...the universe."?

Religion is an amalgamation of myths used to get large groups of people to cooperate towards achieving a common goal.

"Myth has always served as a way for people to form a personal connection to a cosmos that is otherwise far too vast, hostile and mysterious for us to connect with it on a deeply personal level." Joseph Campbell

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
Carl Sagan

Is there another word, besides "God", for "physical laws that govern the universe"?

Yes.

"In the begining was the Logos. Logos was with god. Logos was God. Through Logos all things were created. And the darkness understood it not." John 1:1-5 in original Greek, before Logos got lost in English translation and became, "the Word", neutering the original Greek profound meaning of the word.

Logos is the root of Logic, but it is much more.
To the ancient Greeks, Logos was "the active reason pervading and animating the Universe. It was conceived as material and is usually identified with God or Nature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Stoics

Chinese translations from original Greek Bible translate Logos as, Tao.

Does it make much sense to pray to ANYthing? ...as if your god can grant your wishes any more than a rock?

Maybe

Einstein couldn't reconcile sub atomic physics with E=mc^2 so he was partially wrong when he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

Turns out god (Nature), does play dice with the universe on a sub atomic level, only the dice are loaded, in favor of matter, rather than anti-matter.
As it turns out, god, (God Particle), is responsible for creating everything, out of nothing, which isn't nothing.
its most of everything.

E=mc^2

matter = Energy/c^2

Matter is energy slowed down (by the God Particle) to almost nothing, but not quite.

Singularity, breaking symmetry.

Turns out Epicurus was right 2,500 yrs ago, as did Marcus Aurelius, who developed non deterministic atomic theory 2,400 years ago. God plays dice with the universe, but the dice are loaded, in favor of cosmos rather than chaos.

And the dice are still rolling
And they are picking up speed
In a very mysterious way
We call, dark matter/energy
For lack of a better term.
I prefer Tao or Logos,
but god works too,
in a pinch

Keep repeating it long enough and it will become true.

And then we'll all think you have a brilliant, broad, syncretic mind.

Really. We will.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keep repeating it long enough and it will become
> true.
>
> And then we'll all think you have a brilliant,
> broad, syncretic mind.
>
> Really. We will.


Thanks. I will.
Its my mantra.

You realize, I presume, that Einstein was not talking about dark matter when he said God doesn’t play dice with the universe.

How much wiser we would all be if Laozi, the logicians, and Einstein had abjured their research and relied like you on Wikipedia.

Then everyone could see your forest rather than their silly little trees.

There's a reason we invented the phrase, "It is what it is."

Reality is all we have. Reality. We want so badly for "it" all to be something else, less obvious with hidden doors, to be something that plays in our favor, that makes us as human animals on this speck of blue in the cosmos supremely important and the center of "it" all.

You can work with what you got like a scientist, or, you can wish and hope like a "person of faith." One of those choices actually produces results. One of those choices brings understanding, one brings frustration as dreams fade to a too late reality no matter which deity you choose to make your lucky charm.

Sure. Lots of 'em.

Let's realize, first off, that there aren't any "laws that govern the universe." Not really.

"Laws" is our human term. It's not the universe's term. Or reality.

In the universe, there are simply properties of matter & energy. The properties are consistent (mostly). That consistency is what allows us to discover them. And what makes things like life possible (if matter and energy, and the interactions among them, weren't consistent, there'd probably be no life or planets or suns or maybe even a universe). We humans, seeing that consistency, called them "laws." But they're not "laws" like the ones we make to govern our societies -- which are arbitrary, vary from time to time and place to place, and have to be thought up. They're just the consistent properties of matter & energy.

So one good (and by far the most accurate) would simply be "properties of matter and energy."

That's far more accurate than "laws." That doesn't imply (since there's no evidence for the idea) that somebody thought them up or "passed" them. It avoids the arbitrariness and variability of human "laws."

