Do aliens really exists?

how do people even make crop circles? Seems pretty difficult, or are the aerial photos just all shopped?

they walk around with a piece of plywood and some rope and stomp it down

It's the military industrial freemasons testing advanced satellite mounted gps guided laser weapon systems. That's why crop circles were so primitive back in the 70s when our satellite laser computer capabilities were so limited.

Simple comparative analysis of stars. If a radio telescope sees multiple stars and a visible light telescope sees fewer or single stars. Then you have a found alien post industrial worlds

Dude, you could go into a field and make a crop circle yourself, you'd have to be very precise and it would take a few weeks to a couple months.

it would take a couple of hours, crop circles arent that large.

We, Human, exist. We are the living proof that our Universe can support life.

And that's just one galaxy.

>Assumes your wild sci-fi fantasy to be absolute truth without a shred of supporting evidence.
You missed a step kid.

How does that entail that there is extraterrestrial life elsewhere? I swear to fucking God, the brainlets like you on this board need to take an introductory FOL class.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

The mediocrity principle is not deductively valid. That's precisely the point.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they exist.

just because the universe is infinite doesnt mean that there HAS to be other life.

assuming there is an infinite universe, and because of probability that means there's also a chance that we are the only life there is.

learn to math brainlet

philosophy isn't science, sorry bud

"Humans are special" isn't science either.
It's literally religion.

I never implied humans are special. but in an infinite universe with infinite possibilities there's a chance that were all there is.

It's simple physics and mathematics.

Why do you reckon the universe is infinite?

because that is what all of the evidence and best possible explanation would suggest, if you can come up with a better one I'm listening.

the universe is basically constantly expanding in all directions, this can be observed and measured in a multitude of different ways

fucking kek

To his defense, philosophically motivated heuristics are constantly employed in science.

True, but what I mean is speculation needs to be recognized vs things that are quantifiable.

>Using the fact that the universe is expanding as evidence that the universe is infinite
What?

How can infinite be expanding?

THATS WHAT INFINITE FUCKING MEANS

infinite isnt a number that can be counted..it's something that goes on forever.

...

No, this is real science. do yourself a favor and educate yourself. take a class, or just read some scientific papers.

you're posting on a science board arguing vs the entirety of the scientific community and all of the evidence they have gathered.

>it's something that goes on forever
Forever in time or forever in space? You've caught yourself in a linguistic trap. Infinite means it has no end, not that it's expanding. The universe has an end which is moving away from you.

No, you're dumb and retarded.

Please go to the relevant board and leave the science to the people who know better.

Im probably one of the few actual scientists on this board. You might wanna stop reading pop sci because youre making yourself look stupid.

Im finishing up my phd in astrophysics this month, right in time for the solar eclipse coming up.

fuck off brainlet.

The absolute state of American education.

Is this the Veeky Forums equivalent of 300 confirmed kills pasta?

>Implying im american without evidence
You're full of assumptions without proper evidence.
you see, in science, we use facts and evidence to determine our conclusion, not our preconceptions.

There's plenty of evidence you're American.

Look , idk how else to do this. I can demonstrate this for you very simply.

We cannot calculate the size of the universe, so it cannot be finite. Therefor it MUST be infinite. there are no other options, its one or the other. Anything else is speculation and pseudoscience and as a scientist i have no interest in such things. When I am shown evidence of anything otherwise i will consider it, again i implore you to show me any evidence you would have to imply otherwise.

Pathetic attempts at discrediting me. Plenty of american scientists are leagues beyond your lowly reasoning skills, I'm attending oxford FYI. If you need a geography lesson: that's in the UK, lad

>We cannot calculate the size of the universe, so it cannot be finite.
M8, just stop.

>t. Yuropoor who will never get into Ivy Plus school

...

www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/astrophysics/people/students
Which one is you?

given an infinite timescale, a probability has infinite time to occur

The universr is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales.

Therefore, if life exist here (and it does), then the conditions for life to exist must be present in some other place in the universe, otherwise this would be a special part of it (breaking homogeneity)

The only alternative is that the universe is finite in size, and small enough that the chance of us being alone means a thing.

