>we are alone in the universe
Said the religious guy.
>>74626753
Please show me aliens that arent already dead please
>>74626753
No, were only alone in being stupid. The universe is full of millions if not billions of earths and people like us.
lambright here.
>>74626753
14 billion years have past and the universe is still empty. We have been broadcasting radio for 100 years that will travel forever. The only radio we hear is background noise.
obligatory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycvlJ9XMd94
>>74627025
God you're an idiot holy shit. The radio signals we have broadcasted haven't even reached .00000001% of the universe yet. They haven't even reached the nearest star yet. You fucking idiot.
As time goes on we will only discover how alone we actually are.
>>74627236
Completely missed the point. Kill yourself.
>>74627291
>7
No you did by being an uneducated nigger.
>>74626896
Or how about we're the first space faring civilization? We are just early to the party.
>>74626753
>We aren't alone in the universe
Said the "science" guy who's only knowledge is facebook pics from IFLS
You realize this is only half the equation right? The universe being big, no matter how big, does not mean there's other life in it unless you also have the likelyhood of life forming in any given place. You can't claim that it's likely that there's other life in the universe when you only have the numbers of how big the universe is, and zero numbers on the likelihood of life. Half the equation is missing
>>74627352
No way. The odds are impossible.
>>74627102
Simpsons can't be wrong
>>74626932
that's a lot of bags of dicks to suck.
>>74627413
You can say the same for religion..
>>74627352
Universe is 11 billion years old. I doubt it.
>>74627323
If there was other intelligent life we would have picked up their radio signals dumb shit. Off yourself your wasting precious rare life.
>>74627388
Those waves cannot travel that far accurately because they are not broadcasted from a powerful enough transmitter
>>74627516
The odds of an intelligent species even being able to interpret those transmissions is a million to one.
Yet still they come...
>>74627436
>The odds are impossible.
What odds? There are no odds. See this post >>74627413
There are no odds, there is no likelyhood, there is no numbers, for the chance of life forming in any part of the universe. There is absolutely no reason to think there is. The equation doesn't exist. The universe being big does not mean this because there's no likelyhood for life forming.
>>74627499
What does this mean? this is not an argument
Are we alone in the universe? Definitely not.
Is there other intelligent life? I'd say maybe. I don't think that life will necessarily always evolve to the point of higher intelligence. I honestly think humans were a huge accident and that most planets that do contain life have a bunch of stupid animals and that's it.
>>74626753
all those stars and not a single sign of life
>>74627634
Do you like sci-fi? I feel you would greatly enjoy "Blindsight."
>>74627516
Just like an internet repeater. The signal gets weaker and then stops. The universe is infinite. When space traveling, you aren't going to hit an invisible wall.
>>74627634
>Definitely not.
Definitely wrong. Wrong by definition of definitely. To say this you'd need definite proof of other life. You're already wrong in the first line of your post.
>>74626753
Anyone got the pic like this, but with jesus saying "don't masturbate"?
>>74627634
I think you're kinda right.
We have no equal, Not even close. However we weren't accidents just from pure luck.
>>74627702
Ok, so when people say, "muh god in heaven" that means there can't be heaven or god because no proof... science 1 religion 0
>>74627804
>he's never read Thomas Aquinas
>>74627681
I'll have to check it out. I love sci-fi type shit like Ender's Game.
>>74627702
This is all just speculation here. Giving the vast distance between stars I doubt we're ever going to find life anytime soon since we cannot physically reach these planets that fall within the habitable zone of their stars.
Fuck it, their could be life on Jupiter's moons but we can't even get close enough yet to study it. All I'm saying is for right now we can only speculate. So I apologize for speaking in definites.
>>74627804
If someone says 'there is definitely a God in heaven" then that person is wrong.
If someone says "it is likely that there's a God in heaven" then that person is wrong.
if someone says "I believe there is a God in heaven" then that person is not wrong unless you can prove there isn't
science=0 religion=0 they're unrelated
>>74626753
>there are live in other planets
where are mah proooof
>>74627634
>other intelligent life
it lives with us right on this planet and we refuse to believe.
>>74627858
>This is all just speculation here.
You're right
>All I'm saying is for right now we can only speculate
no, you said definitely, and so you were wrong.
I accept your apology though
>>74626753
Man... Looking at that pic always gives me chills knowing that we're stuck in our local cluster while there could possibly be billions of other species, but we can't meet each other because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light..
seriously, we can only explore our local cluster.
So even if there's one life harboring planet per galaxy, there may be only one other one in our cluster in andromeda
>>74627914
Explain? Are you one of those reptilian truthers? I used to believe in that shit too. Then I turned 15.
>>74627025
Radio waves go about 1.5 light years before dissipating
>>74626896
Show me ones that are dead! What are you hiding, Canada??
>>74627236
> the only radio we hear
> we hear
> we
All y'all mutha fucka need to learn about exoplanets.
>>74627982
WE
>>74627102
There's a story sort of like this actually:
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0707/2001059658-s.html
I've often wondered if this is the way it is.
>>74627982
RIDF please gtfo. That's exactly what a reptilian would say.
>>74626753
How did you get that picture of the milky way?
How you get that picture of the local galactic group?
How did you get that picture of the virgo supercluster
How did you get that picture of the local superclusters?
How did you get that picture of the observable universe?
>>74626896
>Please show me aliens that arent already dead please
Just turn on the TV, they are everywhere.
>>74627952
Don't worry senpai, it's basically impossible given the amount of stars in the Milky Way alone that there isn't intelligent life. Like, mathematically, it's impossible for there not to be, even in our very own galaxy.
Also, several of the planets in our solar system are thought to have supported simple life forms at one time.e.
>>74628387
Dude, science, duh. Fucking Christfags.
>>74628387
wait.. thats a legit question.
>>74628387
I'm not sure I know the point you're trying to make, but those obviously aren't actual photographs. They're images generated based on inference and indirect observation.
Of course we're not alone, the nuwabians will come back in their flying pyramids to rescue the niggers and take them to planet Dindu where the white devil cant hurt them.
>>74626753
If religion never existed, we would be interstellar by now...
>>74628387
ayy lmao confirmed
Consider it's taken billions of years for us to get to where we are today. Consider primitives are STILL living in the south america, africa, etc. Can you even compare a stick thrower who is still working on how to grow food to us? How long would it take, for another planet to go from single celled organisms, to where we are now, let alone to where interstellar travel is not just a possibility but reality?
It is ENITIRELY possible albeit in my opinion unlikely that we, at this moment in time, are alone.
>>74626753
You don't believe in God due to a complete lack of evidence, yet you believe in aliens despite a complete lack of evidence?
Why do you insist on evidence for God's existence but faith for aliens' existence?
>>74628032
Nothing, don't pay attention to him, he's just shitposting.
>>74628612
Literally SJW tier logic. There isn't a shred of evidence to this, and in fact all evidence is to the contrary.
>>74628727
For me, there is plenty of evidence for other intelligent life, in the form of math and probability. Sure it's an assumption, but it's an assumption with almost no chance of being false. It's also an assumption that obeys the laws of physics.
OTOH, God is a storybook character.
>>74628727
The evidence for extraterrestrial life is that life on our planet happened, and that there are a lot of planets. The likelihood of something happening once and only once is almost non-existant due to the size of the universe.
>>74626753
Okay dumb dumbs, if you have a really difficult time understanding just how massive our galaxy is, let alone the observable universe, watch Cosmos.
Full of facts and lots of pictures and animation to keep you entertained.
>>74628727
>>74628939
>Further reading: Fermi Paradox
>>74628577
Their computer generated based on other galaxies we've viewed.
>>74628939
please read this post
>>74627413
There is no probability in your side, there is no math, there is no chance. You aren't obeying any probability or laws. There is absolutely no number or guess for the likelyhood of life forming, meaning you cannot claim any sort of probability for life forming. You only have half the equation. The universe being enormous does not imply that life will have formed elsewhere unless you have a number for the likelyhood of life forming.
>>74628962
This exactly.
>>74628727
>lack of evidence
The universe is real.. not fiction. It is FACT that there are ~200 billion galaxies in the universe. It is FICTION that is printed on paper telling me that there is a creator with a white beard.
>>74627025
>>74627291
go to saharan desert
play loud music for 1 year
sees nobody
I must be the only person on earth
>>74626753
im a religious guy saying that were not alone
boom
Side note: Does anyone think that humans are ever going to leave our solar system? All this shit going down in Europe and the ME is making me think that humans probably aren't going to last much loner, let alone be able to harvest enough resources and technology to make it happen.
>>74629033
I don't think you understand how probability works senpai.
>>74629169
Humanity thrives on suffering.
>>74629169
send Eurabia into outer space
MEGA
>>74626753
I sympathize with the case for other life in the universe, but this is akin to saying "I have an unfathomably huge jar of jellybeans, surely one of them must be sentient."
