Blindswordmaster said:
EightGaugeHippo said:
Blindswordmaster said:
EightGaugeHippo said:
Blindswordmaster said:
snip
snip
snip
I don't have to prove my case, you just have to fail in proving yours. You have no evidence, thus, I'm right. We haven't found any evidence supporting that life exists anywhere else other than on Earth, therefore we can conclude that life exists only on Earth. We can't just believe that little green men will descend from Mars and ask to be our friends if we share our M&M's with them; we can only draw conclusions from the data we have gathered so far. If something can't prove its existence, then it doesn't exist. I don't deny the possibility of life, I'm merely working with the evidence given.
-Edit: You still haven't proved me wrong, you've only called an idiot.
Wrong I'm afraid. I throw my hat in the ring of the anthropic principle and it's simple to ask: which is more likely, that in an infinite universe there are literally NO planets such as ours, nor any other kind of life which could exist; or that there is at least one? Richard Dawkins quotes the numbers in the God Delusion, but I can't remember them. Something along the lines of, if there's a billion billion planets out there, and only one in a billion is like ours, there's still a billion planets out there which could support our kind of life.
The chances of ever meeting them or comprehending them are miniscule, but the argument is there.
So given the probabilities, I would say that you do have to prove your point. We're dealing in hypotheticals here, but the numbers are on our side.