• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Statistically life somewhere else is almost certain

FreedomFromAll said:
Replace the "life out there is almost certain" with "a god exists" and what you have is the Religious Discussions forum.
Click to expand...

Except that religious people believe in God for personal, subjective reasons relating. Religion is a separate domain from science.

Life on other planets is an empirical proposition that you should believe or disbelieve based on scientific evidence alone. There is no scientific basis to support a belief. Which is why it is so ridiculous.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Except that religious people believe in God for personal, subjective reasons relating. Religion is a separate domain from science.

Life on other planets is an empirical proposition that you should believe or disbelieve based on scientific evidence alone. There is no scientific basis to support a belief. Which is why it is so ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Well sure if you look at it as a belief. But it really is a probability not a belief. Its a mathematical exercise that is fun and interesting at the same time.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well sure if you look at it as a belief. But it really is a probability not a belief. Its a mathematical exercise that is fun and interesting at the same time.
Click to expand...

If you look at it as a probability then it isn't very much fun at all, because the answer is that it is entirely unknown.

So, if all then people are "looking at it as a probability" then they don't understand how probability works very well. Which is why I say that the proposition that "life out the is almost certain" is based on ignorance and misunderstanding. It is absurd to say that t is extraterrestrial life is almost certain when in reality we have no idea of the likelihood whatsoever.

It's equally valid to say extraterrestrial life is almost certainly doesn't exist. What a thinking person must say is that the probability is unknown at this time.
 
Lukas105 said:
It would be in a different form.

My idea of God, is not a physical thing, but the idea of morality and what makes a person "good".
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone that thinks of god as physical thing, but having said that, your idea of god is what "makes a person good"?

If that's the case, can a person be good without this concept of god? Or are you just asserting that god is good?
 
Guy Incognito said:
If you look at it as a probability then it isn't very much fun at all, because the answer is that it is entirely unknown.

So, if all then people are "looking at it as a probability" then they don't understand how probability works very well. Which is why I say that the proposition that "life out the is almost certain" is based on ignorance and misunderstanding. It is absurd to say that t is extraterrestrial life is almost certain when in reality we have no idea of the likelihood whatsoever.

It's equally valid to say extraterrestrial life is almost certainly doesn't exist. What a thinking person must say is that the probability is unknown at this time.
Click to expand...

This entire thread is about the probability of life elsewhere based on statistics. The statistics say that life somewhere in the universe other than Earth is a extremely high probability. ANd based on the math people have stated their opinions. That is how people communicate.

Your opinion that this is all stupid and not any fun, is just another opinion, is it not?

People like to discuss such things because it is fun. Also I like a lot of hard science fiction authors and this goes along that line of thought. SO I read these posts and it reminds me of good stories that I have read. Is there anyone out there? **** I dont know but its fun to imagine that there are and since statistically is a extremely high probability it makes it all that much more fun to think about.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
This entire thread is about the probability of life elsewhere based on statistics. The statistics say that life somewhere in the universe other than Earth is a extremely high probability. ANd based on the math people have stated their opinions. That is how people communicate.

Your opinion that this is all stupid and not any fun, is just another opinion, is it not?

People like to discuss such things because it is fun. Also I like a lot of hard science fiction authors and this goes along that line of thought. SO I read these posts and it reminds me of good stories that I have read. Is there anyone out there? **** I dont know but its fun to imagine that there are and since statistically is a extremely high probability it makes it all that much more fun to think about.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. The statistics DO NOT say that life on other planets is highly likely. That is just ignorant wishful thinking on your part.
 
God is the manifestation of "good".



csbrown28 said:
I don't know of anyone that thinks of god as physical thing, but having said that, your idea of god is what "makes a person good"?

If that's the case, can a person be good without this concept of god? Or are you just asserting that god is good?
Click to expand...
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm trying to find the source to what I'm about to claim, perhaps others have heard this and know the source.....

So as a way of disclaimer, I admit that I'm taking this from memory, but I'm certain that I have it correct....

There are more stars in the universe then there are ways to scramble the atoms in your body. In other words, there are only a finite number of ways to arrange the atoms in your body, there are more stars then their are ways to arrange those atoms......

Think about that.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that no matter how likely it seems to you, without evidence (and there is none), concluding there is life elsewhere is purely a matter of faith.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You are wrong. The statistics DO NOT say that life on other planets is highly likely. That is just ignorant wishful thinking on your part.
Click to expand...

