@mzbehavin You are entitled to your own opinion. Zero.

@motrubl4u obviously we get our space news from the wrong places. And here me being only 200 miles from Roswell, you'd think I would have seen the ships at least flying around.

The difference is science admits it and looks for facts and evidence until it can explain, whereas religion makes something up and pretends it's true!

@johnprytz Assume much? Like any group the spectrum of believers is huge. I for example understand science, cause and effect, gravity, thermodynamics, and the whole host of reason based observable phenomena. Yet I also like the idea and believe in the idea of a greater truth inherent in a universal intelligence. I cannot prove it and really do not need to as a belief is on its own a intellectual exercise for a real goal. For me its about a sense of wonder and a wish to resist the cold darkness of pure reason, the reason that justifies Eugenics and other horrors. God for me it not about explaining, Science does fine with that. I do not particularly care what or if others believe, I care about what I and they do. That to me is the important question. If you justify evil through cold logic or burning dogma the end result is the same and quite often born from the same fruit of action and intent. Stopping such people is the purview of both reasoned action and quite often sacrifice born of belief in a greater goal not supported or born out by pure biological survival and reason. Humans have always struggled I think with the fact that there is no reason science based point to existence beyond raw biological imperative. So why care if it all burns? If it all dies? That is were I think belief comes in, were love and hope and humor takes over. The intent is the rub. If through belief in God or belief in a cause creates the impetus for positive action good. If negative let us call out the result and rage and work against that. Rather then falling into the trap of assumption and believing it helps anything to pigeonhole people.

@johnprytz I think anytime someone says all they are incorrect when it comes to human thought and action. I agree that fundamentalists are by definition "true believers". However my point stands that the variation in human action and thought within any group defies pat statements and generalizations. It is sad and endemic to human groups that they seem to need generalizations when referring to opposing groups as an essential part of their identity. For example many Atheists need to define religion as an absolute evil which is by any measure an absurdity. It is a human construct that defines action both negative and positive and through the manipulation of demagogues and psychopaths is used much as science, Nationalism, racial identity and many others have been and continue to be as a force for evil. It also does quite a bit of good. I do wish it would stop being a force in opposition to reason and thought. I wish we would grow out of it as a species, as well as grow out of defining our fellow humans based on nature (i.e. gender, race, sexual orientation etc.) as opposed to action. But to me a great evil is believing one knows with certainty based on incomplete information and personal bias another's intent and quality of character based on a generalization whether its religious preference or choice to not define or believe in a religion.

Beat me to it

Agree. The huge distances make aliens coming here (or our going there), or the possibility of them have visited in the past is very unlikely as long as faster than light seems to be a barrier.

@Marcel3405 We have life on Earth. My cats are evidence for this. There is no evidence for life elsewhere.

@johnprytz I didn’t say it’s impossible or improbable. I’m not betting against it. I’m pointing out there is no evidence for it and science requires evidence.

@johnprytz I think there is a pretty compelling logical argument for life beyond the Earth, but not a scientific one.

@indirect76 But, a mathematical probability that life exists elsewhere. However, there is no equivalent mathematical probability that God exists.

@dahermit There is no known mathematical probability for life existing elsewhere. We do not know how rare life is. It could be a million per galaxy, it could be one in a trillion per universe.

@indirect76 Not a "Mathematical probability", but the Drake Equation is something to consider.

@dahermit Yes, unfortunately there are terms in the Drake Equation that are unknown.

@johnprytz Logic and science are not the same thing. Logic lives in the theater of the mind. For subjects like mathematics, you can get by on logic alone.

You can not use logic alone with science. One may employ logic to create a hypothesis or make a prediction, but they must be tested. There must be evidence. It is a much more rigorous process.

@johnprytz Wow. Sometimes I don’t know why I even try.

I’ve explained clearly the difference between logic & science. I’ve expressed how having a logical argument alone can be compelling. This compelling logical argument is why people go into this field, so they can prove it, scientifically. The mere fact that they are working on it shows that the jury is still out on this matter.

The logical argument for the Higgs Boson was compelling. Many scientists thought it existed, but it did not become science until they built the LHC and got evidence for it.

Gravity waves, compelling logical argument for that. Many scientists thought they existed. It wasn’t science until they built LIGO and got evidence for it.

What experiment has been conducted that shows evidence of extra-terrestrial life? It would be the most significant event in human history.

@TheAstroChuck I agree with you. I didn’t want to imply that the idea of Higgs Boson & gravity waves were brought by logic or thought alone. Only that logic was used to get there among other things. I could have chosen better words.

@TheAstroChuck Why do I even try? Your verbose response was mostly useless, as it was attacking something I never said or implied.

Your summary paragraph is correct, and makes a good point. In fact, it’s the exact point I was making when I brought up the LHC & LIGO. The big difference is that the LHC & LIGO were able to detect what they were looking for. So far, and I’ll quote you on this “extraterrestrial life has not been detected”.

@TheAstroChuck That’s not what I said, but I stand by my original statement. Possibly exists? Yes. Probably exist? OK. Must exist? No.

@TheAstroChuck Regardless of whether I’m using those word in one way or me another, I’ve explained how I use them, and I believe my statements are consistent with my uses.

"...science explains that the closest stars with planets that could support life are (a minimum of) hundreds of light years away."

Actually about twelve light years away. However, to travel just 10 light years at the top speed set by Apollo 10, would take 270,000 years.[en.wikipedia.org]

@johnprytz

I'm not sure I understand your argument against why most intelligences might not wander aimlessly around the universe for generation after generation ?