Despite what you might want to believe, statistics about how much life ought to be out there aren't accurate because we still don't know enough about the specific catalyzing events that bridge chemistry and biology.
So far as we know it could be common or so impossibly rare that even a vast universe could only have one freak occurrence of it.
>>74628433
>it's basically impossible given the amount of stars in the Milky Way alone that there isn't intelligent life. Like, mathematically, it's impossible for there not to be, even in our very own galaxy.
According to who? People who think Star Trek is real?
Mathematically impossible? Show us the math.
The intelligent life is on Earth.
But the following argument is flawed:
Intelligent life exists on Earth, and the universe is really big, therefore intelligent life must also exist elsewhere in the universe.
fucking idiots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCeclDRhzPA
just accept it already, the proof is overwhelming
>>74626753
The space of probability involved in abiogenesis is vaster than the universe though.
My ballpark estimate is that abiogenesis would occur on average once in something on the order of 10^10 to 10^30 universes like ours. In ours, it occurred around Sol or some other star, and spread (or will spread) intelligently.
>>74628604
They are simulations. Like all the pixels on your screen right now.
>>74629176
I do, I don't think you understand how probability works.
We have observed life on one planet. That means to our current knowledge the probability of life being on a planet is 1/(every single planet we know of so far). You cannot claim any kind of likeliness or probability of life forming on any given planet unless you have observed a MINIMUM of 2. If I open 1 door in my entire life and see a skeleton in it, that does not mean I can use the amount of doors on earth to predict the likelihood of skeletons behind them. a sample of 1 cannot form odds or a probability equation.
>>74629255
galaxies are not jelly beans you fucking dense moron
>>74629065
Prove that the universe is real.
>infinite universe
You do realize that this means somewhere in this Universe someone just like you but with 3 ears and a nose on his forehead is sitting around on similar board like this talking about the africans controlling the world
>>74628727
One is based on logic, or the idea that so many other planets in the universe that it's unlikely that life hasn't formed anywhere else in the universe.
The other is based on imagination, which relies on the belief in man made stories. Don't forget that human nature is to come up with answers for phenomen that they do not understand. I.e. Humans once believed that a rain God controlled the weather until modern metereology came about.
>>74629397
That's actually what infinity universes means, not what our universe being infinite means
>>74629390
Prove that God exists first, then I'll get to work.
>>74629264
>I have never been to another country, therefore, surely there are no other countries
>>74629420
Yours is not based on logic. Read these posts
>>74629328
>>74629255
>>74629264
Yours is completely based on imagination. There is zero probability or likelihood that there is life on other planets. Those numbers just do not exist.
Fact: If you can't bridge the time and space to meet other peoples, you are effectively alone.
>>74629290
bumping my poast
watch it
THIS IS REALITY
>>74629388
The object really has no bearing on the argument. The point is that sentience is apart from all other known material configurations. We know a bit about where we can find "life," but we still haven't got a handle on what made the chemical soup on Earth into living things.
Absent an explanation for that you'd have no way of extrapolating how common the circumstances were in the universe.
>>74629483
It's actually
>I have never observed any evidence of another country existing, therefore there is no evidence or probability of another country existing
and this statement is correct. Even though other countries could very well exist, if this person has absolutely zero evidence of any other country other than his own, from his perspective there is no probability of other countries existing
>>74629290
>>74629570
WE ARE LIVING IN THE CONCAVE EARTH
>>74626753
Life in space? Absolutely
Intelligent life in space? Not that likely, we cant even find intelligence in africa
>>74629397
eternal inflation is taken seriously as a possibility by physicists. it would spawn an infinity of bubble universes where local quantum fluctuations cause the collapse of the inflaton field (i.e., a big bang)
what you describe is possible in this scenario.
>>74628612
There hasn't been religion under the sea for 4 billion years. Are they "intersteller by now"?
Dinosaurs lived for 165 million years, with no religion. Are they "intersteller by now"?
Wernher von Braun was not an atheist you fucking retard.
>>74629602
>Life in space? Absolutely
Literally objectively wrong. This is not what absolutely means. For it to be absolute you need proof. Try again.
>>74629471
I've made no claims on God's existence one way or the other. I want proof the universe is real. We could just be a computer simulation.
>>74629529
>Yours is completely based on imagination. There is zero probability or likelihood that there is life on other planets.
This is true, but the arguments presented for life elsewhere aren't simply based on the pretext that life exists here. They're extrapolations based on the circumstances of earth's current climate and chemical makeup. The point I've been making is that we lack a critical element in this makeup in that we still haven't been able to figure out what it was that catalyzed life from erstwhile dead chemical mixtures under those circumstances.
>>74629595
if only his perspective was fact
>>74626753
As the old saying goes
Which scenario is more scary?
We aren't alone or we are alone?
>>74629662
>comparing gold fish to humans
>>74627352
>Space-faring
>Humanity
Look man, we haven't even gone past the moon in our tin-cans, you really think we're that impressive?
>>74629290
this video explains everything (most things)
>>74629264
>>74629328
I'm on my phone so I'm not going to type out the Drake Equation for you faggots, so look it up if you want, but something tells me whatever cringey contrarian thing you believe in isn't going to change because someone suggests you read up some actual science.
Read up on what Kepler has been doing, what TESS will do in 1-2 years (bio-markers), and read about the literal current Mars mission. If you still don't see other intelligent life in the universe as scientific fact at this point, then feel free to live your life in disbelief. Your loss, ya fudge packers.
>>74629751
Everything is connected to everything, we all evolved from a single cell, and everything in the universe was once in a singular point smaller than an atom.
>>74629741
>They're extrapolations based on the circumstances of earth's current climate and chemical makeup.
They aren't though. All arguments presented for life elsewhere are based on how large the universe is. They do not touch on the likelihood of life forming. The probability of this simply does not exist to our knowledge, and therefore the statement that it is likely or probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe is false.
I wonder who was first. I would feel kind of late to the party if great civilizations had lived and died before the Earth had even formed.
>>74629465
What do you mean? If this universe is infinite it is equally big(infinite) as an infinite number universes as the size of this universe is infinite and the amount of universes in that theory is also infinite.
>>74629714
What's the usefulness of this claim? If the universe isn't real, provide me a reason or a method for interacting with what is, in fact, real.
>>74627752
>>74627811
Literally just sonoluminescence, stars & galaxies are small.
>>74629290
>>74629848
How can we know anything is real?
>>74629743
It is a fact that from his perspective there is not a probability of another country existing. We are talking about probability here in this thread. You cannot claim any sort of probability without evidence, so him saying "There is no evidence or likeness that another country exists" is fact.
>>74629806
>Drake equation
>>74629684
If you do the math, its literally impossible that some sort of life never came into existence
>>74628939
The Drake equation suggests how abundant extraterrestrial life is (even though it's never been observed, like God).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
>The Fermi paradox or Fermi's paradox, named after Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations, such as in the Drake equation, and the lack of evidence for such civilizations.
The Rare Earth equation basically deals with how rare life is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis
>In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth Hypothesis argues that the origin of life and the evolution of biological complexity such as sexually reproducing, multicellular organisms on Earth (and, subsequently, human intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life is a very improbable phenomenon and likely to be extremely rare.
>OTOH, God is a storybook character.
Atheists think they know what God is, and what God would look like if they saw it. When looking for God, how do you even know you're looking for the right thing?
If you think God is a man in the sky, and see no evidence of a man in the sky, does that mean there is no God? Only if the premise (God is a man in the sky) is true. But if that premise is true, it could not lead to a conclusion that God does not exist. So you can only conclude that the premise is false, or that you have yet to find any evidence that God is a man in the sky.
What's the probability that God is nothing more than a storybook character? That involves ruling out every concept of God.
>>74629900
100%? We can't know anything except what we ourselves construct, like mathematics. Absolute knowledge is a misnomer and inapplicable to literally anything outside our heads.
>>74629806
I'm a science student. I'm not being cringey or contrarian, I'm being objective and factual. It is a fact that we have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. It is a fact we do not have any likeliness of life forming, and therefore cannot create an equation to predict it. It is a fact that saying "life most likely exists outside of earth" is false, because we cannot calculate the likelihood of life forming based on the size of the universe alone.
the Drake equation is complete pseudoscience.
>>74629806
>bio-markers
Yeah that's the problem I have with this research. The whole bio-marker theory is premised on the idea that once you get the right chemicals together life has a better-than-infinitesimally-small chance of cropping up. Unfortunately we just don't know much of anything about that process so unless we run across other life or replicate the creation process in a lab we're just conjecturing based on no evidence.
Not that I don't think the search is worthwhile, but It's patently obvious Drake's equation was premised on literally every repeat of primordial-earth-like conditions producing life which we don't know to be the case.
