# Will we ever find intelligent life in the Universe?



## Itullian

Or are we alone?

What do you think?

It's not looking good.


----------



## Blake

I hold no reservations. But I can't imagine a civilization with the intelligence to travel across the cosmos would be very intrigued with where our intelligence is at. What would be the gain to visit an ant-hill? I mean, we haven't even gotten people past the moon yet. And then look at our pop-culture... oh, boi.


----------



## hpowders

I don't know about the universe, but at least we can eliminate planet Earth.


----------



## Guest

I think we will - when, I couldn't tell you. Honestly - with our current technology, how much of the universe are we currently able to explore? And how long have we even been able to look past the confines of our own solar system?


----------



## ptr

It would be surprised if we were alone! Rather then us finding them, they'll find us!

/ptr


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> I hold no reservations. But I can't imagine a civilization with the intelligence to travel across the cosmos would be very intrigued with where our intelligence is at. What would be the gain to visit an ant-hill? I mean, we haven't even gotten people past the moon yet. And then look at our pop-culture... oh, boi.


Don't know yours, but my ant-hill has cable TV. Maybe we could start a war!


----------



## Guest

I imagine that, were they already able to travel beyond their own solar system, or even galaxy, they would employ some kind of Gene Roddenberry-style Prime Directive - no contact with any pre-warp civilizations.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

hpowders said:


> I don't know about the universe, but at least we can eliminate planet Earth.


.... and considerable swathes of a certain music forum :lol:


----------



## satoru

Intelligent life in other solar systems, sure. Finding them, maybe. Interacting with them, very hard if not impossible.

Current ongoing SETI project is trying to find some sign of intelligence in various signals we receive. I think continuous improvements in signal detection technologies coupled with advancements in signal processing will eventually enable us to detect such intelligence. But interacting with such intelligence, that's a whole different story.


----------



## Badinerie

If there is someone "out there" and they have been picking up our TV transmissions...we've had it!


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> .... and considerable swathes of a certain music forum :lol:


Even so, the average intelligence of the folks on this forum collectively would put to shame the average collective intelligence on this planet as a whole. Just an educated guess. I have not derived any formulas to put to the test, said premise.

Any three people put together on earth can't seem to get along. Imagine planet-planet interactions.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> Don't know yours, but my ant-hill has cable TV. Maybe we could start a war!


You, out of most on here, should know the potentials yet to be reached by our world of science.


----------



## Giordano

Yes, I know what you mean... 
But we should seriously question what we mean by "intelligence" and "life."
While we are at it, we should also consider the meaning of "ever."

Whatever...


----------



## brianvds

Badinerie said:


> If there is someone "out there" and they have been picking up our TV transmissions...we've had it!


They'd probably be quite justified in wiping out the "civilization" that sends things like reality shows out into the universe.


----------



## science

I think it's out there, but I don't think we'll find each other.

I guess we all know the Drake equation. (I know it's insulting to post the link, so I apologize. But... really, _someone_ might not know.)

IMO, the key term is _L_, the length of time that a civilization sends signals into space. We've been doing it for about a hundred years, so any civilization within a hundred light years of us could have detected us. So we have created a sphere of radio information one hundred light-years in radius. How much longer will we be sending these signals out? I wouldn't bet on it going on for too long. Let's say we manage to go another century before we nuke ourselves. (I'd call that optimistic.) At that point there will be a hollow sphere of information two-hundred light-years thick, spreading through the universe.

It might at some point pass by a civilization that has the ability to receive it and the will to communicate with us, but unless it's already there and they're already replying, we'll be gone before it reaches us.

(We get more time if we assume that we last longer before destroying ourselves. Also, we could develop some kind of AI that would go on transmitting information after we destroy ourselves. Or, perhaps after we destroy ourselves it is only a matter of time until some future species on Earth develops intelligence and technology, and they might be in place to receive the other civilization's answer! But that wouldn't be "us" finding other intelligent life.)

It's tantalizing to think that hundreds or thousands of years ago such a sphere of information could have passed by us, and we missed it! But I'm doubting that is the case, given that an organism capable of creating radio communication would probably have to be made partially of heavy elements like silicon and iron, which did not exist until they were forged in heavy stars, so that only around "second-generation" stars could such an organism evolve. And the universe hasn't been around long enough for very many generations of stars.


----------



## Krummhorn

Okay, call me weird ... but I believe there is intelligent elsewhere in the universe. Though its not likely of ever having an encounter with them, my perception is that they might well be laughing their heads off at us earthlings. 

Imho, there have been some unexplained anomalies in the past that defy comprehension and/or understanding. There are certain 'secrets' dealing with UFOs that our government knows and are not telling people about .. but that is a subject for another thread so as not to derail this one.

Kh ♫


----------



## KenOC

I suspect that if we want to find intelligent life in the universe, we should start looking quite a ways away...


----------



## Guest

It certainly isn't to be found on the third rock from the sun.


----------



## Ingélou

I think in an infinite universe (begging a question - okay, unimaginably vast) there is bound to be other intelligent life. But as others have said, I don't know if we'll meet up. I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime, anyway, as the prospect scares me a little.

:tiphat: What a fabulous thread for wit and bons mots, though! I wouldn't despair of the human race just yet.


----------



## schigolch

The Universe is maybe a little bit too daunting a project. Rather big size, right?. 

