Originally posted by amannionBut what is the probability that we are the only living beings in the Universe? Anything less than certainty implies that there must be something else out there.
I've not said that. My point of view is that I don't know.
But the argument that the universe is so big and vast that there couldn't just be us in it, isn't an argument.
Originally posted by amannionActually the argument for alien life is a BIT more than just incredulity.
This is the argument from incredulity and while many people share your view it doesn't make a convincing argument. Just because we can't conceive of being alone in such a large universe doesn't therefore make the existence of other aliens likely.
They may exist, but your incredulity will not make it so.
There is a solid basis to believe that carbon, for instance, is carbon from 10 billion years ago, 10 billion light years from home and will be the same 10 billion years from now. Amino acids and other organics like formaldhyde have been seen in many places in our galaxy and other galaxies, so its not an incredulity just a jump of logic to suggest that since we know water, carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, methane, and the like already is proven to exists elsewhere, not even talking about our solar system, I am talking about interstellar space, it is very suggestive of the possiblity of life elsewhere. For instance, a postulated way life may have gotten started on earth was the Hoyle argument, interstellar clouds seeded the whole solar system with organics and once organic material gets into a watery, even icy, condition like early earth, life is almost mandated. If that hypothesis is true then life could be everywhere there is a nice wet warm world around a nice G2 sun or even more extreme stars. It turns out planetary building models show stable earth like planets can co-exist even in the stars we have already proven has planets but Jupiter sized and those close to its star and now it seems we can start looking for planets around red dwarfs also, there are many times the number of red dwarf stars as relative giants like the sun, so I think we are a bit past incredulity here.
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, you misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that all ET arguments are founded in incredulity. You're right there are some compelling ideas in biochemistry and astrophysics. (Although there are some equally compelling refutations of many of these from a vast range of scientists. Personally I sit on the fence.)
Actually the argument for alien life is a BIT more than just incredulity.
There is a solid basis to believe that carbon, for instance, is carbon from 10 billion years ago, 10 billion light years from home and will be the same 10 billion years from now. Amino acids and other organics like formaldhyde have been seen in many places in our galaxy and other gal ...[text shortened]... red dwarf stars as relative giants like the sun, so I think we are a bit past incredulity here.
But the one argument that says - 'I can't believe that in all the vastness of space, we are the only ones here' so there MUST be others - that's an argument from incredulity. It relies on nothing more substantial than faith.
To give you an analogy ...
Saying that it seems pretty unlikely that we humans might be the only intelligent civilisation in all the vastness of space - 'I mean c'mon there's got to be others somewhere right?', is a bit like the President of the USA saying, well there's 300 million Americans here (or whatever the population is now) so I can't be the ONLY serving president can I - I mean c'mon how likely is that, there must be others!
Don't get to hung up on the analogy too much though - there are many flaws.
Just to add a little more to the Alien arguments mix.
Here are three of the more common arguments against the existence of aliens. (And I should point out once again - that I have no opinion either way. I sit on the fence.)
1. The Anthropic Principle
Developed by Brandon Carter and later expanded by Frank Tipler and James Barrow. Carter described a number of apparent coincidences in Astronomy and Cosmology that suggest that the development of intelligent life is extremely improbable.
2. Fermi's 'Where are they?' Argument
This one is fairly well known. Enrico Fermi (nuclear physicist extraordinaire) asked where is the evidence of alien intelligence? Evidence that, given the age of the Milky Way galaxy and the Universe, should abound.
3. Neo-Darwinian Contingency Argument
This one is based on the assumption that biological evolution does not follow any trend but is instead completely random. If true, it makes intelligence a chance phenomenon and unlikely to occur anywhere else.
I'm aware of many counters to these arguments of course, as we'd expect with any emergin scientific debate.
Originally posted by SratpamNot sure what you mean about the pyramids matching up with different science factors. There's a lot of pseudo science crap out there - new age stuff that will attempt to link the size of Einstein's penis with the position of Mars in Capricorn.
Do you think the egyptians accidently built the pyramids which match up with a lot of different science factors that we are still learning about today.
Total crock.
As for building the pyramids accidentally. Do you mean someone was just tinkering around with some monoliths one day and slipped over and oops - a pyramid?
The mumbo jumbo around pyramid building is reminiscent of crop circles or faces on Mars or moon landing hoaxes. Doesn't matter how many times you demonstrate the normal explanations for these things - some people just want to believe otherwise.
Originally posted by DreamlaXBut so what?
If every solar system in the Milky Way had an average of five planets, there would be trillions of planets in our solar system alone.
Why does it matter how many planets there are?
One, ten, a million, five gazillion.
Sheer weight of numbers proves nothing.
There are over 6 billion humans on this planet. How could there only be one me? I mean there must be other mes right. Other people in other parts of the world that are also me.
That's non-sensical of course.
So is your argument.
Originally posted by SratpamYou may be right, there may be many planets with life, but simply being 'hard to believe' otherwise doesn't make it true.
Out of the millions of planets it is hard to believe that there is only one planet with life on it. i would think that there are lots of planets with life on it through out the universe.
After all if there was only one planet in the entire universe that had given rise to an intelligent species then we would have to be it wouldn't we?