>>74629529
even if the probability of abiogenesis is infinitesimal (e.g., 10^-100 per planet-year), life could have originated elsewhere. i think the probability of intelligent life actively seeding other planets with life is significant - because what the fuck else is an ayylmao gonna do with billions of years to kill?
maybe our dna was designed by a galaxy-sized Matrioshka brain
>>74629982
And what does it mean if all we can know is what's inside our own heads?
>>74628939
Its an assumption made with one point of data. That isn't math, that's just blowing smoke up people's asses.
>>74629915
What math? We do not have the numbers for the likelihood of life forming. We only have the numbers for how big the universe is. That's only half the equation. There is no math here, it's an incomplete equation.
It Is not "literally impossible" and it's not "absolute" that there is life. That is LITERALLY not what these words means. You cannot use these words incorrectly in a discussion like this or you're simply wrong
>>74630030
It means the problem of solipsism is unsolvable. It is not, however, evidence in favor of it. We experience our universe, that's evidence for its existence. If one wants to claim it's not real, I'm happy to hear the counter-evidence.
If any of you are truly pondering this question i have some bad news for you
The ability for a planet to create intelligent life such as our own is insanely small, many in the scientific community outright lie about the probabilities (both out of need for funding and for striking public interest)
I can assure all of you that there is most at most ONE other intelligent lifeform comparable to us in a distant corner of the universe so far away from us that we will never contact them with our species lifetime
none of you will ever see an alien and no other human will either
>>74626753
the earth is flat you retard
I've been on this board a few months, so I don't know, but what's this board's consensus on aliens? I'm torn between
>aliens frequenting Earth and the government keeping it to themselves
and
>actually don't come near us at all
The first one kind of comes off as tinfoil hat tier but history as a whole is riddled with UFO's.
>inb4 lurk
Yeah I know fucko but if you wanna save me the time then help me out here guy.
>>74629817
>They aren't though. All arguments presented for life elsewhere are based on how large the universe is.
That makes no sense. The whole inference is based on conditional appearance of our own life. The hypothesis falls apart entirely if you don't count the conditional emergence of life on earth.
>therefore the statement that it is likely or probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe is false.
It's simply unknown.
>>74630191
Alright I'm about to reveal my power level
Aliens, bigfoot, fairies, ghosts, etc. are all manifestations of demonic activity designed to confuse and fool us.
>>74630014
>i think the probability of intelligent life actively seeding other planets with life is significant
Well you are wrong, by definition. There is no PROBABILITY because we do not have an equation. You are the same as a person who uses the word "literally" wrong. PROBABILITY or PROBABLE means there is an equation, and we do not have an equation, we have half an equation. The statement "It is probable that there is life elsewhere" is objectively incorrect, because we do not have an equation and there is therefore no probability.
>>74630191
I doubt /pol/ has a consensus on much of anything. I personally don't believe there are any other lifeforms besides those on earth.
>>74629290
wat
>>74630218
>It's simply unknown.
It is unknown. I'm not claiming there is no life elsewhere in the universe. I'm claiming the statement that it's probable, is objectively false, because that's what probability is. Probability is an equation, and we do not have an equation. Without the likeliness of life forming, we cannot say how probable it is that life will form on another planet, and therefore the statement " It is probable that there is life elsewhere" is objectively false with out current date. Even if there is life elsewhere, it is not probable to our knowledge, and saying it is is wrong by definition
>>74630122
>It Is not "literally impossible" and it's not "absolute" that there is life. That is LITERALLY not what these words means. You cannot use these words incorrectly in a discussion like this or you're simply wrong
Loooool
This dude is literally trying to litigate the language used in an argument on /pol/ that no one alive today will ever know the actual answer to.
Literally autism.
>>74630269
>I doubt /pol/ has a consensus on much of anything.
Yeah I thought it was a bit of reach. Was hoping that the general hivemind here had a say about the aliens, much like the jews and whatnot. Must be more /x/ related.
>>74628962
>The evidence for extraterrestrial life is that life on our planet happened, and that there are a lot of planets.
That's not evidence. That's speculation based on a sample size of one.
That's only evidence that life exists on our planet.
That logic is basically "I exist in this house, and there are lots of houses, therefore I must exist in another house too."
>The likelihood of something happening once and only once is almost non-existant due to the size of the universe.
You were born once on this planet. Because that happened once, does that mean that you were born on another planet too? No, that's ridiculous.
Why do you think that every event on Earth in the past 4 billion years that led to the emergence of homo sapiens is repeated anywhere in the universe? That could only make sense if there was an exact copy of the Solar System elsewhere in the universe, but that's not how the universe works. If Earth had clones everywhere in the universe, it might make sense, but then you still have to consider 4 billion years of history on Earth, repeating itself in the exact same way across light years. While "spooky action at a distance" and quantum entanglement does allegedly occur on the quantum level, there is no evidence that it occurs on the macro level, that a duplicate you exists elsewhere in the universe (or multiverse, if you want to talk about speculative math and probability).
>>74630342
No, I'm saying their argument is wrong. The statement "There is absolutely life outside of earth" is literally wrong, because we do not have proof, and therefore it is not "absolute".Saying "There is literally life outside of earth" is wrong because without proof of life outside of earth, you are not being literal." Are you disagreeing with this?
>>74626753
We don't know enough to accurately estimate the probably of other life in the universe, maybe we are alone after all. People like to say it's impossible "becuz the univers is big"
>>74630430
He's saying that you're arguing semantics on an Egyptian Knitting Board
>>74627982
You must be at least 18 years to post here.
>>74629065
Suppose there are 200 billion galaxies in the universe. You exist in this galaxy. Does your existence in this galaxy mean that you must also exist in another galaxy? No, because your birth is unrepeatable.
If people say that God has a white beard, and there is no evidence of a Creator with a white beard, does that mean there is no God? Maybe the premise (God has a white beard) is true, but it hasn't been observed yet (but then why start with that premise?). Maybe the premise is false.
When it comes to looking for God, how do you even know what to look for? How do you know you're looking in the right place? How do you know you would recognize God if you saw it?
It all depends on your preconceived notion of God.
The universe is real. And there are people who believe that the universe and God are the same thing.
>>74630565
I'm 21 you fucking moron
Posting cool space photos I've saved. make pretty cool backgrounds
>>74630503
It isn't semantics, it's the core of the conversation. It's what this entire thread is. People are claiming probability of life forming on another planet, and there is zero probability by definition. We are discussing scientific principles, so the language used is entirely important. Saying light acts like a wave and also a particle is an entirely different statement than saying light IS a wave and a particle. This isn't semantics, it's science.
>>74629176
You don't understand probability.
If I picked up a rock on a beach and paint your face on it, and if there are lots of rocks on lots of beaches, does that mean there must be another beach with a rock with your face on it?
"But there are so many rocks!" you say.
That doesn't mean anything if you have a sample size of one.
We're not alone and that's pretty much a fact.
Think about it, if we were the only sentient life in whole world then that would mean the chance for such a life to be born randomly is so small that our existence cannot be a result of such a chance.
It's like rolling a dice with 10000000000000000 sides and guessing the right one.
That would mean that our existence is planned, which, in turn, disproves the "we are alone" theory.
>>74629397
>You do realize that this means somewhere in this Universe someone just like you but with 3 ears and a nose on his forehead is sitting around on similar board like this talking about the africans controlling the world
You do realize that this means somewhere in this Universe someone just like you but with 3 ears and a nose on his forehead is sitting around on similar board like this talking about the africans controlling the world
But while jacking off
>>74630785
>We're not alone and that's pretty much a fact.
Wrong. That's not what fact means. It's not a fact until you have proof.
So sick of idiots who think they're being scientific when they're being outright wrong.
>>74630884
Every "proof" can be potentially disprove with development of new technologies. Out very existence is not a fact if you want to be pedantic about it.
>>74630953
This isn't pedantic, this is the you claiming fact when you don't have any evidence. There is zero evidence for life existing elsewhere and you are saying fact.
>>74630884
Welcome to modern liberalism.
>>74630727
I wonder if you realize that your rocks on the beach allegory presupposes a divine being as a designer. If someone painted the face and then chose not paint it on any other rocks, then there would be no probability of another rock with a face irrespective of the total rocks.
But if there's a rock that randomly and accidentally looks like a face, and there's trillions of rocks over trillions of years, then there is definitely a chance, an effective certain chance, that there will be another rock that looks like a face.
>>74630247
Moron
>>74629420
>One is based on logic, or the idea that so many other planets in the universe that it's unlikely that life hasn't formed anywhere else in the universe.
Why is it "unlikely" How "unlikely" is it? You can't even say.
You were born on this planet, and there are lots of other planets. Because you exist on this planet, does it logically follow that you must also exist on another planet? No!
>The other is based on imagination, which relies on the belief in man made stories.
There are certainly stories about God. The question is whether any of them are true or not.