But if we restrict ourselves to our own Galaxy, what is puzzling is why, if there are extraterrestial civilizations, they are not here?. This is a a very pertinent question, and is known as the *Fermi Paradox*. Effectively, if there are civilizations out there, and given the age of the Universe, and our own galaxy, the rate of stellar formation, and the fact that, even travelling at subluminal speed, in a few millions years all the stars in the Galaxy can be visited, if the technology is available,... why can't we just see those aliens walking among us?.

Of course, there are several possible answers, including:

1.- In thruth, there are no more civilizations/intelligent life outside planet Earth in the Galaxy.

2.- Intelligent life, sooner or later, destroys itself, or destroys other intelligence species.

3.- Civilizations are destroyed by natural events like supernovae or meteorite impacts before they can make contact.

4.- They are there but we are not searching hard enough.

5.- They are there, but have no interest in being contacted

6.- What's about UFOs and abduction stories?. They are here *now*.

I don't personally think factor "L" is such a big deal in Drake's equation. Granted, so far we have only one example, us, but it seems we are getting along reasonably well. . In any case, of course, the real problem with the equation is that some of those numbers are so unknown, even by several orders of magnitude, that is very difficult to get a solid prediction. At least, in our current stage of knowledge.

So, my answer to the thread questions is:

Most probably, there is intelligent life in the Galaxy beyond planet Earth, and probably, we will contact one day.


----------



## TxllxT

I guess a typical theme of Enlightenment thinking is to imagine the concept of 'being alone' and projecting this on the unknown. In the past the imaginations focused in on a still unknown Robinson Crusoe living on an unknown island in the Pacific, nowadays they fly out of the Milky Way and are being projected on a heavenly screen far far behind what the human eye can see with help of telescopes. Somehow Enlightenment thinking needs this frame of mind...


----------



## Giordano

Krummhorn said:


> my perception is that they might well be laughing their heads off at us earthlings.


What if what we do affects them... they may consider the situation too serious for laughter...


----------



## Morimur

Other than GOD? Nope. If the Bible doesn't mention it, it ain't worth worrying over... Let the war of words begin... Tee-hee!


----------



## Ukko

The absurd rumor that there is intelligent life in the Universe was started by an Early Egotistical Idiot. All the evidence points to the conclusion that there ain't any, particularly on Earth. Or it would, if there were any intelligence around to examine the evidence.


----------



## Vaneyes

Let's deal with jock itch first.


----------



## mmsbls

schigolch said:


> I don't personally think factor "L" is such a big deal in Drake's equation. Granted, so far we have only one example, us, but it seems we are getting along reasonably well. . In any case, of course, the real problem with the equation is that some of those numbers are so unknown, even by several orders of magnitude, that is very difficult to get a solid prediction. At least, in our current stage of knowledge.


Recently our understanding of some factors has grown enormously, and perhaps in the next decade or so we will have a reasonable handle on more. The number of exoplanets detected is well over 1000 and may soon be over 5000. The number of earth-like planets is increasing as well. Recent experimental designs hope to detect signals of certain gases in the atmospheres of those earth-like planets in the habitable zone. Those signals may indicate the presence of life.

Then we're down to f(i) [fraction of planets with life that develop intelligent life], f(c) [fraction of planets with intelligent life that develop technology capable of being detected from other solar systems], and L.

I agree that L is likely not to be a problem. What I find most interesting is that apparently most physicists/astronomers believe that f(i) is reasonably large while a large fraction of biologists are vastly less certain.


----------



## PetrB

I thought the quest was still very much on here on our own little speck of a planet!


----------



## PetrB

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Other than GOD? Nope. If the Bible doesn't mention it, it ain't worth worrying over... Let the war of words begin... Tee-hee!


I always refer back to an anthology of thrice or more times mis-translated texts from neolithic middle eastern nomadic desert tribes when trying to understand the universe


----------



## PetrB

Vaneyes said:


> Let's deal with jock itch first.


I didn't know they had any feelings at all!


----------



## Antiquarian

I think there is inteligent life in the universe. The fact that we have not detected any transmissions from them speaks volumes about just how great a divide there exists between them and us, at least as it concerns good taste.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Life is stupid.


----------



## PetrB

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Life is stupid.


... and then you die


----------



## science

schigolch said:


> I don't personally think factor "L" is such a big deal in Drake's equation. Granted, so far we have only one example, us, but it seems we are getting along reasonably well. .


I hope you're right....

On the other hand, it's really easy to imagine a nuke getting from Pakistan to some terrorist group, and in the past year both China and Russia have threatened to use nukes if their territorial ambitions are hindered.

All it takes is one hothead and we're done.


----------



## Posie

Niles: "Answer me this: can you tell me with any 
certainty that in such a vast universe there isn't 
intelligent life on other planets?"

Frasier: "At the moment, I'm not sure there's intelligent life in this kitchen."

-Frasier


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Kinda like in C.S. Lewis' _Space Trilogy_, there may very well be life out there, and in fact they may know us, but they would want to stay as far away as possible from us. We are the "Silent Planet," the planet which sucks because of corruption and brokenness. They wouldn't care a bit about invading and dominating over us, because they simply just have pity for us. They may be worshipers of the One True God and never experienced a Fall, and so kinda look at us with mistrust that we could corrupt them. We might be the only planet in the universe that doesn't worship the One True God! If Aliens from another planet came here and told us to worship the Triune God (they may even have other names for him, but it is the same God by nature and character), would we listen? Probably not. And then they'd kill us.

