If my presumptions are correct and you agree, then the eternal aspect of life must
be accepted at the foundation of the discussion. If not, we are stuck here. The
argument against this is that living things ARE life and life does not exist outside of
the physical, temporal experience.
I'm neither ready to agree or disagree. I'm ready to try to understand, and to examine your thesis.
If I understand you right, life is eternal. That it can exist without the need necessarily to "inhabit" something which then becomes living. But in that case, if it can exist outside of anything that is living, it must have some form of existence itself. What is that form of existence? Is it material? Energy? Force? Something completely other than those? If we had the right instruments, could we detect the thing which is life independent of things which liv?
How do you deal with Aristotle's question of the prime mover? It is virtually impossible for me, and I think for most people, to conceive something that has always existed, and therefore has no beginning, no time when it came into being. If you accept creationism in any form, then you are saying that life had existence before creation. If you accept the concept of evolution, then you are saying that life had existence before the big bang. Am I correct about these?
There are dozens of questions which arise, but before we get into those I want to see whether we are together so far, or whether I am completely misunderstanding your theory. |
