The Existence of Aliens
Debate Rounds (4)
First Round is for short explanation.
Second and Third Rounds are for supporting your argument.
Fourth Round is a conclusion.
I do not believe Con's argument is sound because (1) aliens need not be intelligent, and (2) God did not declare humans as the only intelligent living species in the universe.
I believe aliens exist because of the enormous probablistic resources in the universe.
Con states that the Bible says the existence of aliens is false, but she provided no reference. I don't believe the Bible says any such thing, so Con needs to demonstrate that the Bible claims what she says it does.
Let me go into more detail now about what I mean by "probablistic resources." Let's say there's a lottery with a 1 in a million chance of winning. And let's say only one ticket is sold. What is the probability that the one ticket will match the winning lottery numbers? Well, the odds are 1 in a million.
But if you increase the number of tickets, you increase the odds of one of those tickets having the winning numbers. If you sold a billion tickets, it would practically be guaranteed that at least one of the tickets would have the winning numbers.
So "probablistic resources" are basically chances for something to occur. The lottery tickets are the probablistic resources for getting a winning ticket. The higher the probablistic resources (i.e. the more lottery tickets), the higher the chance of getting a winner. The more chances there are for something to happen, the more probable it is to happen. Even prima facie low odds can be overcome with sufficiently large probablistic resources.
The universe is estimated to have 3e26 stars in the galaxy. That is an unimaginably large number. Assuming conservatively that there's 1 planet per star, and no moons, that's 3e26 chances for life to emerge in the universe.
But that's a very conservative number. After all, it's not as if each planet only gets one chance. The universe is 13.82 billion years old. Let's cut off the first two billion years and assume there were no planets before that time. Still, that's 11.82 billion years that planets have been around. If we assume, conservatively, one chance at life every year, that's 3e26 times 11.82 chances at life. And if we assume chemistry is happening, not just in one place on a planet, but all over the planet, that raises the probablistic resources to a mind-blowing level.
So it would appear that there are enough probablistic resources in the universe to produce life no matter how unlikely life is prima facie.
But that is assuming nature is all on is own. However, if nature is not all on its own, then there's an even greater chance of life emerging. If there is a God known to be capable of producing life, and if this God produced life on earth for the sake of its own glory, and if this God had a passion for his glory, we should expect this God would want to produce life in more than one place in the universe. With the ability and the motive, there is at least some positive probability that God would produce life somewhere else in the universe.
So it is highly likely that there are aliens elsewhere in the universe.
Con has dropped her Biblical argument against aliens and has conceded that aliens might exist, though not in this solar system. She hasn't made any attempt to refute my argument for aliens except to say "we don't know and we won't know for a while." My argument is that it's more likely than not that there are aliens, so whether we can know for sure is not relevant. It's a probablistic argument.
Con never picked her Biblical argument against aliens back up after dropping it in the last round, so I think we can dismiss that argument.
Con's claim that there's no evidence for aliens rings hollow in light of my unrefuted argument for aliens. She needed to refute my argument, but she ignored it instead.
Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: With no BOP explicitly stated in the OP, we shift to an equal BOP which each side showing their support. Cons arguments focused on that we have not seen aliens and the bible. Pro asked for the evidence that the bible says there are no aliens and Con never provided it. This is as good as a refutation on this point. Pro later went to show the statistic probability of life out in space. Though the equation that he used was very rudimentary and could be picked at, he was basically going for the Drake Equation (linked in comments). This gives him arguments. He did include some sources to back up some of the numbers he provided, which were never contended by Con. So this gives him sources. If I was awarding Speaker Points for this, I'd give a 9/10 for Pro, because the only opportunity he missed was the Drake Equation. I'd give Con a 2/10. she made a number of arguments but was not able to back them up, even the ones about the bible, gave no sources, and eventually backed down.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.