Just one possibility of many.


----------



## Varick

Ukko said:


> The absurd rumor that there is intelligent life in the Universe was started by an Early Egotistical Idiot. All the evidence points to the conclusion that there ain't any, particularly on Earth. Or it would, if there were any intelligence around to examine the evidence.


I think it rather absurd to think there isn't. I will TRY to put this into perspective.

Take EVERY SINGLE GRAIN OF SAND FROM EVERY SINGLE BEACH ON THE ENTIRE EARTH AND PUT IT TOGETHER.

Now, our solar system is ONE grain of sand. Every other grain of sand is another solar system. To think we are the ONLY ones with intelligent life is surely betting against the odds.

Now, let's look at another aspect that SCIENCE mentioned: If you filled a fingertip with sand, we have been transmitting radio waves that haven't even gone beyond our fingertips yet (still try to imagine every grain of sand on planet earth in front of you as the universe). So, what are the odds of us finding someone or someone finding us? Pretty damn remote.

Just some food for thought.

V


----------



## KenOC

Huilunsoittaja said:


> ...would we listen? Probably not. And then they'd kill us. Just one possibility of many.


And we sent out those Pioneer spacecraft for just anybody to find. And they're carrying stuff like, "Hi there! See the map for our home planet. We've got plenty of bling and beautiful babes. And BTW we don't have any space defenses. Why don't you drop by when you have a moment?"

Actually Stephen Hawking commented on this a few months ago. He thought maybe it wasn't exactly the Good Idea of the Century...


----------



## mmsbls

If we will soon have the capability of inferring life on somewhat nearby planets, I think very advanced civilizations would easily be able to detect oxygen in our atmosphere and make that determination as well. I wouldn't worry about our spacecraft broadcasting where we are. We've been doing that with radio waves for many decades.


----------



## Itullian

From what I've read, we're alone folks. Deal..............


----------



## joen_cph

Don´t forget the fact that intelligence itself also seems to be drawn to this very website ...


----------



## Piwikiwi

The Universe is so enormous that it is highly unlikely that we are alone. The problem is that the universe is so enormous and that everything is probably too far away to come in contact with.


----------



## Itullian

Nope. the scientists are saying they cant find anyplace that could have advanced life there.


----------



## joen_cph

^^^^
This is contrary to all scientific reporting about advances in astronomy and exoplanet discoveries I´ve been browsing in the past couple of years.

I´m off to work, but:

1800 exoplanets have been discovered in just a few years, the number increasing rapidly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoplanet

including 
"_Potentially habitable planets:
Confirmed planet discoveries in the habitable zone include the Kepler-22b, the first super-Earth located in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star.[226] In September 2012, the discovery of two planets orbiting the red dwarf Gliese 163[227] was announced.[228][229] One of the planets, Gliese 163 c, about 6.9 times the mass of Earth and somewhat hotter, was considered to be within the habitable zone.[228][229] In 2013, three more potentially habitable planets, Kepler-62 e, Kepler-62 f, and Kepler-69 c, orbiting Kepler-62 and Kepler-69 respectively, were discovered.[230][231] All three planets were super-Earths[230] and may be covered by oceans thousands of kilometers deep.[232] In June 2013, a dynamically packed planetary system around the nearby red dwarf Gliese 667C was announced. The system was found to contain at least three super-Earths in its habitable zone (Gliese 667 Cc, Gliese 667 Ce and Gliese 667 Cf), establishing the new record in the number of potentially habitable worlds around a single star.[225] The system contains two other planet candidates (Gliese 667 Cd and Gliese 667 Ch) which would lie in the cold/hot edges of the star's habitable zone. This later result highlights the prevalence of low mass stars as hosts of potentially habitable worlds."_


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Imagine we discover that the ultimate destiny of intelligent societies isn't self-destruction or 'technological multiculturalism' or atheism but an eternal middle-ages like state of unbreakable pseudo-religious conventions. That would suck.


----------



## superhorn

The fact that earth hasn't been visited by aliens is proof there's intellgent life in the universe !


----------



## ArtMusic

Itullian said:


> Or are we alone?
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> It's not looking good.


Of course we are not alone. The universe is incomprehensibly large. Even life on earth can survive and exist in places that appear unable to sustain life, such as places that have zero sunlight and extreme temperatures.


----------



## Blake

As wonderful as all of these imaginings are, unless we experience it ourselves... it doesn't exist for us. Not yet. Now, it's just mental gymnastics.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I think if we continue to have enough of a civilization that would possess the money, the brains and the intellectual curiosity necessary to keep exploring space, we will find it at some point.


----------



## joen_cph

Vesuvius said:


> As wonderful as all of these imaginings are, unless we experience it ourselves... it doesn't exist for us. Not yet. Now, it's just mental gymnastics.


I remember a scientist made the calculation that intelligent life forms would most likely have a height between 3 mm and 30 m ...


----------



## Itullian

Scientists are saying nowhere is fit for intelligent life.


----------



## joen_cph

You need to specify your source, Itullian, and you can´t use the term "scientists" as if it is scientists in general - it is very common among them here to think that intelligence will probably develop parallel to the evolvement of life, where circumstances allow for life, and that the creation of life could very well be just a natural side-effect of the formation of stars. 

