James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by BBella , Thursday, July 09, 2009, 22:05 (5614 days ago) @ dhw

BBella writes: I do not feel I am arguing against the theory of the Big Bang. Everything has its beginning, but they all arise the same, from that which came before. This means to me there are no true "beginnings" only marked changes that we who are observers of these changes mark...all which is nothing more than one ever evolving Uni-verse.
> 
> Although I can't argue against the concept of an ever evolving universe, I'm not sure why you want to distinguish so rigidly between "true beginnings" and changes. Prior to the Big Bang, we can assume there was no Earth. Prior to the cooling and stabilizing of the Earth, we can assume there was no life on Earth. A new planet (Earth) and a new development (life on Earth) mark two changes in the Universe and two beginnings. - My whole point about changes and beginnings is that everything that is comes from what was before. There always was the soup mix to make the soup. We can call it soup but it is still what it was before it was soup. This says to me there was never a time there was no thing. Everything is made up of what comes before. This is the only real point I am making.
 
> 
> You wrote earlier: "Life emerging from non-life would be a real jump of evolution, wouldn't it? Some-thing from no-thing." A real jump, yes, but non-life is not no-thing. The great question in this context is whether inanimate material can make itself animate. We all obviously accept that animation took place, or we wouldn't be here, but we have no evidence for any of the explanatory theories, and so the origin of life on Earth is still an unsolved mystery. 
> 
> Your suggested solution to the mystery is that "all life could be ever existing and ever evolving", but without evidence of life elsewhere, we know only that there must have been a beginning here. - My point (not expressed well) is that whatever ingredients it took to bring about life (however long ago) has always been in existence. The ingredients has always been. Time and the evolution/forces of nature have brought about what we now have here on earth from the ingredients that always existed. If this planet has been seeded by another race on another planet or, if have evolved alone...whichever is true, we still are the product of what already existed before us. - >If there were a million planets harbouring life and evolution, however, your theory would have backing, as would the atheist faith in unknown natural laws. - There could be life and evolution in other places or there could just be life and evolution in this one place on earth. Why would a million planets harboring life back up what I'm saying and life existing alone on earth not back up what I am saying? - 
>From a neutral point of view, therefore, in our present state of ignorance one could argue that your theory is as plausible or implausible as any other, including abiogenesis, God, Amma and Nommo, earth-diver, hero twins, sky-father and earth-mother etc. As usual it simply boils down to what you personally find convincing. That's what all such beliefs boil down to, even if a large number of believers don't believe it! - I definitely agree that how I think things are is only my own personal thoughts, no more no less. It is slightly different from some and similar to others. I am only expressing what I think, and what I think is that I find it very hard to accept everything that 'IS' came from nothing, or life as we know it is a "new" thing (from our own personal beginning). I see everything that is, including life, the same one universe (all that is) ever evolving in multifaceted ways. If I were to say what I think God is, if there were such, it would be all that is. No one force, no one thing, just all that is.