the dawn of time and will continue to exist until its end a more reasonable belief than the idea that life originated from nothing. Both are fine beliefs to have, but neither is more logical than the other in any way. There is no proof to currently make them logical, and all people can go on is their belief challenged against another.

The Spark of Life theory really isn’t “out there” if people would just give it a chance. This doesn’t mean they have to believe in it. Believing in something takes a deeper feeling. It’s not something one can truly just wake up and decide to do. But people assume that it’s a negative theory that doesn’t promote anything. They think that being assigned a purpose is the only way to get one. It has nothing to do with how we are created. People can find their own just by living. That is what believing in th

In the beginning, there was nothing. There was no life, only just inorganic material. From this material, there was a spark, and from this spark life was created. That spark was the Spark of Life.

This is just one theory out of many on how life on Earth started. This is the theory that I believe in. Some people think it funny and quite illogical of a theory. For others, like myself, it is the most logical answer to a question that will never be answered. People tend to jump to conclusions quickly and just shrug other beliefs off. Mind you, it is hard to always take other things seriously when one doesn’t believe in them, but hopefully those that read this article might have a better understanding of why people believe in this theory about creation.

First, why do people even worry about how we were created? The answer is as unclear as it is varied. Curiosity is probably the best reason. Curiosity is the reason why many things in the past get studied and debated. Curiosity and hunger for information to be exact. To some, having beliefs about the world are very important. They take comfort in feeling secure in believing in answers to certain questions. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. It’s nice to have hopes and a kind of mental comfort in believing in certain things and finding answers to age old questions.

What does the Spark of Life theory mean exactly? Let’s take a deeper look at it. It is the belief that life was created by a single spark of energy. It does not necessarily provide a reason or purpose for the spark, but merely just states that there was one. The importance is not in why but rather just the fact that it happened.

Some people consider it a pessimistic view on life. Many of these are religious members who find it counterproductive to their creationistic theories. Creationism generally suggests that there was a reason to why life was created, while the Spark of Life theory leaves such a question and answer untouched. Many, like myself, don’t believe there is a reason to why the spark occurred and therefore, to put it bluntly, there is no reason to life or why humans exist. Therefore, the only reason to exist is just to exist.

This doesn’t mean that life is without purpose. It just means that life is a kind of accident and there was no purpose behind its creation. But purpose doesn’t need to have original identity to exist. In other words, just because a purpose isn’t inherently within something doesn’t mean a purpose can’t be given to it. Even if humankind, or all life for that matter, was created by accident, people and animals still can find a reason to live. We make our own this way and don’t have to worry about fulfilling the obligations and rules of higher beings or following a fate for our creation.

Many times it is labeled illogical. It is said to be this because some people can’t understand how something can come from nothing. It defies the very laws of physics in truth, or at least the laws that we can comprehend and understand. There still is much to science that seems to defy everything we already know. It is ironic though that such a theory can be called illogical when many of the accusers suggest in return that the existence of a higher being as the creator is the reason for life. Why is this ironic? What makes the idea that a powerful, omnipotent being has existed since the dawn of time and will continue to exist until its end a more reasonable belief than the idea that life originated from nothing. Both are fine beliefs to have, but neither is more logical than the other in any way. There is no proof to currently make them logical, and all people can go on is their belief challenged against another.

The Spark of Life theory really isn’t “out there” if people would just give it a chance. This doesn’t mean they have to believe in it. Believing in something takes a deeper feeling. It’s not something one can truly just wake up and decide to do. But people assume that it’s a negative theory that doesn’t promote anything. They think that being assigned a purpose is the only way to get one. It has nothing to do with how we are created. People can find their own just by living. That is what believing in the

ear as it is varied. Curiosity is probably the best reason. Curiosity is the reason why many things in the past get studied and debated. Curiosity and hunger for information to be exact. To some, having beliefs about the world are very important. They take comfort in feeling secure in believing in answers to certain questions. There is nothing wrong with that, of course. It’s nice to have hopes and a kind of mental comfort in believing in certain things and finding answers to age old questions.

What does the Spark of Life theory mean exactly? Let’s take a deeper look at it. It is the belief that life was created by a single spark of energy. It does not necessarily provide a reason or purpose for the spark, but merely just states that there was one. The importance is not in why but rather just the fact that it happened.

Some people consider it a pessimistic view on life. Many of these are religious members who find it counterproductive to their creationistic theories. Creationism generally suggests that there was a reason to why life was created, while the Spark of Life theory leaves such a question and answer untouched. Many, like myself, don’t believe there is a reason to why the spark occurred and therefore, to put it bluntly, there is no reason to life or why humans exist. Therefore, the only reason to exist is just to exist.

This doesn’t mean that life is without purpose. It just means that life is a kind of accident and there was no purpose behind its creation. But purpose doesn’t need to have original identity to exist. In other words, just because a purpose isn’t inherently within something doesn’t mean a purpose can’t be given to it. Even if humankind, or all life for that matter, was created by accident, people and animals still can find a reason to live. We make our own this way and don’t have to worry about fulfilling the obligations and rules of higher beings or following a fate for our creation.