There are plenty of others. "god" is, perhaps, among the least accurate, least useful, and worst of the many terms. That word implies a being (of some kind) -- there's no evidence a being is involved in the properties of matter and energy. That word implies intent -- there's no evidence of intent. That word is a stopping point -- "god did it." When we still have so much to learn about the properties of matter & energy...so why use a stopping point word?

edit: by the way, there's also no evidence "the dice are loaded in favor of cosmos." That's an assumption, not a fact. We don't know if that's the case. We do know that in our universe, matter "won" over anti-matter. We don't know if that had to be the case, if it always has to be the case, or if it occurred because the "dice were loaded" or for some other reason. Assumptions aren't facts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2018 08:38PM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure. Lots of 'em.
>
> Let's realize, first off, that there aren't any
> "laws that govern the universe." Not really.
>
> "Laws" is our human term. It's not the universe's
> term. Or reality.
>
> In the universe, there are simply properties of
> matter & energy. The properties are consistent
> (mostly). That consistency is what allows us to
> discover them. And what makes things like life
> possible (if matter and energy, and the
> interactions among them, weren't consistent,
> there'd probably be no life or planets or suns or
> maybe even a universe). We humans, seeing that
> consistency, called them "laws." But they're not
> "laws" like the ones we make to govern our
> societies -- which are arbitrary, vary from time
> to time and place to place, and have to be thought
> up. They're just the consistent properties of
> matter & energy.
>
> So one good (and by far the most accurate) would
> simply be "properties of matter and energy."
>
> That's far more accurate than "laws." That
> doesn't imply (since there's no evidence for the
> idea) that somebody thought them up or "passed"
> them. It avoids the arbitrariness and variability
> of human "laws."
>
> There are plenty of others. "god" is, perhaps,
> among the least accurate, least useful, and worst
> of the many terms. That word implies a being (of
> some kind) -- there's no evidence a being is
> involved in the properties of matter and energy.
> That word implies intent -- there's no evidence of
> intent. That word is a stopping point -- "god did
> it." When we still have so much to learn about
> the properties of matter & energy...so why use a
> stopping point word?
>
> edit: by the way, there's also no evidence "the
> dice are loaded in favor of cosmos." That's an
> assumption, not a fact. We don't know if that's
> the case. We do know that in our universe, matter
> "won" over anti-matter. We don't know if that had
> to be the case, if it always has to be the case,
> or if it occurred because the "dice were loaded"
> or for some other reason. Assumptions aren't
> facts.

Right.
All we really know is that matter prevailed over anti matter, So Cosmos prevailed over chaos, at least in this 3D Universe.
In a 4D universe, like what we theorize exists inside the black hole at the center of our galaxy, who knows what "physical laws" exist?
The singularity could be what we call God.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All we really know is that matter prevailed over
> anti matter, So Cosmos prevailed over chaos, at
> least in this 3D Universe.

But...the cosmos IS largely chaos!

> The singularity could be what we call God.

I'll use the term "god" for something when there's evidence something is a "god." Until then, it's rather silly to do so. :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > All we really know is that matter prevailed
> over
> > anti matter, So Cosmos prevailed over chaos, at
> > least in this 3D Universe.
>
> But...the cosmos IS largely chaos!
>
If that were true we wouldnt exist and neither would the Cosmos.

> > The singularity could be what we call God.
>
> I'll use the term "god" for something when there's
> evidence something is a "god." Until then, it's
> rather silly to do so.
:)
So scientists were silly to name the Higgs Boson, the God Particle?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If that were true we wouldnt exist and neither
> would the Cosmos.

It is true, and we do exist. Within largely chaos there can be some "order." In fact, true chaotic randomness practically requires it.

> So scientists were silly to name the Higgs Boson,
> the God Particle?

Scientists didn't. An editor did. As has been pointed out to you hundreds of times.

"So scientists were silly to name the Higgs Boson, the God Particle?"

They, themselves, admitted that it was a silly name. How many times do you need to be told that before you give up the notion that they actually believed it had anything to do with God?

If I call my toaster "god," does that make it "god?"
Or is it still just a toaster, and I'm being silly?

Kuerig is my god. ;)

There's nothing silly about my devotion to coffee.

