I have a philosophical question today.

Here’s how it starts:

What lives, that is not born from something else that is also alive?

I can’t think of anything that is born from something that we would consider “dead.”

But wait, if that’s the case, where did “life” come from?

I guess I have to be a little “ideological” here, because I’m on the evolutionary side of this “creation” debate (though I don’t discount the idea that there is a ubiquitous organizing Force of some sort behind/within it all, which is what this post is about).

The evolutionary perspective (that the Big Bang occurred, cosmic dust swirled, solar systems stars and planets formed, etc.), assumes that “life” evolved from “non-living” organic matter.

But, again, where else does life come from the non-living?  Not that it’s outside the realm of possibility, but again, there is no other place in nature where life or something living comes from something “dead” or non-living.

And, if it is the case that life only comes from other things that are alive, then we have to say that the planet Earth is “alive.”

Is our conception of “life” too narrow?

If the planet that “created” life had to be alive in order for that to happen, what do we define as “life?”

And, really, there was one other “parent” involved in the creation of “life-as-we-kn0w-it” on this planet – the sun.  Without the sun, none of it would be possible (not even the planet itself).

If that quality, “life,” was present in the planet and the sun, where did theyget it from?  What was/were the parent/s of the Earth and sun?

If the planet was formed out of a swirling cloud of space debris caused by the Big Bang, and the sun caused by swirling gases collapsing onto themselves, what was/were the parent/s of those swirling clouds?

And then, what was/were the parent/s of the Big Bang?

I think our concept of “life” (of what constitutes “life,” and what creates “life”) is far too narrow.

Have a nice day!