Also, the definition of intelligence is undergoing changes and questions these years. I guess you mean self-conscious, manipulative intelligence. It seems to be more apparent among animals than we thought previously, for example.


----------



## KenOC

If we were to run into intelligent alien life, would we recognize it? Or vice versa?

"They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

"Meat. They're made out of meat."

"Meat?"

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml


----------



## ptr

^^ I find the prospect of eat or being eaten much more exhilarating then the alternatives any "church" has put forward! 







/ptr


----------



## Couchie

I doubt it. Finding intelligent life on our own planet is almost impossible.


----------



## violadude

Itullian said:


> Scientists are saying nowhere is fit for intelligent life.


That's not what I've read. It seems like every few months now I read about a new planet that was found which could possibly support life.

They are also finding plenty of evidence that suggests there was once Martian life as well.


----------



## Blake

Anyone looked into Dawkins or Krauss? I find Krauss to be particularly brilliant.


----------



## Varick

Vesuvius said:


> Anyone looked into Dawkins or Krauss? I find Krauss to be particularly brilliant.


There is no doubt about Krauss's brilliance. However, he and other scientists in order to advance their theory of "Something from Nothing" had to do one thing that I find fallacious, and that they had to redefine "nothing."

Nothing is nothing, zero, nunca, nada. "Nothing" can not have "something" in it, otherwise, it ceases to become "nothing" and then becomes "something."

I heard him on a radio interview when the book first came out and the interviewer asked him that simple question: If there was "something" before there was "nothing", then we have to go back before there was "something" and ask where did that "something" come from.

Krauss got a bit frustrated and kept going back to saying something like, "In physics, nothing doesn't mean "nothing." To which the interviewer kept repeating the one question which Krauss could never explain: _"Then where did that 'something' that used to be considered 'nothing' come from?"_

I love science and physics, but I do find it amusing listening and reading these scientists twisting themselves into ever expanding theories that take far greater leaps of faith than any person who believes in intelligent design had to.

V


----------



## Couchie

Nothing as you've defined it is a philosophical construct and not a physical one, which by definition could not exist to study. Philosophers may enjoy talking about nothing but scientists unfortunately can only consider the physical realm of existence.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Varick said:


> There is no doubt about Krauss's brilliance. However, he and other scientists in order to advance their theory of "Something from Nothing" had to do one thing that I find fallacious, and that they had to redefine "nothing."
> 
> Nothing is nothing, zero, nunca, nada. "Nothing" can not have "something" in it, otherwise, it ceases to become "nothing" and then becomes "something."
> 
> I heard him on a radio interview when the book first came out and the interviewer asked him that simple question: If there was "something" before there was "nothing", then we have to go back before there was "something" and ask where did that "something" come from.
> 
> Krauss got a bit frustrated and kept going back to saying something like, "In physics, nothing doesn't mean "nothing." To which the interviewer kept repeating the one question which Krauss could never explain: _"Then where did that 'something' that used to be considered 'nothing' come from?"_
> 
> I love science and physics, but I do find it amusing listening and reading these scientists twisting themselves into ever expanding theories that take far greater leaps of faith than any person who believes in intelligent design had to.
> 
> V


Let's not get into this


----------



## mmsbls

Most people think of "nothing" as empty space. Krauss goes further and removes space and time from that definition yielding the quantum mechanical vacuum. It is the "least thing" that physicists believe can exist. But, yes, it still is a thing - i.e. a state with quantum mechanical laws and principles. What's truly amazing is that physicists have a real theory of the creation of our region of spacetime (what we call the universe). It's based on some of the most tested theories we have, but it does rely on extrapolating those theories "outside" of spacetime. It's not clear whether it would ever be testable beyond basic consistency with what we know about our universe. I would not say the theory describes getting "something from nothing", but the term nothing in this phrase is quite reasonable given most people's view of nothing.


----------



## Varick

Couchie said:


> Nothing as you've defined it is a philosophical construct and not a physical one, which by definition could not exist to study. Philosophers may enjoy talking about nothing but scientists unfortunately can only consider the physical realm of existence.


Yes and no. Even in the realm of physics of existence, those "things" in nothing must still have an origin. My question does overlap in both the philosophical and the physical construct. This is why I still submit that believing in intelligent design is a more "rational" belief than from "nothing" you get something, multi-versus (to which there is not a shred of scientific evidence, yet another "theory"), and eventually Mozart and Shakespeare.

I want these scientists to continue exploring, to keep pushing the envelope of human knowledge and theories. I applaud them for the (IMO) incredibly important work they are doing. Who knows, one day they may definitively be able to disprove a creator, or one day, they may be faced with the irrefutable proof of a creator. It certainly won't happen in our lifetime (if ever), so for now, I stick with the more "logical" conclusion.

As a molecular biologist once said (I do not recall his name), "The more I study the animal cell, it's construct, it's ever so complex design, the myriad functions of it, the more I feel I am looking into the face of God every time I look into that microscope."

I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of his quote.

