No one has ever seen life come from something non-living. That is a problem.

Upvote for Galacduck!

My bet is that there's probably quite a lot of life out there. I'd be willing to put money on the possibility of life even within our solar system (Europa maybe?).

But equally, most of it is probably very simple. Evolution is an energy intensive process, and we are lucky that earth has an abundance of energy.

So let's say there 1,000,000 planets with life. It's quite possible that the chances of complex life arising are low, such that there might only be 10,000 planets with anything above single-celled organisms and maybe < 100 with intelligent life. So let's say that all 100 of these civilisations make it to our level of technology and a few maybe even beyond.
They would all probably be ~1000 light years from their next nearest neighbour.

Then there's the issue of timing. They might have evolved and died out a long time ago. It's possible that we will one day get a message from another civilisation that's already gone extinct and the message was sent millennia ago.

Given all that coupled with the incredibly brief period of time we've actually been listening, I'd be far more surprised if we had made contact.

Unless someone invents FTL, then everything changes.

After reading Reddit, you'd be hard pressed to prove to me there's intelligent life on THIS planet...

This video was much more succinct than Carl Sagan's Cosmos series segment on the same subject.

If there were a type 2 civilization, with such a device that could harness an entire star's energy - how would we on earth detect that? Maybe everything we think is a black hole is actually one of these?

I do remember that being an issue. I don't think it would look like a black hole, but if we found a bunch of planets orbiting a point where we don't see anything, that might be a clue.

If there are any advanced civilizations that have been around for millions or even billions of years they would have already mastered the technology to explore the entire Universe. If there are such civilizations out there, our existence certainly is not a secret.

also, anyone interested, look up Drake's equation.

The style of this video really reminded me of an article from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Mosquitos aren't a secret, but I'm disinclined to either try to chat with them, nor will I bother to cross the street to swat one...

That assumes that we understand the nature of the Universe to an advanced degree enough to determine through our imagination (that was created in this Universe/Multiverse) - that an advanced species that exists far back in time, for a far longer time would evolve in somehow the same way as we have ("technology") and not have evolved on some entirely other level that we could not even imagine (yet) or even have the senses for.

There is the possibility for many dimensions. Using our monkey brains, with our monkey imaginations that are still evolving & being built upon - I might imagine that an intelligent civilization that has existed for billions of years would try to find the SAFEST place to exist. The safest place to exist (without fear of black holes, planet destroying comets, natural disaster, corruption, etc) would be in the form of energy; existing on a harmonic frequency that other intelligent lifeforms can tap into if they wish. But, once again that would assume that the senses I have been given and tools/experiences I have are valid in the grand scope of the Universe; of which they probably are not.

Theres a nice book series by Peter F Hamilton called the commonwealthh saga. Later books in the series talked about super advanced alien races going "post physical" transferring an entire race of beings into pure energy. And all signs of that previous race just vanishing or dwindling away to nothing. That the ultimate goal of a race was to achieve this post physical status, so the mundane physical pains and limitations would no longer matter to them.

Good series i would recommend to anyone!

*length=6:22

The duration of this video has been updated from 3:56 to 6:22 - length declared by eric3579.

We are a known quantity on many interstellar maps if the evolutionary paradigm is true. It wouldn't take that long for a sufficiently advanced civilization to locate every planet that has life on it, especially if they could use inter-dimensional travel. They could automate everything using robotics, or by some other means unknown to us. Perhaps they could even instantly colonize those planets using sentient robots.

The point is that we are a resource to be exploited and after an estimated 15 billion years of the Universe existing, according to the secular narrative, there should be many civilizations out there capable of doing just that. That we haven't been contacted or seen any activity at all is more than curious; it is dramatic evidence that we are in fact alone in the cosmos.

The fact that we haven't been contacted or seen any activity at all is evidence that we haven't been contacted or seen any activity. That's all.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are plenty of highly plausible explanations for this, documented in the video and also in my comment above.

I don't think you're grasping how big the universe is. There could easily be millions of advanced civilisations in the universe and they would be so far apart as to never even see each other.

Now you're taking the position of the theist and I am taking the position of the atheist. The size of the Universe really has no bearing if you only have a six sided die and you need to role a seven. Your creation story virtually guarantees alien life, but only so long as abiogenesis could plausibly happen somewhere else (it couldn't happen once plausibly, let alone multiple times by the way). But in spite of how implausible that is you take it on faith that they're out there and you use the traditional theist line to the atheists assertion that they've seen no evidence for God, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Quite a reversal, wouldn't you say?

No. Not everyone thinks like a theist.

I have no idea whether life exists on other planets or not. I can theorise about the probability of it, but that's as far as I'm willing to commit.

As for the nonsense "roll a seven on a six sided die" argument... I really don't know if you're trolling or just genuinely have no understanding of logic, math, probability, statistics, etc.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable. The video tells us that the latest evidence is that there are around 20,000,000,000 sun size stars and probably about 4,000,000,000 earth like planets. Now, the video gives the odds of life on each one at 0.1% (and then somehow comes up with 1 million instead of 4 million, but I digress).