That's why I used a toaster as an example, and not a Keurig machine!
A good argument could be made for the latter being at least some kind of "god..." :)

Maybe you'll believe it if you heard it straight from Wikipedia, the irrefutably divine source of all knowledge:


"While media use of this term may have contributed to wider awareness and interest, many scientists feel the name is inappropriate since it is sensational hyperbole and misleads readers; the particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves open numerous questions in fundamental physics, and does not explain the ultimate origin of the universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind of misuse...which I think might offend some people". Science writer Ian Sample stated in his 2010 book on the search that the nickname is "universally hate[d]" by physicists and perhaps the "worst derided" in the history of physics, but that (according to Lederman) the publisher rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as unimaginative and too unknown."

This won't work.

Koriwhore cites Wikipedia when it suits his purposes, or when it is easier than reading the texts that are beyond his comprehension. He refuses to accept that source, however, when it does not support his arguments.

As for the God Particle, the fact that the original scientist deemed it the "Goddamn Particle" and it was shortened to "God Particle" by editors who didn't want to offend readers is irrelevant. What matters is that "God Particle" arose from the sausage making process and Koriwhore thinks it is "cool."

It thus joins the Tao, logos, and many other concepts that he does not understand but wants to expropriate because they sound intellectual as the basis of his pseudo-philosophy.

As The Dude himself might say, "this insistence on intellectual integrity will not stand, man!"

It just amuses me to tweak him with with his own font of knowledge. I don't expect him to change his toonish tune.

You are right.

I'm wasting electrons.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right.
>
> I'm wasting electrons.

Its only a waste if you constantly detract from the conversation and fail to answer the question I asked in the op, which you both have done.

It's a waste of time and energy to keep posting the same OP, and yet you apparently can't stop.

Some megalomaniacs are actually productive. You? You just repeat yourself and complain when people remind you how little you understand.

come on, Koriwhore, let's have some "cuckold DOOMSDAY cult army" rhetoric.

That always impresses.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> come on, Koriwhore, let's have some "cuckold
> DOOMSDAY cult army" rhetoric.
>
> That always impresses.

You may have a point Lot's wife. It's always the same thing i noticed and this is coming from me. Just an observation.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a waste of time and energy to keep posting
> the same OP, and yet you apparently can't stop.
>
> Some megalomaniacs are actually productive. You?
> You just repeat yourself and complain when people
> remind you how little you understand.

Its not the same question.
If you had the reading comprehension of a 5th grader you'd see that.

Nah, I don't have the mind of a 5th grader.

I've read the Daodejing, the Zhuangzi, and a lot of other books that evidently intimidate you.

That requires at least a 6th grade intellect.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nah, I don't have the mind of a 5th grader.
>
> I've read the Daodejing, the Zhuangzi, and a lot
> of other books that evidently intimidate you.
>
> That requires at least a 6th grade intellect.
I just asked a question.
If you dont want to answer it feel free to but out and quit detracting from every conversation I see you engage in.

The question makes no sense for the simple reason that "god" does not mean "the physical laws that govern the universe." Nor does "the Tao" mean that, nor "logos," nor "God Particle."

If you want meaningful conversation, you should ask meaningful questions--and register the answers people give you. And you should read. Merely repeating the same formulations ad nauseum leads nowhere.

The emperor has no clothes.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question makes no sense for the simple reason
> that "god" does not mean "the physical laws that
> govern the universe." Nor does "the Tao" mean
> that, nor "logos," nor "God Particle."
>
> If you want meaningful conversation, you should
> ask meaningful questions--and register the answers
> people give you. And you should read. Merely
> repeating the same formulations ad nauseum leads
> nowhere.
>
> The emperor has no clothes.
Apparently Sagan and Einstein were full of shit and I should just take the authoratative words of Lots Wife as the final eord on thr matter.

Do you understand metaphor, Koriwhore?

"Merely repeating the same formulations ad nauseum leads nowhere."