V


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Most people think of "nothing" as empty space. Krauss goes further and removes space and time from that definition yielding the quantum mechanical vacuum. It is the "least thing" that physicists believe can exist. But, yes, it still is a thing - i.e. a state with quantum mechanical laws and principles. What's truly amazing is that physicists have a real theory of the creation of our region of spacetime (what we call the universe). It's based on some of the most tested theories we have, but it does rely on extrapolating those theories "outside" of spacetime. It's not clear whether it would ever be testable beyond basic consistency with what we know about our universe. I would not say the theory describes getting "something from nothing", but the term nothing in this phrase is quite reasonable given most people's view of nothing.


Yes, the ultimate scientific "proof" is reproducibility, and an experiment on that level just doesn't seem to be within the realm of possibility. We can perform various tests to see if things work the way would predict them to work under a given set of parameters, but it is all built on our hypothesis, and doesn't really fall under the "falsifiable" standard - our hypotheses right now are at the stage where, should a given experiment not turn out as predicted, it really doesn't fundamentally alter the core hypothesis. It just then assumes that the prediction was wrong, and that some parameter was not addressed, and that the overriding hypothesis can still be true. That is one of the difficulties of science on this grand of a scale. The possibilities are exciting and vast, but the variables are still seemingly limitless.


----------



## Couchie

Varick said:


> Yes and no. Even in the realm of physics of existence, those "things" in nothing must still have an origin. My question does overlap in both the philosophical and the physical construct.


Why must they have an origin? In absolute nothingness, there is nothing, not even time or casualty. Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore it can only be that some "things" in nothing can not possibly have an origin.


----------



## Varick

Couchie said:


> Why must they have an origin? In absolute nothingness, there is nothing, not even time or casualty. Nothing comes from nothing. Therefore it can only be that some "things" in nothing can not possibly have an origin.


OK, I'm fine with that. My only question then is a simple one: Do you (not you personally, but to anyone) think it is more "logical" that all this complexity from the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, the universe, everything had to come together so perfectly, so precisely in a Googol (1 with 100 zeros) or even a Googolplex (1 with a Googol of zeros) *to one* chance to create *life*, to Mozart, DaVinci, Shakespeare, etc., came from "nothing" or a designer?

IMO, the question answers itself. If you landed on Planet Zorton and found a computer, would you assume that it just got there (evolved) from "nothing" or would you think that someone designed it?

V


----------



## Couchie

Varick said:


> OK, I'm fine with that. My only question then is a simple one: Do you (not you personally, but to anyone) think it is more "logical" that all this complexity from the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, the universe, everything had to come together so perfectly, so precisely in a Googol (1 with 100 zeros) or even a Googolplex (1 with a Googol of zeros) *to one* chance to create *life*, to Mozart, DaVinci, Shakespeare, etc., came from "nothing" or a designer?


Consider a lottery with 100 million drawn tickets given to 100 million people. The likelyhood that *you* will win is 1 in 100 million, improbable to the point of impossible. But the probably that *somebody* will win is exactly 1 in 1, guaranteed. Given the enormous expanse of the seen and unseen universe, and the extremely long periods of time, even infintisimally small probabilities of matters such as life first forming can sum to "possible" or even "probable" when summed across all of the universe.



> IMO, the question answers itself. If you landed on Planet Zorton and found a computer, would you assume that it just got there (evolved) from "nothing" or would you think that someone designed it?
> 
> V


I would think an evolved life form designed it, and we have evidence that carbon based organic life forms can evolve and design computers, but no theory exists for how inorganic metal and plastic components could self-assemble into the form of a computer themselves.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> Consider a lottery with 100 million drawn tickets given to 100 million people. The likelyhood that *you* will win is 1 in 100 million, improbable to the point of impossible. But the probably that *somebody* will win is exactly 1 in 1, guaranteed. Given the enormous expanse of the seen and unseen universe, and the extremely long periods of time, even infintisimally small probabilities of matters such as life first forming can sum to "possible" or even "probable" when summed across all of the universe.
> 
> I would think an evolved life form designed it, and we have evidence that carbon based organic life forms can evolve and design computers, but no theory exists for how inorganic metal and plastic components could self-assemble into the form of a computer themselves.


Couchie - your lottery analogy is flawed. There is no guarantee that anybody will win, unless you know that there is a winning ticket among the 100 million. And the only way you can be certain of that is if you specifically put one in - i.e. you design it so 1 in 100 million will win. Why does there have to be 1 winner? Why not more? Why not none at all? Nothing says that, with all the things that can happen in the universe, life must be one of them. In fact, given the amazing complexity of all the variables that we think must come together for life to come into existence, I think it is an incredible unlikely event. You need a star, with an orbiting planet that is just the right distance from the star to keep the planet at just the right temperature. Then - in the timespan that a star will exist - not only do you need to have that planet form, you also need it to be comprised of the right elements in just the right proportions. Then you need just the right chemical reaction to happen to begin to create the beginning molecules critical to life. Then you need that critical reaction to occur - whatever it is - that organizes just the right molecules together and kicks off life from lifelessness - self-replicating life. And then that is just the beginning. Then you need evolution to proceed along to continually move life along to bigger and better.

With your lottery analogy, you are talking - assuming there are no duplicates - making who knows how many choices in the proper order to choose the winning ticket. The expanse of the universe may be enormous - and infinite - but the vast majority of it is as close to "nothing" as we can describe. Infinite space does not guarantee infinite resources. Just like an infinite number of people purchasing lottery tickets does not necessarily increase the chances of a winner emerging, because then you also have to realize that, if they are all happening independently, there may very well be untold numbers of duplicates. You have to get every number right. Suppose you get a planet with all the right elements, but it is too far from its star, and thus too cold. Or a planet that is right on the cusp of generating that life, but then is snuffed out by a meteor, or a star going supernova.