If you think God is a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent man, but you find no evidence of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent man, does that mean God does not exist? Only if the premise is true. But if the premise is true, it could not lead to a conclusion that God does not exist. If you haven't observed it, you could only conclude that you have no evidence for the premise. Or the premise could be false.
God could exist and every man-made description of God's attributes (besides existence) could still be false. You could say what God is not.
>>74631017
a completely undefined chance. A chance with zero likelihood or numbers attached, meaning the statement "It's probable that there's another rock that looks like this face" is an objectively false statement.
>>74630251
If you don't know what the numbers are, how would you know it is objectively incorrect? The likeliness of an event happening is independent of our knowledge.
>>74631052
Provide evidence to the contrary.
>>74626896
>what are reptilians, aka. "jews".
>>74630884
I think you need to chill out Canada. We don't have FACTUAL (by your standards) evidence that that atoms even exist but we take it as a certainty anyway. I've read your other posts but if you want to be entirely objective and scientific about it, your argument is about as strong as theirs when it comes down to "proof".
>>74630884
Ure not really doing yourself any favors either
You dismis x because y is not true, when people show you that y is in fact true, you dismis y until z is true
Rinse and repeat
LITERALLY what you are doing :^)
If you were a good science study you would also know that humanity does not even understand most of the theories they are currently working from, they are used because its all we have
>inb4 MUH SCIENCE or "this is false because s is not true"
>>74627236
>they haven't reached the Sun yet
>we're the idiots
>>74631157
>how would you know it is objectively incorrect?
because saying "It's probable that life exists elsewhere" is independent from life existing elsewhere. Whether or not life exists, does not effect whether or not the stated probability is true. If I say "I will flip this coin and it's most likely going to come up heads" that statement is objectively false, even if it comes up heads.
>>74627699
>The signal gets weaker and then stops. The universe is infinite.
[citation needed]
When space traveling, you aren't going to hit an invisible wall.
How do you know?
>>74631211
This. The leaf is talking a lot but really saying nothing.
>>74629483
The problem in all of these arguments assumes "a country is a country is a country" or "a planet is a planet is a planet."
Words like "country" and "planet" are abstract categories, placeholders.
You could say "I live in a country" and "these are the traits a country has", but unless you observe those traits somewhere else, you have no evidence for it existing elsewhere.
Your argument is basically "countries exist on Earth, Earth is a planet, there are lots of other planets, therefore countries must exist on other planets." But by constantly referring to the word "planet", you are glossing over all the differences between planets. By referring to Earth as a "planet" you are suggesting a kind of self-similarity to other planets that may not exist.
Many exoplanets are described as possibly "Earth-like", but there is no clone of the Earth elsewhere in the universe, there is no clone of you living elsewhere in the universe. You exist here and now.
>>74631124
thats a big guy
>>74626753
>find a planet with life
>it's just full of niggers
>>74631213
I dismiss x because x is untrue. It is untrue that there is absolutely life outside of earth, and that is the statement being made so I reject it. There is no way to claim probability that life exists outside of earth to our current knowledge, so when someone claims that it's probable that there's life outside of earth, They are being false. I'm not making any leaps of logic here
>>74631211
It's not that we lack proof, it's that we lack ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL. We can say it's likely atoms exist because we can show evidence for it. There is ZERO evidence of life outside of earth, because the amount of planets outside of earth is not evidence of life.
>>74631337
I'm saying there is no evidence for life outside of Earth. Zero. To claim otherwise is wrong, and therefore when people claim otherwise I'm explaining why they're wrong.
>>74631290
You know the numbers of a coin flip, assuming it is a fair coin of course, so you could say that statement is false. However if we did not know the odds of a fair coin, if we followed what you have been saying, any prediction would be objectively wrong since "we do no have an equation."
????
>>74631513
>However if we did not know the odds of a fair coin,
"fair coin" means we know the odds. You already know it's a 50% chance of tails and 50% chance of heads. We have an equation.
>>74631368
Ugh, just stop. You aren't even talking about science anymore, just being condescending because people didn't say things a way you like.
>>74629751
Humans are the result of 4 billion years of evolution on Earth, and religion has only existed for the last 5,000 years or so.
Goldfish are also the result of 4 billion years of evolution on Earth, and they have never had religion.
Do you think goldfish have ever existed on other planets? How about T-Rexes?
>>74631513
I didn't want to say this but, you greentext the unimportant part of my previous post. You are essentially saying that the probability of an event happening changes based on OUR knowledge of an event which is bullshit imo.
>>74631624
>>74631556
oops to you my leaf friend
>>74627388
How small do you think the universe is, genius
>>74631624
>You are essentially saying that the probability of an event happening changes based on OUR knowledge of an event
No, I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying you cannot claim probability of an event without knowing the probability of an even. Saying "X will probably happen" is wrong if you do not know the probability of X, even if X does happen.
There are stars so enormous that their gravitational pull could create planets a billion times the size of our own earth that could sustain life
There could exist somewhere in the universe a Man so large that our entire planet would be like a dot of sand at the shore of his local beach
>>74627388
>Radio waves travel faster than the speed of light
>>74629806
I've already mentioned the Drake Equation in this thread, and it runs into the Fermi Paradox. And by the way, the Drake Equation is not evidence of anything. It's a "probabilistic argument used to arrive at an estimate of the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy."
>If you still don't see other intelligent life in the universe as scientific fact at this point, then feel free to live your life in disbelief.
Oh really? Something with zero evidence for it is "scientific fact"? I think you need to read up on actual science.
>>74626753
Let those filthy xenos come.
We'll deport them from this universe
>>74630845
yeah and on it goes
>>74631778
The Drake equation has absolutely zero credibility or validity though.
>>74626753
>Atheist thinks he knows everything
>has no proof to back it up
And This is why I'm Agnostic
>>74629915
You are life. You exist.
That doesn't mean you also exist on another planet simply because the universe is really big.
>>74631712
So if i claim that "if i flip a coin it will be heads 50 percent of the time" but I don't really know the probability of that fair coin flip system, what i said would be wrong?
>>74626753
>Dear Journal,
>Today I showed those theistic scum what's what. I posted an image that demonstrated how large the universe really was and then followed it up with a mocking comment about how the religious didn't believe in life on other planets. Now some of them tried to claim that there is nothing that prohibits a person who has a religious faith from thinking life on another planet is possible. And some pointed out that what I was doing was attempting to extrapolate from a sample size of one, which was mathematically impossible. Puh, stupid theists.
>One even attempted to assert that my belief that there must surely be intelligent life throughout the universe (that is probably quite voluptuous, sexually voracious, and absolutely ravishing for a space traveler like me) was itself a leap of faith!
>Oh insult upon insult! These stupid theists don't even know anything! I will have my space babe, and nothing these neanderthals can do will stop me!
>P.S. Space can be lonely for a traveler so I must remember to bring my Brony collection.
>>74631445
For you.
>>74630011
>It's patently obvious Drake's equation was premised on literally every repeat of primordial-earth-like conditions producing life which we don't know to be the case.
People say "history repeats itself" but the history of Earth is unrepeatable.
>>74631494
>>74631778
If insanely, irrationally high expectations for evidence were characteristics for human attraction, you two would be butt fucking into the sunset.
Unfortunately, it's probably just a samefag.
>>74626753
>barley know anything about most parts of the world we live in as they are un explored especially the oceans
>expects me to believe some men which can up with all this bullshit are 100% accurate and factual
I doubt we even been to the fucking moon let alone know all this shit beyond it lol.
>>74630191
Inject a mega dose of DMT and get back to us.
>>74631494
I think the other anon was right. You might just be arguing over semantics here. I'll bite anyway.
Other anons are using the multitude of planets as evidence for their being life, but you say that's not actual evidence because we don't know the probability of life occurring on other planets. So what i'm asking is, why should the huge number of planets be ruled out just because we don't know how likely another Earth like planet is to exist? Back to my other point in my original post, in this regard, your point is as strong as theirs.
Also did you just discover the scientific method or something? You're going to not have a fun time if you apply that to internet arguments.
>>74631948
The moment you observe the coin you see the likelihood of each side, and therefore you have an equation. We are talking about something we have no evidence for or guideline or date for, so that isn't reflected in this analogy because we know what a coin is.
Use this anology.
"If we activate a garugamesh, It will probably come up dicktoasters" This statement is false, because we don't know the probability of it. Even if in reality, separate to our knowledge, activating a garugamesh DOES usually come up dicktoasters, the statement I made is still wrong.
>>74632011
>If insanely, irrationally high expectations for evidence
I will take the smallest little nugget of evidence for this. The tinniest little bit. There is ZERO. Life on earth is not evidence of life on other planets, and there being a lot of planets is not evidence of life on other planets.
>>74632136
>Also did you just discover the scientific method or something? You're going to not have a fun time if you apply that to internet arguments.
