Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Does not the fact that we are constantly seeking a point to life, an indication of something? I have thought that the common Freudian/Nietzschean dismissals of this universal religious drive to be too pat and dismissive.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

Here's a question for you all:

What is the point to life, without death?? What meaning would life have, if we have an eternity to live it?? Maybe this is just a wacky way to look at it, but perhaps death is a gift, a gift which forces us to treasure what time we have. You can't afford to waste 50 years if that is half of your life. Whereas, if everyone lived forever, 50 years would be nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Renegade

Re: What is the point to life?
 

Isn't this debate about pointless? Look at the issue this way, who the hell cares?

"These are the best of times, these are the worst of times."

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: What is the point to life?
 

General Woundwort,
Something? Maybe it is our [human] something but not the aforementioned lions, or did one pose the same question already and I just missed the news flash? That was my only point. I did not refute or concede anything else. I said the question was too broad and answered the rephrased question as I posed it. It is human ego to think that all life must have a point because we want it to be so.
How does a “universal religious drive” fit into the question? Does everything have to contain religious connotations? Why? No matter what form you choose to pose the question why does this one have to? Because it is easier to quote than explain?

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am not going to go into what constitutes 'evidence' or the appropriate use of 'probably'. But you are again misusing the word 'logic'. Logic is very strict, and the simplest explanation is, logically, only the simplest explanation, nothing more.

I recommend you use a different word for now. Later take a course in Philosophy or Debate or some such, if you wish to wield 'logic' to favor your opinions.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong or even that I disagree with you. But logic means certain things, and I do not want to see it abused the way 'ironic' is these days.

[edit: 'Reasonably' fits pretty well.]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually, I am not misusing the word 'logic' at all. I understand perfectly the definition of the word, and the way in which I choose to use it here is correct to both its proper and common meanings.

I would recommend that you do not patronise others with misguided assumptions about their knowledge, or their educations. As an example, I have studied philosophy at a tertiary level and am quite well versed in the use of terms associated with the discipline.

I don't feel it was nessesary to play the word Nazi (since my meaning was easily fathomable, and it didn't add anything to the discussion to nitpick it)*. However, if you feel a compulsion to do so, perhaps it might be useful to provide an actual definition, rather than just your opinionated judgment on the matter.

Here is a definition (according to the Maquarie Dictionary)

Logic n 1. the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference 2. reasoning or argumentation, or any instance of it 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study 4. reasons or sound sense, as in utterances or actions 5. convincing force: the irresistable logic of facts

(there are two more definitions, but they refer to electronics)

I believe that you are refering to definition 1. above in your post, and therefore (mistakenly) making the assumption that this is the only correct usage of the word 'logic'.

Even if you were correct in this assumption, you would still be incorrect in making the further assumption that I have misused the word. In this I refer you to the principle of:

Occam's razor n the principle that entities must not be unnecesarily multiplied, which as the principle of economy of hypothesis, is applicable to scientific research [from William of OCCAM]

[again from the Macquarie Dictionary]

I do not mean to be harsh, or start a fight. I can understand your frustration at 'word abuse'. However I would ask that if you are going to direct this frustration at me, could you please be accurate and defined when you do so. I do not enjoy being made out to be ignorant when I have chosen to use my words quite specifically and accurately.

And now, on with the discussion...

*Please note that I use both the words 'Nazi' and 'Nitpick' in their colloquial, rather than proper, senses here.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, you are entirely correct. That something probably isn't correct certainly doesn't mean that it isn't.

However, your example is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. This is because we now know Pluto does exist. However for an ancient person to say that Pluto did exist without any evidence, that would (from their perspective) simply be wild speculation. How often is wild speculation true? Sometimes, but not very often.

The more complex the speculation, the more variables there are to be incorrect, hence less likley it is to be true. So the most simple explanation is more likley the correct one.

To put this in context. I could say to you now that there are ten exactly planets orbiting Alpha Centuri, three of which contain sentient life, but there is no evidence of this. How likley do you think this is to be true?