None of this is to say that it automatically proves design. But if you are already in the realm of infinitely small probabilities, then surely a God can't be ruled out.


----------



## Blake

Varick said:


> There is no doubt about Krauss's brilliance. However, he and other scientists in order to advance their theory of "Something from Nothing" had to do one thing that I find fallacious, and that they had to redefine "nothing."
> 
> Nothing is nothing, zero, nunca, nada. "Nothing" can not have "something" in it, otherwise, it ceases to become "nothing" and then becomes "something."
> 
> I heard him on a radio interview when the book first came out and the interviewer asked him that simple question: If there was "something" before there was "nothing", then we have to go back before there was "something" and ask where did that "something" come from.
> 
> Krauss got a bit frustrated and kept going back to saying something like, "In physics, nothing doesn't mean "nothing." To which the interviewer kept repeating the one question which Krauss could never explain: _"Then where did that 'something' that used to be considered 'nothing' come from?"_
> 
> I love science and physics, but I do find it amusing listening and reading these scientists twisting themselves into ever expanding theories that take far greater leaps of faith than any person who believes in intelligent design had to.
> 
> V


Then what 'nothing' will satisfy? Anything perceivable will automatically be considered 'something'. Hey look, here's 'nothing', nope... I see it, therefore it's something. The type of nothing that mysticisms refer to is where the mind doesn't exist. There is no perceiver and no perceivable... as in deep sleep. But there's nothing to study there because not even the perceiver exist. What do you remember in deep sleep, not even yourself eh? That is absolute nothingness. That's not the type of nothing that science is talking about, because not even science exist there... not even you exist there.


----------



## Blake

Varick said:


> Yes and no. Even in the realm of physics of existence, those "things" in nothing must still have an origin. My question does overlap in both the philosophical and the physical construct. This is why I still submit that believing in intelligent design is a more "rational" belief than from "nothing" you get something, multi-versus (to which there is not a shred of scientific evidence, yet another "theory"), and eventually Mozart and Shakespeare.
> 
> I want these scientists to continue exploring, to keep pushing the envelope of human knowledge and theories. I applaud them for the (IMO) incredibly important work they are doing. Who knows, one day they may definitively be able to disprove a creator, or one day, they may be faced with the irrefutable proof of a creator. It certainly won't happen in our lifetime (if ever), so for now, I stick with the more "logical" conclusion.
> 
> *As a molecular biologist once said (I do not recall his name), "The more I study the animal cell, it's construct, it's ever so complex design, the myriad functions of it, the more I feel I am looking into the face of God every time I look into that microscope."
> *
> I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of his quote.
> 
> V


Chris Hitchens has had some interesting debates on the matter, but on the side of atheism...


----------



## Varick

I am familiar with Hitchens and many of his arguments. I respected him because he was a truth seeker, although I disagree with most of his political and theological views. He and I look at the same thing and often come to different conclusions. His conclusions and readings of the Bible are so way off course and completely misinterpreted.

I am now watching this debate between him and Sharpton. Although if there is a fraud that turns my stomach, it's Sharpton.

V


----------



## Varick

Couchie said:


> I would think an evolved life form designed it, and we have evidence that carbon based organic life forms can evolve and design computers, but no theory exists for how inorganic metal and plastic components could self-assemble into the form of a computer themselves.


But no theory exists for how organic material came from inorganic material either ie: How life started.

V


----------



## Blake

Varick said:


> I am familiar with Hitchens and many of his arguments. I respected him because he was a truth seeker, although I disagree with most of his political and theological views. He and I look at the same thing and often come to different conclusions. His conclusions and readings of the Bible are so way off course and completely misinterpreted.
> 
> I am now watching this debate between him and Sharpton. Although if there is a fraud that turns my stomach, it's Sharpton.
> 
> V


Hitchens definitely has a sharp intellect, but he can be a bit brooding at times.


----------



## samurai

Varick said:


> I am familiar with Hitchens and many of his arguments. I respected him because he was a truth seeker, although I disagree with most of his political and theological views. He and I look at the same thing and often come to different conclusions. His conclusions and readings of the Bible are so way off course and completely misinterpreted.
> 
> I am now watching this debate between him and Sharpton. Although if there is a fraud that turns my stomach, it's Sharpton.
> 
> V


Amen to that! :angel:


----------



## Guest

I used to think more of Hitchens, and still enjoy his political wit. But when it came to religion, his vitriol blinded him, and he played fast and lose with the facts. I read his last polemic against religion - god is not Great - and there were so many inaccuracies, that it looked like he didn't even bother to try and be fair. I'm not talking about subjective things - I'm talking about actual historic inaccuracies that he could have easily found out with a simple Google search. Not that I agreed with his views on religion before then, but I at least respected him as honestly arguing his point. That book dashed a lot of that for me, and while he is a quite clever debater, he is now tainted in my eyes.

Oh, and I agree. I don't count it as any great accomplishment to best Al Sharpton in a debate, and he wouldn't even be at the bottom of my list of choices for championing Christianity. Now, if you need some race-baiting, he's your man.


