In the later 70ties early 80ties, I remember two Individuals I enjoyed listening to. They were Ronald Reagan and "Carl Sagan", the guy of "bbiljons and bbiljons of stars". He concluded from this that statistically there must be more planets with life allowing circumstances and thus more intelligent life in the Universe than just on planet Earth.
This humanist logic, excluding the existence and intentions of the Creator from consideration, closely related to the Marxist philosophy that has permeated Western society throughout the 20th Century.
It is no wonder that so many people, especially young people still not understand that communism/socialism is not just a political system, but a atheist materialist philosophical world view. The Universities are still loaded with professors from the hippy era, the glory days of its influence.
It will be clear by now, that I have no respect for that world view and and will put in my two pennies worth of thoughts to stir-up yours.
Most people will, as in one breath think: "life and death". It is natural to do that as fragile our bodies are and our mommies warned us always to be careful when we left the house.
We have actually subconsciously accepted "life and death" to be two aggregate conditions of matter.
It has to be realized not to be accepted a priori.
Life as a phenomena is unique. There is nothing else in the Universe what has the same position in time and space. It stretches its existence through time farther than historical records. It exists as lineages of generations.
Scientists from the materialist persuasion are ambiguous about life. At one site they want us to accept the
idea that if some where in the Universe H2O plus Earth similar conditions exist, life, given time, will spontaneous
This deriving from the assumption that life on Earth was formed in the primeval muck, as the result of accidental physical chemical circumstances. And than they want us to accept that all wondrous variety of species all derive from that one entity out of that pool of muck. Or maybe two? Or ten? Or ?
That kind of scientists want us also to accept that that same process could have or can occur somewhere in the Universe. If you read my article "The Law of Inevitability" that my understanding is life to be congruent with the Creator. Do I deviate from logic?
There is only one "LIVE"in the Universe. And there is also only one "LOVE" in the Universe. There is also only one "UNIVERS" ; that's why we call it Universe; it is universal.
For some reasons, commercial, individual selfish and evil intentions, people are bamboozled into confusion.
Take for example the coast-to-coast AM radio program, the creation of Mark Bell and now run by George Noory. That's a nice cushy job! Such a job is hard to reject, If you have the degraded conscience to live from the maintenance of confusion in delusional peoples minds.
Now I have this punch out of my system, we can get back on track.
Thus because in the one (1) and only Universe, there is only one(1) Love and also only one(1) Life, all rolled into one, has the Creator any reason to repeat Himself? The Earth is like an egg: one fertilized cell suffices to fill the whole egg with a chick. The one Live, on Earth, suffices to fill the Universe, given time.
An the trip should be enjoyed, prior to destination.
For life to be able to expand research of the "surroundings"need to be done. That is science. However,
the enthusiasm expressed when some chemical condition is assumed or spectrographic discovered, what possible could
indicate life possible, not relating to life on Earth, is suspect. So is the emphasis on the search for extra
It all tries to disprove the uniqueness of live and just tries to find proof that life is chemical only. It is aimed at disproving the origin, The Divine Creator. It seduces the naive, especially the young, to accept the authority of spiritually debilitated scientists. And it is mostly financed with grand or tax monies.