It started with this
while we don't even know if intelligent extraterrestrial life really exists
To wich I replied that it is the wrong question.
Oh, and extraterrestial intelligent life does exist. The real question is, if we ever make contact or see proof.
So you accused me of having no proof, only faith .
You say " ...extraterrestial intelligent life does exist" and then say "The real question is, if we ever ... see proof." How can you say something exist but you have no proof (apart from faith)?
To wich I defended my position by stating the numbers, that are anyhting but faith. It would be faith to believe we are alone, when looking at the size of the universe. That we currently cannot prove is a trivial matter. It is only about which position is the prudent one. I remember long ago, it seemed that the scientific position was, that planets are a rare occasion. New data changed that position. Planets are in abundance. And so is capabilty life in extreme conditions. And so is organic matter. We can observe dust clouds with amino acids in such quantities that we can see them over light years. Organic chemistry is happening everywhere we look close enough. I stay with my opinion. The prudent position with the available pointers is, that life is in abundance in the universe and thus intelligence is not likely to happen but bound to happen.
Of course I freely admit that it is splitting a hair, when talking about extraterrestial life in this context it only matters for those aliens that could or would make contact. If that happens any time soon (even in geological time frame) is questionable. And for the record, the very first statement already was semantics (shifting et to being seen by us, instead of existing at all), so do not complain a dozen postings later that I am talking semantics. I was talking semantics from the beginning ;-b