on other planets. There isn't any evidence that suggest we are alone in the universe.

If you have some scientific evidence to support this notion then let's see it.

So read the definition of probability slowly and then read the examples of how probability is used in a sentence. Also, please no abiogenesis talk because I have shown how that doesn't pertain to what I'm saying or the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

You're claiming the information isn't sufficient because of abiogenesis and that's just silly.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


What????

Where did I say anything about absolutely or where did I talk about absolutes?

This is just silly and it proves my point. Skeptics always want to talk in terms of absolutes.

You're trying to debate a point that was never made.

I said WEIGH THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT'S MOST LIKELY VS WHAT'S LESS LIKELY!

I didn't mention absolutes anywhere.

There may be evidence in the future that supports the notion that we're alone but based on the available evidence that's just a silly notion.

People can reach conclusions as to what's most likely vs what's less likely all the time and in all walks of life.

If future evidence shows that we're alone in the universe and earth is the only place among billions of planets where life can take hold, then we will have to weigh that evidence when it's discovered.

I'm talking about the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE not Wishful thinking.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

As I said, I suppose I'm arguing this in the Metaphysical sense.

Here's a metaphysical example on the 'preponderance of evidence' vs 'Truth'.

Say I flipped 100 coins in a dark room onto the floor. I make the claim that all 100 of them landed heads. Now, it is important to realize that the coins have already been tossed, so they are either all heads or not, and the room is dark, so we don't know the answer.

Some people may come up with a "preponderance of evidence" to say that it would be extremely improbable that they all came up heads. Those people would be right; it would be improbable.

But now let's suppose that -- against the odds -- all coins did in fact come up heads. All the coins in that dark room are sitting at heads. The people who showed me the preponderance of the evidence were not necessarily wrong about it being improbable...
...BUT at the same time they WERE wrong about the "Truth" of the matter -- the truth being that the coins were heads all along, even before showing me the evidence to the contrary.

In this case It doesn't matter how much evidence you show me, the coins have already been tossed, and they are already at heads. Show me all the evidence you want about how improbable it is to toss 100 out of 100 coins heads. The truth is they DID all in fact come up heads, and no amount of evidence will change that. The Truth is pre-existing even before evidence to the contrary had been presented.

So the Truth to the question of "Are we alone" has a pre-existing answer that no amount of evidence can change.

The question "Are we alone" is not silly. "I don't know" is a valid answer.

Well, that's my metaphysical rant for today. Thanks for listening




[edit on 8/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I don’t want to be mean Matrix but you don’t know why saying something is “more probable” is different to saying something is “probable”; you really can’t tell other people that they don’t know what probability is if that confuses you.

Anyway this is going nowhere.

I suggest that you familiarise yourself with how probability is used in science compared with everyday life; they are very different!

If you can come up with a scientific argument that states life is probable then I’m all ears; but until then...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


You're analogy doesn't make any sense in the context of this debate.

I never said, it's not possible that we're alone. Maybe we're alone in the universe. I said based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, it's a silly question.

I'm not trying to debate future discoveries that will restrict life in the universe to earth. I'm not psychic so I will debate the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

If evidence comes along that shows we're alone in the universe, I will weigh that evidence when it occurs.

Human beings always weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely in all walks of life.

What you and others want to do is debate these things in terms of absolutes. This is what skeptics do when it comes to Ufology because they can't debate the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

So in you're example of the coins, I would be saying,"It's not likely that all the coins landed on heads." If evidence comes along that I was wrong and they all landed on heads then I will accept that all the coins landed on heads. But based on probability and things like the Bell Curve, I would say with confidence that it's more likely that you have a mixture of heads and tails and less likely that they all landed on heads.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 




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


Silly indeed. Of course we are not alone. Even if we have not yet discovered this... and it is an arguable point that we have, the odds that billions of worlds across millions of galaxies being as sterile as as the pope's bladder... is simply beyond comprehension.

It's only my opinion mind you... but, I find it far more incredulous to imagine Earth as the sole example of a life bearing world than to say that life exists only in some horrid place like... (worms, though they may be) Washington DC!

EEEEeek!

...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Mike A science is not absent of reason and logic.

For instance I can make the scientific statement that it's more likely that the universe had a beginning based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

I don't need to calculate the probability in order to make this statement.

If evidence comes along that says otherwise, then that evidence needs to be taken into account when weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE as to what's most likely vs what's less likely.

Sometimes I hate debating skeptics because they get a case of the stupids and they want to talk in terms of absolutes when talking about these things.

I don't need to speak in absolute terms or calculate the probability to say the universe most likely had a beginning. I can also say the same thing about life in the universe based on the available evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join