E.T. Exists!!!

My contention is that it is probable that there are no intelligent beings in the universe except on earth. It is so probable, in fact, that I will say "E.T. does not exist", provided this claim be taken as "there is no evidence E.T. exists, and E.T. is not likely to exist, either. My argument will be divided into two sections. The first of which is to silence the conspiracy nuts. The Pro need not respond to it, unless they want to it. It is merely to set the scene. The second section is my actual argument against the likelihood of E.T. Section One: The absence of evidence 1. UFOs perform no feats that cannot be replicated with either holograms or what military air-craft could feasibly accomplish, assuming covert military projects are 20-40 years ahead of publicly acknowledged tech. An extraterrestrial hypothesis to account for them is possible, but neither plausible nor necessary. 2. There is no credible physical evidence of aliens or alien technology. An extraterrestrial hypothesis is unnecessary, when evidence is lacking. Most, if not all, of what is presented as evidence are obvious hoaxes. 3. The founding researchers in alien abductee accounts --- Budd Hopkins, John Mack, David M. Jacobs, Whitley Strieber --- all have deep issues with credibility in honesty, methodology, discernment and personal ethics. And even if the entire field were not highly suspect on that account, no credible evidence has been presented by any of these researchers, or any of their intellectual heirs. 4. The "ancient astronaut" theory is rooted in the following assumptions: a. That if an architectural design is (allegedly) not understood in the ancient world, "therefore aliens." b. That ancient myths are even remotely credible. (AA theorists overlook stories of people transforming into animals, as it so happens, and other such nonsense that doesn't fit their theories) c. That human genetics cannot be explained through natural evolution and inter-breeding with other early hominids All these assumptions are flawed. 5. The panspermia theory, while possible, is neither necessary at this point nor especially plausible, not to mention that there is no direct evidence to support it. It is based purely upon the perceived lack of evidence or coherency in the abiogenetic account, and the theory itself is proof of nothing other than the wild imaginations of the science-nerds who came up with it. Section two: The evidence of absence The fact of our cosmos being able to support life on even a single planet is extraordinarily unlikely. Conscious life as we know it, to exist, requires the cosmological constant to inhabit a spectrum of such extreme minutia that it would require 10 to the 120th power other dead-on-arrival universes within a multiverse-model to exist. Said a little different way, if our own universe arose out of random probability, as in a slot machine, then for it to occur once would require 10 to the 120th power other slot machine sessions for us to mathematically posit that a universe that could support life would arise --- according to Steven Weinberg, that is. And he would know. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu... What is 1 to the 120th power? Science now estimates that there are 10 to the 78th power to 10 the 80th power number of atoms in the cosmos. This means that there must be more incredibly more alternate universes where life as we know it would be impossible than there are atoms estimated in the observable cosmos. (Keep in mind, "cosmos" in this case doesn't mean other galaxies or solar systems. What is meant is whole, parallel, alternate universes, like in the movie Castaway, staring Tom Hanks). Therefore, it is incredibly unlikely that there is other life in this universe at all, for when we consider how extraordinarily unlikely an event it must have been for the first primordial forms of life to emerge abiotically even once, and then add in how extraordinarily unlikely the variables of a single aspect of our cosmos is (the cosmological constant), then it becomes clear that other lifeforms in the cosmos are implausible. It is far more likely that they do not exist, that we are entirely alone, and that consciousness has risen with this planet of ours, and it shall, in the fullness of time, die with it as well. And this is assuming the multiverse model is correct. If there is not an actual multiverse as described, and if this cosmos is the only one, then the likelihood of there being life dwindles even more dramatically. It is reasonable, then, to assume that we are alone in the cosmos, that there are no ETs.