There are no Aliens in outer Space
Debate Rounds (5)
Also I do not call tiny Micro organisms or certain living substances or Beetles and that of the same type, Aliens. I call the more advanced creatures Aliens (I am perfectly happy to go into details if you wish).
First off, notice that you are making a positive claim: "no aliens exist." You didn't say "there's no evidence of alien life" which you could easily be right about. As things stand, you have the burden of proof. What is your evidence that no aliens exist? Note that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Now, let's consider what you're saying. God, the creator of the universe (presumably a perfect or highly advanced being), decided to set up a Big Bang scenario that would result in about a hundred billion galaxies, each one containing billions of solar systems, and most solar systems containing a number of planets. But out of those trillions of trillions of worlds, only one contains the single species he meant to create the universe for. The rest is just wasted material. This is an absurd design, which doesn't appear worthy of an adept universe designer.
In other words, the God premise makes the idea of a mostly empty universe extraordinarily unexpected. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I will be very much obliged to debate with you on this matter.
Point 1. You said that the rest of the Universe would be a waste if God created one hundred billion Galaxies with only one Planet with intelligent beings in it. It is only called by us large because it is much greater than us and might be very small to God. Also within God's existence, there might not be a waste of anything because everything could be infinity and so there would be no such thing as waste and there is only such thing for us because we don't have infinity of everything. Also someway if we separated from God, we don't have everlasting Planets, for it is proved that the Sun will destroy all the planets in our Solar System and then die for the Sun is a Big Star and all Stars die out, so we would need to go to some other planet and work out when (if they have a Sun) their Sun will die or when something near to it will destroy the planet, so then they would have to go. If that is true then Aliens would just stand as burden to us moving. And at the rate the humans are increasing we will not die out unless something very big happens. Also to get back to the point about things being large for us but small for God. God wanted us to have plenty of space and room
Imagine if you for some reason or another decided to make small beings and you wanted them to be happy, then you would set them a nice world with plenty of space for them outside. The space that you gave them would be large for them but small for you.
The Aliens intervenening with us moving from planet to planet is actually very possible if they exist because we will increase and so will they, and there will very likely be a point when the planets become less and less and stop growing and expading.
This idea might seem ridiculous to you but as a matter of fact, although Stars increase it is very unlikely that places that we can live on do that. Actualy it is impossible from what we know for them to be able to do that.
Point 2. You suggest that I have either not given evidence for what I say or I am wrong because there is no evidence but I will give evidence.
First I will go on to talk about the phisical universe starting with the Big Bang.
The Big Bang happened, and there were Particles that spread round, and Planets were formed within this great occourence. If God created the Universe it would be pointless from what I see and if God did not create the Universe, then naturaly out of all the things flying around would move to different parts of the universe there would be one Substance that could form and come together as unique. Just like all our finger prints are different, the substances in the universe would be the same. Now I will go on to prove that.
Although the Universe is said to be expanding It will always at some point have a limit until new Planets that we can live on are created and that may take a very long time because there are always Gas Planets, in our Solar System I will use examples such as: Uranus, Neptune, Saturn which we can't live on. I will also take into example Venus which you can stand on just like Earth, however it consists over 96% of Carbon Dioxide and would be pointless to live on a planet like it if you have a planet like Earth that you can live on. If it all happened naturaly with no God, then it would not be a waste of Space to have one sefisticated life in the Universe because no one is doing it and thus there is no need for any certain amount of life if any life at all. Aliens would be unlikely to exist for the following reasons:
* There are many planets made of Gas or like Venus, very hard for an intellegent being to live on. If there is a Planet just like Earth origianaly, it would have changed due to the distance from its Sun (If it has one) and where it is in Space. This would result in living beings on this planet looking similar to us but not the same. If they have the same minds (or on the same level) as us, then they must be connected with us. And as far as we know there is no force or anything connected with this world that originaly came from us or that they originaly came from us because we are fit for the world, earth beaten creatures. If you suggest that we however are relations or somehow connected with Aliens you have the burden of prooving how.
Point 3. I get that you want to debate as if from both our views God does exist (please correct me if I am wrong). If you wish to debate in that way then you have to prove how my Point 1 is not correct.
Thank you very much for replying to my debate. Have a nice day.
Back to you Con
That sounds reasonable, except for one problem: the plausibility of interstellar travel and colonization. If a spaceship were to travel at, say, 10% the speed of light, and it hits a small rock somewhere, the energy released is equivalent to that of a nuclear weapon. (You can do the math.) It would still take about a generation to reach the nearest star, but in all likelihood the spaceship would not make it. Further, if you get to that solar system, it's exceedingly unlikely you'll find a planet that can support human life.
