ATHEISM: How Many Gods Are There?

[Paladin_]

I am afraid I will have to walk you through this one step at a time because you have shown to behave dishonestly in our discussions.

Do you believe we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise? Or do you believe that beings that know and create were created by a special act of God?

Ding, I have NEVER behaved "dishonestly" in any of our discussions, and I challenge you to demonstrate where I supposedly have.

That aside, with regard to your question -- no, I DON'T believe that, "given enough time and the right conditions, that beings that know and create will eventually arise," because I don't KNOW if that's always true (more specifically, I don't know if it's eventual). It's quite possibly what happened with this universe.

As to whether anything was created by any gods -- no, I don't believe that at all.

 

[ding]

I am afraid I will have to walk you through this one step at a time because you have shown to behave dishonestly in our discussions.

Do you believe we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise? Or do you believe that beings that know and create were created by a special act of God?

Ding, I have NEVER behaved "dishonestly" in any of our discussions, and I challenge you to demonstrate where I supposedly have.

That aside, with regard to your question -- no, I DON'T believe that, "given enough time and the right conditions, that beings that know and create will eventually arise," because I don't KNOW if that's always true (more specifically, I don't know if it's eventual). It's quite possibly what happened with this universe.

As to whether anything was created by any gods -- no, I don't believe that at all.

I disagree. You behaved like I attacked your religion when I stated the truth about militant atheism leading to communism.

So given the right conditions beings might or might not arise? You do know what right conditions imply, right? Is it your belief that the laws of nature are not repeatable?

For the record you are being dishonest right now.

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[ding]

I am afraid I will have to walk you through this one step at a time because you have shown to behave dishonestly in our discussions.

Do you believe we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise? Or do you believe that beings that know and create were created by a special act of God?

Ding, I have NEVER behaved "dishonestly" in any of our discussions, and I challenge you to demonstrate where I supposedly have.

That aside, with regard to your question -- no, I DON'T believe that, "given enough time and the right conditions, that beings that know and create will eventually arise," because I don't KNOW if that's always true (more specifically, I don't know if it's eventual). It's quite possibly what happened with this universe.

As to whether anything was created by any gods -- no, I don't believe that at all.

Ok, I'll move on. Do you believe the universe has become self aware?

 

[Paladin_]

I disagree. You behaved like I attacked your religion when I stated the truth about militant atheism leading to communism.

So given the right conditions beings might or might not arise? You do know what right conditions imply, right? Is it your belief that the laws of nature are not repeatable?

For the record you are being dishonest right now.

So, Ding, WHO's being "dishonest?" Let take a count. First, you've claimed I have a "religion." I don't. I'm an atheist (AND an anti-theist) who rejects religion. So you're being dishonest there.

Next, you've asserted that "militant atheism leading to communism" is a "truth." You have yet to establish this. So calling it a "truth" is, again, dishonest.

Apparently, in your weird little world, "dishonest" means anything you wish it to mean at the time.

As for your last question, I honestly don't know if the "laws of nature are repeatable." I suppose its possible, though I'm curious to see if you're ever going to get to your ultimate point...

 

[ding]

I disagree. You behaved like I attacked your religion when I stated the truth about militant atheism leading to communism.

So given the right conditions beings might or might not arise? You do know what right conditions imply, right? Is it your belief that the laws of nature are not repeatable?

For the record you are being dishonest right now.

So, Ding, WHO's being "dishonest?" Let take a count. First, you've claimed I have a "religion." I don't. I'm an atheist (AND an anti-theist) who rejects religion. So you're being dishonest there.

Next, you've asserted that "militant atheism leading to communism" is a "truth." You have yet to establish this. So calling it a "truth" is, again, dishonest.

Apparently, in your weird little world, "dishonest" means anything you wish it to mean at the time.

As for your last question, I honestly don't know if the "laws of nature are repeatable." I suppose its possible, though I'm curious to see if you're ever going to get to your ultimate point...

I said you behaved like I attacked your religion and if you stand back and examine your responses objectively, that's what you will find.

I have more than proven that militant atheism leads to communism. You are just too much of a fanatic to objectively analyze this. Do you really want to rehash this? I'm happy to do it again, if you want.

