The Instigator
Mikeee
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
truthless
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

There is life on other planets

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
truthless
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,093 times Debate No: 18152
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Mikeee

Pro

First round is just for acceptance.
Pro will have to show evidence that there is a possibility of life on another planet. Con with have to provide evidence that there is no chance beyond a reasonable doubt that life could possible exist somewhere other than Earth.
truthless

Con

I have accepted your challenge, though the burden for the Pro side to win does seem particularly low.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikeee

Pro

I have been thinking about this for a while and as someone pointed out, all I had to do is say the universe is huge and constantly expanding. This category is broad and open to many different interpretations and because this debate is lopsided and biased towards Pro side (unintentionally) I have decided the best way for this to be a good, fair(er) debate is to allow you, because you have more of the burden of proof, to narrow down the category and have an extra round for your opening arguments.
truthless

Con

Thank you for the extra opportunity to present my arguments. This is my first debate on this website so some of the format may be off but I will try my best to disprove the pro position.

The basis for any discussion about whether life exists in the rest of the universe relies upon what we consider "life" to be. I propose a definition of life that excludes any organisms less complex than animals are. For the purposes of human experience, the only life that we would find meaningful has to exist at at least this amount of complexity.

I shall attack the pro position from two perspectives: a scientific one and a religious one. For pro to meet the burden of proof, pro must disprove the arguments flowing from each one of these perspectives.

My first argument is that life is a cosmic accident. The only reason life has evolved on Earth was the lucky chance that a major collision either with an asteroid or a comet has not occurred in the past 70 million years. There are also lucky conditions that happened on Earth which are exceedingly unlikely to have happened anywhere else. The existence of the atmosphere, water molecules, and a host of other conditions like temperature, etc. COMBINED with the lack of huge collisions with interplanetary objects lowers the chance of evolution towards the complexity of animal life. The theoretical possibility for life to occur, therefore, on other planets/ places in the universe is so statistically small that it is worth counting zero; if Pro manages to win that there is a 0.00000001 percent chance that life could exist elsewhere, that is not a sufficient burden of proof as that percentage is, to any mathematician, statistical background noise that ought to be rounded down to 0.

I will pre-empt the argument about an expanding universe here. Einstein clearly proved that instead of existing through three dimensions of space and one of time, the universe contains four dimensions of space-time. Four dimensions is the number of dimensions needed for life to even occur: it is impossible to imagine living in a purely 1 or 2 dimensional world. For the purposes of the proof of a contracting universe, imagine this: you have created a (one-dimensional) universe that resides on a piece of string. This piece of string, stretched out on your hand, would clearly have two distinct ends. However, astronomical observations and mathematical concepts illustrate that a conceptual end to the universe is impossible. We could, on the other hand, conceive of the string as a symbol for a never-ending line, yet this is also problematic. It is impossible to conceive of something going on indefinitely. Math is uncomfortable with dealing in infinities. The best solution to this dilemma would be to conceive of the universe as a circle, maybe a ring in the palm of your hand. The universe now has a finite size yet is still unending and "infinite." Now upgrade that one-dimensional universe to two dimensions (like on a piece of paper). This falls trap to the same dilemma explained above: either it is finite or stretching infinitely in both directions, neither condition being mathematically desirable. If, however, we were to conceive of a two-dimensional piece of paper being bent into the form of a sphere, the issue is once again resolved. This provides a third dimension to the universe itself. It is possible that our Universe is like a piece of paper that has been bent into another dimension, so that if we had a powerful enough telescope we could see the backs of our own heads. In this conception of the universe as a sphere, we can conceive of it in the image of our own earth, having two distinct "north" and "south" poles. If the astronomical observations are correct (such that we have drifted away from where the Big Bang originated and yet at the same time the stars we observe appear to be moving away from us) this conception in fact explains why. Imagine the "north pole" of the universe being the site of the Big Bang and a "Big Crunch" being located at the "south pole." This would, indeed, explain the ACCELERATING rate at which stars and galaxies are being observed to move away from us and provide evidence for a contracting universe.

Now for the religious argument. It is stated clearly in the Bible that God created beasts and other forms of life only on the earth and for the purposes of engagements with the humans that are created in His own image. The creation of other forms of life in the universe is not only unmentioned throughout the Bible but would mean that Jesus went to another planet and died for them too, something exceedingly unlikely. Therefore, life can only exist on earth.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikeee

Pro

Mikeee forfeited this round.
truthless

Con

truthless forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mikeee

Pro

Mikeee forfeited this round.
truthless

Con

Since my opponent hasn't posted a counter-argument for this round, I assume I win regardless of whether or not my post was correct.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
I'm sorry for not debating this with you, I've gotten busy with unexpected things I had to take care of. If you still want to debate this you can re-open the debate and I will except it, If not that's okay too. I will not be posting anything for the last round.
Posted by Aldric_Winterblade 5 years ago
Aldric_Winterblade
LOL yes I only just really noticed that this is the same guy that's debating me on the nature of time. You want some real entertainment, check that one out: http://www.debate.org...

:D
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
"Pro will have to show evidence that there is a possibility of life on another planet."

Mikeee is quickly becoming my favorite debater.
Posted by Aldric_Winterblade 5 years ago
Aldric_Winterblade
Oh, and so everyone knows where I'm coming from, I happen to be on the "Pro" side of this one.
Posted by Aldric_Winterblade 5 years ago
Aldric_Winterblade
This debate is ridiculous... of course there is the possibility of life on other planets, all you have to do to show that is point out the vast expanse of universe and amounts of undiscovered planets out there, and how much we don't know. On the other hand, it will be impossible for Con to prove there is no other life out there for the same reason - we don't have sufficient knowledge about the universe to make a statement of fact one way or the other. What a biased, useless and pointless debate... no offense, of course.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
There is a huge difference between an actual statement "There is life on other planets" and a possibility statement like "Life could exist some where other than earth".
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
lol, massive shift of the BoP.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
Because there is little/any evidence, this debate is mainly hypothetical and logic, not so much on scientific facts because of little to no evidence for either side. If there are "aliens" then we have not yet found them, so it will be rather difficult to come to a scientific conclusion of something that was not dissevered yet. (This is also not a religious debate of any degree)
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
The drake equation--If I am correct--can be used to show some sort of possibility of life, though I understand that it is considered to be flawed.

"The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless."--T.J.Nelson
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Hypothetically, there could be life on other planets...though you might want to be specific in what planets. After all, each planet has different characteristics: Mars is known to have a permafrost mantle (liquid water cannot exist due to its atmospheric conditions), whereas Venus contains several dense clouds of carbon dioxide that greatly suggest lack of life...though it should be noted that life might form there in different conditions than that of earth's.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
MikeeetruthlessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had an argument.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
MikeeetruthlessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: truthless forfeited less (by posting a final address to the voters before the end of the debate) and was the only participant of the debate to argue...