Hi Mario,

I'm not sure which is correct (anthrocentric or anthropocentric - such as anthropomorphic). Just a little trivia.

Regarding your response, I think it cuts to the differences in our view. In my view the evolution of intelligence is much further along the purpose of 'all of this' than just quarks. If intelligence was not a feasibility, then in my view this universe would never have occurred.

Thus, I think that there being intelligence on a particular planet is a valuable commodity to the Lifeforce of the universe, and I'm willing to believe that some 'effort' is put in to preserve it and enrich it.

I'm not saying that the destruction of intelligent societies do not occur in the universe (or even Multiverse), but it seems to me that unless the universe has no purpose there must be some intervention by this Lifeforce to continually push the evolution of intelligence forward. This 'push' may be probablistic (i.e., only some fraction actually make it and succeed at fulfilling a divine will), but I believe there are 'laws' which require this to occur.

So, I think earth's intelligence being accidentally extinguished by an asteroid is possible, but only if it is God's will for that tragedy to occur. God's will may require that every intelligent society to continue on, or it may require some societies to continue on, or it may require at least a few societies to continue on, but I believe that God's will is directly related to the evolution of intelligence and its continued evolution and existence.

Warm regards, Harv

• Harvey, and what exactly is "God will"? - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 19:05 UTC
  • Think of it this way - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 20:15 UTC
    • So, basicly He is a passive observer. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 20:55 UTC
      • You forgot about his active role - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 21:27 UTC
        • The reason why it takes years - our brain is too weak. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 22:02 UTC
          • Not a suitable answer - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 23:07 UTC
            • Pauli principle is a CONSEQUENCE too. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 23:37 UTC
            • Define God here... - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 04:16 UTC
              • I actually did post definitions of God & you "commenteth'd not - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 19:33 UTC
                • I must have missed it - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 23:24 UTC
                  • could take ten minutes ! -- Mike - carefuluniverse - January 12, 2002 - 03:13 UTC
                    • Give me a little time to churn through this - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 05:09 UTC
                      • Thank you. When will my pizza arrive? - carefuluniverse - January 13, 2002 - 17:38 UTC
                        • Here you go - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 04:40 UTC
                          • whoa - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 04:41 UTC
                          • So, it's an IQ problem - quiet - January 14, 2002 - 07:07 UTC
                            • Yes, probably - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 16:10 UTC
                              • I know no reason to try harder to win your approval - occupant - January 14, 2002 - 19:20 UTC
                                • I'm not demeaning you in any way - stormcrow - January 15, 2002 - 03:55 UTC
                                  • Why not...don't I deserve to be demeaned as much as anyone? - carefuluniverse - January 15, 2002 - 06:45 UTC
                                    • Probably more so - stormcrow - January 15, 2002 - 17:13 UTC
                                      • why more so? - occupant - January 15, 2002 - 18:17 UTC
                                      • Mario, here is the definition (Anyway Mike does not have it). - alexander - January 15, 2002 - 20:01 UTC
                                        • Isaac, Albert, Enrico, here is the definition (Alex is a ... : ) - occupant - January 15, 2002 - 21:56 UTC
                                          • I did. It says "A supreme, or ultimate reality". Math, then. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 22:46 UTC
              • Reposting that - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 19:34 UTC
            • More on the subject - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 06:16 UTC
              • Three ways ways to explain. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 20:02 UTC
                • Thank you - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 23:25 UTC
              • Mario, I'm afraid your missing the point - harvey1 - January 12, 2002 - 02:43 UTC
                • No doubt I am - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 04:50 UTC
                  • Wow - carefuluniverse - January 12, 2002 - 06:22 UTC
              • re: No doubt I am - harvey1 - January 12, 2002 - 16:09 UTC
                • I'll specify - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 17:20 UTC
          • You don't see the bigger picture - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 02:35 UTC
            • Harvey, math governs it all, that is why. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 20:29 UTC
          • Doesn't work - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 20:52 UTC
            • All forces and laws are related. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 21:09 UTC
        • Still won't work - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 21:54 UTC
          • Harvey, try to understand simple things. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:26 UTC
        • Very simply - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 23:11 UTC
      • No - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 22:55 UTC
        • Oops! - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 22:56 UTC