Do intelligent extraterrestrials exist?

[Unlived Grudge]

I love astronomy. The study of the material universe is one of the few topics in science that I enjoy. Arguably, space is the next step for humanity. Resources are dwindling on Earth, economies are beginning to plummet, and rumors of WMDS being developed by several nations are beginning to spread. Earth is currently in a bit of a mess. What do we do? We colonize space. We search elsewhere for resources and for potential to expand the huge population of Earth elsewhere. However, one potential topic exists that intrigue several modern astronomers. Does intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in the universe?

What do you guys think? Does intelligent extra-terrestrial life exist in the universe, or are we as humans alone in the vast realm of space? I do believe that alien life does exist, and if that is the case, the likelihood of some of that life being intelligent and self-aware is just as high. Considering how small our planet, let alone our sun, is in comparison to the rest of the galaxy, the likelihood of intelligent life existing elsewhere is reasonably high.

The conditions necessary for life are rather high. All life presumably requires a planet to exist, requires a breathable atmosphere, water, significant gravity levels and enough sunlight to thrive. However, the presence of hydrocarbon lakes on one of the moons of Saturn hints at the possibility that life might not exactly need water or much sunlight at all to exist. If this is the case, intelligent life may be more abundant across the galaxy and the universe than modern astronomers had originally anticipated.

Now, please don't dismiss this debate as a generic nerdy article shoving opinions in your face. I am genuinely interested in hearing what you guys have to say regarding the matter. So, do you think humanity will encounter intelligent alien life one day? Or do you think we are alone in space?

 

[Hobbies230]

I seriously doubt that we are alone in the universe, mainly because as far as we know the universe is infinite, or least millions upon billions times bigger than we're able to know. Based on that, the likelihood that humans are the only intelligent life out there is remote.

 

[naughtymonkey]

I agree with Hobbies230, if the universe is infinity there might be something out there, but we may never know, and they may never know.

 

[Justin]

I do not believe there is.

 

[Antarctic]

Why yes, I do think there is something else out there.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I do not believe there is.

Why not? Why should the Earth be the only planet to hold life?

 

[David]

There probably is some form of ET out there, but there is a strong argument against it: For the Earth to form life, it would have had to come at the right time (when the Sun was still a main sequence star), in the right place (between Mars and Venus perfectly, and away from the Sun), and have the perfect atmosphere (life could not form if the Nitrogen to Oxygen levels were not accurately measured), the collision between the asteroid and the Earth to form the Moon (the Moon provides/reflects light to dark places on the Earth, otherwise the Earth would be minus x degrees during the night) and so on. Therefore the chances of this happening is getting closer and closer to zero if you take a simple sample space of the planets around the Earth. When the chances of life permitting planets gets smaller, life prohibiting planets increases to almost infinity, so there is a much higher chance that ET does not exists than existing.

Also, for ET to exist, that life can not ever originate form the Earth, even if it is a simple bacteria, as that would void the term "Extra Terrestrial". If there is life out there, you need to prove it was not from the Earth.

 

[Justin]

I do not believe there is.

Why not? Why should the Earth be the only planet to hold life?

Because of how specifically it most be made for life to exists. Not every solar system is laid out just like ours. Ours is special and very lucky. I believe we are the only planet that has (sometimes doubtful :lol🙂 intelligent beings.

 

[Nathan54AB]

There probably is some form of ET out there, but there is a strong argument against it: For the Earth to form life, it would have had to come at the right time (when the Sun was still a main sequence star), in the right place (between Mars and Venus perfectly, and away from the Sun), and have the perfect atmosphere (life could not form if the Nitrogen to Oxygen levels were not accurately measured), the collision between the asteroid and the Earth to form the Moon (the Moon provides/reflects light to dark places on the Earth, otherwise the Earth would be minus x degrees during the night) and so on. Therefore the chances of this happening is getting closer and closer to zero if you take a simple sample space of the planets around the Earth. When the chances of life permitting planets gets smaller, life prohibiting planets increases to almost infinity, so there is a much higher chance that ET does not exists than existing.

Also, for ET to exist, that life can not ever originate form the Earth, even if it is a simple bacteria, as that would void the term "Extra Terrestrial". If there is life out there, you need to prove it was not from the Earth.

