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

by dhw, Friday, July 10, 2009, 21:20 (5616 days ago) @ BBella

BBella points out that "everything is made up of what comes before" and that "there always was the soup mix to make the soup." I don't have a problem with that. - You ask: "Why would a million planets harbouring life back up what I'm saying and life existing alone on earth not back up what I'm saying?" - I was not referring to the ingredients theory but to the idea that LIFE could be ever existing and ever evolving. If life had always existed, we would expect to find evidence of it elsewhere, but (so far) there is no sign of that. The only evidence we have is of life on Earth. If science is to be trusted (and on this issue I trust science completely), both the Earth and life on Earth have had a limited span, and this doesn't back the theory that life has gone on for ever. A million planets with life would not prove your theory, but they would remove one argument against it, and in my view would add enormously to its plausibility. - John Clinch has rightly highlighted your closing comment: "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." As I've said before, I see this as a form of Pantheism, which I find very attractive, although it still leaves a lot of questions open. Among these is, as ever, how life arose from non-life (still a problem for me, since I'm far from convinced by your suggestion that life may have gone on for ever), whether the universe has a consciousness of its own, and whether there are dimensions and forms of existence beyond those that we know. - In view of John's last post, I'd like to make it clear that the list of alternative theories I offered was not meant in any way to belittle your own. There are millions of people who believe in a god or gods, and I am in no position to dismiss any of their theories. They find theirs as plausible as you find yours and as atheists find abiogenesis, and I only wished to say that it boils down to what one finds convincing for oneself.