• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is life on planets "unable to sustain life" an impossibility?

ricksfolly said:
Careful what you ask for...

Suppose this super intelligence said that man is just a stimulus/response machine with no purpose in life, just work and pleasure, Would you believe it?

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

I was presented with a similar argument by a class mate not long ago who asked if believing in E.T life is any more valid than believing we are in a computer simulation. The two are completely unrelated scenarios but i went along with it anyway.

The search for life is based on one simple question: "if life exists here, why can it not exist out there". It is a valid question and one that is possible from a scientific and biological perspective. We already know about lifeforms that exist in the most isolated and harshest conditions on Earth. This makes this E.T "dilemma" a valid theory. This Matrix scenario, on the other hand, is a conspiracy theory because we have no real world examples of a computer simulation where each AI posses self awareness and intelligence that genuinely believe they are real.

Also, i can think of very little valid reason why somebody would believe our life is a computer simulation, and many valid reasons why one may believe life exists outside of our Planet.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
That's not evidence, nor is it necessarily true.
Click to expand...

Can you name me one naturally occuring thing that hasn't happened more than once? Biogenesis aside of course.

Guy Incognito said:
You're not following me. As you observe, we have evidence that things fall, and that they do so regularly. That is evidence for the belief that things will fall again in the future. But if we only ever had a single instance of something falling, it would not be evidence that anything will ever fall again in the future. See what I mean?
Click to expand...

No I do follow you. I understand your arguement just fine. I just consider it to be too shortsighted. The problem with this section of your post is that we have tons of evidence that things do repeat themselves. And there is no evidence that generally things only happen once. There is far more evidence that things do repeat themselves than there is that things only happen once.

Guy Incognito said:
The fact that life has sprung from unlife once is not evidence that it can or will ever happen again. You need real evidence to base such a belief on. Until then you're still resorting to faith. I mean, look at your last several posts, they sound like any other religious dogmatists. You have no evidence, just a tired insistence that you are right in the face of the absence of evidence.
Click to expand...

I have lots of ancedotal evidence. In fact I would probably even go so far as to say I have just as much evidence as we have evidence for evolution on a micro scale. Or just as much evidence as we have of the Big Bang.

As for my posts being like "religious dogmatists", at least I have more evidence for biogenesis than they have of God. After all, we are here are we not?
 
Kal'Stang said:
As for my posts being like "religious dogmatists", at least I have more evidence for biogenesis than they have of God. After all, we are here are we not?
Click to expand...

Don't you see? Your evidence for abiogenesis is as good as their evidence for God. After all, we are here are we not?

How did the universe come into being? We don't know, but the religious dogmatist says, "God."

How did life come into being? We don't know, but you say, "It can happen more than once."

Yet there is no objective evidence to support either of those statements.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
No I do follow you. I understand your arguement just fine. I just consider it to be too shortsighted. The problem with this section of your post is that we have tons of evidence that things do repeat themselves. And there is no evidence that generally things only happen once. There is far more evidence that things do repeat themselves than there is that things only happen once.
Click to expand...

The fact that some things happen more than once is not in and of itself evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once. Some things happen more than once, and some things don't. Where is your evidence that abiogenesis is not a singular occurrence? Where is your evidence that abiogenesis can occur again, even in principle? There is no such evidence.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Don't you see? Your evidence for abiogenesis is as good as their evidence for God. After all, we are here are we not?

How did the universe come into being? We don't know, but the religious dogmatist says, "God."

How did life come into being? We don't know, but you say, "It can happen more than once."

Yet there is no objective evidence to support either of those statements.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about God. It's about science. In scientific terms abiogenesis happened. Whether God made it happen or it happened accidentally is irrelevant. The fact is that it did happen. We know this because we are here. That is a fact that you cannot deny. In this case the "how" doesn't matter nearly as much as that it "did". The "how" is a whole different converstation/debate.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The fact that some things happen more than once is not in and of itself evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once. Some things happen more than once, and some things don't. Where is your evidence that abiogenesis is not a singular occurrence? Where is your evidence that abiogenesis can occur again, even in principle? There is no such evidence.
Click to expand...

I'll make the challenge again. Name one thing that has only happened once in the natural world, besides abiogenesis. You say that "some things don't". Name one. I've already listed what evidence there is. Yes, it's slim evidence, but it is still there.
 
Guy Incognito said:
None of this is evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once, or even that abiogenesis happens more frequently than once in the number of stars in the universe. There is simply no evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once. There is no good explanation of how abiogenesis even happened on Earth at all. Until there is, or until there is evidence of the existence of alien life, there is no evidence to support your faith that abiogenesis is a frequent occurrence.
Click to expand...

The infinity theory that anything can happen in an endless universe applies to anything and everything man can conjure in his mind.

Conversely, nothing in the universe is compatible with man's dreams.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
The infinity theory that anything can happen in an endless universe applies to anything and everything man can conjure in his mind.

Conversely, nothing in the universe is compatible with man's dreams.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

OH I don't know...Me breathing and making love to my wife is quite compatible, which is my best dream yet. :mrgreen:
 
Kal'Stang said:
This thread isn't about God. It's about science. In scientific terms abiogenesis happened. Whether God made it happen or it happened accidentally is irrelevant. The fact is that it did happen. We know this because we are here. That is a fact that you cannot deny. In this case the "how" doesn't matter nearly as much as that it "did". The "how" is a whole different converstation/debate.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with Kal'Stang here. It's like if you roll a dice. If you roll it "once" and get a "1," you know it is possible to roll a "1" again on a future roll. If you assume the universe to be random and a solar system created life once, you know it can happen again because you know that possibility exists. that is if you assume the universe is random. i think it has more to do with math than science..

edit: i actually think that youd have to assume that the universe remained random in the same way (ie same laws of physics). this would be like rolling the same dice again.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
OH I don't know...Me breathing and making love to my wife is quite compatible, which is my best dream yet. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

That's nice to hear, but just how is it compatible with the universe, whatever that is.