Because of how specifically it most be made for life to exists. Not every solar system is laid out just like ours. Ours is special and very lucky. I believe we are the only planet that has (sometimes doubtful ) intelligent beings.

All that is based on the assumption that life is limited only to the set of conditions found on Earth and in our solar system. In fact, that is not the case at all. There is no reason to believe that life can only exist within the Earth's range of temperature, balance of gases, gravity, light, etcetera. That is crap. One doesn't need to go far to refute that nonsense. At the depths of the oceans where there is no sunlight and pressures are at the most extreme you can get on this planet, life thrives. Some of those creatures down there produce their own light and some metabolize the methane that seeps out of fissures on the sea floor. That is very alien. Just recently, a bacteria was discovered that can metabolize arsenic (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/scien ... senic.html), of which until then was also very alien.

No good set of rules has really been formed that states limits life to specific conditions, for they are always expanded. There are even ideas that suggest life might not have to be carbon-based, but also silicon-based. Maybe it's true or maybe it's not, but I think I have my point across.

The fact is, evolution won't stop at anything to adapt life to many varieties of conditions. I believe it is very versatile. So, of course other intelligent life exists. I would think it is very common. I'd go so far as to say that there might even be what is called superterrestrial life; life that exists in other dimensions of reality.

 

[David]

All that is based on the assumption that life is limited only to the set of conditions found on Earth and in our solar system. In fact, that is not the case at all. There is no reason to believe that life can only exist within the Earth's range of temperature, balance of gases, gravity, light, etcetera. That is crap.

There is no available evidence to suggest life can exist outside Earth's conditions. Until you can prove that, life can only exist in Earth-like conditions.

One doesn't need to go far to refute that nonsense. At the depths of the oceans where there is no sunlight and pressures are at the most extreme you can get on this planet, life thrives. Some of those creatures down there produce their own light and some metabolize the methane that seeps out of fissures on the sea floor. That is very alien. Just recently, a bacteria was discovered that can metabolize arsenic (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/scien ... senic.html), of which until then was also very alien.

You have just confirmed what I said. Who cares if those organisms do not experience light. They are within Earth's containable field of life set by Earth's conditions. As long as all those organisms have come from the Earth, you can't use that as an example of potential ET life as "Extra Terrestrial" means life that does not originate from Earth, whereas your case comes from Earth.

No good set of rules has really been formed that states limits life to specific conditions, for they are always expanded. There are even ideas that suggest life might not have to be carbon-based, but also silicon-based. Maybe it's true or maybe it's not, but I think I have my point across.

That's useless to come to a final conclusion of such. If every debate comes down to "maybe it's true or maybe it's not" then there would be no point of debates. It's a very relativistic approach. There are no good set of rules to suggest the Law of Conservation of Energy applies to every corner of the Universe, but it's accepted because it applies to the current understanding of the Universe. You can't just conclude with ideas of potentiality as it can't currently be proved or disproved.

The fact is, evolution won't stop at anything to adapt life to many varieties of conditions. I believe it is very versatile. So, of course other intelligent life exists. I would think it is very common. I'd go so far as to say that there might even be what is called superterrestrial life; life that exists in other dimensions of reality.

Like how you said I was under an assumption, you too are under an assumption that the Universe is not limited to the factors and current understandings of the Earth and Universe. I base my logic on current understandings, whereas you base your (il)logic on assumptions which aren't proven yet.

To be fair, you come down to the balance of probability. You say that it's probable that Earth's limitations are not the only form, so you base it on that, but in reality, you can't prove this, and merely work on assumptions to put your point forward. If you can prove your assumption, then everything as follows would be a fair statement, but your logic just can't work with the current field of knowledge.

 

[packmule]

This topic has been a point of interest of mine for a long, long time. It seems reasonable to think that, given the absolute enormity of the universe, there is life "out there" besides our own planet. As for whether it's intelligent life or not I have never been able able to decide what to believe, having read arguments for and against.

 

[Nathan54AB]

There is no available evidence to suggest life can exist outside Earth's conditions. Until you can prove that, life can only exist in Earth-like conditions.

