Do you believe we're alone /x/?

Yes. We're the only planet with life in the universe and soon, when Muslims take over the world, they'll become the most advanced creation that natures ever produced

>>17750666
Yes. I feel so horribly, horribly alone. Why must you remind me of my mind, memory?

There might be millions of different alien races, but none of them is willing to have sex with me. No matter how many species there are l'm gonna be poor and lonely for the rest of my miserable, pathetic life.

Atheists who don't believe we are alone have the same viewpoint as people who believe in a God.

>>17751819
Their view point is based on statistical analysis, not faith.

Over in Bearenstein universe we've already had public first contact, they landed on the white house lawn, shot was cash.

>>17751822
Stats of zero life forms?

>>17751825
Dude what the FUUUUUUUUUCK!!!
i was in the stein universe just last month!
How the ever living fuck did i get back to the stain universe!!??
Just screencapped a google image search of the book covers. And here it is stain. Gonna check every day and if the pic is gone or spells stein i will know i have experienced crossover event.
My other self in the steinverse may be posting the same thing
Screen capping this shit so i will be able to re post later.

>>17751825
No they havent. Not last month anyway.
>>17751975
I am this guy,
Forgot to call other guy out

File: 1464469878722.gif (1MB, 260x187px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 260x187px

>>17750666
Unfortunately satan, no for now. I sure wish tho. Earth is boring as fuck.

>>17751819
no, not at all

whenever this question gets asked i don't know how people could think that we are the only planet that has life on it. in a galaxy that is so big and in a universe so vast that we cant even see all of it. billions of other galaxies with trillions and trillions of stars and even more planets floating around them. they must just not understand. that's the only conclusion i have.

>>17751905
>zero life forms
no. what?

For us microscopic human beings it might seem like a big stretch to have discovered the furthest planet known to man, but in reality we have only discovered the pebbles in front of us when you think about the infinite scale of the universe. There is life out there, but it most probably is further away from us than what our own standards demand. We should not take for granted that life exists outside of earth only because the pebbles we found where lifeless. There are stones out there with their own ecology. Some so advanced we could not even comprehend and some seemingly primitive to our own. But one thing's for sure, life was not reserved for planet earth, because life is the nature of the universe, not of the earth. Our planet is just a part of that living universe, just like everything else, it's all that.

>>17750666
We're the center of the universe. How can others exist if we exist?

NIGGA U STUPID ROFLE

>>17751905

The matter we are made of exists everywhere.

The star that provides us energy is but one of billions...er, trillions in the observable universe.

There are billions of stars, just like ours, that are much older than our own.

Everywhere you look in the cosmos, you find that NOTHING is ever done once, but billions, and billions of times.

It's pretty much statistically impossible for Earth to be the lone planet with advanced life.

>>17753383
All conjecture, no evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6Q3mHyzn78

>>17753383
There was one star before there were billions.
There was one planet before there were billions.
There was one instance of life before there were billions.

Yet it's impossible that we might be the first sentience before there are billions? SOMEONE has to be first.

>>17753535

It's called math, dumb ass.

>>17753556
Math is abstraction, dummy.

>>17753554
The cosmos doesn't work that way.

>>17753561
Work how, according to the flow of time? Physics was well set before stars started to show up.

>>17753574
Were you there?

Given the old age of the Universe and given the large number of stars and planetary systems and the incredibly short timescale it took humans to develop technology that other origins of life and civilizations in the Milky Way could have had a significant head start and should be significantly more advanced than we are.

>>17753580
>the incredibly short timescale it took humans to develop technology

It took almost 3.5 billion years for life on this planet to develop sentience and technology. Considering this is the only only data point there's no telling if this timespan is average, or incredibly fast, or incredibly slow.

>>17753598
When you look at the big picture, 3.5 billion is just a rain drop in the ocean.

>>17753580
Your post is evidence that the human brain is funny.

>>17753608
Proceed to elaborate, if you will.
I can handle ad hominems. Bring it on, bud.

>>17753627
I didn't know humor was a bad thing?

My apologies. You are unfunny.

>>17753627
>I can handle ad hominems
Welp, time to start worshiping our new god.

>>17753639
Is that Kek?

>>17753636
Only girls find me funny.

>>17753639
Praise me. Condemn me to hell. I don't care.

>>17753651
You're on a roll!

>>17753657
>Condemn me to hell. I don't care.
They have a word for this.

>>17753605
The big picture is currently about 13.7 billion years long. 13.5 of which had stars. The oldest planetary system known is 12.8 billion years old.

HOWEVER, unless you are talking about life forming purely from hydrogen and helium, then any lifeform would have to wait until the first stars went supernova in order to create the heavier elements like carbon, silicon, or potassium. We don't have good dates on this yet, but it is reasonable to expect our 2nd gen. sun is one of if not the first stars to have life potentiality.

