The Instigator
jajkalope105
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 431 times Debate No: 54518
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

jajkalope105

Pro

aliens cannot exist, i have not seen good hard proof of an alien before. in addition, wouldn't they evolve just as fast as us and we would have gotten radio signals from them?
TheRussian

Con

It is, in fact, NOT reasonable to believe that aliens don't exist.

"aliens cannot exist"
Why not?

"i have not seen good hard proof of an alien before"
Just because my opponent has not seen "good hard proof" before does not mean they do not exist.

"wouldn't they evolve just as fast as us and we would have gotten radio signals from them?"
Evolution is affected by many factors and not all organisms evolve at the same rate. They may have started evolving later than us, meaning they would not be at our stage of development. Even if they are at our stage of development, it is no guarantee that we would receive signals from them. Space is vast, and these signals could easily be lost in it.

With billions of stars in space, it is very probable that there is life somewhere else other than Earth.

Water is a key ingredient for life and there are many celestial objects, even in our own solar system, that have liquid water.

Radio signals have, in fact, been found. There have been multiple cases where we could not explain the origin of certain signals that seemingly came from space.

Life always finds a way. Organisms thrive even in the harshest of environments. There are microbes from Earth known as extremophiles that can survive under the surface of Mars.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

Overall, I do not see why one would think that there is no more life anywhere in this gigantic, ever-expanding universe.
Debate Round No. 1
jajkalope105

Pro

if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago. That intelligent life would really only have to succeed on one other occasion to propagate throughout the galaxy by this present point in time. That the speed with which our own human life sprung up was so quick, that if it were easily developed elsewhere in the universe, it would have had many opportunities in the distant past to do so, of which at least one other species would have succeeded by now if it were possible. That it has not, or that we are not aware of any, suggests that either it has never happened, or has happened in a way in which we will never be aware. And that therefore our understanding of ET life is not likely to ever change.
TheRussian

Con

"if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago."
Aliens mean any sort of life, not just what we would call "intelligent". If the life is intelligent, I do not see why we would be aware of it for a long time. Why would they send out signals to space? How large is the chance that we would be able to intercept this signal in the vastness of space? 0.000000001%?

Considering the sheer size of space, it is very probable that there are other planets with hospitable conditions, fit for life.

Frankly, I think it is ignorant to believe that we are the only planet among trillions that have life.

"That the speed with which our own human life sprung up was so quick,"
According to evolution, living things have been on Earth for about 2 billion years. It took 2 billion years for organisms to evolve to the level of humans. That is not quick.
Debate Round No. 2
jajkalope105

Pro

The distance to all other galaxies is so far, that the light takes millions, usually billions of years to reach us. With such large time frames involved, we cannot assume that extraterrestrials exist, and we cannot assume that life can exist. So am I to understand you are proposing that mankind will somehow break all known laws of physics to find these life forms on places we can't verify exist across distances we can never cover even if we had extra solar craft able to go one hundred thousand times the speed of light? If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is no, it doesn't. The reason is, sound is made when we process it in our brains and make out a sound. For life to exist, it must be interpreted as life. If I burn a paper, it moves, it splits apart, creating more burning papers, and creates offspring of ash, all the while consuming air. But is it alive? Of course it isn't. Just the same, inanimate objects can do lifelike actions without being alive, as life can only be evaluated as life by other life. So you cannot assume that life exists just because there is an environment to support it. Therefore, unless you have some way to prove other forms of life, you cannot consider there to be life
TheRussian

Con

"The distance to all other galaxies is so far, that the light takes millions, usually billions of years to reach us. With such large time frames involved, we cannot assume that extraterrestrials exist, and we cannot assume that life can exist."
Forgive me for misunderstanding, but I do not see what light-years have to do with extraterrestrial life. It only proves that space is enormous and the chance of a planet having hospitable conditions is high.

"So am I to understand you are proposing that mankind will somehow break all known laws of physics to find these life forms on places we can't verify exist across distances we can never cover even if we had extra solar craft able to go one hundred thousand times the speed of light?"
I said nothing about "breaking physics" and finding lifeforms on other planets. We are arguing whether or not it is reasonable to believe that they exist. Not about finding them.

"If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is no, it doesn't."
Why not?

sound1
sound/
noun
1. sound produced by continuous and regular vibrations, as opposed to noise.

The definition of sound means that the tree will still make a sound. It will create vibrations through the medium that it is in (air).

"For life to exist, it must be interpreted as life. If I burn a paper, it moves, it splits apart, creating more burning papers, and creates offspring of ash, all the while consuming air. But is it alive? Of course it isn't."
You do not define living things by whether it moves. Cars move but they are not living. Living things are determined by whether or not it has functioning cells.

"So you cannot assume that life exists just because there is an environment to support it."
Actually you can. It is reasonable to believe that there is life in places where the environment can support life.
Debate Round No. 3
jajkalope105

Pro

jajkalope105 forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

I have nothing to refute.
Debate Round No. 4
jajkalope105

Pro

jajkalope105 forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Elijahhill97 2 years ago
Elijahhill97
if you change your topic sentence I will accept. Your topic makes it in favor of you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
jajkalope105TheRussian
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I am sad Pro decided to forfeit, although at that point Con was winning the debate anyways. So while disappointing I think Con still would have won. Interesting arguments Con used and Pro could have made a better resolution or a stronger case for aliens not existing.