Legitimate.
>>74632020
Pls I don't claim to know more than anyone else and I certainly don't try to pass off my opinions as facts
>>74628873
Underrated post.
>>74626753
Point out the part in the Bible where it says that.
It's not religion that says aliens don't exist but science, as science is empirical and there is no public evidence that supports the existence of aliens.
>>74632136
>why should the huge number of planets be ruled out
Because it's irrelevant. It's not related to the likelihood of life on other planets. There's no connection.
>>74632042
the earth is flat too right?
>>74632280
>no evidence that aliens exist
Anon, if aliens do not exist why does OP get his anus probed every night?
>>74632163
So like I said a few posts ago, because WE don't know the probability of an event, any prediction, even if it turned out to be right, would be false?
>>74632373
kek
>>74632097
You don't inject dmt you tard
>>74632228
Spose you didn't like the Gale Crater data from Curiosity? That shit's right next door, family.
>>74632383
A prediction is different than claiming probability. You can guess that there's life on other planets, and that's fine, but that's different than claiming probability. Claiming probability, without probability, is false, and everyone I've responded in an argumentative way in this thread, is claiming probability.
>>74632097
>Inject
>DMT
Um. Should we tell him?
>>74630342
In science, words have meaning.
Just because someone rejects religion doesn't make them a scientist.
In a thread where science is supposedly superior to religion, if people are using words wrong they should be called on it.
>>74632042
you sound kinda retarded
>>74626753
earth is flat. Outer space is a lie.
>>74632373
Actually laughed at this post
>>74632505
Isn't a guess based on probability though?
>>74626753
if the universe was just a few planets would that not make us special ?. By this you remove faith .So when god made the universe, he would be like those niggers are going to invent a telescope let me create a infinite universe
>>74626753
>>74626753
You may not be aware that God, Christ, Angels, and Demons all count as aliens as well? The definition of alien is anything that is not NATIVE to a specific location. Angels, Demons, and God are not Native to earth. They are extra-dimensional non-corporeal beings. That extra space out there belongs to the angels. That's literally heaven you are looking at in your picture.
>>74632609
A good one is, but it's not a requirement. Again, I can guess that girugamesh comes up dicktoasters and I have no idea the probability.
Still, outside the point. The point is that probability is an objective concept, and you cannot claim it without having it, and that's what I've been calling out in this thread.
>>74632515
Exactly what I did too. Called out the super srs bsns scientists that are litigating syntax on fucking 4chan (ridiculously off board topic at that). Like, are you reading the things you're typing? Where do you fall on the autism spectrum?
>>74632609
No, its based on muh feels
>>74632301
Yeah I know, but this is an anime inspired image board meant for discussion. You can't pull up people talking about the possibilities of other planets just because because that bit of "evidence" isn't 100% scientifically a point in their favor.
>>74632680
It is an objective concept, and just because we don't know the specifics of the system in question, doesn't mean that our predictions, whether we are talking in general or specific probabilities, will be 100 percent false right?
>>74632461
Never heard of it, so I just looked into it. Good luck bringing evidence into your argument, but it's not evidence of life. Correct me if you know more than me because I just googled it since I read your post, but it appears to just be evidence of water, not life. Water is a requirement of life, but life is not a requirement of water.
>>74632811
Whoops, disregard that post i'm a fucking goof. I just realized the whole thread revolved around this. I'll go shitpost elsewhere.
>>74632811
It's the entire point of the thread. The entire point of the thread is that it's apparently probable that there's other life, so I'm going to point out that it's not probable
>>74632819
You're trying to move the goal posts now. It is not true that it's probable that there's life on other planets. That's point. You cannot claim it's probable, and if you do, you're being incorrect and I've pointed out why.
>>74631325
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation#Free_space_propagation
>>74630356
If the universe is infinite, there are an infinite number of Earth clones where the exact same series of events happened over billions of years to lead to this very post that I'm typing.
>>74632922
I'm not moving goalposts, I am trying to bring this whole thing back to >>74631157.
You just said that the probability of an event is an objective fact in the world. If I claim that some event has X% probability of happening, whether this is a guess based on knowledge or not, you would say that what I just claimed was false, even if it turned out to be correct, since I don't really know what the numbers are. Yet you claim it is objective fact of the universe INDEPENDENT OF MY KNOWLEDGE?
>>74626896
Its pretty much mathematically impossible for us to be alone. But the universe is a big place. Even if theres a race out there with star trek level tech, the odds of them showing up at this particular planet are miniscule. Almost infinitely miniscule.
>>74633099
Claiming it's probable is objectively false. The claim is false. To say "it's probable that there's life on other planets" is an objectively false claim because they do not know the probability. They are not being true. They are being false, and that's what I've pointed out to them.
>>74629290
what the hell is this lol
>>74633204
>Its pretty much mathematically impossible for us to be alone
wrong. Read the thread. Show us the math.
I'll sum up the entire thread for you if you don't want to though: The size of the universe is not related to the likely hood of life. It's only half the equation. The size of the universe is 1 variable, and the other variable is how likely life is to form on any given spot, and we do not have that number, there is no equation, therefore you cannot claim mathematical likelihood
>i don't believe in religion because there's no proof
>i believe in aliens because even though there's no proof i strongly feel that it must be true
>>74633242
Unsure if youre ignorant or dumb.
>>74629290
ahahahahaha
holy shit people fucking believe this shit?
what the fuck man
jesus fucking christ galileo is rolling in his grave so fast you could hook a generator to him and use it to power your life support machine since clearly you're fucking braindead
>>74626753
"the earth is a ball"
said the pretentious "science" guy.
>>74633381
not an argument
>>74633242
What does true and false mean to you? Would that claim suddenly be true if we could figure out the odds of life in the universe and it turned out it was probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe?
>>74633242
thats a theory we apply to everything though.
when it was just england and thats all they knew really existed, they figured that because the earth was so big, there had to be someone else.
I get what you're trying to say, but it just doesn't work.
if there's a stadium full of 100k people, and there's one known black man, it is fair to reason that, due to the size of the stadium, there will be another black man in the stadium.
>>74633424
Ill make it simple for you.
For one you have size, for other you have likely hood of forming life.
Greenzone planets where already discovered but they are too far away from us to get any kind of info.
Biological life was already discovered in mars on frozen "water".
That already disproves half the shit youre spewing.
To prove the other fact i wold have to get actual proof ofa sentient being which of course i cant.
But you dont have proof they dont exist either.
So we have a schrodingers box that cant be opened.
>>74627562
Nice
>>74633473
If we could figure out the odds, and the odds turned out to be probable, then claiming the odds are probable would be true.
Right now we have no odds, we have no probability, so claiming that it is indeed probable, a conclusion you've come to using incorrect logic of what probability is, is a false claim
>>74633589
There's no point man. Don't waste your time.
Dude is just going to keep asking you for more and more evidence. You couldn't prove the existence of germs with the purity of evidence he's expecting.
>>74629290
Going by that concave mechanism they made up there, wouldn't you be able to see landmasses 90 degrees away around the inside of the sphere every time you looked upward at a 45 degree angle? I don't know why you religious nuts put so much effort into writing up things that don't make sense and contribute nothing to societal advancement in order to fit a bunch of outdated desert myths.
>>74631017
>I wonder if you realize that your rocks on the beach allegory presupposes a divine being as a designer. If someone painted the face and then chose not paint it on any other rocks, then there would be no probability of another rock with a face irrespective of the total rocks.
It might seem like an "argument from design", since I'm a sentient being. But the same laws of physics that led to the existence of the rock also led to the existence of me. But my sentience has no relation to the sentience/non-sentience of the rock, because the global histories of me and the rock are totally different.
The analogy is more about something happening once, and people believing in history repeating itself exactly elsewhere.
I am unrepeatable, you are unrepeatable, every person is unrepeatable (including twins), because there are different sequences of events that led to our existence.
The whole argument about the existence of extraterrestrial life is about repeatability.
People who believe in aliens think "it happened once, it must happen again." (But that could also be an argument for life emerging once in the universe, and history of the universe repeating forever.)
Other people think "there is no evidence this has happened again."
>But if there's a rock that randomly and accidentally looks like a face, and there's trillions of rocks over trillions of years, then there is definitely a chance, an effective certain chance, that there will be another rock that looks like a face.
The exact same face?
Suppose a rock randomly looks like face, and over trillions of beaches over trillions of years, another rock looks exactly like it. They may look the same, but they're not the same rock.
Suppose a person randomly has your face (you). Does that mean over trillions of years that there is another person who is exactly like you down to the atomic level?
>>74633643
So a claim about an objective fact in the universe can be true at one time and false at another?
>>74633747
People like this guy is why i dont go to church anymore. And im catholic. Remember kids, temperance is a virtue.
ITT: Religious cucks and pseudo-intellectual faggots yell opinions at each other and call it fact.