So then all that you art going to do is to give me your opinion and accuse me of "ignorant wishful thinking "?

I guess not only can we not believe what we want about ET but we cannot even work out the probabilities without being ignorant? So ace tell us what are the statistics since you seem to be MR. no it all on the subject?

BTW life doesnt have to mean intelligent life, any life that is outside of the Earth's atmosphere will do no matter how primitive. Drakes equation only addressed intelligent life. As far as we know there could be only the Earth with intelligent life or multitudes of other planets with intelligent life. My point earlier in this thread is that probabilities are a bitch when it comes to the actual evidence. SO really I already asserted your position before you did. I just like hard science fiction so I have romanticized this subject because its enjoyable. You dont need to be accusing me of ignorant wishful thinking or crap like that. I mean what is your point here? its not I have claimed that there is life out the and I know it. Nope all that I claimed is that with about 10 x 10^23 stars out there that knowing that the building blocks for life are abundant enough that it is highly likely that there is life out there somewhere. If you dont like me thinking that I dont care. Its subjective and I think most in this thread realize it is subjective reasoning.

But whatever dude.
 
Harshaw said:
Keep in mind that no matter how likely it seems to you, without evidence (and there is none), concluding there is life elsewhere is purely a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

First off I never drew any a conclusions, I just pointed out statistical probability and based on that probability think there is a strong possibility that life exists somewhere else in the universe.

To your point, beleif without evidence is faith, however, my beliefs are in direct proportion to the consequences of those beliefs. Believing there is, or is not life somewhere else in the universe has absolutely no influence on my actions. I don't make claims based on my beliefs about extraterrestrial life and I don't live my life any differently either way.

If any of my beliefs require some action on my part then I will seek evidence before I make any claim about the probability that a claim is true.

When it comes to religion, claims that vaccines cause autism, or that fluoride causes harm....All of these require that I believe things that affect my life and as such I require more evidence before I beleive claims made, positive or negative. See how that works?
 
I see whats going on here. Theists like to point out when science talks about things without evidence. Its a sad attempt to justify what they believe in a god with zero evidence. There is a big difference between promoting a pet hypothesis and dogmatically believing in a god.

So I guess the belief in ET will be added to the theist strategy. I bet you guys even think that such a argument is valid huh?
 
csbrown28 said:
First off I never drew any a conclusions, I just pointed out statistical probability and based on that probability think there is a strong possibility that life exists somewhere else in the universe.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you don't actually know what statistical probability there is, because no one really knows how life begins, so no one can know what factors are crucial.

In any case, what difference does it make?


To your point, beleif without evidence is faith, however, my beliefs are in direct proportion to the consequences of those beliefs. Believing there is, or is not life somewhere else in the universe has absolutely no influence on my actions. I don't make claims based on my beliefs about extraterrestrial life and I don't live my life any differently either way.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it did.


If any of my beliefs require some action on my part then I will seek evidence before I make any claim about the probability that a claim is true.
Click to expand...

Don't know why that matters.


When it comes to religion, claims that vaccines cause autism, or that fluoride causes harm....All of these require that I believe things that affect my life and as such I require more evidence before I beleive claims made, positive or negative. See how that works?
Click to expand...

You appear to have jumped to any number of conclusions.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I see whats going on here. Theists like to point out when science talks about things without evidence. Its a sad attempt to justify what they believe in a god with zero evidence. There is a big difference between promoting a pet hypothesis and dogmatically believing in a god.

So I guess the belief in ET will be added to the theist strategy. I bet you guys even think that such a argument is valid huh?
Click to expand...

If you're referring to me, I'm not a "Theist," and "science" doesn't "talk about things without evidence." Scientists can speculate about possibility, but science requires evidence.

But if you "believe" in extra-terrestrial life, you are indeed believing something on the basis of faith, not science.
 
Harshaw said:
The problem is, you don't actually know what statistical probability there is, because no one really knows how life begins, so no one can know what factors are crucial.
Click to expand...

That wasen't the point of the OP, go back and read it again.

Harshaw said:
In any case, what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference.

Harshaw said:
Didn't say it did.
Click to expand...

No you said
Keep in mind that no matter how likely it seems to you, without evidence (and there is none), concluding there is life elsewhere is purely a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

Which seems to imply that all beliefs are of equal merit and consequence, I pointed out, they are not.


Harshaw said:
If any of my beliefs require some action on my part then I will seek evidence before I make any claim about the probability that a claim is true.
Don't know why that matters.
Click to expand...

