It is possible that life to be just an error in our Universe?

Religion at its best does do that. Rarely is religion at its best, unfortunately. Historically and currently it has been used more as a policy to control the masses. You better be good or you won't get your afterlife reward. You may be downtrodden in life but don't sweat it, you will be so much better off when you get to the afterlife.

A tad cynical perhaps.

 

I believe the difference in the theory of it controls the masses and life is a test is simply the belief in a God. For instance I doubt many believers would look at life and think religion is controlling them, but rather that they are following an example that leads to a better life in this world and the next...

 

I think that what most people forget is there really isn't "religion" as such. It, like all the things we argue about is a mental construct with which we play around and have our experience. One Christian is a Thomas Merton, another is like Fred Phelps. Nothing can exist without its opposite, there is no wave without a trough, no up without a down, so it is with everything. Yet we talk about things as if they exist by themselves, and we ask, "is this a good thing or a bad thing". The only logical and precise answer is "yes".

 

If I remember correctly I believe Thomas, in another thread, was arguing that opposites were not necessary. That good is possible without a bad to compare it to. I'll try to find the exact quote.

 

Well, if anyone could craft an argument like that it would be Thomas

 

I think Thomas and Nasruddin are talking about different things? Thomas is saying that a good is not dependent on a bad, but Nasruddin is saying that good things can be other things as wall as good, and that defining it as either or is a mistake. I don't think either statement is mutually exclusive.

 

There are two words here that can cause confusion I think: "necessary" and "dependent". Those two words carry with them an entire thought frame. Often, misunderstanding, like ACOT intimates, happens when different frames or modes of thinking collide. So, in my own view, for example, these two concepts are interesting, but meaningless. Everything hinges on everything else, in what the Buddha referred to as "dependent co-arising" and what the Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh called "interbeing". In short, if we view things existing in and of themselves, we have a much different world view than if we view things as being interdependent.

 

And Thomas is interested in, and not unfamiliar with, Buddhist though and I should probably just be a bit more patient and let him do his own talking. I'm looking forward to possible exchanges between the two of you.

 

Similarly, people tend to take occurrences in life and treat them as a static event. Thus allowing them to be labeled a 'good' experience or a 'bad' experience. Life, of course, is not but a sequence of static events. It is a stream of events that flows seamlessly and continually from the moment we are born to the moment we die. (For the moment I am leaving the possibility of an afterlife out of the equation).

A 'bad' occurrence today could lead to a wonderful occurrence 10 years down the road. Without that static bad moment happening now, the wonderful moment in the future would not have happened. We seem programed by modern society to take the short view about everything that happens to us. When we should be doing quite the opposite.

 

Couldn't agree more

 

Your loading up this question with too many different questions.

First, "It is possible that life to be just an error in our Universe?"

No, whether God(s) exist or not, life could not be likely described as an 'error.' It is the result of natural processes and Natural Laws, and not errors.

Other questions are more reasonable such: Is life unique on earth to the universe?

This is unlikely given other planets with similar conditions as the earth will likely also produce life. The question of intelligent life is more complex, but nonetheless the answer is the same, but the conditions would likely have to be more specific to produce this result.

A better question would be to discuss the likelyhood of life and intelligent life on other planets based on our scientific knowledge.

This is not a good either or question. You could have simply a natural sequence of environments, and circumstances that result in intelligent life on different planets if God Created our existence 'as it is' and life and intelligent life naturally results. Primitive hands on God(s) with special specific Creation with us at the center of the universe is not necessarily the relationship between humanity and God, is not the only option. The Baha'i view of God and Creation is likely more viable IF God exists.

God is not a chess player
with the white pieces.
God is the sea
and we are the fishes.

go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

 

Most religious belief falls into that category, it's a glorified coping mechanism.

But it does seem quite likely that the emergence of life was just an accident. And what is the problem with that? We are just a bunch of intelligent apes on a tiny rock, it is what it is.

 

Not directly related to this thread but very interesting never the less. An 'M' class planet is believed to have been found around Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our own.

http://www.universetoday.com/130276/earth-like-planet-around-proxima-centauri-discovered/