Au contraire. It's his journey. Who knows when someone might contribute something unexpected and enlightening. I think he'd enjoy chatting with Dale Broadhurst, but I haven't seen him here in a long time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 12:34AM by jay.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you'll believe it if you heard it straight
> from Wikipedia, the irrefutably divine source of
> all knowledge:
>
>
> "While media use of this term may have contributed
> to wider awareness and interest, many scientists
> feel the name is inappropriate since it is
> sensational hyperbole and misleads readers; the
> particle also has nothing to do with God, leaves
> open numerous questions in fundamental physics,
> and does not explain the ultimate origin of the
> universe. Higgs, an atheist, was reported to be
> displeased and stated in a 2008 interview that he
> found it "embarrassing" because it was "the kind
> of misuse...which I think might offend some
> people". Science writer Ian Sample stated in his
> 2010 book on the search that the nickname is
> "universally hate" by physicists and perhaps the
> "worst derided" in the history of physics, but
> that (according to Lederman) the publisher
> rejected all titles mentioning "Higgs" as
> unimaginative and too unknown."

Read the book, "The God Particle", by Liederman, the Nobel Prize Winning Physicist who gave it the name, because of its significance. He compares its discovery to the destruction of the Tower of Babel, at which point we all speak the same language. I know you can find it if you are honest.

We did this before, right? Where he describes how the editors forced him to use "God Particle" instead of "Goddam Particle?

You think we don't remember the last time you tried to argue a counterfactual in the face of the actual account by the actual scientist?

Think Edward G. Robinson: “Hahahahaha. Where is your God particle now?!?”

You're precious. To support your claim about the "God particle", you cite Lederman, the person who is most uniquely qualified to refute it and who has done so repeatedly in several publications.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-higgs-is-called-the-god-particle-2015-5

"The story goes that Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman referred to the Higgs as the "Goddamn Particle." The nickname was meant to poke fun at how difficult it was to detect the particle. It took nearly half a century and a multi-billion dollar particle accelerator to do it."

"In addition to the irrelevant tie to religion, the nickname doesn't do anything to help explain what the Higgs boson actually does. The particle is associated with the Higgs field that physicists think permeates all of space-time and helps give other particles their mass. You don't really get that from "God Particle." You do, however, get a hilarious joke about Catholic Mass and mass from the Higgs boson that Neil deGrasse Tyson told us— which is about as close to religion as the particle gets."

Even your hero, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks your understanding of the Higgs boson is a joke.

koriwhore Wrote:

> Right.
> All we really know is that matter prevailed over
> anti matter, So Cosmos prevailed over chaos, at
> least in this 3D Universe.
> In a 4D universe, like what we theorize exists
> inside the black hole at the center of our galaxy,
> who knows what "physical laws" exist?
> The singularity could be what we call God.


You make it sound like the war in heaven. It isn't as if the universe willed itself to create the conditions that we have today. It just happened.

And the heart of a black hole doesn't check to see what the laws are and then strive to follow those laws. The heart of a black hole does whatever the heart of a black hole does. And it certainly is not what we call god, because what we call god is supernatural and the heart of a black hole is 100% natural.

I do believe there is something. But definitely not a white man on a another planet somewhere. An intelligent force of some kind maybe? Without physical form. Not sure. Maybe nature knows.

nature knows nothing. I doesn't have a brain.

It's not nice to diss Mother Nature.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not nice to diss Mother Nature.

D@mn straight. She knows some stuff, she's been here longer.

https://youtu.be/ijVijP-CDVI

I wouldn't know how to explain this. :)

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://youtu.be/ijVijP-CDVI
>
> I wouldn't know how to explain this. :)

Hahahaha now that's funny as hell.

If you believe there is something, there is something. But not all beliefs are self fulfilling. That’s the part about Mormonism that threw me for a loop. Priesthood does something, spotty as it is, in spite of being made up. Manufactured belief, but a rip-off of older faiths that operate in a similar way. The things I’ve seen don’t allow me to think it’s superstition. There’s a certain way of thinking that impacts physical reality. Some call it God, but we really don’t know its true nature. Maybe it’s intrinsic to life. A really interesting feature is that you can declare that no such thing exists and nature will back you up. Or, you can believe in prayer and miracles and nature will still back you up.