>>74633588
>if there's a stadium full of 100k people, and there's one known black man, it is fair to reason that, due to the size of the stadium, there will be another black man in the stadium.
It isn't. That is not what probability is. Saying "it is probable that there's another black man in this stadium, based on the fact there is 1 black man next to me" is not true. That's flawed logic. To say It's probable that there is another black man in the stadium requires you to know the likelihood that any given person is black inside that stadium.
>>74633589
>Biological life was already discovered in mars on frozen "water".
Was it? That would indeed disprove half the shit I'm spewing, but no one has brought this up to me yet and I'll ask you for a source on it.
>But you dont have proof they dont exist either.
I'm not claiming they don't exist. I'm not claiming probability they don't exist. I'm claiming that claiming it's probable they exist based on how large the universe is, is wrong. That alone does not make it probable that there's life in the universe. It's flawed logic and to claim it's probable based on the size of the universe, is incorrect.
>>74633747
Once again, I'm going to ask for ANY evidence, not more. You're just mad because you can't beat my point
>>74626896
They are here, on this board learning how to shitpost so they can eventually perfect it and conquer us.
>>74631211
No. If people think they're being scientific by saying "b-but the universe is really big!", they're wrong.
Compare these two statements:
"The universe is really big, therefore aliens must exist on another planet."
"The universe is really big, therefore God must exist on another planet."
It's fine if someone wants to believe in aliens, use faith to believe in aliens. But don't act like believing in aliens without any evidence is much different than believing in God without any evidence. They're both a matter of faith.
It gets even funnier if someone believes that God is an alien who lives on another planet. Because the universe is so big of course.
>>74633783
You are once again moving the goal posts. You are trying to separate this from individual perception, but that's what my point is. My point is that the person claiming it is probable, is wrong. Their logic they've used to get to that conclusion is false.
>>74626753
The conditions needed in order to create sentient live is pretty fucking rare senpai.
>>74631494
All of this is true. I don't understand how people don't get it.
>>74634028
You do realize that different statements within an argument can be true or false right? You can make a valid argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is sound. I can make a totally crazy invalid argument that i am drinking out of a blue cup right now, but that is objectively true. Just because my "logic" was bad does not mean that my conclusion is bad, do you agree?
>>74629290
At this stage I'm just waiting for a hyperbolic earth theory.
>>74626753
Catholic Church today accepts the idea that life migh exist on other planets, Mormons and Muslims believe in it as part of their religion.
>>74634122
Because they're too used to people agreeing with them blindly because they vaguely misinterpreted Niel Degrasse Tyson saying something, and haven't examined their own logic.
It reminds me of the blank or stunned stares a university student will give you if you ask them why white people are evil. They think it's just proof in and of itself and requires no explination
>>74633908
I already put forward evidence, with the full understanding that you wouldn't accept it as evidence. Mars, Gale Crater, water, carbon crust layering, virtual fact that single cellular life existed at one time, may still exist in ice features.
And I'm not mad lol, I'm tickled at how you're behaving. I think you might need to ask your doctor about Xanax.
There is no evidence either way.
It could take precisely 14 billions years for matter to become complex enough to be called life so we may be alone indeed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYpYB2f9kGk
>there's billions of other worlds with life on
>the proof is that we're the only known planet with life
>atheist logic
>>74631561
No, I'm saying that when it comes to extraterrestrial life that talking about the number of planets that exist in the universe means nothing if you don't know how many of them are exactly like Earth.
There is only one Earth in the entire universe, with its unique billions of years of history. Just like there is only one you in the entire universe, with your life history.
There is no reason to believe that you and your life history has been repeated anywhere else in the universe but here.
There is reason to believe that other "Earth-like" planets exist, but that still ignores the history of Earth after it formed.
This is all about the conditions on Earth being exactly the same somewhere else. This is all about repeatability.
>>74634243
If you tell me "I am drinking out of a blue cup" I will say "okay. Interesting" if you tell me "it is probable that you are drinking out of a blue cup" I will tell you you're wrong.
>I think that there is life on other planets
ok
>I would be willing to bet that there's life on other planets
ok
>I think there will turn out to be life on other planets
ok
>it is probable that there is life on other planets based on our current knowledge.
wrong. Probable = an equation. If you do not have the equation, claiming that it's probable, is wrong.
>life was discovered in mars
God damn it, pop science has ruined us as much as CSI has started to ruin legal matters.
>>74634304
Water and carbon crust are not evidence of life. They may be requirements for life, but that is not evidence of life. Bananas are not evidence of monkeys, but monkeys are evidence of bananas.
>>74634427
So lets assume I don't have the equation and I make the last green text claim, but also assume that equation exists. Would what I said in that green text be wrong?
>>74634385
>This is all about the conditions on Earth being exactly the same somewhere else. This is all about repeatability.
And given the massive numbers involved in the universe the odds are in favor of this random happening being repeated. Will we ever see the fruits of that repetition? Most likely not given the size of the universe however to assume that this planet is unique is to throw the entire concept of numbers and odds out the window
>>74634427
>wrong. Probable = an equation. If you do not have the equation, claiming that it's probable, is wrong.
autism
>>74634496
DUDE, WEED LMAO
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars/
http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/has-curiosity-found-fossilized-life-on-mars-150106.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2876373/Do-finally-proof-life-Mars-Unexplained-methane-spikes-suggest-bacteria-living-red-planet.html
Bonus: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/29/nasa-crossroads-mars-water-without-contamination-curiosity-rover
>>74632011
I'm just another person pointing out how irrational alien-believers are being (even though they think they're being rational).
Do you know what evidence is? It doesn't just mean handwaving, saying "this area is really big." The ocean is really big too. Does that mean there's aliens living under the ocean?
If someone said "God must live on another planet, because the universe is so big, and there are so many planets", would would you say?
>>74634563
irrelevant. "If I make this statement, and I'm right, am I wrong?" Jew tier trickery
You are claiming something is probable based on flawed logic which does not prove probability. I've pointed out why you're wrong
>>74634665
definition
"the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible."
if you cannot measure any ratio then you cannot claim probability
>>74634496
There's obviously more to the data than those two things, but I'm on my phone, not about to type a dissertation like your posts. Go read it, it's NASA so there's plenty of documentation.
I'm going to bed tho, I wish you luck in your quest to change hearts and minds by being condescending, berating and arbitrarily refuting in any way possible anyone who prods at your superiority complex, even if it means challenging semantics. It's totally gonna work one day.
:)
Nobody has a accurate estimate of the probability of life. There is a chance that we are alone, but intuitively we think we are not alone. Also the probability of 2 life forms to have ever formed is different from the probability that 2 life forms live close enough that their communication reach each other while both life forms haven't died out yet.
tl;dr: we don't know.
>>74629290
god this sounds like utter gibberish.
even if it was real it is utterly useless information to the current issues in the world.
round, flat, inside out sphere, a niggers still a nigger and hes gonna shoot you for not gibbing him dats either way.
>>74634711
Did you bother to read these? it is all speculative
fuckin tard
fucking tard
>>74634711
>http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars/
water is not evidence of life
>http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/has-curiosity-found-fossilized-life-on-mars-150106.htm
Congratulations! You've provided evidence of life outside of earth. Took 272 posts in this thread for someone to make a good point against me
>>74634813
I'm not trying to change anyones mind and I have no superiority complex. I'm waiting patiently for someone to make a good counter point against me, as you can see above, someone finally did. Sorry it wasn't you though, I know how hard you wanted.
>>74626753
>we are not alone in the universe
t. non-statistician.
>>74634964
That fossil article said there "looked to be fossils" but that it couldn't be confirmed since they can't collect samples.
>>74629893
>Stars are Small
the sun is...
>>74630785
>Think about it, if we were the only sentient life in whole world then that would mean the chance for such a life to be born randomly is so small that our existence cannot be a result of such a chance.
>It's like rolling a dice with 10000000000000000 sides and guessing the right one.
As long as the chance is bigger than 0, there's a chance we were born "randomly". If the chance is in fact 1 in 10000000000000000, and the number of planets in the universe is 10000000000000000, us being the only life form in the universe would make more sense than there being 0 life forms
>>74635016
The post he was responded to was me asking for evidence. It's unconfirmed and inconclusive, but he provided evidence to me claiming there was none.
There is still no way to claim probability of life forming outside of earth though so the claims in this thread are still retarded though.
>>74635077
Ahh
>>74633982
The difference between those two statements is significant though.
First is "there is some sort of life on another planet"
Second is equivalent to "there's greys with big eyes and flying saucers living on another planet"
In other words the second statement is needlessly specific. If there's one thing we know it's that considering the diversity of life on earth, it's impossible to predict what the life would be like.
I doesn't matter if we're alone, If there's anyone out there, we're too far apart to make contact anyway.
If there was no sentient being to observe the universe, what would happen to 'time'?
>>74626753
>>we are alone in the universe
>Said the religious guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbKmPrlgIPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-MNyjfNreg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogYV4F9daRk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFUx_KC1bHQ
http://biblehub.com/nasb/ezekiel/1.htm
>>74634783
I don't know how you can't see this
You agreed the probability of an event is an objective concept >>74632680
Objective necessarily means independent of ones knowledge. If I said that x has a probability of happening, but I did not know anything about x, that statement is either true or false. If we follow your logic, we don't know the probability of the event, therefore "x has a probability of happening" or "x does not have a probability of happening" are both false.
The point is that there are objective facts in the universe that do not depend upon our knowledge. You agree to this and disagree to this within your posts. Its not wrong to say that a fair coin has a 50 percent chance of being heads or tails with no knowledge of what a fair coin is.
>>74632438
>>74632513
I'm fascinated out how quickly ignorant people are quick to call others stupid.
You clearly don't know this, but are are many different routes of administration for drugs (the way a drug is ingested into the body).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_of_administration
I assume you think that is DMT is ONLY smoked, but you'd be wrong.
For years, people in the Amazon have been ingesting DMT orally (alongwith an MAOI so it becomes orally active).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca
However, researchers like Rick Strassman have studied DMT by injecting it into people, as he wrote about in his book DMT: The Spirit Molecule (which I've read).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Strassman
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v08n3/08304str.html
>After administering 0.4 mg/kg IV DMT to 56 volunteers over 100 times, I have seen that there is an extra-ordinarily wide range of sensitivity to this dose of DMT.
And a documentary based on that book was also made in 2010.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340425/
And the film itself (which I have watched) is entirely on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtT6Xkk-kzk
Contact with "entities" is a common occurrence on DMT.
I don't necessarily agree with Joe Rogan that aliens might be found in "inner space" rather than outer space, but it's an interesting idea to consider.
But back to what OP said, one of Rick Strassman's volunteers said
>You can still be an atheist until 0.4
(referring to a 0.4mg/kg intravenous dose of DMT)
>>74635373
The point is that you YOU, the person, or anyone in this thread cannot claim it's probable. Anyone who does is wrong. Do you agree with this?
>>74629290
If i memorize 10 min of this video then spew it back to a shrink can i get autism bucks like you?
>>74635484
I can claim it is probable or not, but is that claim wrong because I don't know the probabilities of the system in question? If you don't think that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe, I could use the same "logic" you are using on the people who think there is life in the universe.
>>74634722
Everyone seems so retarded nowadays...
There are supposedly billions of earth-like planets just in our galaxy, and you're trying to tell me it's not practically guaranteed aliens exist?
>>74635608
>I can claim it is probable or not
not without being wrong.
> If you don't think that it is probable that life exists elsewhere in the universe,
I don't think in terms of probability either way because we cannot. To claim otherwise is to be false and to fool yourself with flawed logic
>>74632785
Are you implying that serious discussions can't happen on 4chan because retards like you read the site?
It does takes more effort to spread correct information than disinformation or misinformation, but it's worth the effort if some ignorant people learn something.
>>74635648
>tell me it's not practically guaranteed aliens exist?
Yes. No matter how many planets exist, if you do not know how likely it is life exists, it's definitely not guaranteed. If there is X amounts of planets in the universe, maybe it terms out life forming on any planet is exactly 1/X likely. That make earth the only one. We do not know how likely life is to form, therefore any prediction is a 100% guess. There is not where close to a guarantee.
>>74635749
Look the claim that "it is probable that life in the universe other than earth" is true or false (right or wrong). The claim's truth value is independent of our knowledge. You can say they are dumb for not being agnostic about it, but surely you agree with what I said right?
>>74635077
Okay i'm back. Do you think there's ANY life at all in the universe? I mean we found a little bit of jizz on mars showing there was SOME life very close to us. Based on these things alone I don't think it's such a reach to think that there's some strange creatures on a planet somewhere, intelligent or not. I personally think it's crazy to think that Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that hosts life. Do you really believe we're the firsts beings of this caliber? Surely we're not that important.
>>74635882
Irrelevant. Goal post changing. A human today stating it's probable is a false claim and I explained why. It's false and based and incorrect logic. You're just digging for another point against me because you want to argue now.
>>74632811
>You can't pull up people talking about the possibilities of other planets just because because that bit of "evidence" isn't 100% scientifically a point in their favor.
The thread is clearly a science vs religion thread. When retards (who are irreligous, or atheist) think they're being more "scientific" than theists but they aren't, you can and should point out that, no, their views are not more scientific, but a matter of faith.
If someone said "there are so many planets in the universe that God must live on another one", you would probably call them out. It's no different than believing "there are so many planets in the universe that aliens must live on another one" or "there are so many planets in the universe that Catholics must live on another one."
>>74635884
>I don't think it's such a reach to think
Think what ever you want. Make any kind of prediction you want. Argue your prediction if you want.
However, unless you have a basis for how likely it is that life forms in any given place, you cannot claim likelihood or probability.
>>74635831
>we're the one-trillionth special snowflakes
I'll take the rational position
>>74636071
Yeah okay, are you here to alert me of that fact or are you arguing against it? Having you been doing the former the whole thread or do you believe nolife?
>>74636157
>we're the one-trillionth special snowflakes
Without knowing the likely hood of life forming in any given place, this option is 100% equally rational to the other option. Claiming just because the universe is giant, without knowing the other half of the equation, is irrational. You're making an assumption outside what is likely or has evidence, and it's 100% faith based.
>>74636003
Here >>74636045
I fucked up again.
>>74636230
I've been doing the former the entire thread. This anon points it out perfectly. >>74636003
I'm here pointing out when le intellectual atheists think they have logic on their side and they in fact do not, and their argument is counter logic.
>>74636000
All right you have to be trolling I am done go fuck yourself. You don't even know what goal post changing is, you are like one of those faggots who go hurr ad hominen LOL. Have a good night stef
>God has been cheating on us with other alien races
That boy is in for such a whooping when he comes home.
It seems unlikely that considering the sheer vastness of the universe that we are alone in it. 500,000 stars in our galaxy alone and every star similar in spectrum to our own we single out for study turns out to have a planetary system. I doubt anyone alive today will be around when it's proven one way or the other.
>>74636336
Goodnight. Glad you've at least admitted claiming it's probable there's other alien life is not grounded in logic or observation.
>>74632976
No, if the multiverse is infinite, that would be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
But there's also no evidence for a multiverse. It's a hypothesis.
>The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our own universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it.
Supposing the existing of tons of other universes is used to explain why the laws of physics are the way they are in this universe (because, the hypothesis goes, there may be tons of other universes, each with random laws of physics).
Basically, there are people willing to believe in an infinite number of universes (which will never be observed), each with random laws of physics, simply because they don't like the concept of God.
>>74636240
Of course both positions are faithful, same regarding the existence of a deity, or the belief in the existence of unicorns. You can either assert existence, assert non-existence, or not assert. In fact the most rational position is the latter, but I am going out on a limb and asserting that it is statistically very improbable for no life to exist in our galaxy, let alone universe.
>>74636335
Makes sense. Keep posting like that.
>>74636454
Im glad that you admitted that objective facts are based upon our knowledge you dumb leaf
>>74635484
Clouds of Glycolaldehyde (a complex sugar that is an important component of RNA) have been detected near the center of the universe. Glycine (amino acid, another component of RNA) has been found in meteors that have fallen to earth. Other components of DNA such as uracil, xanthine, and other complex organic molecules have all been detected in space. Basically all the ingredients for life are constantly whizzing around. To think that our planet is the only place in the universe where the combination of these common molecules took place is ridiculous.
>>74633589
>Biological life was already discovered in mars on frozen "water".
>That already disproves half the shit youre spewing.
Maybe "life" means something else in Portuguese, but this is completely wrong.
It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Stupid people are too stupid to realize how stupid they are.
>>74636488
Exactly. They're equally rational. It's not more rational to assume there's life out there than it is to assume there is life out there. You have no basis for it, therefore it is not the rational choice.
>asserting that it is statistically very improbable for no life to exist in our galaxy, let alone universe.
You are incorrect. There is no statistic for this. The size of the universe is one half of the equation. The likely hood of life forming in any given spot is the other half. We do not have the later half. There is no statistics, no probability, no likelihood that can be claimed with half an equation.
>>74636546
>To think that our planet is the only place in the universe where the combination of these common molecules took place is ridiculous.
No it isn't. It has the exact same amount of evidence as there existing life in other parts of the universe. Either assumption is made without evidence.
>>74633747
>You couldn't prove the existence of germs with the purity of evidence he's expecting.
I think people on 4chan will hear the news if they find germs on another planet.
You might also like to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_contamination
>Forward contamination is the transfer of life and other forms of contamination from Earth to another celestial body.
>If a planet becomes contaminated by Earth life, it might then be difficult to tell whether any lifeforms discovered originated there or came from Earth.[30] Furthermore, the organic chemicals produced by the introduced life would confuse sensitive searches for biosignatures of living or ancient native life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
>Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and the Earth.
>In 1967, the US, USSR, and UK ratified the United Nations Outer Space Treaty.
>The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) meets every two years, in a gathering of 2000 to 3000 scientists,[11] and one of its tasks is to develop recommendations for avoiding interplanetary contamination.
>>74636669
Sure there is, since we are presuming that we are an earth-like planet just like the billions of others, there is the similarity of capacity for life. In fact there is evidence to suggest flowing water has existed on Mars and might exist now, and that there is life underneath the ice of Jupiter's moons. There is much more evidence suggesting the possibility of life than evidence supporting the position of no life existing at all in billions of planets.
>>74636762
You're getting too deep into philosophy. Of course we don't have hard, conclusive evidence of life, but using indirect evidence we do have we can make an informed hypothesis about it's probably likelihood.
>>74626753
>we're not alone guys
>how do you know?
>based on my superstitious belief, we're not alone!
sounds like a religion to me
>>74636893
That is not evidence of life forming from nothing. The amount of planets, or the habitability of earth life on planets, does not speak to how likely it is that life will form. Again, you're missing half the equation. Until we know the likelihood of life forming "There are a lot of planets" is not evidence. To say it's statistically possible for life to be on another planet, you need to know the likelihood of life forming or you're make a baseless guess. That is not statistics.
>>74636926
This is not deep, this is the opposite. I'm going to the very surface of numbers. That having one set of numbers in a ratio, and missing the other side of the ratio, means the ratio does not exist and nothing can be assumed from it.
>>74626753
>this is supposed to be related to religion somehow
>>74633804
Theists can believe in aliens.
Atheists can disbelieve in aliens.
Theists can be irreligious.
Religious people can believe in aliens.
But it's ridiculous to have faith in aliens but ridicule faith in God. It's even funnier if you consider the idea that God could be an alien.
>>74637018
We don't have evidence of life existing.
We don't have evidence of life not existing.
We have evidence that the molecules and compounds that comprise "life" are common throughout the universe.
Now, based on the above, which is a more likely theory:
Life is everywhere.
Life only happened this one time in this one place.
>>74634304
Wow. They found life on Mars and you're the only person who knows about it? Fascinating.
Maybe it's just me, but I think something like discovering alien life would be all over the media.
>>74637259
lol, you don't know what is the probability of froming of life
if the chance was nearly infinitely small, the latter would be more probable
>>74637259
We have no evidence of how often or under which conditions those molecules turn into life. Therefore, scientifically, neither is a more likely theory. There is no way to judge likeliness. They are both baseless and you cannot claim one is statistically, or mathematically more likely. You can make a guess, and your guess is no more or less rational than someone guessing the opposite because neither can form a ratio for how likely they are. You are just guessing, and you are not more rational than those who guess otherwise. The difference is you mislead yourself into thinking it's rational or more likely, counter to the evidence, making it hilarious to point out when atheists do it while simultaneous tipping their fedoras to the other guess.
>>74637433
hy·poth·e·sis
hīˈpäTHəsəs/
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
My hypothesis has more evidence than your hypothesis. Therefore, mine is the better.
>>74637657
Your hypothesis has zero evidence. I have not made a hypothesis.
>>74626753
It's not completely proven that life has formed outside our planet. There exists the probability of it happening based upon the fact that this planet had all the conditions to maintain life and reproduce life. Heck, it's even the process of the creation of life from unlike itself is something that we have failed to replicate or to even observe just like the existence of other life created outside Earth.
We simply cannot verify this probability as having happened without confirming the existence of such having occurred more than once. I.e. insufficient evidence
It may very well be that the process of unlife to life is an extremely extremely factor demanding process. Abstraction is insufficient evidence in the face of repeated observation.
Also, unlike the realm of God/gods, the realm of man is bound to the natural laws and logic of the physical realm. After all the only evidence of the unphysical/spiritual's natural law/logic is found in the physical natural law/logic: the logic of man. The spiritual law is in direct contradiction and contrast to the physical law. This means not only can we not prove the existence of the spiritual law the probability of such is low. The only evidence of the spiritual law is the simple physical logic of hypothesis and mere suggestion that it exists I.e. the hearsay/message of man. This evidence is insufficient due to the lack of its evidence/basis in the physical law such as repeated observation/repeatability. This is also why the secular origin of life is more convincing than creationism. Because the former is based upon the rules/logic of the physical rather than the spiritual.
So it's not that there isn't evidence that life can be formed outside earth. It's that there is insufficient evidence to confirm this probability. Heck for all we know this "life" might be more akin to a virus which doesn't have all the required characteristics of life. After all a self-replicating machine/entity challenges the conception of
>>74637699
My evidence is that organic compounds are common.
My extrapolation is that those compounds can form together in a way that has been recreated in a laboratory.
>>74637885
And then you're extrapolating further by saying they have formed together naturally having absolutely zero numbers for the likelihood of this happening at any given spot.
>>74627988
>dissapating
What causes them to dissapate?
>>74634615
That's like saying that someone won the lottery once, therefore the odds of them winning the lottery again are in their favor. There have been people who have won the lottery multiple times, but it's extremely rare, and it's highly unlikely they won with the same numbers, or won the same amount each time.
That's like saying someone was struck by lightning once, therefore the odds of them being struck by lightning again are in their favor. There have been people who have been struck by lightning multiple times, but it's extremely rare.
This is about the rarity of life, the repeatability of life.
The Big Bang happened (at least) once, supposedly. Does that mean it will happen again? Well some people do believe in cyclic models of the universe, an infinite chain of big bangs/big crunches, or big bounces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
The universe may be cyclic, but there's no evidence for it (and there may never be any, unless someone subscribes to Hinduism or something).
>>74629255
If the first one you pulled out was sentient then perhaps another might be..
I'll just leave this here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
>Gambler's fallacy arises out of a belief in a "law of small numbers", or the erroneous belief that small samples must be representative of the larger population. According to the fallacy, "streaks" must eventually even out in order to be representative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
>Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
>>74626932
>like us
that means universe is mostly filled with retards, niggers and sandniggers
>>74637819
As separate from unlife. Would a sentient machine capable of communication be considered life?
Perhaps we are just simply unlife. Perhaps we are all where the concept of death is akin to a dead star or Galaxy. Perhaps death is simply the state of being a broken machine, the lack of awareness, a receding process starting with the malfunction of cells (partial death).
If the unliving isn't separate from the living, we can't die since we're already dead.
Religion and the spiritual is then faith in the hope that we aren't actually dead as a rebellion against the physical laws that we likely are.
t. You're already dead anime man
>>74638281
I'm not saying the universe needs to be cyclic, I'm saying the universe is so vast that there can be 1000 different intelligent life forms at any given time and they could never come in contact with each other.
I don't get why we like to think we're so unique, and why does life always need to evolve around the exact same ways earth life did?
>>74638025
yep, that is why it is a hypothesis and not a fact.
The hypothesis that life is singular has no evidence to support itself, and there is evidence suggesting the opposite. So it's my tiny shred of evidence vs no evidence at all.
All I'm extrapolating is that the likelihood of those molecules coming together naturally, twice, is greater than zero.
>>74634665
I know the word "probable" has casual uses and strict uses.
But if someone seriously wants to argue that extraterrestial life is "probable", they really need to use it in its strictest sense, which involves math, not just a guess.
>tfw there's a very large chance that we are the most successful species in the universe
feels good to be people
>>74638517
the concept of life as separate from unlife*
>>74638594
Let's say X is the size of the entire universe measured in planets. So the life we've observed on earth mean's there's life on 1/X. You're saying it's more likely for the likelihood life forms to be greater than 1/X, but you forget it could also be lower. It could be substantially lower than 1/X, and earth could have been an accident against the odds. Unless we know the likelihood of life forming, you do not have evidence here.
The evidence for it being less likely than 1/X or equal to is the fact we have observed it in 1/X. This is terrible evidence since it's such a small sample, but it's a shred of evidence like you said, which is better for none.
Assuming the likelihood is greater than 1/X has no more evidence than assuming it's less than. It's baseless speculation, and no more rational.
>>74634711
Liquid water is believed to be necessary for life as we know it. That does not mean that anywhere you find water in the universe that you will find life.
The second two links are questions (and articles about possible life on Mars are sure to receive a lot of hits).
And the last links talks about forward contamination, which I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
>Curiosity rover already on red planet cannot study streaks left by flowing water because it could be carrying bugs from Earth
Since the Mars rovers came from Earth, how can you be certain that any germs found on Mars by the rovers, did not hitch a ride from Earth?
