Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
With my pitiful understanding of paganism, I think it makes sense. Could you go into a little more depth about the "footprints?"
So far I've seen both the atheist and the theist perspective. I'd just like to hear peoples' opinions on the Agnostic point of view and whether or not they think it's a logically valid stance. I'd love to discuss this with any and all comers.
Our convenient position in the life of the universe. The unbelievable coincidence of our earths size in relationship to the moon, the sun and how it resulted in the consequence of life. How life has overcome so many difficulties to arrive at a being that is consumed with understanding of its self. Why the universe is so hidden in mystery. Why we are given small glimpses of more but never enough to utterly convince us. Why the power of nature runs so strongly and never gives up trying to survive. I feel natures strength all around me and its strength is a force that defies explaination but is so easily is it taken for granted.
Actually the argument from improbability - that life cannot be the result of mere chance
Krumple do you believe there is a formula for life? Given certain circumstances life will form?
Chemistry... of course. Does it always happen with the same chemistry? Here it does, but that doesn't mean the chemistry is always the same through out the universe.
So to answer your question. Nope, no recipe for life. Why? Because we can't even determine if a virus is a live. There are many things humans do that are very virus like in behavior, but would I call humans viruses? No.
My question was, is there a formula for life, for life as we know it? If there is no recipe, as you say ,then given the same circumstances that produced life here on earth occurred again, you claim life would not emerge. How strange, can you explain why?
As i have not talked or imagined an intelligent creator or found it a strange coincidence of my birth, i wonder what your post is inferring. Could you be a little more succinct? please.
Actually the argument from improbability - that life cannot be the result of mere chance - is looking stronger all the time in my view. First you have the arguments presented by the anthropic principlethat the Universe itself requires the 'callibration' of a number of key ratios and properties for anything to exist. Then you have the fact that the possible combinations for the constituents of a living cell could be combined in a number of ways far larger than all of the atoms in the universe without giving rise to life. (I think the number of ways that the basic elements of DNA could be combined randomly adds up to something like 10 to the power of 100 which is an unthinkably massive number.) So I think the idea that life arises 'randomly' is baseless, and in fact I don't even think it is a matter of scientific judgement. There is no evidence for this idea - it can only be an inference.
You missed the settle difference. I am saying there is no specific one way that life arises.