It’s all good. That’s the thing to remember. When it sucks, it’s good. When it doesn’t suck, it’s good. You need to work this out yourself. Raise your vibration and your life will follow. That’s better than me healing you, because that’s too much like cheating. Get out in nature there in Idaho while the weather is nice.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you believe there is something, there is
> something. But not all beliefs are self
> fulfilling. That’s the part about Mormonism that
> threw me for a loop. Priesthood does something,
> spotty as it is, in spite of being made up.
> Manufactured belief, but a rip-off of older faiths
> that operate in a similar way. The things I’ve
> seen don’t allow me to think it’s
> superstition. There’s a certain way of thinking
> that impacts physical reality. Some call it God,
> but we really don’t know its true nature. Maybe
> it’s intrinsic to life. A really interesting
> feature is that you can declare that no such thing
> exists and nature will back you up. Or, you can
> believe in prayer and miracles and nature will
> still back you up.
>
> It’s all good. That’s the thing to remember.
> When it sucks, it’s good. When it doesn’t
> suck, it’s good. You need to work this out
> yourself. Raise your vibration and your life will
> follow. That’s better than me healing you,
> because that’s too much like cheating. Get out
> in nature there in Idaho while the weather is
> nice.

This weather is fantastic and these healing crystals are doing their job and making good things happen hahaha sorry had to say it. But good things have been happening since i started putting them in a pouch around my neck. This might be science at work i am not sure hahaha i have a feeling i will get a lot of flack for that comment. But i am going to log it into a science journal anyways of the changes i feel putting me in a better mood in general and i may get hired for a part-time job. So the crystals create good luck as well it seems.

Raise your vibration and your life will follow. The subconscious mind is very powerful. Mormonism is notorious for making it sabotage you.

In Hinduism (Sanskrit language): Brahman (with an "n" at the end; Brahma (without the "n" at the end) is a somewhat different concept)

In Judaism (Hebrew language): Ein Sof (translates to something like (in English): "The Limitless," but word-for-word translation is "Without Limit"). Sometimes, in English, Ein Sof is translated as "Infinity."

Jews and Hindus both agree that the two different terms (Brahman and Ein Sof) mean the "same thing."

Both roughly mean "Ultimate Reality": "the totality of all that "IS."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2018 01:38AM by Tevai.

Why introduce an ambiguous word like "god" for the words you used that more precisely explain what you meant? "Physical laws that govern the universe" seems fine on it's own. Understanding the physical laws of the universe already conveys physics and unknown properties without adding the word "god" which adds all kinds of other layers of misunderstanding.

Adding the word "god" causes obfuscation.

Is there another word besides "god" to use for the word "unknown" or "gap" or "woo" or "mystery" or "add any word or phrase you want"? Yes, but what does it add? You're just making stuff up.

When people use "god" for words we already have that mean things, all I can conclude it that they want to blur what words already mean.

God is like shadows on the wall of a cave. Physical principles yet discovered are hardly shadows.

Just read Alan Lightman's "Searching for Stars on an Island in Maine." He covers this ground very well.

I highly recommend it.

"The infinite is not merely a lot more of the finite.”

It has been said many times, but needs to be repeated. These "laws" you speak of do not govern anything. The universe doesn't follow these "laws".

What the universe does is what it does. The laws you speak of explain, in a general sense, what the universe is doing. In reality your god is more like a user manual, or possibly a bibliography.

Yes: Nature.

Krishna, Zeus (the sky), Thor (lightning), Ahura Mazda (wisdom), Athena (wisdom), Poseiden (the sea), Ares (war), Apollo (the sun), Shiva (destruction)...

Etc etc

The Universe is a process. A process of things happening, usually thru cause and effect, towards a given end. Given long enough, anything that can happen, does happen. That is why we are here. The time is right. When the Age of Stars is over and only their remanants are left(black holes, neutron stars and maybe some faint white dwarfs in a sea of blackness)...at that time life in this Universe will be gone. The Universe is a process...a process of its own death.

Smart man.

Thomas Mann wrote something similar. The universe is subject to the law of entropy, with processes producing complexity at local spots even as organization diminishes universally. In that context life arises spontaneously, accidentally, and temporarily and will eventually disappear along with the universe we know.