You've missed my point. I was pointing out the fact that Earth's conditions for life have a wide range.

You have just confirmed what I said. Who cares if those organisms do not experience light. They are within Earth's containable field of life set by Earth's conditions. As long as all those organisms have come from the Earth, you can't use that as an example of potential ET life as "Extra Terrestrial" means life that does not originate from Earth, whereas your case comes from Earth.

If life can exist in places on Earth where there is no light, and only liquid water and fossil fuel to metabolize, then life can manifest anywhere where said conditions exist and not have to have the exact same overall condition the whole Earth has. I do know the definition of "extraterrestrial" by the way. I did not use that word. I used the word "alien" to point out how such conditions down there are still very foreign compared to the conditions we have on the surface, despite they are both on the same planet. Again, you've missed my point.

That's useless to come to a final conclusion of such. If every debate comes down to "maybe it's true or maybe it's not" then there would be no point of debates. It's a very relativistic approach. There are no good set of rules to suggest the Law of Conservation of Energy applies to every corner of the Universe, but it's accepted because it applies to the current understanding of the Universe. You can't just conclude with ideas of potentiality as it can't currently be proved or disproved.

What? I don't understand that last sentence at all. If something can't be proved or disproved, then it's best to make a yes or no conclusion? If that's what you said then I can't disagree more. Science does not draw immediate conclusions on the reality of something if good evidence can't be found for either side. Your example of the Law of Conservation of Energy is not very applicable here, as that has been demonstrated to be true within our realm of understanding, so yes it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that it is applicable everywhere unless it is discovered otherwise. My example of the idea of silicon-based life is totally different. This is something that has only been hypothesized, but not discovered to be true or false yet. It hasn't been discovered true because we have yet to encounter any silicon-based life or at least created it in the lab, and it can't be proven false because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to have a conclusion maybe/maybe not.

Like how you said I was under an assumption, you too are under an assumption that the Universe is not limited to the factors and current understandings of the Earth and Universe. I base my logic on current understandings, whereas you base your (il)logic on assumptions which aren't proven yet.

To be fair, you come down to the balance of probability. You say that it's probable that Earth's limitations are not the only form, so you base it on that, but in reality, you can't prove this, and merely work on assumptions to put your point forward. If you can prove your assumption, then everything as follows would be a fair statement, but your logic just can't work with the current field of knowledge.

I admit, I am under assumption. However, I fail to see how this is a bad thing. It is, at the very least, progressive. Your form of logic is not at all progressive. If everyone just based there logic on current understandings, where would progress be made? Where would new ideas come from to be tested? None. You have to be include a little imagination with logic if progress is to be made. For example, Copernicus would not have formed his hypothesis of a heliocentric system if he went by current understanding alone.

 

[Justin]

That was too big a post to quote, so @ Nathan

I just don't see it. We are all assuming. When something comes from another planet and greets me, I will find you, and give you a handshake because you were right

 

[David]

There is no available evidence to suggest life can exist outside Earth's conditions. Until you can prove that, life can only exist in Earth-like conditions.

You've missed my point. I was pointing out the fact that Earth's conditions for life have a wide range.

But you have not proved that Earth's conditions are on any other planet so you can't use that to justify life on another planet.

You have just confirmed what I said. Who cares if those organisms do not experience light. They are within Earth's containable field of life set by Earth's conditions. As long as all those organisms have come from the Earth, you can't use that as an example of potential ET life as "Extra Terrestrial" means life that does not originate from Earth, whereas your case comes from Earth.

If life can exist in places on Earth where there is no light, and only liquid water and fossil fuel to metabolize, then life can manifest anywhere where said conditions exist and not have to have the exact same overall condition the whole Earth has. I do know the definition of "extraterrestrial" by the way. I did not use that word. I used the word "alien" to point out how such conditions down there are still very foreign compared to the conditions we have on the surface, despite they are both on the same planet. Again, you've missed my point.

Same as above; you need to prove duplicate conditions to have a satisfactory argument. Until then, you merely assume there is a chance that Earth's conditions are on other planets, and then use that to debate your (il)logic.

