Ninavism - The Philosophy of Immortality
Ordering a Book
Feedback Form
1. Technological Immortality
2. Final Immortality
3. Life Creation and Propagation
4. Life Centres in the Universe
5. Reincarantion Combined with Resurrection
6. Complete Model of Immortality
7. Postimmortality
8. History & Evolution of Immortality
9. Ninavism
10. Supernatural Forces
11. Problem of Evil
12. Epistemology
13. Methodology
14. Compatibilities of Immortalities
15. Heaven(s) & Hell(s)
16. Implementation of Final Immortality
17. Implementation of Present Immortality
18. Paradoxes & Puzzles of Final Immortality
19. Animals & Plants
20. Atheism
21. Population Control
22. Gays
Glossary of Terms
About Web Site
Chapter 3

Life Creation and Propagation

Summary of Chapter

This chapter assumes a number of scientific hypotheses thought to be correct in present times. This will not be necessarily true in the future, as scientific theories are modified all the time. Once this happens, the reasoning presented in this chapter needs to be adjusted in agreement with new theories.

Habitable Planets

The habitable planet is one which is able to support life.

Number of Habitable Planets

The conservative estimate gives about 1010 (10 billion) habitable planets in the universe. Other recent scientific valuation gives number of life-supporting planets in just the Milky Way galaxy, equal to 108 (100 million). This is a much higher value than the previous one.

Lifespan of Habitable Planets

The earth become habitable 4 billion years ago. The current estimates are that the earth has about 2 to 4 billion years left of life habitation. In total, this would give the earth about 6-8 billion years of habitable conditions. The estimates of the habitable lifespan for planets outside the solar system are highly theoretical, with little direct experimental evidence. They vary from 6 to 50 billion years.

Life on Habitable Planets

The fact that a planet is habitable, does not guarantee that life actually exists there. The question is: do all habitable planets contain life in one form or another? This is debatable, and the answer depends on how life is created and propagated. Some traditional religions attribute it to Supernatural Forces. Ninavism supports the possibility of Aliens contributing to life creation on other planets, or in other dimensions, or in the parallel universes. Science explains life by natural processes, but there is no agreement on how those forces work. Life might be created on each planet separately, or it might migrate from one planet to another.

Non-Accidental Life Creation

The implicit traditional view is that Supernatural Forces, either anthropomorphic or not, created life on just a single planet, which is the earth. However, there is little in doctrines of religions prohibiting Supernatural Forces from creating life on all habitable planets, or at least on some of them. Creation of life by traditional Supernatural Forces is the first way of life formation. The second method is deliberate life creation by natural conscious beings living somewhere in the universe. These are known as Aliens.
      When Humans of Future achieve the technology to create life on other planet in the visible universe, or in other dimensions, or in parallel universes, they most likely will try to populate many planets. Creation of life on other planet might be the only way of maintaining and preserving Final Immortality; more details are in the chapter CENTRES OF LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE. Natural anthropomorphic forces, like Aliens or Humans of Future, propagate life naturally, even if their own life was created by traditional Supernatural Forces.

Natural Evolution of Life

The natural life creation theories maintain that life is created by spontaneous natural processes. The events leading to life creation are conceptually divided into two phases, or parts. The first one is called 'chemical evolution', and the second phase is 'biological evolution'. Chemical evolution is the spontaneous process of transforming inorganic elements of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and others into the simplest microorganisms, such as a single cell bacterium. Once chemical evolution is completed, and at least one bacterium exists, biological evolution takes over, causing microorganisms to grow and multiply. This eventually leads to the development of plants and animals of a higher order.

Biological Evolution

Science at present is not able to predict the future direction of biological evolution. For example, it cannot predict which new species will be created, or how existing species will look in the future. Of particular importance is the future of mankind. Science is unable to predict the fate of people after say 20 million years, or how long they will live before natural extinction. The present level of knowledge for biological evolution is perhaps 10%-20% of the total knowledge required.

Chemical Evolution

Compared to biological evolution, chemical evolution is totally obscure. There are no fossils of intermediate stages before reaching a final fully functional single cell bacterium. For example, there are no half or quarter cell bacterium. It is either full bacterium or nothing. Chemical evolution seems to be less of an evolution, and more of a giant leap, one step from inorganic matter to fully grown bacterium. No scientist has managed to create a single cell bacterium (or any other cell) in a laboratory from inorganic elements, synthetically. The present level of knowledge of chemical evolution might be as low as 1%.


