Just curious on members belief in extraterrestrial life.
belief, as in... we think we know? that's kind of weird since we KNOW no one knows. it is very, very likely that life has developed somewhere else in the universe. it is also very, very likely that it is microbial. there is no evidence whatsoever, so far, that life advanced enough to go a-visiting, or a-building, has developed, or even SHOULD develop (should WE have developed?) anywhere else. there is no particular reason that it shouldn't have, except for its limited likelihood. but life, even if not as we know it? yes, sure, we have evidence that that's likely, even without evidence that it's so. so i would not use belief with regard to this issue. it's a matter of believing whether it COULD be, or is LIKELY to be.
g
Until some verifiable evidence, facts and data can be produced to support the existence of aliens (or any claim) then the default position is the claim is false.
Hitchens' razor is an epistemological razor asserting that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim, and if this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”.
One thing I have struggled with is that perspective in the face of the scientific method. It's somewhat a catch 22, I don't believe it till you can prove it, yet you can't prove it without believing it's there and doing experiments (with the all important ingredient - research funding LOL). In some areas it's not a problem (observing HIV or radiation on cells), but in others it is (M-theory, particle physics, etc). I'm not saying scientists should allow their beliefs to sway research data and interpretation, but on the flip side, dismissing stuff we don't understand just b/c we don't understand it could be a hindrance to knowledge also. It can be a fine line to walk sometimes.
I'm pretty shocked that so many people think there is life somewhere else in the universe just because we have life. Of course many of these people also believed in a non-existent god at one point so I guess it shouldn't be too surprising. You would think that people requiring evidence to believe in god would require some evidence of life somewhere else other than gee it must be. They're using the same logic from the origination of gods in the first place, trying to explain the unknown.
As for the arrogance argument, I'm sure people also said you'd have to be arrogant to believe that man controls everything and there is no god. Just another way of demeaning someone who doesn't agree with you? Would it be just as arrogant to believe that only we have cars and that no where else in the universe are there cars? Or Reese's bars for that matter.
@Alone people made up the gods to explain scientific phenomenon and the gods were erased as science proved their baselessness. You cling to the hope/guess that there might be life because we have it. God (Poseidon) made the tides because there are tides...we have life so there must be life elswhere...what's the difference?
I think aliens exist solely because the universe is awfully big for just us but as NDT says 'The universe is under no obligation to make sense' (or something like that)
Life On Other Planets?! Neil deGrasse Tyson Thinks It's Possible.
Just a preacher preaching things that are fun to think about. The same argument can be used for nature itself...what makes it rain if it's not a god or something better than us? How arrogant are we to believe that something isn't pulling all the strings? Remember, if all of the stuff he's saying isn't true or possible he's out of a job.
Some Harvard grad students made a statement about Oumuamua possibly being a probe, built be some sort of technological species out there somwhere, likely within a few hundred light-years. I think the same. I can;t say it's impossible. As to life in general, yeah, I think we'll find microbial life on Mars and some of the water ice moons of the gas giants. Unless there's something in the genetics that tells us a clear story, the exobiologists of those years of discovery will be trying to get a clear picture if life arose individually in all the places it is found or whether there is or was various material exchange between these different celestial bodies with microbes hitchhiking along and thereby spreading around leaving it a mystery whether there was one origin point or more.
Regarding exoplanets, we've found a lot of superearths in their star's goldilocks zone and I'd be astounded if there were not life on some of them, coneivably all of them. As we keep looking, I'm sure we'll find some planets in the Venus/Earth mass range. Speaking of venus, there may be life 50 miles up in Venus's cloude.
Just because I acknowledge that life might exist beyond our Earth, does’t mean I “believe” in it. If it does, however, I think it’s more likely to be something akin to our viruses or bacteria. Only nastier ... as in “The Andromeda Strain.”
But taking into consideration that alot of the universe is far older than our little galaxy, do you still think the only life out there is microbial? Despite the fact theyve had millions of more years than us to advance. Why then does our species develope so quickly?
There certainly MUST be ET life out there. Perhaps not as we know it. (Based on silicone, EG) But the distances between universes and solar systems is too great*.
*Unless you have warp drive!
The distances are too great given our current limited understanding of space/time/gravity and our linear perception of time. Physicists might understand gravitational pull to model the effect, but even the greatest minds in the field today can't tell us why it works or what causes it.
I don't know the specific numbers but the Fermi Paradox argues that even at non-relativistic speeds someone should have had time to colonize the universe. So.. as Fermi put it -- 'Where is everybody?' I guess that's why it's called a paradox.