That's useless to come to a final conclusion of such. If every debate comes down to "maybe it's true or maybe it's not" then there would be no point of debates. It's a very relativistic approach. There are no good set of rules to suggest the Law of Conservation of Energy applies to every corner of the Universe, but it's accepted because it applies to the current understanding of the Universe. You can't just conclude with ideas of potentiality as it can't currently be proved or disproved.

What? I don't understand that last sentence at all. If something can't be proved or disproved, then it's best to make a yes or no conclusion? If that's what you said then I can't disagree more. Science does not draw immediate conclusions on the reality of something if good evidence can't be found for either side. Your example of the Law of Conservation of Energy is not very applicable here, as that has been demonstrated to be true within our realm of understanding, so yes it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that it is applicable everywhere unless it is discovered otherwise. My example of the idea of silicon-based life is totally different. This is something that has only been hypothesized, but not discovered to be true or false yet. It hasn't been discovered true because we have yet to encounter any silicon-based life or at least created it in the lab, and it can't be proven false because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to have a conclusion maybe/maybe not.

In your last reply, you said "Maybe it's true or maybe it's not", but that isn't helpful. You need to suggest ideas that support your case, not stay the middle, undecided. If not, then you are not debating an idea, rather you are just concluding with potentiality. Our realm of understanding suggests that the chances of Earth's conditions for life are infinitesimally small and therefore duplicating it somewhere else is infinitesimally small. You should understand that we have not encountered or even shown with the slightest shred of evidence that there is any other form of life and therefore you can't just use the assumption to prove a point. In a logical argument, you must show all of your steps to be true, but your debate boils down to the assumption of another form of life. If you can prove that, then like I said before, your argument would make sense. All you have said is until I can falsify your assumption, it therefore is reasonable to suggest such a thing. But this is pointless because you are making a knowledge claim, that you know of something possible, so you must provide the evidence to support your claim, not that I have to falsify your claim. I just have to falsify your evidence therefore falsifying your claim, but you have yet provided any satisfactory evidence.

Like how you said I was under an assumption, you too are under an assumption that the Universe is not limited to the factors and current understandings of the Earth and Universe. I base my logic on current understandings, whereas you base your (il)logic on assumptions which aren't proven yet.

To be fair, you come down to the balance of probability. You say that it's probable that Earth's limitations are not the only form, so you base it on that, but in reality, you can't prove this, and merely work on assumptions to put your point forward. If you can prove your assumption, then everything as follows would be a fair statement, but your logic just can't work with the current field of knowledge.

I admit, I am under assumption. However, I fail to see how this is a bad thing. It is, at the very least, progressive. Your form of logic is not at all progressive. If everyone just based there logic on current understandings, where would progress be made? Where would new ideas come from to be tested? None. You have to be include a little imagination with logic if progress is to be made. For example, Copernicus would not have formed his hypothesis of a heliocentric system if he went by current understanding alone.

Logic doesn't have to be progressive, in fact logic is not progressive. Logic is the absolute truth of the very existence of anything. Progression comes from non-conformist ideas which then require evidence to support their case, otherwise it merely is just hypothesizing. It's absolutely vital to forward think but you need to provide evidence to support the forward thinking, and right now, there just isn't enough evidence whatsoever to suggest such a thing. You provide a bad example of using Copernicus, as Copernicus had evidence of tracking/mapping the movement of stars and planets. You haven't provided any evidence, or suggestive evidence, if you compare your case with Copernicus.

 

[Nathan54AB]

But you have not proved that Earth's conditions are on any other planet so you can't use that to justify life on another planet.

Same as above; you need to prove duplicate conditions to have a satisfactory argument. Until then, you merely assume there is a chance that Earth's conditions are on other planets, and then use that to debate your (il)logic.

There is strong evidence suggesting Europa has liquid water under it's surface. There is also strong evidence suggesting Mars used to have liquid water on it's surface. We do know that Mars has water on it now, albeit frozen, and that it also has traces of methane gas in its atmosphere.

In your last reply, you said "Maybe it's true or maybe it's not", but that isn't helpful. You need to suggest ideas that support your case, not stay the middle, undecided. If not, then you are not debating an idea, rather you are just concluding with potentiality.

I just provided you with some evidence for conditions of life in my previous stanza; Mars and Europa. I think it's reasonable to say without a doubt that those conditions on said planets are bound to have a combined form somewhere in the universe.

Our realm of understanding suggests that the chances of Earth's conditions for life are infinitesimally small and therefore duplicating it somewhere else is infinitesimally small. You should understand that we have not encountered or even shown with the slightest shred of evidence that there is any other form of life and therefore you can't just use the assumption to prove a point.

I honestly think you're talking more of your own understanding rather than humanity's general understanding. There are a large amount of people who claim encounters and sightings, some vague and worthy of dismissal, and some not so. Is every single case of such a hoax, result of delusion, or illusion? I think it's silly to say yes to that. I'm not using an assumption to prove a point. I think there is genuine evidence, and that the assumption that ET life exists is safe. Since life formed here, then it must have formed elsewhere! You seem to think that the only good evidence is if an ET spaceship crashed onto your house.

In a logical argument, you must show all of your steps to be true, but your debate boils down to the assumption of another form of life. If you can prove that, then like I said before, your argument would make sense. All you have said is until I can falsify your assumption, it therefore is reasonable to suggest such a thing. But this is pointless because you are making a knowledge claim, that you know of something possible, so you must provide the evidence to support your claim, not that I have to falsify your claim. I just have to falsify your evidence therefore falsifying your claim, but you have yet provided any satisfactory evidence.

Where did get that idea from. I even said that the types of claims I'm making are "unfalsifiable", using that exact word. You cannot falsify them.

Logic doesn't have to be progressive, in fact logic is not progressive. Logic is the absolute truth of the very existence of anything. Progression comes from non-conformist ideas which then require evidence to support their case, otherwise it merely is just hypothesizing. It's absolutely vital to forward think but you need to provide evidence to support the forward thinking, and right now, there just isn't enough evidence whatsoever to suggest such a thing. You provide a bad example of using Copernicus, as Copernicus had evidence of tracking/mapping the movement of stars and planets. You haven't provided any evidence, or suggestive evidence, if you compare your case with Copernicus.

See first stanza.

 

[David]

There is strong evidence suggesting Europa has liquid water under it's surface. There is also strong evidence suggesting Mars used to have liquid water on it's surface. We do know that Mars has water on it now, albeit frozen, and that it also has traces of methane gas in its atmosphere.

That doesn't prove or disprove anything, and even so, you need to prove the possibility of life did not originate from Earth. They only suggest life, but it's not evidence of life. You need to develop a hypothesis to show that if this happens and that happens then life could have existed, and then prove that those things did happen. Moreover, the debate question is "Do intelligent extraterrestrials exist?" so then you need to prove that those alleged forms of life are in fact intelligent, and not a useless bacteria.

I just provided you with some evidence for conditions of life in my previous stanza; Mars and Europa. I think it's reasonable to say without a doubt that those conditions on said planets are bound to have a combined form somewhere in the universe.

No, you haven't provided evidence, merely assumptions. Have you considered life that we know and can sustain requires an atmosphere that can contain life. The evidence we have now shows that life could not possibly exist under Europa and Mars' atmospheric conditions. But again, you still need to then show life did not originate from Earth.

I honestly think you're talking more of your own understanding rather than humanity's general understanding. There are a large amount of people who claim encounters and sightings, some vague and worthy of dismissal, and some not so. Is every single case of such a hoax, result of delusion, or illusion? I think it's silly to say yes to that. I'm not using an assumption to prove a point. I think there is genuine evidence, and that the assumption that ET life exists is safe. Since life formed here, then it must have formed elsewhere! You seem to think that the only good evidence is if an ET spaceship crashed onto your house.

You would need to show evidence of those encounters. Merely saying something or taking a photo isn't enough evidence. It is reasonable to infer it is a hoax or illusion/delusion because we have no conclusive or empirical evidence to support such claims. You need to show the evidence and then we can falsify the evidence so so we can falsify the claim.

Where did get that idea from. I even said that the types of claims I'm making are "unfalsifiable", using that exact word. You cannot falsify them.

Like above, show me the evidence and if I can falsify the evidence, then I can falsify the alleged claim.

See first stanza paragraph.