In Mann's words, "life is a species of death."

Thank you. I haven’t read Thomas Mann. Are you referring to the young actor/producer? Although aware of the “Law” of entropy for many years, my first exposure to the concept of a dying Universe was a BBC series, “ The Wonders of the Universe”, narrated by Brian Cox. He did a few different “ Wonders of” series’, all of which I recommend. Some thought he would become an heir to Carl Sagan. I haven’t heard much from him lately; it seems as though Neil deGrasse Tyson has taken up the mantle.

Other theories are coming to the party since the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are mixing things up a bit, however the accelerating, expanding Universe model seems to still answer more questions than the alternatives.

As for the eventual demise of life, I did try to qualify my statement by using the modifier “ this” when referring to the Universe due to the possibilities of alternate Universes co-existing simultaneously in other dimensions. So maybe life will wormhole itself somewhere else before this Universe’s ultimate fate.

Thomas Mann, the great German author who left his homeland when the Nazis gained power.

He did books like Magic Mountain that are chock full of philosophy and science. You may know him from his novella, Death in Venice.

Anyway, if he were still alive I'm sure he'd be gratified to learn that you shared his insight!

Thank you LW for your reference to Thomas Mann. I read his “biography “ in Wiki and found it interesting and illuminating. I wonder what he’d think of our current political situation. The faint parallels to pre WW2 Germany would certainly catch his attention.

You know it took me a while to understand entropy since it is occasionally described as the law of decay. However it became more clear when it was described differently.

Entropy is the law of no do overs. Something that is undone cannot be redone. It isn't the law of disorganization it is the law of no take backs.

I hope this helps some of the the dummies on the board, like myself.

Jacob,

Entropy is the degree of disorganization or randomness in a system. The law of entropy states that disorder increases over time.

The way you can tell if a chemical process will proceed is whether the result is greater disorder. Something can grow more complex locally if the overall system loses order, which is why life can arise. But the law of entropy is never violated.

Excuse the beers I've had tonight.

It ain't disorder but an attempt to find equilibrium. Entropy is so much more than chaos.

Although I wonder if Shannon’s information entropy contributes to the overall entropy of the system, whether constructively or destructively. There could be the basis for a soul in there.

No one thinks that a space faring group is responsible for us?

Entirely possible. However a bit off topic. Maybe an excellent thread of its own. Mormonism and the theory that Earth life was created by a superior alien race have always had unique similarities, just different contexts. Actually there is probably more objective evidence of the alien theory than the Mormon theory. Again, big subject.... but a bit off topic.

What I think is really weird is how much life really wants to live. It acts as it’s compulsively driven, which makes sense since species that didn’t give a shit didn’t survive. But life pops up everywhere it can. Everything alive wants to live.

So here’s a chicken and egg problem. Is it alive because it wanted to live, or does it want to live because it’s alive? What if you let causality go both ways? If you let mind operate independently of causal time. If you use a second dimension of time, emergent time, as the causal link between the timeless eternal and the material space time. So mind is really everywhere and everytime, but it experiences itself subjectively in every living thing. And this mind thing we adorn with ornaments of our imagination and call it God, because something within us stirs and resonates with it. Just as with all plants and animals and bacteria. All beings with an inner life just as real as ours. They just aren’t as creative about inventing crappy cults. But if life created itself, in a poetic way God did it.

jett Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one thinks that a space faring group is
> responsible for us?

Abiogenesis is the easiest way to explain how life could have arrived here.
A group of viruses could have arrived here via comet and combined their DNA with protien and created as as hosts.
Considering 10% of our DNA came from viruses and bacteria, and they are the oldest lifeforms on Earth it seems more than likely.
We could also be in a jar on a shelf of an alien teenagers bedroom and he is too busy jerking off to notice we are totally fucking up his experiment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 01:58AM by koriwhore.

Grand Wizard Emeritus.

Out of the vastness of the cosmos, he thought of us.

Gave us a planet. Life. Sustenance. Enough intelligence not to blow ourselves up overnight. Not enough to conquer the universe. It's taken millenia to even begin to barely comprehend it.