>first lets assume humanity is not special or unique. We are nothing. Lifes cheap. Self replicating proteins dna and simple cellular life magically appears all the time.
Atheists. Everytime.

Theists.

top kek this

Yes.
We are never going to see aliens because the future is not out in the stars but inwards as virtual gods in our computers.

How is Christ not wanting you to fill your heart with lust and waste your life to a porn addiction considered bad again?
>what is free will
18+

I see the /pol/tards have found this board, too.

You think the entire universe exist just for earth so you can shit post? kys retard

I have seen an alien spaceship. not gunna do story time but ya. aliens exist and they have visited earth.

Its not about if, its about when and where

The universe "works" toward ever increasing complexity.
Yet it uses the same patterns everywhere, to the smallest particle to the biggest galaxy, they all behave in similar ways.

Here is your argument listed out in two points to properly embarrass you:

>the universe has not been created for Earth
>there are aliens

As is clear to anyone, the conclusion does not follow in any way from the premise. The existence of alien species is an empirical question, and no observations have been made thus far to allow anybody to claim the existence of aliens as a fact.

To say I don't believe aliens exist does not mean I believe that they don't exist. This remains an open question. So fuck off brainlet, you of all people certainly don't have an answer to this question.

It's improbable for them not to exist. We exist, therefore even if we limit alien lifeforms to only DNA based life dependent on oxygen and water it's impossible that we're the only ones. The answer is either
1. They exist and
a) they're unreachable
b) they're reachable but it would take us thousands/millions of years to meet
2. They existed and died, or they will exist in future as life is created on their planet

Nothing can be proved until we discover each other or find out more about the statistics of how life is created. Not to mention it's possible they aren't conscious and alien planets are full of primitive animals and microorganisms.
Pointless arguments with obvious "answers", none of which is real.

>We exist, therefore even if we limit alien lifeforms to only DNA based life dependent on oxygen and water it's impossible that we're the only ones.
What shit tier university did you go to to think this reasoning is valid?

I've just opened Veeky Forums and this was the first thread shown - I've clicked the bait and I see all the replies... this instantly reminded me why I haven't checked this place in weeks, good bye guys- see you next year I hope summer will be entirely gone by then.

I'm catholic you imbecile.

Eventually but not now

But can we fuck 'em?

We have no good reason to assume they don't, but no evidence to show that they do.

There's 0 evidence for the existence of aliens.

This is absolute bullshit. There is 0 evidence that they exist at all. When you say "stage of evolutional development" you're probably making a reference to the Kardashev scale, wich is absolute useless since we have no evidence of any civilization who is more than type 0 ever existing in our universe.

aliens aren't real.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Exoplanetology was mocked for a long time, for the same reasons you're scoffing at the idea of extraterrestrial life. We could logically extrapolate the existence of other planets - after all, we have nine (eight) of them - but for a long time, no one could prove it.

This is as bad an argument as those of people arguing in favor of their existence. The fact that we have no evidence for the existence of aliens does not license us to assert their nonexistence, doing so would be fallacious. The epistemically responsible position is to deny that we are competent on the issue, that is to say, we do not believe that aliens exist while we simultaneously do not believe that they do not exist. In essence, we should be agnostic on the issue. There is no evidence to support the existence of aliens, but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

>We could logically extrapolate the existence of other planets - after all, we have nine (eight) of them
That's not how logic works famalam.

Observation: Earth is teeming with life
Observation: We're here to think about ourselves
Assumption: the Solar System is not exceptional in the context of the entire universe
Corollary to the first assumption: there should be other planets in the universe that are also teeming with life - maybe even intelligent life.

the evidence that there must be life in other planets is that there is life in our planet.

The observation "We're here to think about ourselves" is not clearly sound, and I don't accept it. Likewise, your assumption is precisely the question we are asking, viz. "is the solar system unique in that is fosters life?" You can't make this an assumption when this is exactly what is being argues.

>The observation "We're here to think about ourselves" is not clearly sound, and I don't accept it.

A pathological argument is not evidence.