Don't know why that matters.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand why it matters, I don't think I can explain it to you.

Harshaw said:
You appear to have jumped to any number of conclusions.
Click to expand...

What conclusion is that?
 
csbrown28 said:
That wasen't the point of the OP, go back and read it again.
Click to expand...

You said "think about that," which seems by a fair reading to say there must be life out there, or at least that it's very likely.

If that's not the point, then what WAS the point?


Which seems to imply that all beliefs are of equal merit and consequence
Click to expand...

Not even remotely close to anything I said.


If you don't understand why it matters, I don't think I can explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Outstanding response. :roll:


What conclusion is that?
Click to expand...

That anything I said had a thing to do with what religion says -- and you obviously DID jump to the conclusion that I was somehow saying that "all beliefs are of equal merit and consequence."
 
Harshaw said:
You said "think about that," which seems by a fair reading to say there must be life out there, or at least that it's very likely.

If that's not the point, then what WAS the point?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that claiming a statistically high probability for life and saying there "must" be life is the same, but it's really semantics at this point. So to clear things up, I'm not asserting anything. Just pointing at the the statistics are incredible if you step back and think about it. If I'm asked what I believe, then I'd respond by saying that given the size of the universe and the number of stars, that it would be incredible if there was life somewhere else, but it would also be equally incredible if there wasn't.

Harshaw said:
Not even remotely close to anything I said.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but then why point out that a belief based and unproven statistics is faith? It was obvious, so what what your point?

Harshaw said:
That anything I said had a thing to do with what religion says -- and you obviously DID jump to the conclusion that I was somehow saying that "all beliefs are of equal merit and consequence."
Click to expand...

Where did I say that it necessarily had anything to do with religion? I used religion as one of three examples of things that require more evidence because of the consequences. I never said or implied that you said that this discussion was specifically referring to religion.

Perhaps we can chalk this up to talking past one another rather than to each other.....
 
Guy Incognito said:
No, the likelihood is unknown. It could be extremely probably or it could be extremely improbable. We don't know how abiogenesis happens, we don't know the probability that it will happen under any circumstances. We don't even know if abiogenesis can happen more than once.

Without any idea of the likelihood that abiogenesis will take place, it is impossible to assign a probability. It is entirely possible that the chances of abiogenesis taking place more than once are vastly more slim that one in one sextillion. It is entirely possible that something about abiogenesis, in principle, can only occur once in the entire history of the universe. We just don't know.

Which is why threads like this are so ridiculous. It's just idle speculation, and a lot of people taking on faith this proposition that "life out there is almost certain" based on ignorance.
Click to expand...

Right. But the moment you presume that some form of abiogenesis is correct (without knowing specifically which mechanism is used) then you can began to make circumstantial assumptions. Which is part of what exo-biologists do. Most scientists do presume that abiogenesis is the mechanism by which inorganic and organic compounds come together to create life. It is possible that abiogenesis is only something can happen with enormous rarity but given the empirical replication of many possible facets of this process such as in the Miller-Urey experiments this seems an unlikely proposition.

It isn't an enormous stretch to then began making a series of circumstantial conclusions considering what we know about the elemental composition of the Universe, the time-spans involved, and the abundance of stellar and planetary environments.
 
Sherman123 said:
Right. But the moment you presume that some form of abiogenesis is correct (without knowing specifically which mechanism is used) then you can began to make circumstantial assumptions. Which is part of what exo-biologists do. Most scientists do presume that abiogenesis is the mechanism by which inorganic and organic compounds come together to create life. It is possible that abiogenesis is only something can happen with enormous rarity but given the empirical replication of many possible facets of this process such as in the Miller-Urey experiments this seems an unlikely proposition.

It isn't an enormous stretch to then began making a series of circumstantial conclusions considering what we know about the elemental composition of the Universe, the time-spans involved, and the abundance of stellar and planetary environments.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an enormous stretch. There is really no basis to make the kind of assumptions about abiogenesis that you are making. We haven't got any idea how likely it is to occur. The facts just aren't there, and you are taking a huge leap assuming that it is possible to replicate abiogenesis at all, let alone that it can occur with any frequency.

If anything, the Fermi Paradox tends to indicate that abiogenesis is extremely rare or singular.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
So then all that you art going to do is to give me your opinion and accuse me of "ignorant wishful thinking "?

