Was life on Earth Inevitable?

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
Physical laws apply to everything in outr universe so if why not apply to spirits.

Actually you will find that no, they don't. The theories and mathematical equations tend to break down and contradict each other more often than not. Everything physical and energy break down as a subatomic level. Due to this, most mathematical equations do not apply to quantum physics, so different laws are applied. These laws tend to contradict the laws used on a massive scale.

Besides, is a spirit physical? Is it physical energy? Or is it a different energy; such as gravity? No-none knows, but most believe that they are cross-dimensional, which seems to make the most sense. Thus the laws of our universe cannot be applied to this.

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
I'd like you to explain, citing some sort of proof or experimental evidence. And secondly prove that spirits even exist, citing some sort of proof or experimental evidence

Why are you asking for impossible proofs? Earlier he brought up the fact that science cannot explain the big bang, and now you are doing the exact same thing.

lif in the universe was inevitable. life on earth was a one in a trillion chance. who knows if there is life elsewhere.

The universe is vast. I actually don't think I'll ever know to comprehend its sheer enormity. In that, we can all agree that due to its size there will be massive variability. It is just a coincidence, it could have happened anywhere, and probably has. Out of the Universe that we have seemed to assemble, its true that there are 10^20 stars. They could be in any configuration possible. So in fact, there is a chance that out of that number of stars, a planetary body could remain intact in the perfect environmental proportion to sustain life. Perhaps a planetary body is not required and the entopic fundamentals of life may then accrue in any number of environments which have met the specific requirements; the requirements build up as time goes on and as everything changes, variability will predict that the chance of that particular locality to sustain a particular event maximizes, and the probability of loss closes ever more slightly. The formation of organic complexes with the ability to interact with its environment invariability should be able to stem from any environment. Would you not agree? This is only life as we know it. It's entirely possible that "life" could form on a diffuse cloud, incredibly carbon-dense planets of crystal and diamond (probably the most common), in a medium of universal distortion (whereby light, gravity, or electromagnetism give way to higher dimensions of life).

It was exactly that: chance. I think we as humans are starting to think of ourselves as too particularly unique. The universe is so great that the probability of the production of particularly organic beings, which can interact by decision, exists definitely. We are just determinants of a system, accruing as part of the processes of the cosmos. We are a specific compartment of the atoms of existence.

The only validity this argument runs on is in our most notable human purview, explaining abound the existence of the universe in light of our creation. We're thinking of consciousness as this all evasive power that lives eternally, and therefore share in common the same principles of other beings far out into the universe. That is why you question your existence, because you have the faculties to do so. And those have spawned alongside with you in the primordial fluid from whence you came.

I believe that this theory may yet hold some ability in explaining the existence of entities such as ourselves. Now think of how the universe would perceive us. Though not cognitively, thats absurd! Think of ourselves as free-roaming blips in the system, along with the stars and other massive constructions of time and space.

The argument is based on a statistical, productive outcome for a logical system, and the fact that we emerged from the remainder of all the universal processes up to the point of our conception.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by cognoscente]

[edit on 20-11-2006 by cognoscente]

[edit on 20-11-2006 by cognoscente]

[edit on 20-11-2006 by cognoscente]