Nice ad hominem. I refuse this premise because I don't see how you arrived at the observation that we are here to think about ourselves. This is not a trivial claim, it is teleological, which relies on very dubious metaphysical assumption, such as 'humanity has a cosmic purpose'. I don't even know why you included it in your argument in the first hand, since it does not play any role in what you take to be a deductive argument. The only premises playing a role in your argument are that
(i) Earth is teeming with life
(ii) The solar system, and as a result earth, is not exceptional in the context of the universe (i.e. if Earth has a property x, some other planet must also have property c)

As mentioned before, (ii) is simply stipulating the question at hand. You have proven nothing, as this is precisely the source of the disagreement.

*some other planet must also have property x

Deductive reasoning is not capable of making predictions unless the subject is already proven. Inductive reasoning must be invoked here, and it is a great predictor for as-yet-unobserved possibilities.

You never base inductive reasoning on a single observation. The way induction works (at least its most classical version) is that assuming you repeatedly see only white swans, you will infer that all swans must be white. But clearly, it is unreasonable to assume from only one observation, viz. that of Earth and its harboring of life, that other planets harbor life as well.

Usually, those who argue in favor of life on other planets try to make an argument reliant on probability, something like the Drake Equation. But of course, we don't have the values for many of the components of this equation. For instance, we have no idea what the average number of planets which can harbor life is, nor do we know on how many of those planets life develops.

Whether or not aliens exist is open to speculation, but speculating is all we can do. We don't have enough information to even make a guess as to how likely it is that other planets host life.

That's why I never made an argument in favor of saying aliens absolutely exist, because that is patently absurd because there's no proof that they do. My argument is that we do not have a good reason to assume that they don't exist that doesn't invite all kinds of uncomfortable questions in the field of statistics.

>My argument is that we do not have a good reason to assume that they don't exist that doesn't invite all kinds of uncomfortable questions in the field of statistics.
What uncomfortable questions are you referring to?

youtube.com/watch?v=J9J13F-OlQQ

Fuck off you kook.

brainlets get out REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>What uncomfortable questions are you referring to?

How can we be the only life that exists when there are so many planets on so many solar systems in the universe where they could exist? The odds of life happening on a given world would need to exceed ~2.7x10^-24

totally plausible number to be honest.

Sure that would mean the odds of a world harboring life are minute, but of course as we agreed, there's no way to ascertain what the probability that planets host life is, so that figure is as likely as any other figure since we can only guess at this point.

How do you know it isn't trillions of time more unlikely even than that? Since we have to exist before we can even contemplate this question, our observation of ourselves is tainted by the obserervation selection effect.

>How do you know it isn't trillions of time more unlikely even than that? Since we have to exist before we can even contemplate this question, our observation of ourselves is tainted by the obserervation selection effect.

We don't, but it starts becoming statistically impossible for it to exist in more than one place below that probability.

>life is primarily made of the six most abundant elements in the universe that coalesce trivially in as fewer than 100 years for amines and therefor nucleotides
>zimbillions of gorillions of tons of the six most abundant elements in the universe surround us in every direction around us for umptillion miles, smushing into each other for a bazillion minutes
>errrr brainleth thunk pobbabilly of alium are lots. they no thmarter den I errrrr

The fuck? Until you have a working theory for how organic compounds can become a viable population of replicators complex enough to kickstart evolution, you obviously can't say anything about how likely it is to happen.

its a honeypot phish this thread

theyre trying to find out if anyone has figured out

>theyre in the language

It's trivial for life to form in an environment similar to earth given sufficiently localized quantities of hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen cyanide and ultraviolet light.

I don't understand why so many people will just handwave away this problem like you do here. How can you possibly know it's "trivial"? Can you justify that or demonstrate it in any way?

I mean, it almost seems like some kind of religious dogma so I guess there's no point even trying to argue about it

because it's a simple non-problem and you lack the basic understanding of organic chemistry and geology to understand it. The image I posted demonstrates the process by which sulfuric meteorites strike bodies of water, are bombarded by radiation and can form all necessary nucleic acids to create RNA and DNA, along with ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids. Once there is enough DNA and RNA floating around in close proximity to ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids you eventually get rudimentary replicators, bacterium, life.

Well, congrats on your upcoming Nobel prize, I guess.