You don't know if the laws of nature are repeatable? Wow. Do you believe the universe has become self aware?

 

[ding]

I disagree. You behaved like I attacked your religion when I stated the truth about militant atheism leading to communism.

So given the right conditions beings might or might not arise? You do know what right conditions imply, right? Is it your belief that the laws of nature are not repeatable?

For the record you are being dishonest right now.

So, Ding, WHO's being "dishonest?" Let take a count. First, you've claimed I have a "religion." I don't. I'm an atheist (AND an anti-theist) who rejects religion. So you're being dishonest there.

Next, you've asserted that "militant atheism leading to communism" is a "truth." You have yet to establish this. So calling it a "truth" is, again, dishonest.

Apparently, in your weird little world, "dishonest" means anything you wish it to mean at the time.

As for your last question, I honestly don't know if the "laws of nature are repeatable." I suppose its possible, though I'm curious to see if you're ever going to get to your ultimate point...

Does George Wald believe we live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise?

 

[Paladin_]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Okay, you've demonstrated that you can copy and paste the words of others ad nauseam. Yet did you actually bother to READ what Dr. Wald actually says? He speaks of "the Mind" existing in the "matrix" as something that "occurred" to him -- an ASSUMPTION. He offers no definitive conclusion, and certainly no evidence, that this it is actually the case.

That said, even if Dr. Wald's musings are correct, and the "mind" exists independently in some sort of "matrix," how does that demonstrate the existence of any gods? More to the point, how does that demonstrate the existence of YOUR god?

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Okay, you've demonstrated that you can copy and paste the words of others ad nauseam. Yet did you actually bother to READ what Dr. Wald actually says? He speaks of "the Mind" existing in the "matrix" as something that "occurred" to him -- an ASSUMPTION. He offers no definitive conclusion, and certainly no evidence, that this it is actually the case.

That said, even if Dr. Wald's musings are correct, and the "mind" exists independently in some sort of "matrix," how does that demonstrate the existence of any gods? More to the point, how does that demonstrate the existence of YOUR god?

I am getting there. I am laying the foundation. Do you have any basis at all to disagree with George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist?

 

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Okay, you've demonstrated that you can copy and paste the words of others ad nauseam. Yet did you actually bother to READ what Dr. Wald actually says? He speaks of "the Mind" existing in the "matrix" as something that "occurred" to him -- an ASSUMPTION. He offers no definitive conclusion, and certainly no evidence, that this it is actually the case.

That said, even if Dr. Wald's musings are correct, and the "mind" exists independently in some sort of "matrix," how does that demonstrate the existence of any gods? More to the point, how does that demonstrate the existence of YOUR god?

It would not have been necessary to provide my authority and basis for my belief if you had not denied the self evidence that the laws of nature are repeatable and that we live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. I mean after all we do know it has happened and we do know that the laws of nature do repeat themselves.

 

[Paladin_]

I am getting there. I am laying the foundation. Do you have any basis at all to disagree with George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist?

Aside from the fact that he didn't actually make any concrete conclusions, but only speculations? I'd say my basis for disagreeing with such speculations is the same as I've already stated -- that there is no compelling evidentiary support.

As for "denying" that the laws of nature are "repeatable," I never did such a thing. All I did was honestly admit that I don't know.

Incidentally, thanks to your dishonest practice of making multiple posts before I can respond (a Creationist tactic commonly referred to as the "Gish Gallup"), it appears I missed an earlier question of yours regarding the universe being "self-aware." The answer is no. I don't believe the universe is "self-aware."

 

[ding]

I am getting there. I am laying the foundation. Do you have any basis at all to disagree with George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist?

Aside from the fact that he didn't actually make any concrete conclusions, but only speculations? I'd say my basis for disagreeing with such speculations is the same as I've already stated -- that there is no compelling evidentiary support.

As for "denying" that the laws of nature are "repeatable," I never did such a thing. All I did was honestly admit that I don't know.

Incidentally, thanks to your dishonest practice of making multiple posts before I can respond (a Creationist tactic commonly referred to as the "Gish Gallup"), it appears I missed an earlier question of yours regarding the universe being "self-aware." The answer is no. I don't believe the universe is "self-aware."