There are two basic theories of life creation on habitable planets. One is that life is created independently and directly on each planet, like on the earth. The other hypothesis is that life transmigrates into habitable planets from outside. It is known as panspermia. This is an ancient theory created in antiquity that has no connection to religions. It says that the earth is impregnated (seeded) with life that originates outside of it. This is like an injection of sperm into female organs.
      The panspermia hypothesis does not say how life originates. There are several explanations for this. The simplest one is that microorganisms are created naturally on other planets, or in an (almost) empty cosmos. Microorganisms could also be created by traditional Supernatural Forces, and later transported to other planets by natural means. In literature, panspermia is usually associated with natural life creation, but the supernatural element is not excluded.

Accidental Panspermia

Accidental panspermia theory says that life in the form of bacteria is transported inside of meteorites or asteroids. The meteorites or asteroids could have collected microorganisms upon hitting and bouncing off a habitable planet. This transportation method is completely natural, but it does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural origin of life on the planet from which the bacterium was collected.

Directed Panspermia

The directed panspermia theory says that that microorganisms are carried out from planet to planet deliberately. The bacteria are either inside of unmanned spaceships, or planted deliberately on meteorites and asteroids. The deliberate act of distributing life around the universe is attributed to either natural or supernatural anthropomorphic forces. That is, they are either Aliens, the God(s) of traditional religions, or Humans of Future.

Source of Panspermia

Both accidental and directed panspermia can originate outside the visible universe. That is, the planet from which microorganisms are collected accidentally, or from which anthropomorphic forces send life, can be either inside the visible universe or outside of it.

Big Bang

The Big Bang is a cosmology which says that the universe was created as a tiny dot that started to expand rapidly. According to the theory, the event occurred about 14 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory does not explain what or who caused the universe creation - it could be natural or supernatural event. Under certain interpretation, Supernatural Forces can be treated as natural. See the chapter SUPERNATURAL FORCES for a full discussion. Under such interpretation, the Big Bang would be considered to be a natural event, even if it was caused by Supernatural Forces. The Big Bang could as well be created by natural anthropomorphic forces, known as Aliens, living in a parallel universe.

