We Are Alone in the Universe!

[Subduction Zone]

Can you prove that random factors are over rated?

Me? No, but then I am not an expert in the field. I can still show errors in that article.

You appear to be trying to shift the burden of proof. That is not proper. Please note that others have not done this. They are willing to admit that some things are not known. When one makes a claim that something does not exist that is still a "positive assertion". It puts the burden of proof upon the person making the claim.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Then you do not understand the burden of proof, since yes, you do have to prove that.

Now you could legitimately claim that you do not believe in alien intelligences, but a belief is not worth anything. Please note others have not claimed that alien intelligences do exist because the people opposing you tend to understand the burden of proof.

Do you know that gods don't exist? Based on what? I bet the same reasons I don't believe gods and aliens don't exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Oxford University is some sort of ****ing vanity thing? I guess we should ****ing dismiss all the **** that Oxford University publishes. I like Star Trek too

The biggest difficulty with a statistical analysis is that we have exactly *one* case where there is life. We also have reason to believe that there are millions of locations in our galaxy where there could be life, but where we would not be bale to detect it with our current technology.

But, at each stage where our technology has grown, the possibility of life elsewhere has as well.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Me? No, but then I am not an expert in the field. I can still show errors in that article.

You appear to be trying to shift the burden of proof. That is not proper. Please note that others have not done this. They are willing to admit that some things are not known. When one makes a claim that something does not exist that is still a "positive assertion". It puts the burden of proof upon the person making the claim.

I have no burden. I don't believe in aliens, gods or invisible pink unicorns. You make the positive claim. then provide the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know that gods don't exist? Based on what? I bet the same reasons I don't believe gods and aliens don't exist.

Once again this is a reading comprehension fail on your part since I did not make that claim.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you know that gods don't exist? Based on what? I bet the same reasons I don't believe gods and aliens don't exist.

On the contrary, we know what sorts of things would constitute life on other planets and the type of evidence that would show the existence of such. We are still learning the conditions required for life to develop, but those that we do understand seem to be common in the universe. We also know our technology is not to the point where we would expect to find evidence, even though we know what sort of evidence would be required.

In contrast, few seem to be able to say what would constitute evidence for a deity or precisely what is being looked for. Those who have conducted investigations into the 'supernatural' have found no evidence of such, even when such evidence was expected. Furthermore, it is not simply a matter of technology, but rather even defining what it means to be a deity at all.

So, at this point, it is premature to conclude that no life exists on other planets, while it is reasonable to think say that the term 'deity' is too poorly defined to be even a subject of investigation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no burden. I don't believe in aliens, gods or invisible pink unicorns. You make the positive claim. then provide the evidence.

Sure you do. You stated that aliens do not exist. That puts a burden of proof upon you, like it or not. It does not matter what you believe, it matters what you can support with evidence. And you do not seem to even understand what is and what is not evidence in such a debate. The only "positive claim" that I have made is that you need to provide evidence for your claims, and I supported that claim. I can provide more articles on the burden of proof and how it works if you want.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no burden. I don't believe in aliens, gods or invisible pink unicorns. You make the positive claim. then provide the evidence.

You actually claimed more than simply lack of belief in those things.

You said they were statistically unlikely and that they are unlikely to exist at all. Precisely what is your statistical analysis based upon? Why would you expect to see evidence at this point if such life did exist?

You have also made at least one factually incorrect analysis concerning the formation of amino acids.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

The biggest difficulty with a statistical analysis is that we have exactly *one* case where there is life. We also have reason to believe that there are millions of locations in our galaxy where there could be life, but where we would not be bale to detect it with our current technology.

But, at each stage where our technology has grown, the possibility of life elsewhere has as well.

And so far there are a trillion cases that intelligent life cases have not evolve. Those are some heavy odds. Neither Vegas nor the Ferengi casinos on Rigel Prime would take those odds.

 

[ecco]

There is absolutely no evidence that intelligent and/or complex life exists elsewhere in the universe.

I guess the jury is still out on the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns and Zeus.

There is another simplistic argument that you may find more compelling:

There is nothing in the universe that is one-of-a-kind.
Galaxies - many of them
Suns/Stars - many of them
Planets - many of them
Species of spiders - many of them
Water molecules - many of them
Atoms - many of them
Quarks - many of them

So there is no reason to assume that there is only one solar system with sentient life forms.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Sure you do. You stated that aliens do not exist. That puts a burden of proof upon you, like it or not. It does not matter what you believe, it matters what you can support with evidence. And you do not seem to even understand what is and what is not evidence in such a debate. The only "positive claim" that I have made is that you need to provide evidence for your claims, and I supported that claim. I can provide more articles on the burden of proof and how it works if you want.

Does God exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does God exist?

I don't know. All I can say is that there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a god. I am open to such evidence if one can provide it. But I am not going to say that a lack of such evidence disproves god.

 

[Polymath257]

And so far there are a trillion cases that intelligent life cases have not evolve. Those are some heavy odds. Neither Vegas nor the Ferengi casinos on Rigel Prime would take those odds.

Really? Which trillions are those? Are the *known* requirements for life present in all of those trillions? Or do you have evidence that the known requirements do not occur together?

 

[Polymath257]

And so far there are a trillion cases that intelligent life cases have not evolve. Those are some heavy odds. Neither Vegas nor the Ferengi casinos on Rigel Prime would take those odds.

Let's start with this:

How many planets do we expect to be in the Goldilock's Zone for the star they are orbiting?

Of those, how many have we tested for the existence of life?

 

[Ratt Blastard]

I don't know. All I can say is that there does not appear to be any reliable evidence for a god. I am open to such evidence if one can provide it. But I am not going to say that a lack of such evidence disproves god.

I am saying the same about gods and aliens since I see evidence that both do not exist

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And your quaint attempts of inflicting meaning on the meaningless means nothing. So why do it? Humanism is just as basic as theism. It means nothing.

Your use of the word "quaint" smacks of a bit of rancour. You should try to control that, as we're engaged in a civil debate.

Aren't you the one, who just a page or two back suggested that assumptions made on what can be observed have at least some potential validity? I believe you were, yes -- posts number 47 and 65.

I am trying to point out to you that your own existence gives the lie to your supposition that intelligent life is so vanishingly unlikely as to be dismissed.

I do believe that you are stuck in a rut that you cannot pull yourself out of.

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Let's start with this:

How many planets do we expect to be in the Goldilock's Zone for the star they are orbiting?

Of those, how many have we tested for the existence of life?

Just because a planet is in a so-called Goldilocks zone doesn't mean that life will evolve there. The whole Goldilocks Zone is subjective

 

[Ratt Blastard]

Your use of the word "quaint" smacks of a bit of rancour. You should try to control that, as we're engaged in a civil debate.

Aren't you the one, who just a page or two back suggested that assumptions made on what can be observed have at least some potential validity? I believe you were, yes -- posts number 47 and 65.

I am trying to point out to you that your own existence gives the lie to your supposition that intelligent life is so vanishingly unlikely as to be dismissed.

I do believe that you are stuck in a rut that you cannot pull yourself out of.

Vice versa. That's Latin

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have no burden. I don't believe in aliens, gods or invisible pink unicorns. You make the positive claim. then provide the evidence.

Why are you blindly incapable of seeing that absolutely nobody you are arguing against has made the "positive claim" you refer to. Not one. They have nothing to prove because they claimed nothing. You did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am saying the same about gods and aliens since I see evidence that both do not exist

Really? You have evidence that neither exist? Please provide it. I am sure that people will be interested in seeing it.