I'm not a creationist, lol. So you have no basis to dispute George Wald's belief that we live in universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise, right? Do you believe that the universe has become self aware? hint: it has. In fact, the universe is having a conversation about itself right now. Can you dispute any of the things I have just mentioned?

The evidentiary support for this is that we exist.

 

[Paladin_]

I'm not a creationist, lol. So you have no basis to dispute George Wald's belief that we live in universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise, right? Do you believe that the universe has become self aware? hint: it has. In fact, the universe is having a conversation about itself right now. Can you dispute any of the things I have just mentioned?

The evidentiary support for this is that we exist.

Okay, I must now admit that I'm confused. Everything you've said in this and other threads suggested to me that you believe in a "creator," yet you now insist that you're NOT a creationist. Either we have a disagreement over what the word "creationist" means, or somewhere our wires got crossed.

In any case, whether or not you're a creationist has no bearing on whether I have any basis upon which to disagree with Dr. Wald's speculations. My basis is the same -- there is no compelling evidence to suggest that what you (or, presumably, Dr. Wald) propose is true.

You claim that the fact that "we exist" constitutes evidentiary support. But it doesn't. It only means that beings eventually arose in THIS universe, and that it COULD happen in any universe, given (as you say) enough time and the right conditions. But it doesn't make it a certain eventuality.

And I do hope you'll eventually get to your point before I have to leave for the day...

 

[ding]

I'm not a creationist, lol. So you have no basis to dispute George Wald's belief that we live in universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise, right? Do you believe that the universe has become self aware? hint: it has. In fact, the universe is having a conversation about itself right now. Can you dispute any of the things I have just mentioned?

The evidentiary support for this is that we exist.

Okay, I must now admit that I'm confused. Everything you've said in this and other threads suggested to me that you believe in a "creator," yet you now insist that you're NOT a creationist. Either we have a disagreement over what the word "creationist" means, or somewhere our wires got crossed.

In any case, whether or not you're a creationist has no bearing on whether I have any basis upon which to disagree with Dr. Wald's speculations. My basis is the same -- there is no compelling evidence to suggest that what you (or, presumably, Dr. Wald) propose is true.

You claim that the fact that "we exist" constitutes evidentiary support. But it doesn't. It only means that beings eventually arose in THIS universe, and that it COULD happen in any universe, given (as you say) enough time and the right conditions. But it doesn't make it a certain eventuality.

And I do hope you'll eventually get to your point before I have to leave for the day...

I do believe in a Creator.

We don't know if there are other universes. We only know what is inside this one and even then we only know what happened after it was created. You seem to be accepting that there are more universes even though you have no basis to do so. Yet you reject that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise because you say you have no basis to believe so. Seems like you have a double standard here.

 

[ding]

I'm not a creationist, lol. So you have no basis to dispute George Wald's belief that we live in universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise, right? Do you believe that the universe has become self aware? hint: it has. In fact, the universe is having a conversation about itself right now. Can you dispute any of the things I have just mentioned?

The evidentiary support for this is that we exist.

Okay, I must now admit that I'm confused. Everything you've said in this and other threads suggested to me that you believe in a "creator," yet you now insist that you're NOT a creationist. Either we have a disagreement over what the word "creationist" means, or somewhere our wires got crossed.

In any case, whether or not you're a creationist has no bearing on whether I have any basis upon which to disagree with Dr. Wald's speculations. My basis is the same -- there is no compelling evidence to suggest that what you (or, presumably, Dr. Wald) propose is true.

You claim that the fact that "we exist" constitutes evidentiary support. But it doesn't. It only means that beings eventually arose in THIS universe, and that it COULD happen in any universe, given (as you say) enough time and the right conditions. But it doesn't make it a certain eventuality.

And I do hope you'll eventually get to your point before I have to leave for the day...

Do you believe the universe has become self aware?

 

[Mudda]

I'm not a creationist, lol. So you have no basis to dispute George Wald's belief that we live in universe where given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise, right? Do you believe that the universe has become self aware? hint: it has. In fact, the universe is having a conversation about itself right now. Can you dispute any of the things I have just mentioned?