The truth is that it is unlikley but not impossible. We have no evidence to disprove it, yet it is still probably not true. This is simply because it would involve lots of complex variables to interact in a certain way to be true, which (probablility wise) is unlikley to conform to an arbitary guess of mine.

If we went to Alpha Centuri and found that I was actually right - this still does not change the fact that I was unlikely to be right when I made the guess.

It is the same as rolling a die. You can say you are going to roll a '6' before you do so, but you only have a one in six chance of being right. So you are probably wrong. If you do roll a six, it doesn't change the fact that, before you rolled the die, you were probably going to be wrong in your guess.

If you roll two dice, you add to the complexity, and your chance of being right about rolling a six goes down in direct proportion. Hence the more complex an unfounded speculation, the less likley it is to be true.

In my opinion the simpler explanation is that when we die, we are dead. It is more complex and unfounded (IMHO) to say that there is an afterlife. Hence the latter requires faith, whilst the former does not.

I wrote this in a hurry, so I hope it makes sense.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1)

You obviously mean an AMERICAN farmer or rancher. No I haven't met an AMERICAN farmer or rancher but I have met African and Chinese (as in mainland China) farmers.

And sorry, but to me, this falls under "no sympathy for people who believes that society owes it to them to maintain the lifestyle and neighborhood they've always known."

Small-scale farming in rich countries is simply uneconomic unless supported by trade-distorting subsidies.

2)

I am relatively well off by Malaysian standards, but I wasn't born that way. Whenever I go back to my old neighborhood to visit, I find that the people who haven't grown out of it are those who are too unambitious, too stupid or too stubborn to make a serious go at changing their lives for the better.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Ouch! Relax, I was just asking a question.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not quite. While that's true in principle, in practice whenever there's an absence of evidence concerning the existence of something, people, quite reasonably I believe, go about life assuming that it doesn't exist.

Imagine, I could say claim that a pink, invisible, intangible unicorn is looking over your shoulder right now as you read this. I think that trying to be "agnostic" about it would be kind of difficult.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm not sure what "justifying" wealth means in this context. What I mean is that many of the people who are rich worked hard to get rich, and therefore being rich, in this manner at least, shouldn't be regarded as something shameful. The fact that they deliberately set out to BE rich is a plus point in my opinion, not a negative point.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Aye, I have the same ideas, like you have.
I tell you, that a few hundred years more, and propably the human race will know the secret of eternal life.
Now it is sounds insane, but trust me, it will be possible, it only needs time to reach that knowledge.
Its all about genetics.

Also I bet that humans will be able to create any lifeform via modified DNA. Time travel? Contact with alien civilizations? etc. The sci-fi movies will become a reality. When? It is hard to tell, but it will happen.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, the deeply research religious tech until you get the “universal religious drive”, which gives similar ouput to quantum engines, but with far less research. That said, some ppl argue that quantum mechanics require just as much faith as religion. At the moment I've no idea how this impacts the tech tree, but I'll work some spreadsheets and let you know.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Ouch! Relax, I was just asking a question.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh, my apologies, reading it now it is too harsh. Definitely not the spirit I intended to convey. Note to self, never write for BB’s past midnight. Did I at least somewhat get across my concept though? The difference between how we [humans] think things should be and what we make them into.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, the deeply research religious tech until you get the “universal religious drive”, which gives similar ouput to quantum engines, but with far less research. That said, some ppl argue that quantum mechanics require just as much faith as religion. At the moment I've no idea how this impacts the tech tree, but I'll work some spreadsheets and let you know.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I believe that it allows for double movement of the ships normal speed once installed. I do recall for sure that it increases that ships maintenance and supply consumption by 25% and is prohibitive for small ships due to its size. I also think it makes the ships crew anal and they will refuse any command that orders them to harm others unless:
1. One million dollars is raised by next week or
2. 50 megatons of makeup is applied to the hull exterior before battle.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes you did - and that was actually what I was trying to emphasize. If this life is "all there is", and we evolved into/within it, whence came this idea of "something more"? And why should it have the power that it obviously does in people?

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">1)

You obviously mean an AMERICAN farmer or rancher. No I haven't met an AMERICAN farmer or rancher but I have met African and Chinese (as in mainland China) farmers.

