RJS

Okay, I think we have it then! Is it more likely that YOU with all of your capabilities, senses, emotions happens to be on the one planet with a vanishingly small chance of ever happening (you pick the probability you want to assign to vanishingly small), or that there is an external creator in which a vast majority of the humans believe in (in one shape or another).

Philosoft

A phenomenon for which we have a population of 1, a sample size of 1, and a hindsight probability of 1.

<strong> A phenomenon that is fundamentally unobservable and indescribable, save for the various things said "vast majority of the humans" tell us they "feel" about it.

And just how are these two scenarios legitimate competitors? More precisely, how is phenomenon 2 a viable alternative to phenomenon 1?

RJS

Let me ask differently, and yes, I follow your thinking and knew it was coming.

If you HAD to place a probability on the likelihood of the following statements representing truth, and knew that one HAD to be correct, where would you place the probabilities.

1. Intelligent Life resulted from an external creator of all things we know (including the universe), such creator obviously choosing to remain external.

2. Intelligent Life resulted from random scientific processes inside a universe that just happened without cause.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: RJS ]</p>

Starspun

The odds that intelligent life exists in the other billion + galaxies in the known universe are the same for intelligent life forming in the Milky Way galaxy.

Yes, I think there are other civilizations in the universe. My only proof is my own existence and the odds associated with it.

Abacus

Correction. That should read non-random, natural processes.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Abacus ]</p>

RJS

How about

Intelligent Life resulted from random interactions between natural elements found inside a universe that just happened without cause.

Defiant Heretic

rebelnerd

I can agree with this:

Intelligent life resulted from interactions between natural elements found inside this universe.

Filo

rebelnerd

Now as to the question of are we alone in the universe, I really don't know. There are good aruguments from either camp (we are unique and alone vs. life is everywhere but we haven't/can't see it yet.) I tend to lean towards the life is everywhere camp, but intelligent life is another question. I really would like to find some other intelligent life out there (I've been crunching Seti numbers since 6/99) and it would be even more cool if we could communicate with them (after working out how to do so, it would not be a very good start to try to say "Hi, how are you?" only to have it understood to mean "We want to digest your young.")

But since we have yet to make any type of communication, much less even detect any type of signals (assuming of course we are looking in the right place and in the right way,) it is all the more imperative that we as a species quit killing each other over superstition and figure out a way to expand off of this rock before something big bumps into it.

Filo

cricket

IMHO the numbers most 'mind-bogglingly huge' are the distances likely to separate us from any other intelligent beings.

I can envision an enormous number of civilizations 'out there' arising and then self-destructing over billions of years. Even with the time periods staggered, I can envision many of them co-existing at any given time. Most significantly though, I can envision this simultaneous 'coexistence' of various civilizations without any of them ever meeting any other. It's not just a problem of interstellar travel. Each time intelligent beings evolve in the universe, what is the average longevity of their civilization? Any given civilization may tend to self destruct just about the time its radio signals are nearing other civilized worlds.