Many times it is labeled illogical. It is said to be this because some people can’t understand how something can come from nothing. It defies the very laws of physics in truth, or at least the laws that we can comprehend and understand. There still is much to science that seems to defy everything we already know. It is ironic though that such a theory can be called illogical when many of the accusers suggest in return that the existence of a higher being as the creator is the reason for life. Why is this ironic? What makes the idea that a powerful, omnipotent being has existed since the dawn of time and will continue to exist until its end a more reasonable belief than the idea that life originated from nothing. Both are fine beliefs to have, but neither is more logical than the other in any way. There is no proof to currently make them logical, and all people can go on is their belief challenged against another.

The Spark of Life theory really isn’t “out there” if people would just give it a chance. This doesn’t mean they have to believe in it. Believing in something takes a deeper feeling. It’s not something one can truly just wake up and decide to do. But people assume that it’s a negative theory that doesn’t promote anything. They think that being assigned a purpose is the only way to get one. It has nothing to do with how we are created. People can find their own just by living. That is what believing in th

le consider it a pessimistic view on life. Many of these are religious members who find it counterproductive to their creationistic theories. Creationism generally suggests that there was a reason to why life was created, while the Spark of Life theory leaves such a question and answer untouched. Many, like myself, don’t believe there is a reason to why the spark occurred and therefore, to put it bluntly, there is no reason to life or why humans exist. Therefore, the only reason to exist is just to exist.

This doesn’t mean that life is without purpose. It just means that life is a kind of accident and there was no purpose behind its creation. But purpose doesn’t need to have original identity to exist. In other words, just because a purpose isn’t inherently within something doesn’t mean a purpose can’t be given to it. Even if humankind, or all life for that matter, was created by accident, people and animals still can find a reason to live. We make our own this way and don’t have to worry about fulfilling the obligations and rules of higher beings or following a fate for our creation.

Many times it is labeled illogical. It is said to be this because some people can’t understand how something can come from nothing. It defies the very laws of physics in truth, or at least the laws that we can comprehend and understand. There still is much to science that seems to defy everything we already know. It is ironic though that such a theory can be called illogical when many of the accusers suggest in return that the existence of a higher being as the creator is the reason for life. Why is this ironic? What makes the idea that a powerful, omnipotent being has existed since the dawn of time and will continue to exist until its end a more reasonable belief than the idea that life originated from nothing. Both are fine beliefs to have, but neither is more logical than the other in any way. There is no proof to currently make them logical, and all people can go on is their belief challenged against another.

The Spark of Life theory really isn’t “out there” if people would just give it a chance. This doesn’t mean they have to believe in it. Believing in something takes a deeper feeling. It’s not something one can truly just wake up and decide to do. But people assume that it’s a negative theory that doesn’t promote anything. They think that being assigned a purpose is the only way to get one. It has nothing to do with how we are created. People can find their own just by living. That is what believing in th

d, or all life for that matter, was created by accident, people and animals still can find a reason to live. We make our own this way and don’t have to worry about fulfilling the obligations and rules of higher beings or following a fate for our creation.

Many times it is labeled illogical. It is said to be this because some people can’t understand how something can come from nothing. It defies the very laws of physics in truth, or at least the laws that we can comprehend and understand. There still is much to science that seems to defy everything we already know. It is ironic though that such a theory can be called illogical when many of the accusers suggest in return that the existence of a higher being as the creator is the reason for life. Why is this ironic? What makes the idea that a powerful, omnipotent being has existed since the dawn of time and will continue to exist until its end a more reasonable belief than the idea that life originated from nothing. Both are fine beliefs to have, but neither is more logical than the other in any way. There is no proof to currently make them logical, and all people can go on is their belief challenged against another.

The Spark of Life theory really isn’t “out there” if people would just give it a chance. This doesn’t mean they have to believe in it. Believing in something takes a deeper feeling. It’s not something one can truly just wake up and decide to do. But people assume that it’s a negative theory that doesn’t promote anything. They think that being assigned a purpose is the only way to get one. It has nothing to do with how we are created. People can find their own just by living. That is what believing in th

the dawn of time and will continue to exist until its end a more reasonable belief than the idea that life originated from nothing. Both are fine beliefs to have, but neither is more logical than the other in any way. There is no proof to currently make them logical, and all people can go on is their belief challenged against another.

The Spark of Life theory really isn’t “out there” if people would just give it a chance. This doesn’t mean they have to believe in it. Believing in something takes a deeper feeling. It’s not something one can truly just wake up and decide to do. But people assume that it’s a negative theory that doesn’t promote anything. They think that being assigned a purpose is the only way to get one. It has nothing to do with how we are created. People can find their own just by living. That is what believing in the Spark of Life means.