----------



## KenOC

Varick said:


> But no theory exists for how organic material came from inorganic material either ie: How life started.


Firesign Theater may have had it right. "In the beginning, there were hot lumps." :lol:


----------



## Piwikiwi

Varick said:


> But no theory exists for how organic material came from inorganic material either ie: How life started.
> 
> V


You are right about that and you are right that we don't know, and probably will never know, where the big bang came from. BUT, scientist do have very good ideas about what happened a trillionth of a second after the big bang and what came after that. Same thing with life.


----------



## Guest

Piwikiwi said:


> You are right about that and you are right that we don't know, and probably will never know, where the big bang came from. BUT, scientist do have very good ideas about what happened a trillionth of a second after the big bang and what came after that. Same thing with life.


That is all fine and good. But it is what happens prior to that first trillionth of a second that is really critical in the whole design versus no creator debate. And a lot of what we think we know coming after is based on our assumptions of what came first.


----------



## Piwikiwi

DrMike said:


> That is all fine and good. But it is what happens prior to that first trillionth of a second that is really critical in the whole design versus no creator debate. And a lot of what we think we know coming after is based on our assumptions of what came first.


Yes and that is why it is an interesting philosophical question but not one that we will ever find an answer to.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Varick said:


> But no theory exists for how organic material came from inorganic material either ie: How life started.
> 
> V


I can quite definitely definitively confirm comprehensively completely and unequivocally, that I originate originally from a mixture entirely composed of materials emanating from the inorganic realm ...........

No there is no intelligent life in the universe, at least not organic


----------



## Couac Addict

_So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth._


----------



## Badinerie

My cousin is a time lord. I could always ask him if he's seen anything.


----------



## Guest

Badinerie said:


> My cousin is a time lord. I could always ask him if he's seen anything.


Which iteration of the Dr.? For, as we know, there is only the one remaining time lord. And does he ever let you mess with his sonic screwdriver?


----------



## Badinerie

The Current one......and, is that a euphemism !


----------



## trazom

Varick said:


> But no theory exists for how organic material came from inorganic material either ie: How life started.
> 
> V


Don't remember if anyone mentioned these yet, but one theory is of how life came from inorganic molecules is found in protobionts, the hypothesized precursor to prokaryotic cells.


----------



## georgedelorean

Other life? Sure. Intelligent life, doubtful for a few reasons. Keep in mind how precise everything has been in order for us to develop as we have. For everything to be that exact in even one more location would be, in my view, a near mathematical impossibility. Is there a chance? Yes. A realistic one, no. This is only my view, and it shouldn't be taken as the ultimate in gospel.


----------



## KenOC

georgedelorean said:


> Other life? Sure. Intelligent life, doubtful for a few reasons. Keep in mind how precise everything has been in order for us to develop as we have. For everything to be that exact in even one more location would be, in my view, a near mathematical impossibility. Is there a chance? Yes. A realistic one, no. This is only my view, and it shouldn't be taken as the ultimate in gospel.


There are an estimated 100 octillion stars, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's really quite a few. While chances may be near zero that there's intelligent life around any one of them, the sheer force of numbers suggests that there's intelligent life, somewhere. The presence of intelligence can be easily tested by asking their opinions of, for instance, Donald Trump.


----------



## Bulldog

I think intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe will find us.


----------



## KenOC

Bulldog said:


> I think intelligent life from elsewhere in the universe will find us.


But will they recognize us as intelligent life? See the short story, "They're Made Out of Meat."

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml


----------



## ArtMusic

I personally believe there is intelligent life in the universe. It is incomprehensibly large that it is so naive of humans to think we are the only ones around. It's just like five hundred years ago when folks thought the Earth was flat because that's all they could see, i.e. limited by their vision, in this case, our minds.


----------



## Marinera

If there is an intelligent life out there there's a good chance it is much more advanced than us and already found us. However, being that intelligent they wouldn't do something so stupid as to reveal themselves to us.


----------



## hpowders

I will recognize intelligent life in the universe because their composers will be writing music with beautiful, memorable melodies instead of what passes for classical music these days on earth, atonal drek.

No wonder Rocket Man wants to blow up the earth!

Can you blame him?? Give him some memorable melodies and he will be pacified!!!


----------



## Dan Ante

Think of the distances/time involved to other star systems and the expected life of our planet plus the probability or even certainty of the extinction of the human race i.e. we will not be around forever, perhaps these factors 'distance/time' are a protection for us, other life forms may not be benevolent.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Hey sensible answers are not allowed here


----------



## Dan Ante

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^ Hey sensible answers are not allowed here


Sorry Earthling êÆ¶あぶユ￥


----------



## georgedelorean

I'd also have to agree that if there is other intelligent life, it may be so far away that communication/visitation would be impossible considering the distances.


----------



## Dan Ante

georgedelorean said:


> I'd also have to agree that if there is other intelligent life, it may be so far away that communication/visitation would be impossible considering the distances.


And we should be grateful for small mercies.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I don't think the distance is an insurmountable obstacle. Other intelligent life doesn't have to be 3D bound like us. It is possible they can travel in time also and find a much shorter distance to us. I think the question we should be asking is whether the intelligent life out there finds us intelligent also, maybe we are only comparable to a carnivorous plant in their standards.


