how much different is the belief in extraterrestial life from that....

[[censored]]

how much different is the belief in extraterrestial life from that of a belief in god?

As far as I can tell there is very little if any evidence to suggest that earth is not the only planent in the universe which contains life.

yet many scientist or people of logic seem to assume that there should be other life in the universe. But isn't this only a hope similar to the hope than some people have in a god?

doesn't the objective person have to conclude based on what knowledge we have now that we most certainly are alone in the universe?

if not what is the objective person using to make this assumption and how it is different from the non-objective person who believes in a god?

[runner4life7]

i agree that they are both similar in the main idea that neither can be proven and really cant be disproven either.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree that they are both similar in the main idea that neither can be proven and really cant be disproven either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not concerned with proven or disproven that is too high a standard IMO. Rather I do not see any evidence for the objective person to believe that the likelyhood of life existing outside of earth is anymore likely than god existing. yet many who consider themselves logical and rational assume that there is or consider it likely that there is life outside of earth. These same people then go so far as to consider their ability to reason and be objective superior to those who believe in god based solely on that belief.

[runner4life7]

Thats what I mean that since neither can prove or disprove or show one is more likely than the other with that same logic that their opinion should hold no higher value.

[[censored]]

also if there is life outside of earth there is no reason to believe that we will be correct in assuming what form it will take. humans assume somewhat that it will be similar to life as we know it yet this asssumption is based on nothing.

If you believe it is likely that life exists outside of earth don't you have to allow for possibility that it could come in the form similar to what some would call "godly" as long as it was still confined by the laws of science.

[runner4life7]

What I think is odd is how the majority of those believeing in extraterrestial life assume/think if it does exist they are smarter and more powerful than us. Shouldnt it be like 50/50 if they are inferior or superior but never are "dumb" aliens ever mentioned or thought of.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
What I think is odd is how the majority of those believeing in extraterrestial life assume/think if it does exist they are smarter and more powerful than us. Shouldnt it be like 50/50 if they are inferior or superior but never are "dumb" aliens ever mentioned or thought of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think only loons actually assume that. I doubt even the most basically logical/rational person would make that assumption.

that is unless earth were to be visisted by alliens. then they would clearly be superior to us.

[runner4life7]

yeah i based my assumption off hollywood and i suppose us blowing the hell out of some alien planet doesnt sell as well as us being invaded. withdrawn.

[[censored]]

if you believe religion is crutch for the weak minded who need comfort concering things they do not understand,like the origin of the earth

than isn't a belief in the existance of alliens a crutch for the weak minded who need the comfort not having man be alone in the universe?

[BluffTHIS!]

The difference is that religious belief requires/admires/rewards faith that bridges the gap between an amount of evidence that is not sufficient to give 100% provability, whereas the question of extraterrestial life is a scientific question that can only be subject to probability and firm evidence for or against. From David's perspective however, they are both gambling/probability matters.

For Dr. Stephen Hawking's views on the chances of extraterrestial life you can read this (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html) .

[drudman]

We all observe that the formation of life is possible on a daily basis.

No one observes that there is a God ever.

This is the difference. The guy right before me posted a great link about the probability of ET life. I think Sagan had a similar thing in "Cosmos".

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
We all observe that the formation of life is possible on a daily basis.

No one observes that there is a God ever.

This is the difference. The guy right before me posted a great link about the probability of ET life. I think Sagan had a similar thing in "Cosmos".

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is disputing that life exists, here on earth. However to believe that life exists outside of earth requires sometype of leap of faith.

I have no problem with somone who believes that life exists outside of earth. My problem is with those who think that this belief should appear highly reaonable to an objective intelligent observer.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that religious belief requires/admires/rewards faith that bridges the gap between an amount of evidence that is not sufficient to give 100% provability, whereas the question of extraterrestial life is a scientific question that can only be subject to probability and firm evidence for or against. From David's perspective however, they are both gambling/probability matters.

For Dr. Stephen Hawking's views on the chances of extraterrestial life you can read this (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html) .

[/ QUOTE ]

the existance of god is tested and proven either true or false countless times a day. We simply lack the tools necessary to discover the results of the test. The test is death.

likewise the existance of life beyond the stars can be proven true or false. Yet once again we simply lack the needed tools.

Since both beliefs are essentially the same, it is logical to say the both are assumed for similar reasons. that is the both the person who believes in god and the person who believes in alliens is getting some sort of comfort or satisfaction which makes it desirable to base this belief on faith or hope.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
We all observe that the formation of life is possible on a daily basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, we witness the (on planet) formation of life with remarkable regularity.

There are a number of theories about how the building blocks for life may be transported around the expanse of space. The theory that seems to have the most evidence to back it up at the moment is that comets carry basic organic material around solar systems (or even larger distances) and deposit it on planets.

There is plenty of early evidence that this is the case, and in fact the recent deep impact with Tempel 1 was in part to expand this idea further (one way or the other).

To the OP, I think you'll find that most of those who know about the evidence would be extremely surprised if there was not life elsewhere, or at the very least HAD been life elsewhere in our Galaxy, let alone the entire universe.

[Bodhi]

Well, you need to make some distinctions here.

First of all, earth may have the only complex organisms in the galaxy, but it is highly likely that microorganisms are ubiquitous throughout the galaxy. Believing in alien micro-organisms is very reasonable.

Belief in intelligent aliens is, without a doubt, unfounded. However, there is a crucial difference between intelligent ETs and God, which is that ETs are an empirical phenomenon and God is not. There can be evidence for ETs, there cannot be evidence for God. Which is to say that from a naturalistic point of view, no possible experience could ever count as evidence for a deity.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
humans assume somewhat that it will be similar to life as we know it yet this asssumption is based on nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think it's safe to assume that ET life would be carbon-based just like life on earth. There's really no other appropriate base except for silicone, which would be too rigid.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem is with those who think that this belief should appear highly reaonable to an objective intelligent observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should, that is belief in alien micro-organisms, not little green men.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We all observe that the formation of life is possible on a daily basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, we witness the (on planet) formation of life with remarkable regularity.

There are a number of theories about how the building blocks for life may be transported around the expanse of space. The theory that seems to have the most evidence to back it up at the moment is that comets carry basic organic material around solar systems (or even larger distances) and deposit it on planets.

There is plenty of early evidence that this is the case, and in fact the recent deep impact with Tempel 1 was in part to expand this idea further (one way or the other).

To the OP, I think you'll find that most of those who know about the evidence would be extremely surprised if there was not life elsewhere, or at the very least HAD been life elsewhere in our Galaxy, let alone the entire universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

how is this any different from the person who would be extrenely suprised that god did not exist.

what facts are they basing their opinions on that would cause them to be extremely suprised. The fact that is every instance where we have observed the universe (except earth) it has lacked life? so therefore I should be suprised to find out this holds true.

Again what objective evidence are you basing a belief that allien life should exist? The myths and legends passed down from our ancestors?

Clearly this belief that life should exist outside of earth did just magically appear so where did it come from, because it didn't come from an objective look at the evidence we currently have.

Also how do you explain the notion of alliens predating the advanced observations of the universe?

I think the objective conclusion would be that a belief in life outside earth is exactly the same as a belief in god. that is man looked up into the sky and said I wonder what is out there and then invented stuff.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you need to make some distinctions here.

First of all, earth may have the only complex organisms in the galaxy, but it is highly likely that microorganisms are ubiquitous throughout the galaxy. Believing in alien micro-organisms is very reasonable.

Belief in intelligent aliens is, without a doubt, unfounded. However, there is a crucial difference between intelligent ETs and God, which is that ETs are an empirical phenomenon and God is not. There can be evidence for ETs, there cannot be evidence for God. Which is to say that from a naturalistic point of view, no possible experience could ever count as evidence for a deity.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you need to make some distinctions here.

First of all, earth may have the only complex organisms in the galaxy, but it is highly likely that microorganisms are ubiquitous throughout the galaxy. Believing in alien micro-organisms is very reasonable.

Belief in intelligent aliens is, without a doubt, unfounded. However, there is a crucial difference between intelligent ETs and God, which is that ETs are an empirical phenomenon and God is not. There can be evidence for ETs, there cannot be evidence for God. Which is to say that from a naturalistic point of view, no possible experience could ever count as evidence for a deity.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I am wondering is how you reached the conclusion that it is highly unlikely any life does not exists beyond earth. what observation is this based on. it's not that I consider it unreasonable, just that I cannot come up with any evidence as to why is should be reasonable.

for example it is impossible to know what the scientific probability that life gets created on a planet is.

thus if for instance the probability was in fact 1:(the number of planets that exist in the universe). It would be reasonable to conclude that life outside of earth is highly unlikely. correct or is there more I am missing?


Let's assume for the purpose of this paragraph that god does exist. Doesn't the fact of his existance mean that it can proven. For example he could simply reveal himself to man or upon a mortal death you could find you self in sometype of after life in his presence. Therefore how is itnot correct to say that if god exists , his existance can never be proven. It seems only reasonable to say that based on what we know possible today it is highly unlikely that his existance will be proven if it exixts at all.

Anyways my point was not to try and convince people that life outside of earth does not exist but to merely suggest that it is ridiculous for some people to hold themselves mentally and objectively superior to those who believe in god or to say that religion is for the weak minded who require some type of crutch when they themselves are making similar conclusions based on no obective evidence. for example that life does or should exist outside of earth.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am wondering is how you reached the conclusion that it is highly unlikely any life does not exists beyond earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I've read some books on the subject. One was called, Rare Earth, I think. I also took some quantitative astronomy in college and the prof showed us some calucalation for estimating the probability of ET life, how far away it would be on average, etc.

Anyway, the requirements for the survival of micro-organisms are much lower than they are for the larger variety. It's logical to suppose that there will be more of them than us(intelligent, multicelluar beings) throughout the gallaxy.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for the purpose of this paragraph that god does exist. Doesn't the fact of his existance mean that it can proven. For example he could simply reveal himself to man or upon a mortal death you could find you self in sometype of after life in his presence. Therefore how is itnot correct to say that if god exists , his existance can never be proven. It seems only reasonable to say that based on what we know possible today it is highly unlikely that his existance will be proven if it exixts at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase. Suppose a bunch of people said that God was hanging out at the pub, and they brought some scientists back to the pub to check it out. Whatever the scientists observe, they will always seek an explanation for it in terms of natural processes and well-establish mechanisms. That's the viewpoint I am describing.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the objective conclusion would be that a belief in life outside earth is exactly the same as a belief in god. that is man looked up into the sky and said I wonder what is out there and then invented stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're wrong.

It may not seem like much information, but the mere fact that there is life on Earth has a lot of clout on the matter. Simply put, we know that there is at least one planet in our universe with life on it. We can estimate that there are billions of other planets in our universe.

I'm not a mathematical analyst, and I wouldn't know how to to about calculating the odds. However, taking into consideration this evidence coupled with the absolute lack of evidence for a god, it would seem intuitive that there is a better chance that life exists another planet.

[Bodhi]

Wow, where's that avatar from? I seem to remember it from my childhood.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
No one is disputing that life exists, here on earth. However to believe that life exists outside of earth requires sometype of leap of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really a leap of faith. It has the most to do with probability IMO. If there X amount of solar systems in the universe and each one has a P probability of being suitable for life, it would be reasonable to assume that we aren't the only ones if the math could work out. Although that doesn't necessarily mean that people don't believe in extraterrestrial life via a leap of faith; I'm just saying that there is some reason behind it. You can't do this with God.

[Siegmund]

My take on this seems to be rather different from the OP's.

How easy is it to name things that there are exactly one of, or significant events than happened exactly once, in the natural world?

To a religious person, the Great Flood was a one-time deal to cleanse the earth of the wicked. To a scientist, there have been several great floods that carried away everything in regions hundreds of miles across (the draining of Lake Bonneville to create the scablands of eastern Washington, and the refilling of the Mediterranean Sea after Gibraltar was temporarily pinched off and most the trapped water evaporated, to name two) and we find it easy to imagine that at least once along the way a group of people got caught in one of these, a few of their number survived, and told the story for generations afterward.

We see that there have been huge volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts, and extinction events several times. We see that similar-but-not-the-same animals populated Australia as populated the other continents, and can imagine the same natural process starting from the same primitive beginnings giving rise to the mammals one time and the marsupials another time.

For a long time we've known there are other stars and galaxies. Now we have telescopes powerful enough to tell us that there are other stars that have planets orbiting them.

If you don't invoke a religious explanation for our own existence, it is reasonable to assume that whatever we see around us, including ourselves, is not unique; given a large enough number of trials, almost everything that CAN happen WILL happen, and probably will happen a great many times.

On the other hand, if you believe in a Creator, it's quite reasonable to assume you are a unique creation of His. Great artists produce only a few symphonies or a few paintings or a few sculptures and each one they create is different from all the others. If God amused Himself by creating solar systems, He might well have chosen just one to house His personal garden and petting zoo.

So, I would argue that "we are alone in the universe, and there is no God" is an illogical position to take - while all 3 other combinations (other life but no god, alone but with a god, and other life with a god) are each logically consistent and it's not easy to tell which of the 3 is the truth.

Of course, believing there is some kind of life somewhere in the universe is a far cry from believing in little green men whizzing around in UFOs - and most of the people who believe that is happening are immune to any sort of logical argument.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one is disputing that life exists, here on earth. However to believe that life exists outside of earth requires sometype of leap of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really a leap of faith. It has the most to do with probability IMO. If there X amount of solar systems in the universe and each one has a P probability of being suitable for life, it would be reasonable to assume that we aren't the only ones if the math could work out. Although that doesn't necessarily mean that people don't believe in extraterrestrial life via a leap of faith; I'm just saying that there is some reason behind it. You can't do this with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious about the probability part. obviously we know of 1 planet that has life. ours. the only question is what is the probability of it happening again. I don't see any evidence so far to let the objective intelligent man make the determination that there is further life, more so than he could believe that god exists.

put is this way. let's say the universe was broken up into ten equal parts. We know of those parts contains life. now assume we determine that another 8 do not contain life. would the objective intelligent observer at that point that life beyond earth in that last piece is likely or unlikely?

to say it is simple probability is to say that we some reasonable basis of determining what that p is, based soley on the fact the there is life on earth.

Thus I have 2 questions. How much of the universe would need to be explored and life not found for you to then decide that further life is unlikey? 75%. 90%, 99&, 99.9%

if you make the decision in the question one what evidence did you use to make that determination which changed you from believing further life was probable to improbable.


I do agree that proving the existance of life outside of earth is possible and much more so than the existance of god. I am only asking if the objective intelligent observer was asked if he believed there was evidence in the likely existance of either, his answer would have to be no.

[runner4life7]

This is called extrapolating and it is not valid in this circumstance. With only one planet that we know has life and how many ever we dont there is no one to statistically say what the probability is. Someone can make up numbers and use equations but when it come down to it they are wrong. There is too small a sample size and the calculation is simply impossible. You could say the probability is 1 out of how many planets we know of but that is pointless.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious about the probability part. obviously we know of 1 planet that has life. ours. the only question is what is the probability of it happening again. I don't see any evidence so far to let the objective intelligent man make the determination that there is further life, more so than he could believe that god exists

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a determination. Other life is likely to exist because of the vastness of the universe and the availability of the known resources and conditions which are requisite to life.

[ QUOTE ]
put is this way. let's say the universe was broken up into ten equal parts. We know of those parts contains life. now assume we determine that another 8 do not contain life. would the objective intelligent observer at that point that life beyond earth in that last piece is likely or unlikely?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is misleading and a gross oversimplification. DO you think that we have discovered 90% of the known universe and discerned that there is no life in it except ours, but don't know what the other 10% is? NO.

The universe is supposedly estimated to be 40 billion light years in diameter. We haven't discovered life in our solar system other than on earth. Don't you think the jury's still out on this one.

[ QUOTE ]
to say it is simple probability is to say that we some reasonable basis of determining what that p is, based soley on the fact the there is life on earth.

Thus I have 2 questions. How much of the universe would need to be explored and life not found for you to then decide that further life is unlikey? 75%. 90%, 99&, 99.9%


[/ QUOTE ]

P can be an extremely small number and still be likely to result in life in other places of the universe; we have explored effectively 0% of the universe (a number close to that).

In order to calculate P you would have to know what exactly is required for life, and take into account everything. What is the likelyhood a planet has H2O and is a certain distance from the star, stuff like that.

[drudman]

Me main man, Pweevahricatuh... ee is well-smaht in pheelossiphee n science n nuff tings. You add bettah listen to is words.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
This is called extrapolating and it is not valid in this circumstance. With only one planet that we know has life and how many ever we dont there is no one to statistically say what the probability is. Someone can make up numbers and use equations but when it come down to it they are wrong. There is too small a sample size and the calculation is simply impossible. You could say the probability is 1 out of how many planets we know of but that is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming up with an actual probability was not my point. My point was simple, but I don't think I made it clear. I believe that nature tends to form patterns. Things tend to repeat themselves. And, usually, no matter how rare something may seem, it isn't unique. Hence, I believe that Earth is not alone in the universe as a life-bearing planet. And, I think my opinion is logical, formed from my observations of occurances in nature.

On the other hand, an idea of a god is a man-made idea. It was formed thousands of years ago out of complete ignorance. That may sound insulting, but trust me, I'm not trying to be. I'm just saying that the idea was used to explain things that were incomprehensible.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
how much different is the belief in extraterrestial life from that of a belief in god?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell there is very little if any evidence to suggest that earth is not the only planent in the universe which contains life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of these two statements has more evidence in support of it?

Earth is the only planet in the universe with life on it.

There is at least one other planet in the universe apart from earth with life on it.

[ QUOTE ]
yet many scientist or people of logic seem to assume that there should be other life in the universe. But isn't this only a hope similar to the hope than some people have in a god?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Well not necessarily, people can believe obviously true things for the most ridiculous reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't the objective person have to conclude based on what knowledge we have now that we most certainly are alone in the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. What a silly idea.

[ QUOTE ]
if not what is the objective person using to make this assumption and how it is different from the non-objective person who believes in a god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any model we crate for the universe must allow for the creation of life, else it clearly cannot explain the current situation on earth. If a model allows for the generation of life on one planet if must allow for the development for life elsewhere, or be earth centric in some way.

Or to put it another way, for such a model to imply that life can only have developed on earth, there must be inherent some feature of earth or our current solar system that is unique in the universe. To justify this one would need to say exactly what this unique feature was, and examine it. To claim life itself is that unique feature leads to circular reasoning and an unsatisfying model.

People tend to assume extraterrestrial life exists as a result of rational analysis of the situation. This is generaly not ture for godlike beliefs.

[malorum]

Yup for once I agree with piers.
The two are distinct.
We believe in God and all that cause the bible says so.
We make probabilistic assumptions about other stuff.

Amen to what Piers says about believing in obviously true stuff like the existence of God. Some people use the most perverse pseudo-sceintific mumbo jumbo as a basis or support for their belief in God, instead of just trusting the Bible.

That is what you meant Piers, is it not. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MortalNuts]

This post is long, so let me first just give you a one-sentence summary: the universe is really, really big, and physics is probably the same everywhere in it.

Anyway, I don't "believe" there's life elsewhere; I and others just think it's reasonably likely based on the limited evidence available. Of course, we could be wrong. (One big difference between the hypothesis "there is life on other planets" and "there is a God" is that many of the assumptions that underlie the former statement may be tested within the next fifty years (see below). I doubt very much whether anyone will prove there's an afterlife where you chat with God in the next fifty years.) I presume you're not talking about Little Green Men who visit us regularly and like to abduct people, but about some more basic kind of life.

Our Sun is one star in a galaxy of billions. We are one galaxy in a universe of many millions of galaxies. The point being, the deck can be stacked pretty heavily against a particular planet around a particular star harboring life, and the Universe could still be teaming with life.

We think that planets probably need to be within a particular "habitable zone" if they're going to support the kind of life we know -- too close to a parent star, and they'll be too hot, too far away and they'll be too cold. For a given size star, it's easy to figure out how big this habitable zone is. Further, it probably helps to be around a star that, like ours, is not too massive -- very massive stars burn brighter, and blow through their stockpile of fuel in a matter of millions of years as opposed to billions. It might also help if you're not embedded in the middle of a giant star-forming region; some astronomers have suggested that radiation from nearby massive stars should impede the planet formation process. If these are the criteria for a planet to be able to support life, there are probably loads and loads of planets in our galaxy alone that could in theory fit the bill.

As you probably know, the last decade or so has seen the first detections of planets outside our own solar system. There are now 155 planets known outside the solar system; most are quite massive (Jupiter-size or larger), and have weird orbits (close in, highly eccentric), so they're not very earth-like. But it's not like we're using techniques that should find Earth-like planets (1 earth mass at an equivalent distance from a central star) and not finding them -- the detection techniques that are available right now are simply most sensitive to high-mass planets that have compact orbits. They're getting better. Several missions (e.g., the "terrestrial planet finder" and, longer term, a "planet imager") are in the planning stages now, and will examine solar-like stars in our neck of the woods for earth-like planets, using space-based interferometry. I don't think it will be very long before we have a decent idea of what fraction of solar-like stars have earth-like planets within the habitable zone. (By "not very long" I mean like within 25 years.)

Of course, the presence of a planet in the right place isn't the only factor. I'm not a biologist, so I won't speak to all the biological factors that might determine whether a water-bearing planet with roughly Earth-like characteristics ends up having life or not. I suspect our knowledge in that department is more limited, but it's not zero; what little I know suggests that given the ingredients present in the primordial Earth, basic life may be a pretty common result. Whether that life evolves into something at all like us is another question. TPF and later missions will actually aim not just to detect earth-like planets, but to probe their atmospheres; they'll look both for atmospheres that can probably harbor life as we know it, and also for spectroscopic signatures that hint at the presence of life. (See, e.g., discussion here. (http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/library/openhouse/openhouse16.html) )

Finally, you can't completely ignore the fact that we're here. Nothing we know suggests that the Earth or the Sun or our solar system or the Milky Way are particularly special in the universal scheme of things. So if a physical process can happen here, why shouldn't it happen everywhere you give it the same inputs? What astronomy tells you is that the same inputs are probably provided in a lot of different places throughout the universe.

Note that one reason why most scientists don't also believe that ET visits here on a regular basis is that this would depend on a bunch of other factors. You wouldn't just need life, you'd need life that ends up building a highly sophisticated technological civilization. Plus you'd need longevity, proximity to Earth (probably), and (imho, most unlikely) desire to visit. (To further believe specific UFO stories, you have to think not just that all this is likely, but that the same massively sophisticated ET that can wing around the galaxy at will, somehow can't escape detection by joe schmo in Oklahoma. Or that, for some reason, ET wants joe to see him but doesn't also want to announce his presence more publically.)

Sorry that was so long. Basically, I think "belief" in extraterrestrial life is a totally different ballgame than belief in God.

cheers,

mn