[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 118 KB, 750x600, 1327454603850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5070624 No.5070624 [Reply] [Original]

>"Extraterrestrial life exists!"
>"You have no proof."
>"True, but there's so many planets out there that it's almost impossible for all of those planets to be uninhabited."
>"That's merely an assumption, just because there COULD be life on other planets doesn't mean there is."
>"But....muh planets...."
>"Just stop."

>"God exists!"
>"You have no proof."
>"True, but the universe is so well-organized that it's almost impossible that the universe just randomly sprouted into existence with no outside intervention whatsoever."
>"That's just an assumption, just because there COULD be a God doesn't mean there is one."
>"But...muh intelligent design..."
>"Just stop."

>> No.5070638
File: 102 KB, 400x576, 1329839346944.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5070638

ITT: Apples and oranges

>> No.5070642

We have proof that life exists, though. It's just an extrapolation from there that life could exist on other planets.

>> No.5070650

>>5070624
>just because there COULD be a God
>there COULD be a God

>There could be some species capable of breathing in the vacuum of space

you done did it now

>> No.5070662

>>5070642
But we still don't know for sure why life exists on this planet in the first place. In order to theorize that life developed on other planets, we need to assume that life developed as a result of random accretion of organic materials, which isn't confirmed, and that these conditions are replicable on other planets, which is dependent on the assumption that life is random.

It's just like saying that God exists, and that we were created by God, which rests on the assumption that God exists.

>> No.5070670

>"True, but the universe is so well-organized that it's almost impossible that the universe just randomly sprouted into existence with no outside intervention whatsoever."

False.

We can actually explain in astonishing detail almost every step along the way to forming life from nothing more than a random configuration of energy after the big bang.

In order to make your claim about "almost impossible" then you have to tell me why a random fart of energy is more unlikely than an omnibenevolent perfect magical man who can do anything in the sky.

I love how the argument about complexity is somehow good enough for theists to show them there must be a (COMPLEX) god,
yet the fact taht god is about a gazillionfucking times more complex doesn't trip them up in the slightest.

>> No.5070698

>>5070670
>We can actually explain in astonishing detail almost every step along the way to forming life from nothing more than a random configuration of energy after the big bang.
That's a theory, not a fact, and considering there's things in our own solar system that go against the theories used for the big bang (for example, why is there a region above the sun's surface that's significantly hotter than the surface?), I probably wouldn't be far off in predicting many of our currently established theories will undergo substantial adjustments in the future as more information about our universe is uncovered.

Furthermore, wouldn't you be arguing in favor of complexity by suggesting that life exists on planets other than ours? The universe would be much simpler if it were just composed of barren planets with compositions similar to those of the other 7 planets (and several dwarf planets) in our solar system.

>> No.5070708

>>5070698
Doesn't matter how complex it is, it doesn't warrant the existence of a god.

I was mocking how religious people use the fact that the universe is so complex to justify their beliefs only up to a point were they find it CONVENIENT to stop applying that logic.
Their own logic falls to pieces if you push it further.

>> No.5070715

>>5070624
Didn't Carl Sagan figure all of this shit out years ago? The concepts aren't mutually exclusive. Get over yourselves, /sci/chotics.

>> No.5070719

>>5070624
>"True, but the universe is so well-organized that it's almost impossible that the universe just randomly sprouted into existence with no outside intervention whatsoever."

But that's wrong, you retard.

>> No.5070718

>>5070662

I thought that most scientists (forgive me if I'm wrong) just considered it to be random chance. Also, we know water is the main requirement for life (as we know it) and we've observed it on other planets.

Forgive the sage. I just don't like bumping threads relating to religion.

>> No.5070962

>>5070624
We know stars exist. We know planets exist. We know the method by which stars and planets form. We know a rough approximation of the number of stars in the visible universe. Thus, we can calculate the rough number of planets in the visible universe. Throw on the rest of the terms, and you might be able to make a halfway decent argument.

We don't know god exists. We don't know any natural process that might create a god. We don't know anything about god, except that he apparently doesn't interfere in our universe.

>> No.5070995

it's time to die, op

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj4Q1hPRoDs

>> No.5070999

>>5070662

It's statistically impossible for Earth to be the only life-bearing planet. Even if life is only a one-in-a-billion, the Milky Way alone consists of several hundred billion. And that's just the ones we can detect or otherwise derive the existence of.

Now, whether this means there are other sentient, technologically advanced species in the world is an entirely different question and is ferociously up for debate.

>> No.5071031

>>5070624

Are you saying that ET and God exist, OP? I never know what OP is trying to say when he uses meem arrows.

>somebody explain meem arrows plox :)

>> No.5071060

>>5070698
>That's a theory, not a fact
You do know what a theory is, right?

It's taking the facts you have, and coming up with a mental construct that follows said facts to a reasonable conclusion. When new facts come that can disprove the theory, it is re-written to make a new theory, but until such a thing happens (and it hasn't in this case) it can more-or-less be taken as fact.

>> No.5071117

>>5071060

I like the way you put that. Are you in Philosophy? You seem very philosophical.

>> No.5071195

>>5071117

LOLNO. Psych major in the house!

>> No.5071321

>>5070624

Extra terrestrials are known to be in storage at Area 51.

God reveals himself to all of us in unique ways, which is why we cannot agree on His precise form or nature.

>> No.5071383

>>5071321

the aliens at area 51 were soviet prisoners who had plastic surgery to fool the air force.