So we have 4 billion planets that might possibly have earth like life. But let's say that abiogenesis is really, really improbable. In fact, let's say, it's 1 in 4 billion. We've been testing out the various abiogenesis theories for a while now, but I doubt we've conducted anything like 4 billion separate experiments, so it's really no surprise that we haven't observed it.

But it might be even more unlikely. Maybe it's 1 in 400 billion! Seems pretty unlikely, but let's roll with it. There are still 200 billion galaxies out there. Even if only 1% of them are like the milky way that's still 8 billion billion potential life bearing planets. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of them could have life.

You don't need a seven, but maybe you do need an edge, or a corner!

Do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"?

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that. Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

That's simply the fallacy of false equivalence. Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible. It is simply a faith that many scientists and atheists have that it *must* have happened that way because of evolution. Abiogenesis because evolution is not a theory of origins, it is blind faith.

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that.

You know that life exists but what you don't know is how or why. To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias; there isn't a logical reason to do so. There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence, there isn't any for abiogenesis. Faith in God is reasonable, faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith.

Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe. I think you're confusing mechanism with agency. Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence, and that people suppress the truth because they love their sin. It's not really about evidence; I know atheists who have had out of body experiences who deny they have a soul.

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

We've been at this for years. You don't absolutely deny God exists because you can't, yet you say things like God existing would contradict everything we know about the Universe. For all intents and purposes, you deny God exists and you have spent a lot of time and energy arguing from that position.

I don't really want to argue about any of this with you. I pray for your soul and I hope God saves you before you pass from this life, but that and how you respond to what God reveals to you is out of my hands.

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

We haven't missed it, chaosengine; the vast majority of people on Earth believes there is a God.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

In every important way, man hasn't learned anything and hasn't changed at all. The misery and suffering in the world increases year by year, it doesn't decrease.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

I've read most of Douglas Adams works. I grew up secular and you would probably be shocked at the level of agreement we would have had in the not too distant past. I have been set free from the bondage of slavery to sin, and have been born again into a living hope. What you know on its own profits you nothing, because without faith it is impossible to please God. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. You don't have to acknowledge it to me, but that is the only way you will ever know anything about God, is by His personal revelation to you. He is faithful to give you a revelation of your need for a Savior.

@shinyblurry, respectfully,
The bible lies. It's stories were probably not meant to be an 'explanation' of reality in the first place, but more likely were created as fables to explain morality...thanks Constantine. (So you know, he's the emperor that ACTUALLY compiled the bible together from various oral traditions, as a political ploy to consolidate religions to make them easier to control.)

You and I have been over this claim repeatedly...Not a whit of EVIDENCE has ever been provided to me, only idiots regurgitating nonsense from 2000+ years ago-
(nonsense made up mostly by Arab/Semitic nomads thousands of years before they were written, likely made up as morality tales, also to 'explain' how they thought certain things worked before the scientific method came around to actually explain reality...examples, the sun and universe spin around the flat earth, the sun rides on a chariot, witches and demons are responsible for any bad thing that happens, etc.)
-idiots who change their interpretations when their current interpretation is shown clearly and undeniably to be completely wrong and indicative of a lack of basic understanding. As evidence goes, that's evidence that religion is wrong and harmful, not that it's correct and helpful.

If god is going to provide evidence of his existence to me, he's taking his sweet time and allowing the issue to be confused with 'facts' and 'reality'. (I'm assuming that's what you meant, and not that there would be proof of polytheism, as you wrote).

The sooner you come to grips with all that, the sooner you can stop saying ridiculous things as 'fact' and ignoring fact as either 'willful suppression of god's grace' or 'Satan tricking you'. It's odd to me that no religious people ever think the bible itself might be a creation of Satan, tricking you into terrible behavior and hatred of 'infidels', encouraging and causing behavior it specifically forbids (Eg-stoning to death/thou shalt not kill...worshiping crosses and or statues of Jesus/thou shalt not create any graven (carved) images).

I hope reality will provide everyone with evidence of it's existence, and people will stop suppressing the truth because they love their religion.

Belief is not evidence.
Stories are not evidence.

No, we've learned nothing important. That's why I'm dying of polio right now. Oh wait, NO I'M FUCKING NOT.

I'm done here. If you need me, I'll be in the 21st century with vaccines and space stations and the internet. Enjoy your neolithic life experience.

The possibility of there being "NO life elsewhere" is less than of there being life elsewhere. As a matter of fact, there is a bigger chance of finding another solar system containing virtually the same planetary bodies -in virtually the same orbits- as our solar system, than there is of "no life elsewhere".

Oh and @ChaosEngine, stop arguing with Shiny. He's been brainwashed by his cult. Even if you showed him how they did it, he wouldn't believe you.

*Part two

Where are all the aliens? Part two has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.