And sorry, but to me, this falls under "no sympathy for people who believes that society owes it to them to maintain the lifestyle and neighborhood they've always known."

Small-scale farming in rich countries is simply uneconomic unless supported by trade-distorting subsidies.

2)

I am relatively well off by Malaysian standards, but I wasn't born that way. Whenever I go back to my old neighborhood to visit, I find that the people who haven't grown out of it are those who are too unambitious, too stupid or too stubborn to make a serious go at changing their lives for the better.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">First, I was refering to Canadian farmers or ranchers, although there may be no real difference. And I concede your point that society does not owe it to people to maintain their lifestyle or neighborhood that they've always known. But as for your next point, I think that small-scale farming/ranching can be economical, even without subsidies. (By small-scale I mean in the 1000-2500 acre size range.) I also believe it is a sad day when all manufacturing, farming, and all other business is controlled by massive corporations, getting rid of the small-scale stuff.

Secondly, I agree with you. Those who have the will, ambition, and openness of mind to succeed usually will, although not always. Some disadvantages are simply too large to overcome.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

Renegade 13: He is a Canadian
I am an American
Best friends but still separate countries. Just look on the map. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not for lack of effort on our part in the Revoltionary War and the War of 1812. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: What is the point to life?
 

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not for lack of effort on our part in the Revoltionary War and the War of 1812. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ouch, that was soooooooooo uncalled for. Shame. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ October 09, 2003, 18:15: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Your statement probably needs some clarification. I'm not sure what you consider as "evidence of something existing". And when you say "presumption" I don't know if you mean it's human nature not to believe in things we cannot prove or something else. Without those clarifications though, taking what you said as it's written, then I'd have to disagree. In the absence of any evidence of something existing, I'd say the logical presumption is that there is not enough data to support a conclusion. Let's see if I can give an example that supports my statement. A thousand years ago there was no evidence that the planet Pluto existed. Actually the evidence was there, but humanity did not have the ability to see it. So for them there was effectively no evidence. Using your statement then, in the absence of any evidence of the planet Pluto, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist. Yet it does exist, as we later discovered when we learned to see the evidence of it's existance. Therefore, we can see that the lack of evidence does not in fact support the presumption that it probably does not exist. As far as the existance of an after-life goes, I am not aware of any evidence to support the existence of such a thing. But at the same time I am not aware of any evidence that there is not one. The fact that we cannot prove the issue one way or the other does not in fact support any conclusion other than there is no evidence one way or the other. If we accept that as true, then a belief either way becomes a matter of faith and not a logically supportable conclusion. However, to quote Dennis Miller, "But then again I could be wrong." Perhaps you'd like to explain your statement a bit further and give some sort of example to bear out your thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, you are entirely correct. That something probably isn't correct certainly doesn't mean that it isn't.

However, your example is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. This is because we now know Pluto does exist. However for an ancient person to say that Pluto did exist without any evidence, that would (from their perspective) simply be wild speculation. How often is wild speculation true? Sometimes, but not very often.

The more complex the speculation, the more variables there are to be incorrect, hence less likley it is to be true. So the most simple explanation is more likley the correct one.

To put this in context. I could say to you now that there are ten exactly planets orbiting Alpha Centuri, three of which contain sentient life, but there is no evidence of this. How likley do you think this is to be true?

The truth is that it is unlikley but not impossible. We have no evidence to disprove it, yet it is still probably not true. This is simply because it would involve lots of complex variables to interact in a certain way to be true, which (probablility wise) is unlikley to conform to an arbitary guess of mine.

If we went to Alpha Centuri and found that I was actually right - this still does not change the fact that I was unlikely to be right when I made the guess.

It is the same as rolling a die. You can say you are going to roll a '6' before you do so, but you only have a one in six chance of being right. So you are probably wrong. If you do roll a six, it doesn't change the fact that, before you rolled the die, you were probably going to be wrong in your guess.

If you roll two dice, you add to the complexity, and your chance of being right about rolling a six goes down in direct proportion. Hence the more complex an unfounded speculation, the less likley it is to be true.