So we end up with the same conundrum: Why would God build a mostly empty universe with characteristics such that interstellar travel and colonization are virtually impossible?
Now, in order to support the claim that alien life does not exist, my opponent posits that any life in other planets would be very different to human life. Be that as it may, it does not preclude the possibility of alien life in any way. His claim remains unsupported, and can therefore be rejected.
Point 1. You suggested that if there was a Spaceship traveling at 10% the speed of light, if it hit a rock in Space it would cause great damage. May I just remind you that with such great technology with such great speed it would also be able to detect rocks with such a great ability. Also it would be likely for it to be resistible to such damage so it would safely make it. Now you are suggesting that it is unlikely for there a planet that supports human life, but if God made this world suitable for us, then why is it unlikely that he will not do so again? Also, anything on the planet that may not support human life, the humans may adapt to. If you are arguing that there is no God, then why would there even be a point of moving or not. Now onto my point about there being planets that humans absolutely can not live on, such as Gas planets or planets like Venus, the humans should stay on the nearest planet that is safe to live on and work out where the next one like it is.
Point 2. I will now move on to the Physical proof of Aliens. If there is no proof that Aliens exist then the point remains untrue if you have no evidence of their existence. Now I will go on to the certain bodies that the humans have, that as far as I know are very difficult to live life without, and that is if this creature is intelligent as I describe then it must have a brain. I struggle to see how else it can think if it does not have a brain. So let us take into example this creature, it in order to keep its brain safe and is big enough, then it would need a Skull or something as hard as that to keep its Brain safe. Now with Skull and thus would need a Spine (we are talking about intelligent creatures like Cats and Dogs and even going as far as humans). We have already gone as far as having a Brain and a Skull and a Spine. Now its body looks rather similar to ours. Now if it is a Bird then it relatively similar looking to our Birds and would possibly even need feathers. If it is not a bird then it would still look very similar to the creatures on this Earth because of this and their way of surviving although they would look different due to the climate and adaptation. Now if we go as far as that, then they must live on a Planet that is quite similar to ours, or at least supports human life. If there are some Organs that the Human can't survive without and the Planet does not support it then the Humans should be able to get something that helps it survive. One could argue that there may be certain Particles that we don't know that could make this Organism live and think without a Brain but how would they then be able to live if at all if it were made up of Particles that we have never even heard of?
Point 3. Aliens are a just human invented theory. The Vikings and Ancient Greeks and Romans used to make up strange stories about Gods and Demi Gods fighting together to explain what they did not understand. Now people have a more Scientific Approach to these matters and think that they are Aliens. Apollo 13 said that they had been followed and people have claimed to see UFOs but if they really were Aliens so close to us, then how come we have not discovered them yet. It is not a fact that Aliens exist and there is no evidence that they exist and there is also no logical reason why they should exist either. Also there as said to have been a drawn head of a Human in Space but that just turned out to be natural and no sign of proper life. There as far as we have looked we have seen no evidence of a Sophisticated life outside of this this Earth. Aliens are also seen as entertainment for people such as films like "Mars Attacks" where Aliens come from Mars to Earth and many other films.
Point 4. I never said that every Planet would not support human life. What I was saying was that the human speed that would catch up with the speed that new planets were spreading and they would have to wait and these Aliens would intervene.
Thank you for replying to my argument and have a good day :).
I will again point out that the motion is a strong positive claim: "There are no aliens." Meeting the burden of proof for a claim like this seems generally difficult, particularly since we have no way to examine every planet in the universe. The rest of the argument just boils down to some tangential disagreements, which I will address below.
Space travel and colonization
It's possible that at some future time we will have the technology to produce the incredibly large amounts of energy required for interstellar travel, and somehow solved the problem of high energy collisions. Is it probable? I don't think so. We can only make judgements based on actual knowledge, not hypotheticals that currently appear implausible. There isn't even evidence that we're making headway toward interestellar travel.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
No. Look i up.
Life requires planets similar to ours.
That is clearly not the case. There can presumably be life on planets different to Earth that are adapted to the environments of those planets.
Notice also that my opponent tried to argue that the universe could be full of Earth-like planets: "Now you are suggesting that it is unlikely for there a planet that supports human life, but if God made this world suitable for us, then why is it unlikely that he will not do so again?"
Aliens are just human constructs.
There's a difference between aliens and, say, ghosts. The existence of aliens does not require a suspension of the laws of nature. We know that species exist in this planet. Hypothesizing that species might exist in other planets is not that extraordinary.