All I can see are dots of light at night sprinkled randomly on a black background. Astronomers, and sci fi writers can only imagine what they are and what they mean, and that's fine with me... Everybody has to make a living. .

ricksfolly
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'll make the challenge again. Name one thing that has only happened once in the natural world,
Click to expand...

Every living thing is a unique, a one time entity that only happens once. They may be similar to others, but never exactly the same, dead or alive.

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
Every living thing is a unique, a one time entity that only happens once. They may be similar to others, but never exactly the same, dead or alive.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Nothing in nature is ever exactly the same. You won't find a rock, snowflake, dna, lightning bolt that is ever the same. But a lightning bolt is still a lightning bolt. And a human is still a human and a rock is still a rock. And all of them are around more than one time. We're talking on a macro scale, not micro scale. ;)
 
JMax said:
I would have to agree with Kal'Stang here. It's like if you roll a dice. If you roll it "once" and get a "1," you know it is possible to roll a "1" again on a future roll. If you assume the universe to be random and a solar system created life once, you know it can happen again because you know that possibility exists. that is if you assume the universe is random. i think it has more to do with math than science..

edit: i actually think that youd have to assume that the universe remained random in the same way (ie same laws of physics). this would be like rolling the same dice again.
Click to expand...

What you just described is called the "gambler's fallacy."
 
Kal'Stang said:
I see you still haven't come up with an answer to my question yet.
Click to expand...

Your question is silly. You asked me to name something that "has only happened once" in the same way a theist asks an atheist in a debate "prove to me that God doesn't exist." You're essentially asking for proof of a negative, which is a disingenuous debate tactic.

The simple fact is that I have a much lighter burden in this argument than you. I do not have to show that abiogenesis has only happened once, merely that we have no evidence that it has not happened twice. So I ask you, again, where is your evidence that abiogenesis has happened a second time? Until you have that you have no science, only speculation and faith.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Your question is silly. You asked me to name something that "has only happened once" in the same way a theist asks an atheist in a debate "prove to me that God doesn't exist." You're essentially asking for proof of a negative, which is a disingenuous debate tactic.

The simple fact is that I have a much lighter burden in this argument than you. I do not have to show that abiogenesis has only happened once, merely that we have no evidence that it has not happened twice. So I ask you, again, where is your evidence that abiogenesis has happened a second time? Until you have that you have no science, only speculation and faith.
Click to expand...
I have a small amount of hope/faith that it has happened more than once...But no proof...Oddly enough :2razz:
 
as humans we don't **** about universe.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Your question is silly. You asked me to name something that "has only happened once" in the same way a theist asks an atheist in a debate "prove to me that God doesn't exist." You're essentially asking for proof of a negative, which is a disingenuous debate tactic.

The simple fact is that I have a much lighter burden in this argument than you. I do not have to show that abiogenesis has only happened once, merely that we have no evidence that it has not happened twice. So I ask you, again, where is your evidence that abiogenesis has happened a second time? Until you have that you have no science, only speculation and faith.
Click to expand...

Actually I am just asking you for what is known for my question...not what is not known. Here, I'll qualify the question for you so that you can answer it more effectively. Is there any evidence that anything has only happened once with in our sphere of knowledge besides abiogenesis? There see? No need to prove a negative. Unless that negative is around because there is no such evidence. In which case, just admit it.

As I've stated before, My question is a part of the evidence that I am presenting. Is it circumstantial? Like i've said previously. Yes it is. Is all the evidence that I have circumstantial/ancedotal? Yes it is. But there is just as much evidence for abiogenesis as there is evidence for micro evolution. Or are you telling me that you have actually seen micro evolution in action personally? Which is the same type of evidence that you are expecting of me. Neither has such concrete evidence. Which is why both are at this point just theories. Both just as strong/weak as the other. And micro evolution isn't even the only thing that has circumstantial evidence yet is still held as the norm. Dark energy for example. No direct concrete evidence for it, yet it is suspected of being there due to circumstantial evidence and is even taught in schools. And there are many others just like the previous two.

Point being that when there is no direct physical proof a theory can be held just as "factual" as the real thing.

So instead of just pointing out that there is no physical proof why not just address the evidence that I have given so far on its own merits. Again, I'm not saying that the evidence I have is 100% proof positive. But it sure as hell gives more of a probability to it than there being a God.
 
kaya'08 said:
Or how many freezing planets or hot planets have we rendered lifeless when it could be possible that space Extremophile's require such severe conditions to survive? Do you think that current search for E.T life is too narrow?
Click to expand...

None. Declaring that a planet is not likely to sustain life as we know it does not in fact render that planet lifeless.
 
When I think in terms of life evolving on Earth, I believe there would at least need to be water for life to exist....

*Haven't read the whole thread, is this being debated?
 
SheWolf said:
When I think in terms of life evolving on Earth, I believe there would at least need to be water for life to exist....

*Haven't read the whole thread, is this being debated?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is part of the debate. You are correct that life as we know it can only exist within certain parameters, and one major requirement is the presence of water. The other side of the argument is that life could develop in any number of fanciful ways, a la Star Trek, regardless of the conditions for life being satisfied. My own complaint with this argument is that it is unscientific.
 
The key part of the whole thing is life as we know it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom