Nick's laws of Extra Terrestrial life...

[Nicholas Hill]

Nicholas' first law of extra terrestrial life:

"Either the Universe contains no life at all, or it contains much life. Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small".

Nicholas' second law of extra terrestrial life:

"Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then this is most probably the result of (a or the) God"

Would you guys like to critique? I've worded them clearly as to (hopefully) avoid flame wars - I don't specify the god of a specific religion, and I do say "probably" or "most probably".

[Musashi]

How about this?

Given the sheer size of the universe, it could be possible for it to be teeming with life but for us to never discover any of it. Therefore making predictions based on our findings would be futile.

In other words, if that is your stance, it is much harder to proove that we are the only life than to disprove it. No matter what our current findings are, your argument supports no god more strongly than it ever will support a god.

Welcome to the board.

[Ut]

If life formed by chance, then there's no reason to think it didn't form by chance elsewhere. If life formed only here, and by the will of the gods, then what in the world is all that other stuff floating around out there for?

[R.A.F.]

First off, welcome to the board!!

Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small".

No disagreement there...

"Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then this is most probably the result of (a or the) God"

I don't see how one necessarily implies the other, but the big problem I see is that if at the beginning of the sentence...

That if is as big as the entire universe. I just don't see how it would ever be possible to prove that life exists on only one planet.

[Tim_t7]

As we have ventured into the realms of theology could I point out that it was us humans that wrote the Bible. And us humans who declared that we were formed in the image of our God, thus putting ourselves at the top of the tree. This is probably ego...

But if there was other intelligent life in the universe then we can assume that they have followed their own path to finding a reason for their existence which will quite possibly have included religion.
So is their only one God? If everybody was made in his likeness it would certainly explain why Aliens all look similar to us!
But why assume that there is only one God? This seems like a big assumption.
So if we find other life in the universe then we have raised a few more questions and can no longer prove the existence of a God.
On theology if belief is an act of faith then proof would destroy the notion of God and religion would be redundant.

The other way of looking at this is that Life is the only possible outcome on our planet, and given the nature of the universe if other planets are capable of supporting life then life will exist in some form. Proof of life in this universe has already been confirmed by our existance. Disproving life in all other areas of the universe is pointless.

[TriangleMan]

The second statement does not logically infer from the first.

Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small

Therefore if it was proven that life only existed on one world (others have pointed out how difficult this would be) then it just shows that the probability of life existing on a planet is really small, since it only occured once. One cannot infer a divine being from it.

By the way, I don't think your two statements are 'laws' but that's a minor nitpick.

[Swift]

All I can think of is the entry from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Population - none.
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

[Brady Yoon]

If it can be proven. There are probably more planets than stars in the universe. I don't think the absence of life can be proven. Right now, we're not even sure if life ever existed in our solar system (not counting the Earth.)

[01101001]

"Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then this is most probably the result of (a or the) God"

Are you saying that any extremely-low-probability event that only happened once, so far, must probably be due to supernatural forces?

[LawBeefaroni]

The second statement does not logically infer from the first.

Considering probability, the sheer size of the Universe dictates that the chance of life existing only on a single planet be very small

Therefore if it was proven that life only existed on one world (others have pointed out how difficult this would be) then it just shows that the probability of life existing on a planet is really small, since it only occured once. One cannot infer a divine being from it.

By the way, I don't think your two statements are 'laws' but that's a minor nitpick.

Yes, the inferance is a huge jump, almost a non sequitur. I expected the second law to read:

Therefore, "Therefore, if it can be proven that life exists only on a single planet, then our idea of the "sheer size of the universe" is probably wrong."

[Jpax2003]

So out of the hundreds of billions stars comprising a hundred billions galaxies, one almighty made one planet with life in 15 billion years. Does anyone that believes in an almighty really believe that the almighty would be that lazy? The almighty is having the devil's time of it trying to explain to us what we are, much less what some other creation on another planet is...

On theology if belief is an act of faith then proof would destroy the notion of God and religion would be redundant.

I think that is a complete mischaracterization of the idea of faith. Faith comes from fidelity, meaning discipline. Faith is not blind hope, it is performance of duty. A leap of faith doesn't mean that you hope and expect to be rescued at the last minute, it means that you know full well that you may not and accept it. Faith is facing your fears, not ignoring them. Who is more faithful, the one who resists temptation, or the one who avoids it?

I think God would say "belief is not necessary, only compliance."

[Archer17]

To cut thru the philosophical stuff .. "faith" is believing in something without proof. I have faith that my wife doesn't cheat on me for instance. Anyway, deities aside, to steer this back on a proper BABB course ..

I don't believe we are alone in the universe myself .. the hardiness of life in hostile environments here on Earth (whether volcanic vents or the upper atmosphere) show that life as we know it is hardy. Since I believe there is such a thing as life as we don't know it, coupled with the fact that the universe is a vast place, I think it's highly likely that intelligent life exists somewhere else. I use the Fermi Paradox to debunk UFO woowoos (it makes sense in that context), but allow the possibility of exotic life (non carbon-based would be exotic to me) to exist and such life-forms very well could be uninterested or incapable of colonization. Aquatic/crystal-based entities that are confined to their world are two examples that would not be interested in colonization I suppose but .. I digress. As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

[Lm Wong]

As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

But if they are not so far away from us let say 10 or 20 light years.This open some possibilities.

[Archer17]

As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

But if they are not so far away from us let say 10 or 20 light years.This open some possibilities.

There's always possibilities .. "they" could be like us and lag behind on technology (or maybe be way ahead). This is why I think things like SETI shouldn't be canned. I would also like SETI-type initiatives to be forward-thinking and not rely on just EM as a "signal." "They" might be out there .. but I doubt they're within double-digit LYs.

[freddo]

Simply put, the chance of anything happening - if the probability is not zero - there is no inductive logic that suggest that any eventuation of that chance (however miniscule) is due to divine influence.

If the universe plays by the rules, how can you invoke godly intervention?

I would think physical evidence for God would be more in the form of an event where the rules are broken.

[Lm Wong]

As has been said, this universe could be teeming with intelligent life and, due to the vast distances involved, the Joneses' might never meet the Smiths' .. ever.

But if they are not so far away from us let say 10 or 20 light years.This open some possibilities.

There's always possibilities .. "they" could be like us and lag behind on technology (or maybe be way ahead). This is why I think things like SETI shouldn't be canned. I would also like SETI-type initiatives to be forward-thinking and not rely on just EM as a "signal." "They" might be out there ..

They might actually visiting us and don`t make contact for whatever reasons.
Think about this what can be the advantage for a contact?

...but I doubt they're within double-digit LYs.

Why do you doubt of that possibility? Any scientific reasons?

[freddo]

Think about this what can be the advantage for a contact?

Conversely, what's the advantage of observing us?

I imagine if we were in the ET's shoes, we might be lonely enough to want to try and talk?

[Lm Wong]

Think about this what can be the advantage for a contact?

Conversely, what's the advantage of observing us?

Maybe they are here for other reasons than observing us.Maybe they are here for some resources they need.

I imagine if we were in the ET's shoes, we might be lonely enough to want to try and talk?

Maybe they just don`t want to talk and are more interested in resources they need.

[Musashi]

Maybe we are the resources they need? Maybe the aliens that are here are a recon unit sent to figure out when and how to best swoop down and scoop us up. Just imagine, we are one short transmission away from galactic slavery!

[Archer17]

Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em? No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose. Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic. The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here in a previous thread.

[Lm Wong]

Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em?
No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose.

I don`t get your meaning about fables? Is it the report of observations made by eyewitness you are talking about?

Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic.

Not a "unique" resource but something probably biological.After all maybe unique because biological is rare in the Galaxy so it worth the trip if it is vital for your species.

The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here in a previous thread.

I see. I propose a distance more realistic.

[freddo]

Maybe they just don`t want to talk and are more interested in resources they need.

Unless those resources are us (as Musashi suggested :wink: ) - or any other life on the planet, I think it's pretty silly to consider us a good source of resources. If you want anything else, there's plenty of planets & moons here in the Solar system that you can get it from without any fuss from ourselves at all.
If we're the resources, then Musashi's scenario could be what we're looking at - only I doubt a race powerfull enough to get here would have any reason to be scared enough to pish about with meaningless reconnoissance activities.

[Lm Wong]

If we're the resources, then Musashi's scenario could be what we're looking at

The human contibution to the resources seem to be at the genetical level.Based upon researchers in that field.

- only I doubt a race powerfull enough to get here would have any reason to be scared enough to pish about with meaningless reconnoissance activities.

They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test.
They obviously don`t care about our defence system.

[Archer17]

Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em?
No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose.

I don`t get your meaning about fables? Is it the report of observations made by eyewitness you are talking about?

Not the "observations by eyewitness" per se .. UFOs are just that, things some people see they can't identify. The fable aspect comes in when something as simple as Joe Smoe seeing something he doesn't understand becomes aliens. Did it ever bother you that before the disc-shaped alien craft was vogue, things resembling "blimps" were reported? I would be .. if I truely wanted to believe.

Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic.

Not a "unique" resource but something probably biological.After all maybe unique because biological is rare in the Galaxy so it worth the trip if it is vital for your species.

Let's look at your premise for a second. We are on the verge of cloning people so, why with their advanced technology, do they have to keep coming back and .. do it again, and again, and again..

The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here in a previous thread.

I see. I propose a distance more realistic.

You're making excuses again. There's no evidence of an ET civilization close to us but, let's assume they are beyond our detection capabilities ..The illogic of UFO behavior (as proposed by ET adherents) doesn't require distance anyway. ET comes here and hides, yet adorn their craft with more lights than a Christmas tree. #-o They seem to lack even contemporary stealth technology (see Mexican UFO thread) but are advanced enough to come here from there. Doesn't add up.

[freddo]

The human contibution to the resources seem to be at the genetical level.Based upon researchers in that field.

Sorry who? Which researchers would those be?

They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test. They obviously don`t care about our defence system.

Did they just? And where's the evidence for this?

[Archer17]

They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test..

This isn't the first time I've heard this but it continues to crack me up. It presupposes ET, wherever they are, thinks our fusion bombs are sooooooooo dangerous .. yet they seem to overlook the biggest fusion reaction in the solar system .. good old Sol. The sun is allowed it seems, it's our itsy-bitsy explosions in comparison that tick 'em off! :roll:

[Lm Wong]

Lm Wong: Why make excuses for 'em?
No advanced race would come this far and dicker like the fables of flying saucers and little green (or gray men) propose.

I don`t get your meaning about fables? Is it the report of observations made by eyewitness you are talking about?

Not the "observations by eyewitness" per se .. UFOs are just that, things some people see they can't identify. The fable aspect comes in when something as simple as Joe Smoe seeing something he doesn't understand becomes aliens. Did it ever bother you that before the disc-shaped alien craft was vogue, things resembling "blimps" were reported? I would be .. if I truely wanted to believe.

When eyewitness said they have seen little Grey Aliens aside of a landing craft that became more interestiing.

Supposedly "'they" have been doing the SOS for centuries. I think the concept that we have some kind of unique "resource" is unrealistic.

Not a "unique" resource but something probably biological.After all maybe unique because biological is rare in the Galaxy so it worth the trip if it is vital for your species.

Let's look at your premise for a second. We are on the verge of cloning people so, why with their advanced technology, do they have to keep coming back and .. do it again, and again, and again..

Are you suggesting than they are returning home at each time?
About cloning:cloning or create hybrid from two different species not from the same planets is surely more difficult.

The scientific reasons I have doubts about ET gracing our skies I addressed here in a previous thread.

I see. I propose a distance more realistic.

You're making excuses again. There's no evidence of an ET civilization close to us but, let's assume they are beyond our detection capabilities ..The illogic of UFO behavior (as proposed by ET adherents) doesn't require distance anyway. ET comes here and hides, yet adorn their craft with more lights than a Christmas tree.

If they done this all the time there must have been more observations reported than actually.That seem a deliberately manouver for whatever reason "illogical" for us.For the same reason than some time they appear on radar screen.The Mexican case is a good example of their capacity.

edited to fix quote

[Musashi]

I am having a hard time typing right now. Are you serious Lm? You are weaving a tale of pure fiction. "I will make up speculations about other races and occasionally pull in some story from the news as 'proof' of my rambling." That is effectively what you are saying and doing. The Mexico case is not evidence of anything yet. It may never be. Unless you think that the aliens are a new form of life known as burning oil.

[Archer17]

..When eyewitness said they have seen little Grey Aliens aside of a landing craft that became more interestiing.

Eyewitnesses? Ever notice how when someone gets abducted, no one notices and it takes dubious regression therapy to bring this to light? :-k

...Are you suggesting than they are returning home at each time?
About cloning:cloning or create hybrid from two different species not from the same planets is surely more difficult.

heh .. I'm suggesting they don't exist. This cloning business is really lame. I've pointed out the fallacy of aliens needing to replicate their DNA extractions ad nauseum and the same logic applies to the myth of "hybrids." Why hybrids? Why can't the first hundred (being very generous here) "abductions" give them what they need to continue the process on their own? They're advanced, right? Might as well ask why they supposedly carve up cows all the time too. Even most UFO (as ET) believers are backing away from this nonsense.

If they done this all the time there must have been more observations reported than actually.That seem a deliberately manouver for whatever reason "illogical" for us.For the same reason than some time they appear on radar screen.The Mexican case is a good example of their capacity.

Ah, the old "we don't understand their logic" excuse." Won't wash .. all life-forms do something for a reason. It seems you give them credit for logical reasoning to leave their world and head this way, traverse the gulf of space and then when they get here .. act illogical. The Mexican UFOs are a lousy example of an ET component in my book. Seriously, why even bother to be invisible in the first place? 3 out of 11 can't even cloak themselves from radar detection like contemporary US Stealth aircraft can?!? .. pretty sad if you ask me. They also got to work on their IR signatures, dont'cha think? :wink:

[Lm Wong]

They have effectively made important reconnoissances activities after the explosion of the first atomic bombs test..

This isn't the first time I've heard this but it continues to crack me up. It presupposes ET, wherever they are, thinks our fusion bombs are sooooooooo dangerous ..

Potential irradiation of the biological material must be a source of concern.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima for example.