Where are they? (Fermi's Paradox)
There are many ways to answer this. The difficulty of interstellar travel is one.
Point 2. Do you think that it would be possible for cavemen to think there could possibly be such a thing as a Car, and for an Elizabethan to think there could possibly be such a thing as a rocket? I you do, I don't. How are we support to know what the future can produce? There very well may be such a Spaceship as I am talking about. Now you are arguing against yourself. You suggest that we can only relay on what we already know but we don't know of Aliens or any planet that supports life that is intelligent and could be at all different to ours. How can life possibly be produced, if it is completely different to ours? If it supports life it would have to be more or less similar to ours.
Point 4. Why would God at all build a Universe that would result probably in us being completely stuck with Aliens as our populations increase and so do theirs. Also the Technology on both sides would speed up to the speed that planets are being created. This could result in war and as we know, God hates war for that is the opposite to him and what we were originally. This point is the most important point in this Debate and if you agree with it (and so there are no Aliens) then you agree with me. This point is behind all the other points in this debate (on my part) that prove that God exists.
NOW ONTO THE MORE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT I HAVE
Point 1. There is no proof that any Aliens exist. We have found no Planet that could possibly support life other than ours.
After the Big Bang took place, the particles spread round and formed. There would have to be a certain combination in order to make our life. I don't think that there are any other combinations that could possibly be made that would form life as well as ours for the majority of them would have to be the Particles that we have and they would have to make the same or a similar combination that we have for our Earth and life. Now the Probability of that being able to happen is very low. So from the just Physical point of view (the view that does not necessarily prove that God exists) it is very likely that there is no such thing as Aliens.
Point 2. Aliens have not been Scientific discovered as an intelligent race, however people tend to say that they have seen Aliens, but if they have, how come we as a race have not discovered them and are not communing with them. As I say, Aliens are just a made up theory that do not work with the laws of Nature and I am more likely to believe in Ghosts than I believe in Aliens because there are more people actually saying that they saw a real person who was dead or a mysterious figure than one would of seeing an actual real and alive Alien. There may very well be strange things with the unknown and so the the Romans thought that the Great God Zeus had lightning bolts in his hand, which as we know is not the case. So that is the reason why the theory of Aliens is unlikely and untrue.
Also, although that the Planets that God would create would be similar to ours so we can live there, they might have one or two big differences so no other intelligent life can live on it, to as I say stop a war and have plenty of Space.
I hope that answers your point. Have a good day.
Again, my opponent is just providing "absense of evidence" arguments, which are insufficient, given how the motion is worded.
Further, the idea that ghosts are more consistent with nature than aliens is simply absurd. Even if it's true that there are more people who claim to have experienced ghosts than aliens -- a point I do not concede -- that's irrelevant.
If you feel that I have not given you enough evidence for my point that more people have more Ghosts then they had seen Aliens, then I shall do so. I from my own experience have seen and of heard more people saying that they had seen Ghosts more than that of Aliens. I was also describing people seeing an actual E.T. and not some strange light that looks like a UFO (because anything that is of the sort could be one of the following:
*a light of a car in the dark
*a military test
*mist) and from that there would be more people who had said seen a Ghost than an Alien. I have not found any particular source that says this (about people taking the same poll on whether they had seen a Ghost or an Alien) but I will do so if you wish.
b) The phrase "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is (I think) suggesting that I don't know that there is evidence which is not the case.
Could you please (if you wish) reply to my main point about God having not created Aliens and also possibly the just Physical proof that I have.
Have a good day.
My opponent's remaining argument seems to be that God would not create a universe with multiple species, because God hates war, etc. If we're talking about the God of The Bible, this is not exactly true. That God encourages war, conquest, and the subjugation of others.
I don't care to argue about the number of anecdotal accounts of aliens vs. ghosts. That's irrelevant. Both need to be treated skeptically. But it is simply factual that aliens are more plausible given what we know about the world.
My opponent has failed to show that aliens don't exist or can't exist elsewhere in the universe. That's not surprising, and I believe it was a mistake to word the motion the way it is worded. This is basically all that should be necessary for the opposition to the motion to win. But there are further problems as we saw: Granting the God premise, it's hard to imagine that God would create an enormous universe, where only a tiny planet supports life, and even if we grant the possibility of interestellar travel, there are still a number of obvious problems with this single-species design.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP here. There are circumstances where you can argue that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, but Pro failed to show that this was one of them. Pro basically just repeated himself throughout the debate and, as the holder of the BoP, failed to fulfill it. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.