The Meaning of Living - Page 7

You get your info from Fox News?

K, I think that makes this debate over.

Ocassionally I review past post, I would think this thread should have been separated at about page 4.

quote:

---

"Its more of a condition. The universe must affect, be thought about, be experienced by a conscious being for it to exist. "

---

Interesting exchange but I would point out though that life existed without conscousness of self prior to man. So science states the earth existed prior to life upon it. So conscous or unconscous awareness isn't the defining trait of existence or life. Besides what makes you so sure that the universe isn't alive?

That's true cturtle, in fact how real is the past of our universe? Its not so much real as merely a model to describe how our universe got to where it is.
Its not the same kind of existence as say, you reading these letters right now.

Another way of answering I think would be to say that our univere's past still affects us. Or rather, the big bang affected the layout of matter, which affected the chance of a planet, which affected how that planet which is why we have rain.
This is obviously a vast oversimplification, but hopefully the idea gets through.

Thank you teen but was the stipulation made that the universe isn't a living organism in itself? I thought it was at least an implication by the statements which made me curious as to why such an implied or statement had been agreed upon?

When I state that life is necessary to the universe's existenc, people seem to think I am implying that a conscious universe is thus necessary to make sure there is life.

I don't mean that at all. All I mean is that all universes that don't have life and the most non-existant things you can imagine.
Think of it like evolution (assuming you believe that), it is necessary for an animal to adapt and change. That doesn't mean a conscious thing makes sure it does change the right way.
It just means all the ones who didn't adapt are dead.

Fox News is unbiased......
Hannity and Colmes are democrat and republican.

Unlike the liberal media who owns the local stations....or CNN who is owned by Ted Turner...one of THE BIGGEST LIBERALS GOING!


The universe exists for mankind.........everything in it gives either protection to, or assurance of survival of...the human race.

IF there were no creator, then the necessity to live would not be .....
further, the universe could care less if we had everything we should need to sustain life.

Adaptibility you wonder? Impossible to exist without air, water, food, gravity, rain, sunshine, and the entire eco system .... the food chain.

So, in order for man to exist all other creatures had to be made first to ensure the cycle could continue...so about how long was the gap between moths and worms, and humans. They came first....had to to ensure the human survival.

Creationism shows they can first, after the earth was landscaped, and sun, clouds, and moon were created.
BTW, the moon was created shortly after earth. Even scientist have discovered that.

But....after reading alot of the 'views' of DT...it is all theoretical at best.

Science agrees with Creation.

quote:

---

and hopefully Osama GONE

---

We're still fighting Osama at the Pakastan border. I don't know were you're getting your information.

Clay - you're right - this is getting off topic. This should be continued in politics.

quote:

---

it is necessary for an animal to adapt and change. That doesn't mean a conscious thing makes sure it does change the right way.
It just means all the ones who didn't adapt are dead.

---

I can agree with that. However, I have to add to it. The laws put in force to enable this action to take place is a creation of a higher intelligence.

My view in this thread is a mix of logical reasoning and speculation.
For our universe to exist, it is 'necessary' for us to exist. If we disappear, POOF so does this universe.
Why? Because the universe will no longer affect anything, it will have as much existence as fiction.

And would people stop thinking that just because the universe "needs" us (inappropriate word really...), that means the universe tries to keep us alive.
That's not at all what I'm saying. The universe might need us to exist, but it doesn't give a damn about us and does even have the ability to give a damn about anything.

"Science agrees with Creation."
K, I have a huge urge to scream out and spank you.
Commonly accepted scientific knowledge only agrees with creationism on one point : there was a beginning.

" The laws put in force to enable this action to take place is a creation of a higher intelligence."
That's not necessarily true. It could be utterly random.

quote:

---

That's not necessarily true. It could be utterly random.

---

On the other hand, it could be a being unto itself.

Well given the number of totally arbitrary things in our universe. I'm more inclined to believe that its just random.
I mean, our genes are basically random, there's no reason matter should attract to other matter, there's no reason for anything really.

For every trait of our universe which allows life, you'll find a thousand who are simply the most random and arbitrary quirks.
That makes it difficult for me to believe in anything conscious in all this at all.

*all this randomnis, I can't take it anymore* It just doesn't seem logical to me. But I do like your theory about the Universe. I find that to be fasinating and that you might be on to something.