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

NO

Drakes equation

NO

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Forget about the subject matter of the question for the moment. My problem with the whole "silliest question in the world" issue has nothing to do with ET life and has everything to do with a person's right to ask a question that does not have a 100% known answer.

...What you are saying is that you -- personally -- are so convinced that your answer to the question is so obviously the only answer (based on some pretty good -- albeit circumstantial -- evidence) that you will call anyone else who wonders about the question as being "silly" for not agreeing with you.

In addition, you call people who are defending the right to ask the question as being stupid for defending that right. The answer to the question is not known; I don't care about the evidence right now. Actually, even if we DO consider the evidence, the answer is still not known. Until the time know the answer for sure, there is nothing wrong with wondering about it.

That's what we humans do -- we keep asking questions, even when someone else tells us what THEY think the answer should be.

For example, most scientists would say there is overwhelming evidence supporting the idea of the Big Bang. However, that does not stop some scientists from actively questioning the idea that the Big Bang creating the universe -- i.e., that the universe grew from a singularity. They are looking for alternate hypotheses. These scientists and their alternative ideas may end up being wrong, but they aren't silly for asking the question.

I think people who think we are alone in the universe will one day be proven wrong (when we someday make contact with ETs). Until that time, I don't think it is silly for them to truly wonder if we are alone.



[edit on 9/2/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Was the question silly the first time, or did it just become silly? Has it only recently become one of the silliest in the world? Is there a timeline of the history of the silliness of the question? Are there any repeatable methods used to determine its silliness? Of what units is "silliness" composed? Choices are Charge (Q), Mass (m), Length (d), Time (t). Metric units are mandatory. We don't want another Mars Climate Orbiter disaster.

If the atmosphere of a planet is chaotic then organisms can evolve there because they have a place to dump their entropy.

Ok, that's a nice euphemism. Sir, where is the nearest designated entropy discard area?

This place is turning into Remulak, and it will exist, right here.

One of the silliest answers in the world = YES!

We'll if we all knew the truth we wouldn't be on ATS now would we?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


What in the world are you talking about?

You keep debating against things that I never said in order to debate against an absolute and avoid the available evidence.

You're making a silly general argument that I never made and then you're trying to debate against it.

I never said you need to stop asking questions. I never said anything about absolute truth.

These are are things that you're making up then you're debating against it.

Quote me one time in any of my post where I talked about absolute proof or I said we need to stop asking questions.

Is it possible the moon is made out of green cheese?
Is it possible that the Cleveland Browns will win the Super Bowl?
Is it possible that man will go to Mars?
Is it possible that a war can break out between Israel and Iran?
Is it possible that Hitler is still alive and living in Kentucky?

What you're saying is very silly because according to you we have to weigh all of these questions as equally valid because we don't have absolute truth.

Maybe apart of the moon we haven't explored yet is made of green cheese.

If we were to use your logic we would have to throw out all evidence about the moon because we can't weigh the evidence until we have absolute truth.

You're making arguments that I never made and then trying to debate against them to avoid the available evidence.

For instance, there are people who say Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, so should we throw out our computers, DVD players and more until we have absolute truth? LOL

It's obvious that you want to avoid the evidence and debate against an absolute because reason, logic and the available evidence says life in the universe exist.

We can always ask questions but those questions don't change the evidence that's in front of us. Sorry but human beings always weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely because in most cases we don't have absolute evidence.

I never said we need to stop asking questions or anything about absolute truth so please stop trying to debate against things I never said.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I never said you believe this to be the absolute truth. On the contrary -- I understand your position on the "very high probability of life elsewhere". I just said that there is no way for humans as a whole (not you) to know the absolute truth -- that is until we actually meet an ET. And since we don't yet know the truth, there is nothing wrong with asking the question. The very fact that you are claiming that your answer is not "absolute" proves my point it is NOT silly for a person to wonder if we are possibly alone in the universe.

I also said that you personally are so convinced your answer is probably right, and that your answer has so much evidence supporting it (albeit circumstantial evidence -- but good evidence nevertheless) that you feel anyone else asking that question is asking a silly question.

My point is that I don't care about the evidence, and the evidence doesn't matter because until we know for sure (i.e., contact an ET), we should not call any questions "silly".

What's wrong with asking a question (any question) to which we do not know the answer?



[edit on 9/3/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Just because we don't have absolute truth doesn't mean we can't weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely.

Of course you don't care about the evidence because your trying to debate against an absolute. So you say until we have absolute truth we can't reach conclusions based on the available evidence.

If this was the case our species would come to a halt because in most cases we don't have absolute truth and we have to use reason and logic to weigh the available evidence.

You're now making a silly argument about asking questions.

I never said we need to stop asking questions and again your trying to debate against something I never said.

I said the question are we alone in the universe is a silly one based on the available evidence.

You do know what silly questions are or in your world are all questions great questions because we don't have absolute truth?

So to you the question is the moon made out of green cheese is a great question because we don't have absolute truth that the moon is not made out of green cheese LOL.

You make these silly arguments to try and avoid what I'm actually saying.