In my opinion the simpler explanation is that when we die, we are dead. It is more complex and unfounded (IMHO) to say that there is an afterlife. Hence the latter requires faith, whilst the former does not.

I wrote this in a hurry, so I hope it makes sense.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, it makes sense. But I still don't agree with the original statement. Let's go back to that for a moment. The assertion was "In the absence of any evidence of something existing, it is a logical presumption that it probably doesn't exist." I don't believe that's a logical conclusion. If we are talking probability, then the absence of evidence may mean that there's a low probability of existence, but as you already admitted it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However to even calculate the probability of a given statement being true you have to have some information and that information constitutes evidence in and of itself. Going back to your example about predicting a die roll ahead of time, you can only calculate the probability if you know how many sides the dies has. My point is that you cannot calculate a probability when there is no data to base the calculation on. I believe the assertion also violates the laws of algebra. Look at the assertion as a boolean statement. You can evaluate it as X = Y. If so, then Not X = Not Y. In other words, if the absence of evidence means that the hypothetical item doesn't exist, then the absence of evidence that the hypothetical item doesn't exist must mean that it does exist. The two cancel each other out and therefore no logical conclusion can be made because there is no data to support a conclusion either way.

Yes, my example of Pluto is skewed by the benefit of hindsight. But that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Following the assertion that was given, the statement that Pluto does not exist would have been "logical" if it had been made in the middle ages but would not be so now. I believe that shows a flaw in the assertion as demonstrated by the fact that Pluto does exist. A person making the statement in the middle ages simply did not have enough data to form a conclusion. Down through history there have been lots of statements made that were later proven to be wrong. That's because they were themselves wild speculations made in the absence of supporting evidence. Without supporting data any speculation, whether for or against, constitutes wild speculation. Is there evidence of an afterlife? No, not that I'm aware of. Is there evidence that there is not an afterlife? No, not that I'm aware of. How then can I draw a conclusion? If there's no evidence either way, then a belief in either has to consitute faith and faith is not a logical conclusion. It is an emotion, a desire for something to be as we want it. I see logic in this context as an outcome that can be consistently arrived at based on a given statement. For example, if a person is dead, then they are not alive. Since the assertion made seems likely to produce as many wrong conclusions as it does correct ones, I can't see it as logical.

I see the Alpha Centauri example as something entirely different. It's an exercise in probability. The liklihood of you guessing the correct number of planets and the number of those that contain sentient life is indeed very low. Probably about the same as me picking all the lottery numbers. At the same time the assertion would mean that there is probably no sentient life anywhere else in the universe. After all there is no evidence of it, therefore it probably doesn't exist. This despite the fact that in this instance probability is in our favor. With billions upon billions of stars, countless millions of galaxies, it is inconceivable that we are alone.

Even though I don't agree with the statement made I appreciate such discussions. I've spent all week thinking about this topic. Very enjoyable.

Re: What is the point to life?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The problem with this idea (as I see it) is that it gives equivalence between entirely fanciful ideas, and reality as we know it.

For example, someone mentioned that an invisible pink Unicorn might be looking over your shoulder right now. Now let’s say that every time you misplace something, it is the invisible pink Unicorn hiding it. You can never prove it though, because the unicorn only does it when it can’t be seen. Hence you can’t disprove the theory either.

Certainly that might be true. I think we can (logically) say it is probably not though. The reason we can say so is precisely because it is logical to treat un-disprovable fancies as less likely to be true than physical realities that have been established through the weight of evidence. For example, that people misplace stuff.

In terms of mathematics, we can look at it this way. How many possibilities are there in the universe? Obviously, the answer is a very large number. In comparison how many of these possibilities are actually true? From observation of how many fanciful speculations we can generate about something, and then how many of those will turn out to be true – a very small number. Hence to generate a probability of the possibility being true (without evidence), we need a formula something like

X/Y = Z

Where X = a very small number of true possibilities
Y= a very large number of total possibilities
Z = the likelihood of a given possibility being true (without any evidence).