The evidentiary support for this is that we exist.

Okay, I must now admit that I'm confused. Everything you've said in this and other threads suggested to me that you believe in a "creator," yet you now insist that you're NOT a creationist. Either we have a disagreement over what the word "creationist" means, or somewhere our wires got crossed.

In any case, whether or not you're a creationist has no bearing on whether I have any basis upon which to disagree with Dr. Wald's speculations. My basis is the same -- there is no compelling evidence to suggest that what you (or, presumably, Dr. Wald) propose is true.

You claim that the fact that "we exist" constitutes evidentiary support. But it doesn't. It only means that beings eventually arose in THIS universe, and that it COULD happen in any universe, given (as you say) enough time and the right conditions. But it doesn't make it a certain eventuality.

And I do hope you'll eventually get to your point before I have to leave for the day...

Do you believe the universe has become self aware? Yes or no?

The whole universe itself? No.

 

[Paladin_]

I do believe in a Creator.

We don't know if there are other universes. We only know what is inside this one and even then we only know what happened after it was created. You seem to be accepting that there are more universes even though you have no basis to do so. Yet you reject that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise because you say you have no basis to believe so. Seems like you have a double standard here.

Ding, I suspect we got our lines crossed again. I'm not "accepting" that there are more universes. I only specified THIS universe because it's the only one we know for certain exists. No harm.

And the only reason I reject your statement about beings arising in a universe given the right time and conditions is because of your inclusion of the word "eventually." Logically, this implies that it will happen each and every time, and we simply don't know enough about the universe to assert that.

Incidentally -- as you state that you DO believe in a creator, in my book, that's a creationist. I'm afraid I must ask you to explain that distinction (in your mind) to me.

 

[ding]

I do believe in a Creator.

We don't know if there are other universes. We only know what is inside this one and even then we only know what happened after it was created. You seem to be accepting that there are more universes even though you have no basis to do so. Yet you reject that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will eventually arise because you say you have no basis to believe so. Seems like you have a double standard here.

Ding, I suspect we got our lines crossed again. I'm not "accepting" that there are more universes. I only specified THIS universe because it's the only one we know for certain exists. No harm.

And the only reason I reject your statement about beings arising in a universe given the right time and conditions is because of your inclusion of the word "eventually." Logically, this implies that it will happen each and every time, and we simply don't know enough about the universe to assert that.

Incidentally -- as you state that you DO believe in a creator, in my book, that's a creationist. I'm afraid I must ask you to explain that distinction (in your mind) to me.

Yes, it does imply that it beings that know and create will eventually arise given enough time AND THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. That's how laws of nature work. Isn't that what Professor George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, meant when he said, "We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.... .... and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

A creationist is someone who believes in the literal account of the Bible. As in the universe is ~5000 years old.

An important part of the foundation I am establishing is that the universe has became self aware. Do you believe the universe is self aware?

 

[Mudda]

An important part of the foundation I am establishing is that the universe has became self aware. Do you believe the universe is self aware?

We are, but the whole universe? No.

 

[Paladin_]

Yes, it does imply that it beings that know and create will eventually arise given enough time AND THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. That's how laws of nature work. Isn't that what Professor George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, meant when he said, "We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.... .... and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

A creationist is someone who believes in the literal account of the Bible. As in the universe is ~5000 years old.

An important part of the foundation I am establishing is that the universe has became self aware. Do you believe the universe is self aware?

If that's what Dr. Wald insists (and ONLY if it is), then I must disagree with him. I don't believe we can assume that cognizant beings (those that can know and create) will inevitably arise, given enough time and the right conditions, though I'd agree that it's probable (and it certainly happened here on Earth).

I am closer to agreement with him in his assertion that we have "good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life," as he presented it only as an expression of probability. It seems highly likely that, given the unimaginable size and diversity of the universe and the number of likely habitats, the universe is full of life.

As for your last question -- no, I don't believe the universe is "self-aware." Indeed, unless the meaning of "self-aware" is something far beyond what I understand it to be, the question actually seems a bit ludicrous to me.