I said based on the available evidence the question are we alone in the universe is a silly one, I never said that you can't ask a silly question if you want to.

Again, I'm talking about the available evidence and humans weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely all the time and in all walks of life.

You're trying to debate something that doesn't even need to be debated.

You can make any argument valid if you say we first have to have absolute truth before we weigh the evidence.

I can say, Do the Borg exists in the Andromeda galaxy and absent absolute truth, this would be a valid question.

If you have evidence that supports that we're alone in the universe and Earth is the only place among billions of galaxies and billions of planets where life can take hold then present. Your general argument to avoid talking about the evidence doesn't make any sense.


[edit on 3-9-2010 by Matrix Rising]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
I just said that there is no way for humans as a whole (not you) to know the absolute truth -- that is until we actually meet an ET.

Actually, not even then. I don't trust those damn aliens to tell the truth. As far as I know, they're all a bunch of liars.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
...Of course you don't care about the evidence because your trying to debate against an absolute...

Correct.

So you say until we have absolute truth we can't reach conclusions based on the available evidence....

That's incorrect.

I never said we can't reach our own conclusions. However, our conclusions are based only on the available evidence -- evidence that is very good, but circumstantial. I don't find it "silly" at all for someone to wonder (just wonder) if the available circumstantial evidence is enough.

In fact my own belief about life elsewhere agrees mostly with your conclusion. I personally belief intelligent life DOES exist elsewhere in the universe. But that doesn't mean I think it would be silly for someone to question my personal belief, because I can't be sure my belief is correct...I mean, it's simply a "belief" -- right?



[edit on 9/3/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


No it's not a belief.

It's a conclusion based on the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely.

I don't have to believe anything in order to draw this conclusion based on the available evidence.

If I were to say, the extraterrestrials live in the Andromeda galaxy and they are Reptilians, then that would be a belief.

What I'm talking about is the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms both microbial and intelligent.

I can reach the conclusion that they exist based on weighing the evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely and it has nothing to do with belief.

See, I care about the evidence and I don't need absolute truth in order to weigh the available evidence. This is the case for most human beings because we use reason and logic to weigh the available evidence in all walks of life.

I can reach the conclusion that they exist based on weighing the evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely

Can't say how though...

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I suppose we need to agree to disagree as to what we consider to be a silly question.

To you, there can be enough circumstantial evidence supporting an idea to consider other competing ideas as "silly",...

while I think that until there is concrete physical evidence of something (in this case, meeting an ET), competing ideas are not silly at all. I don't necessarily agree with the competing ideas, but I don't necessarily consider them silly, either.



[edit on 9/3/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

You silly people.

Stop now.

Can't you see it's futile?

It's like arguing with Jell-O.

There are certain members whose avatars should come with a sign saying 'beware quicksand'.

And if this post earns me a well-deserved reprimand and associated penalites, well so be it. This is going to end up being another 'End to the Moon Conspiracy'.

Originally posted by Astyanax
You silly people.

Stop now.

Fully intentional. I'm not paying attention to whether you were including me or not. I hope so.

Can't you see it's futile?

"It" is not futile, resistance is.

It's like arguing with Jell-O.

I'll have you know I won every one of them! Jell-O is easier to find than extraterrestrials.

There are certain members whose avatars should come with a sign saying 'beware quicksand'.

You know what? Good idea!

This is going to end up being another 'End to the Moon Conspiracy'.

Wonderful!

reply to post by Blue Shift


I personally think its naive to think that there ISNT life in the universe. It is unimaginably big with numerous galaxies and stars/planets, so to say the possibility of other life forms is low is highly egotistical to me. Humans haven't even made it physically to mars yet... we have no idea what is out there, but I believe there IS something.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Oh, yeah? Just show us a bit of evidence that proves there's alien life out there. Not some conjecture, or statistical nonsense and probabilities

Astronomers report in the journal Nature that organic compounds of unexpected complexity exist throughout the Universe. The compounds are so complex that their chemical structures resemble those of coal and petroleum. Since coal and oil are remnants of ancient life, this type of organic matter was thought to arise only from living organisms

source

ats thread on source article"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So you argue that all the complex organic molecules THROUGHOUT the Universe must be produced by something other than life EXCEPT for those found on Earth? LOL These new findings are only days old, the ramifications have not been well thought out by the Scientific community....

I think the OP is arguing that life is a natural planetary process - no different from rain or volcanoes. Hopefully we will find some signs of past or present life on Mars, and this silly question will be history.

Complex Organic Molecule 'Sweet Spots"

What they found was that methanol concentrations at the birth of our solar system were actually closer to the average of what they saw elsewhere in interstellar space. Methanol concentrations in our solar system were fairly low, at only a few percent, compared to some of the other methanol-dense areas in the galaxy observed by Whittet and his colleagues.

"This means that our solar system wasn't particularly lucky and didn't have the large amounts of methanol that we see around some other stars in the galaxy," Whittet said. "But, it was obviously enough for us to be here." The results suggest that there could be solar systems out there that were even luckier in the biological game than we were, according to Whittet. As we look deeper into the cosmos, we may eventually be able to determine what a solar system bursting with methanol can do.