As you can see Z ends up as a very small number, and hence there is a very small probability of any given unfounded speculation being true.

Now, I am not for a second saying that this formula is absolutely valid in mathematical terms. However I am saying that it demonstrates a valid, logical principle in a simple form.

To compare it to the dice example – we might imagine that reality is a giant die, with an almost infinite amount of sides. We don’t know how many sides there are, but we do no there are a lot of them – because we know there are a lot of possibilities in the universe. Hence if we choose one of those possibilities (in this case ‘a single side of the die’), and logically predict how likely it is to be true, we can fairly say it is probably not true.

Now, your response to this might be to say that we are only comparing two possibilities (that there is an afterlife, or there is not), and that therefore the total number of possibilities in the world should not come into it. However this is not true.

The reason for this is that we are actually comparing something that is borne out by physical evidence (that when we die, we are dead) with a an unfounded speculation which circumvents it (that there is an ‘afterlife’ so that we are not actually dead when we die, but that this afterlife takes such an intangible form that it cannot be disproved). How many fanciful speculations can we come up with? How many of them will turn out to be true? The comparison between these two values will give you an idea of the probability of such a fanciful speculation actually being true.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is not true at all. The assertion only says that it is logical that a person making a wild guess about anything is generally unlikely to be right. It doesn’t say that they definitely won’t be right. If they do happen to be lucky, that doesn’t make the assertion wrong.

To think about it a different way - Imagine someone in 1200AD saying

“There is an eighth planet in our solar system, and it will be named ‘Pluto’ by someone in the future who actually discovers it. I have no idea why I am saying this at all, but I am, so there”

for no reason (ie, without any evidence). Out of all the things they could possibly think of to say for absolutely no reason! how likely would they to be to say this? I say it is not very likely.

In fact it is very unlikely that someone in 1200AD would with no evidence, and for no reason make a total guess about the nature of our solar system, and be right!. The odds against it are almost inconceivably high – perhaps worse than the odds of me guessing the number of planets around alpha century.

Hence if a person did make such a guess it is logical to say that they would probably (but not definitely) be wrong. In your example, they would have just beat the (enormous) odds.

Your example is a bit like if I said that, logically, by buying one lottery ticket you are unlikely to actually win the lottery. Then you say: but this person bought a lottery ticket and they won. It doesn’t change the fact that the odds were against them when they bought the ticket.

Hence, the fact that you can retrospectively put invent a scenario in which an incredibly unlikely event hypothetically occurred, does not mean that fanciful theories are logically (and statistically, and in terms of probability) as likely to be true as not.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The thing is though – the idea that when we are dead we are dead, and not alive, is not a wild speculation at all. It is the facts as we know them, backed up by all the physical evidence we have. It may not be the whole truth. However any unfounded speculation that goes beyond what we know must be weighed with the possibility that of all the many possibilities in the world, against the amount of them that actually turn out to be true, without there being any evidence for it. This is a question of probability, it is just harder to see it, and harder to quantify it. But it is quantifiable this far: As ‘unlikely’

Hence if someone asks me if there is an afterlife, I say probably not – unfounded speculations are unlikely to be true. However, if you want to know whether it is a matter of faith that when we are dead, we are really dead - go look at a corpse. Until someone provides some evidence otherwise, that is all the truth there is.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As you can see, I see all of the examples as ones of probability, hence why I used that example.

The question of sentient life elsewhere in the universe is also one of probability. The reason you think it likely is precisely is that you do actually have some evidence. That evidence is that we know that the universe is very large, with many variables, and therefore there is definitely a possibility (in your opinion, a probability) that conditions conducive to life exist and have produced it elsewhere. If you were to start taking random guesses as to what form that life would take (without any evidence), you would probably be wrong, though.

Ironically, this is the exact reason why an unfounded speculation is unlikely to be true – the universe is so large and complex that there are too many potential truths out there fore a specifically unfounded speculation to be likely to be true.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I too, enjoy such discussions, as long as they don’t get caught up in semantics, or become abusive. Thanks for providing me with some great mental exercise! I do enjoy it.

Look forward to a response, if you have one!