Donate SIGN UP

Life in the or chance?

Avatar Image
claymore | 10:33 Fri 02nd May 2008 | Science
15 Answers
Do you think that the universe came into being and evolved like it has so that life could begin and flourish,or do you believe that life emerged only because conditions where it did were favorable? The first scenario suggests that life would be spread throughout the universe.


1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by claymore. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In my view, time is a big factor. The further out in the universe you go, the older it is, right? So evoloution will/could be far more advanced. who says there are more humans though?

We have evolved to adapt to this world, but in the deepest parts of the universe, life may exist but could be very very different.
I once read a very convincing thesis that pointed out that, theoretically, it took a considerable time after the Big Bang before the first simple hydrogen atom was formed.
Since then, with the passing eons, the universe has become more and more complex, and is still evolving. It has even managed to produce us along the way.

Eventually, the universe itself will become intelligent. Wow!

It was a very reasoned argument!
Question Author
I tend to think that intelligence is not just the prerogative of the inhabitants of this planet.For the universe to be just as it is surely is not just good luck,any number of even the slightest changes after the beginning could have resulted in a totally different universe than the one we are part of.
That's a rather pointless observation, if you don't mind me saying so. The universe would be 'as it is' however it was. Life is a consequence of how the universe is; the universe is not how it is so that life could be.
-- answer removed --
Nucleii are there at 35 minutes, it's 700,000 years before atoms come about. ogy/hotbb.html

But with the analogy of 24 "hours" between the BB and now, I make that 0:00:04 am.

The issue of what changes would still give us an inhabitable universe is interesting.

We don't know how the various constants and laws came about. So we don't know which if any are dependant on each other so what looks like a fabulous coi-incidence might not be.

The other thing is the issue of other possible universes which might be totally uninhabitable, ours then looks special because it's the only one we can see.

This is what's known as the weak anthropic principal. The Idea that the universe must be just so In order to create us is the strong anthropic principle and is somewhat debatable, however you do have to consider it in the context of quantum mechanical ideas and it's not quite as absurd as it might at first appear.

I don't know which thesis Heathfield read that said that the Universe got more and more complex - but it does seem to fly in the face of ideas such as thermo-dynamics and Entropy!
jake-the-peg, At the risk of appearing to speak unsolicited on another's behalf, if what heathfield is suggesting is that stars are more complex than a cloud of gas and that life is more complex than the elements which evolved within those stars then I would tend from a purely human perspective to agree with him entirely and without reservation. imho
This chicken/egg question of which came first, intelligence or life, is as important to answer in this day of advanced technology as it ever was.

To presume that the universe was designed does indeed presuppose a designer. All evidence points to the requirement that an intelligent purposefully creative being must first possess a physical form from which faculties of awareness, intelligence, and purpose can arise and be maintained and that these are all of necessity attributes of an entity which requires these as well a universe in which they can take form for its survival and wellbeing. We now know that our universe provides the arena in which such a being could and did evolve. To deny an intelligent creative life form the recognition that it is the product of its own processes robs life and the universe in which it came about of its meaning and value. Appreciation for ones own value provides the will to fulfill the promise of their potential.

cont . . .
Perhaps it is a good thing that we are not privy to the existence of other intelligent life forms until we learn to fully appreciate the value of our own contribution, our awareness, knowledge and appreciation for the existence of the universe and the understanding that without realising our potential to appreciate its existence the universe and ourselves would be nothing more than a vast waste of space. Until we do encounter other intelligent life forms what reason is there to ignore the possibility that we alone might be the universes greatest asset and most prized possession? We should therefore endeavor to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with the respect due an entity privileged to hold such an honorable position within the universe. However unlikely it may be that we are alone in our abilities to comprehend the universe hopefully we will have adequately prepared for and will face such an encounter as equals if and when the time comes to meet another life form created in their own image.

Presupposing the pre-existence of an intelligent designer is an error we can no longer afford to ignore nor indulge. The universe within which we have earned our right to exist by our honest appraisal of appreciation for it awaits our comprehension of the important and crucial role we play in this mutually beneficial relationship.
-- answer removed --
Consciousness is everything. There are as many universes as there are conscious beings, as each individual exists in its own. As consciousness is entirely subjective and personal to the individual no-one can experience the awareness of another. What I want to know is 'why do I exist?' If I had not been born and unaware of this universe it may as well not exist; therefore how many other universes have I not been born into?
Philosophy has not yet answered our fundamental questions. Nor has science. We are at the first step of understanding the meaning of it all. It's a very, very long path. Maybe the answer lies beyond this life.
Then again, it can be argued that intelligent life has yet to appear anywhere in the universe . . . <"?
I like that one mibn.
Just how can we define intelligence on celestial event that we are unaware of and, indeed, that may have happened billions of years ago.

The biggest downfall of the one supreme 'designer' theory is that by that definition, the 'designer' also had to come from somewhere.

I would rather believe that life on Earth evolved by accident and it is proven that this could never start again in a similar manner.
How can one assume that life is not uniformly spread throughout the universe?

The universe keeps evolving into more complex and higher forms nearly like the evolution of life on earth.It will continue to do so until it reaches the period of its dissipation.

Assuming that there is a designer gives moral strength to some individuals to face the hardships of life and keeps him/her in a morally correct path. This confirms with the emotional part of our brain.

The second follows the rational path of Science.This confirms with the reasoning path of the brain.

We must learn to balance both.
My final answer depends on where you ask me the question-in a church or in a lab. <[[:-)
Morality is a question of choice. Alternatives first become apparent in an active thinking mind. Choosing what should be requires an awareness of what could be and a basis for making the right choice. Determining what could be requires a proper regard for the arena in which alternatives arise, reality. Determining what should be requires an understanding of the real world consequences of choices and actions upon the entities capable of and effected by the choices that become apparent in a cognizant thinking being therefore the best interest of such beings is the basis upon which those choices should be made.

It is only when we long for that which we know is impossible and seek to defy reality rather than change it in ways we know are possible that we attempt to create the existence of an imaginary overseer of reality.

1 to 15 of 15rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Life in the or chance?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.