I guess not only can we not believe what we want about ET but we cannot even work out the probabilities without being ignorant? So ace tell us what are the statistics since you seem to be MR. no it all on the subject?

BTW life doesnt have to mean intelligent life, any life that is outside of the Earth's atmosphere will do no matter how primitive. Drakes equation only addressed intelligent life. As far as we know there could be only the Earth with intelligent life or multitudes of other planets with intelligent life. My point earlier in this thread is that probabilities are a bitch when it comes to the actual evidence. SO really I already asserted your position before you did. I just like hard science fiction so I have romanticized this subject because its enjoyable. You dont need to be accusing me of ignorant wishful thinking or crap like that. I mean what is your point here? its not I have claimed that there is life out the and I know it. Nope all that I claimed is that with about 10 x 10^23 stars out there that knowing that the building blocks for life are abundant enough that it is highly likely that there is life out there somewhere. If you dont like me thinking that I dont care. Its subjective and I think most in this thread realize it is subjective reasoning.

But whatever dude.
Click to expand...

We don't know how often abiogenesis takes place, or even if it is physically possible that it can occur more than once. Therefore we have no basis for saying that it is likely that abiogenesis takes place frequently based on the fact that there are a large number of stars. That is a ludicrous non sequitur.

When people say that life on other planets is statistically likely, I tend to attribute it to ignorance of the fact that abiogenesis is not understood, rather than outright stupidity.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, it is an enormous stretch. There is really no basis to make the kind of assumptions about abiogenesis that you are making. We haven't got any idea how likely it is to occur. The facts just aren't there, and you are taking a huge leap assuming that it is possible to replicate abiogenesis at all, let alone that it can occur with any frequency.

If anything, the Fermi Paradox tends to indicate that abiogenesis is extremely rare or singular.
Click to expand...

It isn't that enormous a stretch at all. The veracity of abiogenesis in general as the mechanism for the development of life from organic and inorganic compounds is widely accepted in the scientific community. Moreover we have already had significant success with artificial replication of these proposed methods simulating the environment of early Earth or as is most common a thermal vent on early Earth. This was as I said before the basis of the Miller-Urey experiments.
 
Harshaw said:
If you're referring to me, I'm not a "Theist," and "science" doesn't "talk about things without evidence." Scientists can speculate about possibility, but science requires evidence.

But if you "believe" in extra-terrestrial life, you are indeed believing something on the basis of faith, not science.
Click to expand...

Nope I do not " believe in" ET's or have "faith in them".

ET's though unlike a god could potentially be found somewhere. I simply believe that ET's are possible and even highly likely. Notice that I havent at all anywhere in this thread made any positive claim that ET's exist. I have used used words like 'probability' 'likely' etc only.

This thread isnt science I never claimed that the chance of ET's existing had any evidence or that science proved anything. I made a post that pointed out a theist strategy thats all I did, unless you are a theist (and using that strategy) I see no reason why you believe that I was talking about you.
 
Sherman123 said:
It isn't that enormous a stretch at all. The veracity of abiogenesis in general as the mechanism for the development of life from organic and inorganic compounds is widely accepted in the scientific community. Moreover we have already had significant success with artificial replication of these proposed methods simulating the environment of early Earth or as is most common a thermal vent on early Earth. This was as I said before the basis of the Miller-Urey experiments.
Click to expand...

You're talking about recreation of the chemical environment, not recreating abiogenesis. There's no widely accepted mechanism for abiogenesis because nobody has any idea how it happens.
 
Helix said:
i truly doubt we are the only contaminated planet in the universe. if there's even a slight probability, it becomes almost a certainty when multiplied by the size of the universe. i wonder sometimes about what's out there; the scale is hard to imagine. i also like to think about what our universe is a part of. what if it's like an atom in a larger structure? fairly mind blowing.
Click to expand...

I love that you said contaminated. Life spreads like a virus.
 
Guy Incognito said:
You're talking about recreation of the chemical environment, not recreating abiogenesis. There's no widely accepted mechanism for abiogenesis because nobody has any idea how it happens.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. We have quite a few theories and one or all of them may be true. What I'm talking about in particular is the fact that we have been able to synthesize over twenty different kinds of amino acid chains from water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. The not unreasonable logic follows that if we can so simply recreate the development of such an essential organic component for life it is not hard to imagine that over billions of years across quadrillions and quadrillions of planets that this process or something similar to it would repeat itself naturally. I understand what you are trying to say but your vehemence is very strange and misplaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom