e.t.: yay or nay

[ikkarus01]

A question mainly for caspian_x and thebruce0: What are your opinions regarding extraterrestrial sentient life? Are we the only intelligent life in the universe? I swear this isn't some kind of trap or argument-bait. I'm genuinely curious to find out what you guys think about this topic and how your religious beliefs may inform your opinions. It's one of those

Comments

[deridere]

I think it'd be a pretty sad and lonely day if we were *it*. There has to be more out there than just us, but exactly what, who knows.

[hellion_veritas]

Superintelligent shades of the color blue!

[caspian_x]

This may sound like a cop-out, but I'm not really convinced one way or the other.

I, too, think that since the universe is VAST, it's quite possible other planets were created with life. Beyond that, other "worlds" that do not occupy our three dimensions (much like Narnia) would also be possible. As far as my faith and religious beliefs go, Jesus said that he had sheep that were not of this sheep pen that He would eventually bring together. This is usually interpreted as the Gentiles or something to that effect, but it could very well be people not of earth.

That said, I don't think we have any evidence of life on other planets (other than what Kucinich saw in the sky and Robertson thinks is hidden at Roswell) so I wouldn't be that surprised if we are alone in the universe. God may have created a universe this large with life only on this planet simply to show us his power (goes back to that "All creation proclaims my existence" thing).

So yeah. Not sure. I kinda lean towards yay, but hold no firm conviction.

[ikkarus01]

I don't think that's a cop-out. "I don't know," is a perfect reasonable and accurate answer. I don't know either. Like you, I lean in the direction of "yay," but I don't know. I hope that there is, because, like deridere said above, it would be kind of sad and lonely if there isn't.

[thebruce0]

dude, we should hold our own little debate about the chance of God creating life on other planets ;)

[caspian_x]

Heh, we should indeed. Though I doubt it would be that rousing of a debate. It's not like I firmly believe that God did create life on other planets. I just think it's possible.

[k_sui]

Isn't there some sort of famous equation about this? Damn, undergrad physics was so very long ago. Let me see if I can find it.

[k_sui]

Ah-hah! There is a famous equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

(I'll shut up now.)

[ikkarus01]

That's pretty damn fascinating.

[thebruce0]

ah yes, the Drake equation. I lvoe this :)

see once again, it's an equation that starts with assumption - that life will develop on other planets.

On variable is:
fℓ
= the fraction of the above (potential life supporting planets) that actually go on to develop life at some point
= 1 (100% of the planets will develop life)

This is an assumption based on the belief that because Earth evolved life, then it can and does and will happen elsewhere. So really, the Drake equation only applies if you believe in Evolution. If I did, I would stand by Drake most certainly.

...I'm really not trying to start a Creation/Evolution debate again :P haha! Just pointing out the responses and reasoning I hold to regarding 'proofs' or mathematical 'certainties' about potential ET life.

[thebruce0]

heh, so many mini-topics to touch on there that have helped formed my opinion, and no, not all religious in nature ;)

First, the obvious answer: the burder of proof is on the one making the claim. What we've seen is no life. So, before I can believe there is life out there, I need to see it. So my belief (since it's not something I know as a fact) is that there is no life

[incyr]

*blinks*

I must be getting tired. I could have sworn you just used the exact argument you discount so very often in other debates.

What we've seen is no life. So, before I can believe there is life out there, I need to see it. So my belief (since it's not something I know as a fact) is that there is no life.

Replace life with God and I could have sworn I've argued this very point before. And yet, you've always argued against it.

I'm not trying to start something here, I'm just curious how you can use an argument in one place, and then argue against the same argument in another.

[incyr]

Gah, stupid closing brackets.

[thebruce0]

no, actually I've never said that you have to know God's existence without seeing Him. I've always said I know God's existence because I've experienced Him, and I believe that all can know Him because, given my belief that the Bible is true, and I believe its reasoning, God is visible in Creation itself, and without any bias one way or another, it only points to God.

So, I believe in God because I've experienced Him.
I don't believe in ET life because I haven't seen evidence of it.

I don't expect people to believe in God without knowing, or having experienced, Him for themselves. The difference is, the evidence, God, is -right there- and throughout the world, people either ignore Him, misunderstand Him, or have their own interpretations of Him; and I'm not labelling who says what, just that those are the options, given my personal belief that God is real.

Does that clarify it a little more? :)

[k_sui]

Argh. So very not an equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Also, I can't recommend Daniel Grinspoon's book, Lonely Planets, on this enough. Very entertaining and very informative. Kind of like, "A Scientific Inquiry That Also Touches On Faith In A Non-Smarmy And Condescending Way." It's awesome.

[ikkarus01]

Now that you mention Fermi, I do remember reading about that "Where is everybody?" conversation way back when.

And thanks for the book recommendation. I'll have to check that out.

[thebruce0]

See, that's the thing for me... the argument "but the universe is so big".
"Even if intelligent life occurs on only a minuscule percentage of planets around these stars, there should still be a great number of civilizations extant in the Milky Way galaxy alone."

This still assumes that intelligent life does exist. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter how big the universe is. Because we have no maximum test size (size of the uninverse), and no sample to work with, there's no way for us to know one way or another, until we find a sample to work with - that's a mathematical issue, not a philosophical one

[k_sui]

Personally, I think evolution is the best explanation I've heard so far for the explanation of how life got to the point where it is right now on Earth. But, and the aforementioned Grinspoon book delves into this on multiple instances, how life started is a whole other investigation. Right now, the process is all centered on water and the availability of it, which to the non-scientific layman (me) seems logical but terribly limited. It means we're focused on looking for life in similar forms to what we have already observed here on Earth. Interesting? Sure. Worthwhile? Probably. Likely to succeed? I, the non-scientific layman, have not the foggiest idea. Grinspoon seems optimistic. Fermi wasn't.