And did you know that this galaxy is on a collision course with another? Science has not given us any optimism about the future of life on this one planet. Its destruction is pre-ordained from the natural laws in more and more ways discovered by science. Life seems not meant to last, which is surprising if life is designed. It looks like we have been set up for destruction on one simple way of reconciling these facts. But I think there is another way of reconciling these. This conflict of design and random destruction is not merely search for a consistent view on the question of the point of the point of the universe, it is also an attempt to reconcile two ways of looking at things. One is the way things to us now at this time, and the other is the way things seem to be over time. This is a lesson we learn from the question of human personhood. One group says a human is a person a time when it actually possess certain properties - reason, self-consciousness, agency, etc.Another group says to be human is to be a person since over time a human organism will distinguish itself by tending to exhibit certain properties (same list) and which thus implies properties that distinguish it from other kinds already at birth. By the same token, the randomness of the situation of life on Earth is based on the snapshot of the planet at a time. From that point of view, life is always seeming to be a crapshoot. But if we look at the place of life over time from the Big Bang to Heat Death of the universe, we see that the appearance of life at a time was preset at the beginning and has its place in the over all story. What looks circumstantial from the at a time perspective looks purposeful from the over time one. Finally, one can explain how the appearances of the at a time view fit into the over time view, while the at a time view obscures the other.
Posted on: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 19:34:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015