----------



## Dan Ante

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't think the distance is an insurmountable obstacle. Other intelligent life doesn't have to be 3D bound like us. It is possible they can travel in time also and find a much shorter distance to us. I think the question we should be asking is whether the intelligent life out there finds us intelligent also, maybe we are only comparable to a carnivorous plant in their standards.


If they are that advanced where are they? You can't travel to the future cause it aint happened


----------



## Bulldog

Dan Ante said:


> If they are that advanced where are they?


They could be hovering over us right now.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> If they are that advanced where are they? You can't travel to the future cause it aint happened


There are arguments, based on the theory of relativity, that the future has already happened. The future in one frame of reference can be seen as the past when viewed from another, if the relative velocities are proper.


----------



## Gordontrek

I don't think that the universe is teeming with life- given how astronomical the odds are for life to even begin, there's not much chance of an interstellar society like you see in Star Trek. I think that life in general is few and far between, and intelligent life rarer still. In the Milky Way, which is relatively young compared to other galaxies, any intelligent life that may exist probably isn't that much more advanced than us, at least not advanced enough to accomplish interstellar travel. The best place to find an advanced civilization would be older galaxies where star formation has ceased or is rare. But those are usually extremely distant so we have no way of contacting them unless we want to wait hundreds of millions of years or even billions for a reply.


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> There are arguments, based on the theory of relativity, that the future has already happened. The future in one frame of reference can be seen as the past when viewed from another, if the relative velocities are proper.


Yes I have heard of that theory Ken along with the Multiverse and 13 dimensions and who knows, anything is possible but if true it must be awfully crowded out there or is it?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

georgedelorean said:


> I'd also have to agree that if there is other intelligent life, it may be so far away that communication/visitation would be impossible considering the distances.


If you see a tree fall in the forest and no one else sees it did it really happen...................


----------



## Botschaft

hpowders said:


> I don't know about the universe, but at least we can eliminate planet Earth.


If there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe then let's hope it eliminates Earth.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Improbus said:


> If there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe then let's hope it eliminates Earth.


or at least the White House, in fact all leaders with weird haircuts/ styles...........


----------



## Botschaft

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> or at least the White House, in fact all leaders with weird haircuts/ styles...........


Maybe they could just destroy Trump's hair; at least that would be a good start.


----------



## Dan Ante

The only post that I ever made concerning 'you know who' was removed you have to be careful.
Have you heard the theory of "seeding" just roughly life evolved on earth due to some form of seeding the basics for life to get a start so the question is 'who spread the seeds and why'


----------



## Chocolate Rain

"Will we ever find intelligent life in the Universe?"
No.

"What do you think?"
Earth has a finite lifespan. Let's prioritize tracking down habitable planets and finding a way to transport life there and not waste time and money looking for alien life.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I'm not a mathematician but I believe the very significant statistical probability is that there is life on other planets.....it seems like a cliche thing to say but what a crazy and mind-expanding thing.


----------



## Dan Ante

A female scientist said "Of course there is intelligent life out there otherwise what a waste of space"


----------



## hpowders

OP: What am I, chopped liver?????


----------



## Dan Ante

hpowders said:


> OP: What am I, chopped liver?????


Not yet ............


----------



## Steve1087

Bulldog said:


> They could be hovering over us right now.


Or walking among us right now. It makes sense (one you have got Star Wars and Star Trek out of your head) that alien life forms would look just like us.


----------



## Dan Ante

Steve1087 said:


> Or walking among us right now. It makes sense (one you have got Star Wars and Star Trek out of your head) that alien life forms would look just like us.


Interesting, so are you proposing 'Intelligent design '


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> Interesting, so are you proposing 'Intelligent design '


I think most of the current world leaders either dispel that theory or they are in fact alien of origin


----------



## starthrower

Intelligent aliens keep their distance from violent humans.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

starthrower said:


> Intelligent aliens keep their distance from violent humans.


Is this from direct observation


----------



## starthrower

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Is this from direct observation


Just a likely hypothesis.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

starthrower said:


> Just a likely hypothesis.


Probably a pretty sound one I'd say


----------



## Der Titan

I don't believe in intelligent life in the universe. To believe that comes from a very materialistic point of view. People believe that because from a materialistic point of view this is certainly possible. But the human mind is nothing materialistic, it's spirit. The universe is an empty space of nothing. Or even less so, it's nothing than an object. Something for scientific research. And it's even less likely that we will ever encounter other intelligent life than ours, even if it would be exist, what I don't believe.


----------



## ldiat

has not Voyager 1 and 2 now have passed the former planet Pluto into a new solar system? many in our life time might not listen to news or messages from Voyager as it will be a long time for the messages and photos to b received if it encounters any kind of life form. and it could be bugs or creatures of some sort. this message is on the voyager: @WilliamShatner just sent humanity’s #MessageToVoyager to space: "We offer friendship across the stars. You are not alone


----------



## Dan Ante

They have even sent a gold plaque giving our location and a recording of J S Bach, not the brightest thing to do as hearing Bach will make them very jealous and they will have detailed information on how to find us.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Dan Ante said:


> They have even sent a gold plaque giving our location and a recording of J S Bach, not the brightest thing to do as hearing Bach will make them very jealous and they will have detailed information on how to find us.


We should have sent Timberlake


----------

