Goldilocks is a concept that describes the basic features necessary for life to emerge and sustain itself. Given our emerging knowledge of life being able to sustain itself in the most toxic environments, and even radiated environments (Chernobyl) the question becomes whether the goldilock concept needs updating.
In reality, knowing the prerequisites of life does not answer the question of WHY ? What for life has emerged.
Then we are back at the following options:
A willful act by a creator.
A consequence of natural laws.
The first option requires answering a follow up question: How about the trillions of planets out there? Currently, we have limited resources to investigate.
The second option, requires a follow up question: How about the trillions of planets out there? Currently, we have limited resources to investigate.
Ockham's Razor: Which of these two options requires the least assumptions?
Whatever side of the argument your opinion falls, in essence, does it change fundamentally the following statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Personally, I think it does not change that statement fundamentally. It also does not change the notion that virtue is a consequence of Freedom, as freedom is a requirement to discover and reach your unique potential as a man.
However, we then have to accept the fact that this world we live in, has a distinct characteristic not geared towards freedom. It is the homogenizing effect of mediocrity.
There is then only one choice: freedom or slavery.
There is of course another way of looking at it:
Goldilocks is a concept that describes the basic features necessary for life to emerge and sustain itself. Given our emerging knowledge of life being able to sustain itself in the most toxic environments, and even radiated environments (Chernobyl) the question becomes whether the goldilock concept needs updating.
In reality, knowing the prerequisites of life does not answer the question of WHY ? What for life has emerged.
Then we are back at the following options:
The first option requires answering a follow up question: How about the trillions of planets out there? Currently, we have limited resources to investigate.
The second option, requires a follow up question: How about the trillions of planets out there? Currently, we have limited resources to investigate.
Ockham's Razor: Which of these two options requires the least assumptions?
Whatever side of the argument your opinion falls, in essence, does it change fundamentally the following statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Personally, I think it does not change that statement fundamentally. It also does not change the notion that virtue is a consequence of Freedom, as freedom is a requirement to discover and reach your unique potential as a man.
However, we then have to accept the fact that this world we live in, has a distinct characteristic not geared towards freedom. It is the homogenizing effect of mediocrity.
There is then only one choice: freedom or slavery.
...outstanding addendum, expertly stated and framed...