Even if you take the extreme case of life being potential 12 billion years ago, 3-4by is much more than "a drop in the bucket."

>>17753665
Asshole-a-holic.

>>17753670
>only 1/4 of the lifespan of EXISTENCE ITSELF so far
>drop in the ocean
That anon must have spent too much time thinking about the ultimate fate of the universe.

>>17753660
You're too kind.

>>17753670
>sun is one of if not the first stars to have life potentiality.

It is also one of the youngest starts of the Milky Way. There are much older stars in our own galaxy, as you may know. My first post was only concerned with those.

>>17753672
No, just "edgy."

>>17753698
Just meme-y.

>>17753558
No, math is pattern recognition.

>>17753715
The pattern of zero is God.

File: Closed Universe Model.jpg (212KB, 1297x771px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1297x771px

>>17753574

>Work how...

The cosmos doesn't work by ones, it works by billions.

Thus, there were billions of stars forming simultaneously.

>>17753730
You think they all formed at EXACTLY the same time? Every single one? Down to the nanosecond?

The quantum fluctuations that caused matter to clump in the first place would make this idea silly. But it's also a pointless quibble. Fine. There were the first BILLION STARS before there were a billion billion.

Does nothing to alter the significant possibility that humans are the first sentient life in the universe.

>>17753730
>forming simultaneously
>>17753763
>EXACTLY the same time? Every single one? Down to the nanosecond?
Learn to read, dipshit. That anon didn't say anything about beginning to form at the exact same moment, or "finally" forming at the exact same time.

>>17753779
In which case anon's comment was completely pointless since it was trying to refute that one star was first among billions.

>>17753787
>one star was first among billions
Right, and they successfully argued against that point. If the first ten stars in the universe formed at about the same 100,000 year period, then they formed simultaneously. While one was still forming, the tenth began. Given that stars vary in composition and mass, we can't just arbitrarily decide one was first, one was second, and one was third. Red drawfs burn so slowly that virtually all other stars will go supernova before the first red dwarf begins to dim. We're not dealing with a linear system here.

>>17753820
No, they were FORMING simultaneously. One FORMED first.

Just like every car in the Daytona 500 is racing simultaneously, but only one finishes first.

This isn't arbitrary at all. This is time moves forward. At one point in time there were lots and lots of stars forming simultaneously. Then at a further point in time there were lots and lots of stars forming simultaneously - and one star that had formed.

>Red drawfs burn so slowly that virtually all other stars will go supernova before the first red dwarf begins to dim.

So you think a counter-point to "there was a star that formed first" is "some stars last much longer than other stars." Will you put a trip on so I can be sure to not reply to you again?

>>17753893
>only one finishes first
And sometimes you have a photo finish where two cars finish in such close proximity that you have to use a high-speed camera to tell who got there first. Life isn't going to evolve in that microsecond between snapshots so for all intents and purposes there were going to be a billion planets across the universe that had life emerge at relatively the same time period. When physics literally prevent you from measuring which planet had life first, you need to shut the fuck up and rethink why you're arguing for an objective "first planet" with life.

Nothing will change except

>tfw no alien gf

>>17750685
There's a reason they don't track Israel

>>17753913
>who got there first

You agree one was first.

>for all intents and purposes there were going to be a billion planets across the universe that had life emerge at relatively the same time period

Correct. That time period is now. And we are the first.

Yeah they won't come here though coz most people are wankers, or would say look it's our gods, then we'd be fucking slaves.... Again.

>>17753925
I actually do believe we are the objective first form of life in the universe. I'm just saying you're an idiot with the way you've been arguing it. That anon had a perfectly coherent argument and you misread it.

>>17753945
I accept your apology.

>>17753763
>You think they all formed at EXACTLY the same time?

Of course not. All I'm saying is that the process occurred simultaneously throughout the cosmos. Describing the first star would be a lot like describing the first ocean wave to hit landfall after new year's eve in that it's possible, but there is little significance in being "first" due to the fact that another and another wave lands immediately after the "first".

>possibility that humans are the first sentient life in the universe.

The fact that we are, and have been, visited by alien intelligence pretty much eliminates that possibility.

>>17753953
Fuck off. The original anon you were arguing with can do without your stupidity.

>>17753962
That's impossible. The Fae hid us from alien detection long ago.

>>17753925
>Correct. That time period is now. And we are the first.

That's just dumb.

You're completely discounting the fact that there are billions of stars that are billions of years older than we are.

No shit is happening, it's all in our stone clocks, stone henge, Mayans, Egypt chambers, we been watching them for a long time, and writing bad shit in books when we see the red moons, since primary astrologer Jews got thrown out of Greece in 139bc