Quote:
Originally posted by Aelia Jusa:
But... I have to say I still don't buy that an empty universe is necessarily a waste of space if there was a creator, though it could be the case. As I said earlier, it would only be a waste of space if the creator personally valued intelligent life and felt that it was preferable to empty planets. Maybe he didn't! Maybe the creator feels that one planet with intelligent life is plenty, and values planets made of gas or bare rock very much as well. Maybe the creator looks upon a bare earth-like planet in a galaxy far far away and thinks, gee this is just as good as that noisy human-riddled earth! We humans are very egocentric - we believe we are the pinnacle of evolution, all paths lead to us and we're the best evolution (or a creator) could do. However to someone looking in at us, are we necessarily the 'best'? Surely the best is subjective - we have achieved no more than any other species by the simple fact that we have survived all this time. So many other species have become extinct over the last few billion years but all the species we see around us are still here. Lions, polar bears, skinks, hedgehogs - they have all found a way to survive long enough to reproduce and ensure their species is still around for the next generation. So why would it be necessary that there be other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe if we are no better, to a non-human, than anything else?
|
Maybe I should have been more clear when I posted earlier, I'm not saying that it's a waste of space if there is no other intelligent life in the universe, no no no. What I was saying was it would be a waste of space if we were the
only ones in the universe, no intelligent life or non-intelligent. Take for example, if there were other planets with inhabitants such as deer, bears, birds, or so forth then I'd say thats a good thing, not a waste.