Methodology of Big Bang

The Big Bang theory is a hypothesis. It is principally based on just one piece of evidence, the shift in the spectrum of light coming from distant galaxies. This is known as the 'red shift' because it is the displacement of light towards the red end of the spectrum. The red shift is interpreted as evidence for expansion of the universe, and that is the basis for the Big Bang theory. There are some other pieces of evidence, such as background radiation, but they are insignificant. If red shift can be explained in other ways, then the whole Big Bang theory would collapse. Alternative explanations for red shift do exist. The Big Bang is one of many possible ways of explaining red shifts and background radiation.
      The cosmology of the Big Bang adds a number of assumptions to observable facts. For example, it extends observation of the red shift in space and time far beyond experimental evidence; it claims that the red shift is observable from every point in the universe. There is no experimental way of confirming the truth of this in the current age. In order to do so, one would need to send a spaceship to a remote clusters of galaxies, and make observations there. Present technology does not permit this, and it will not be available for many thousands of years into the future.
      The methodology of the Big Bang is based upon a few general principles assumed dogmatically, without experimental evidence. The first is the Copernican principle. It states that the earth is not in a central, specially favoured position in the universe, and that humans are not privileged observers of the universe. Assuming the Copernican principle, cosmologists draw the conclusion that the red shift observable on earth, is also observable in every point in the universe, and as a result of this, each point in the universe does move away from any other point.
      There are some objections against this reasoning. The Copernican principle was successfully used to justify well-known facts that the earth is not at the centre of the solar system, as it was in the Ptolemaic theory, and that stars do not rotate attached to spheres centred on the earth, as it was in Aristotelean astronomy. This is the proper application of the Copernican principle, but in relation to some other observations, the Copernican principle is either less justified, or not justified at all. It is quite easy to imagine that the whole Milky Way galaxy, or even a local cluster of galaxies, are actually in a special position in relation to the rest of the universe; for example, when the expansion of the universe is centred around the Milky Way, and not specifically on the earth. Then, the red shift is observable in each direction from any planet inside the Milky Way or local cluster, but it is not necessarily observable in each direction from planets outside of them. In this case, the conclusion that each point in the universe moves away from each other is incorrect. The universe might be just moving away from the Milky Way. The earth and humans are not in a privileged position because the same red shift is visible from millions of planets inside the Milky Way or a local cluster, and the rest of the universe moves away from them all. At the same time, all planets inside the Milky Way are in a privileged position, including the earth and humans. People who object, on philosophical or religious grounds, to treating humans as special, should be satisfied, because the earth is not special; humans are the same as any other organisms on millions of habitable planets inside the Milky Way.
      The methodology of the Big Bang uses also a more general formulation of the Copernican principle, called the Cosmological principle. It says that the properties of the universe are the same for all observers and the universe is homogenous when it is viewed on a sufficiently large scale. From this, it follows that the physical laws are the same in all parts of the universe. This leads to a conclusion that the property of each point moving away from each other, valid in the Milky Way, is also valid in any other point of the universe.
      The Cosmological principle itself is questionable; even more questionable are some conclusions drawn from it, but not all. For example, the conclusion that the Laws of Nature are the same in the visible universe is widely accepted, and Ninavism does not question this. However, the conclusion that the property of each point moving away from each other is present everywhere, is questionable. The property of points moving away from other points is not the Law of Nature. It is a conclusion based upon the presence of the red shift, which is also not a Law of Nature, but an observation that might be relative to the place of view.
      The Cosmological principle is sometimes formulated as a claim that the view of the universe observed from the earth is the fair sample, or in other words, that the universe observed from other places looks the same as from the earth. This thinking is like that of a fish living on a coral reef in the Caribbean, claiming that its view of the ocean is the same as the sample observable by a fish living under an iceberg in Antarctica. The claim of the fish is a primitive simplification. Both Copernican and Cosmological principles have been criticized on the grounds that they make a human's lack of knowledge a principle of knowing something.
      The next big assumption made by the Big Bang cosmology is that the red shift has been present since the beginning of the universe, which is about 14 billion years. There is no way of confirming the truth of this assumption. The red shift has been observed for the past 100 years but, on an astronomical scale, this is like a blink of an eye. Nobody knows whether the red shift was present one billion years ago or whether it will be still present after one billion years. Scientists know only the events that they can observe. There is no experimental proof that the universe was expanding one billion years ago.
      The principle that the Laws of Physics are invariable with the passage of time is widely accepted, but the red shift and expansion of the universe are not the Laws of Nature; they are events, observations. The assumption that the universe has been expanding since the beginning of time is like an assumption that if it rains today, then it has been raining since the beginning of the universe.
      The Copernican principle assumes that the earth is not in a special location in space. A logical extension of this principle is that the earth is not in a special location in time. Therefore, if one Bing Bang occurred, it cannot be something special or unique; there must have been multiple Big Bangs in the past. Since time is infinite, then the number of Big Bangs is also infinite. If something existed before Big Bang, then certainly it is a time.
      The assumption that there is a single Bing Bang is a violation of the spirit of the Copernican principle that is so dear to (some) cosmologists. Scientists might claim that they have not seen evidence of multiple Big Bangs. This is correct, but it is easy to explain. The universe is so vast that most of it was never observable by scientists. This is similar to a situation that existed prior to the development of big telescopes. Prior to the 19th century, humans could not see over 99.9% of what they observe now. It is quite possible that most sophisticated present-day telescopes are so primitive that they are not able to detect over 99.9% of the remainder of the universe. Perhaps people need to wait a few thousand years more, before more powerful ways of observation are invented.
      The fact that scientists do not observe hundreds of universes has far-reaching consequences. The methodological rule for the formulation of any Law of Nature is that it needs to be confirmed by a large number of repetitive measurements and observations. If scientists observe just one Big Bang, it is impossible to formulate any reliable laws regarding events of natural universe creations.
      There is a possibility that the universe is eternal and, at the same time, that the Big Bang theory is true. The Big Bang might be just the creation of new local parts of the bigger universe. The bigger universe might contain many expanding bubbles, each one the size of the entire visible universe.
      The objections against the Big Bang do not deny the need for the existence of such a theory. It is good that scientists created this cosmology with all mathematical details. Scientists will develop and refine this theory in the future. At the same time, there should be an indication that it is just a weakly supported hypothesis. There are psychological reasons which makes that difficult. For scientists who have spent 20-30 years developing the details of the Big Bang cosmology, it is difficult to notice that the theory is weak; to them it is strong. It is easier for them to work out details of cosmology, if their convictions are strong - but it is just a subjective illusion.
      Actually, the Big Bang might be the most justified cosmological theory of present times, because other theories have even less probability. This does not make the Big Bang cosmology a strong theory, if its chances of being correct are say 2%-3%. At the present time, all cosmological theories are weakly justified due to cosmology itself being in its infancy.
      The conclusion that the Big Bang has a weak justification has important implications for the methodology of Future Studies which are used in Ninavism (see the chapter METHODOLOGY for more details). It implies that scenarios excluding the Big Bang are considered as equal in importance as scenarios assuming the Big Bang. If the Big Bang is treated as a dominant and strongly justified theory, then scenarios excluding the Big Bang are neglected or even ignored.

Periodic Expansion and Contraction of Universe

It is possible that the universe expands in the present age producing the red shift, but it is only temporary, and will be reversed later by contraction. The universe might be like a beating heart, or breathing lungs, expanding and contracting periodically, every say one billion years. The forces causing it are unknown to the science of today, as are many other things, such as black holes, dark matter, dark energy, essence of gravity, etc. Most importantly, science is unable to explain what has caused the Big Bang. It is known not to be a chemical or nuclear explosion. Similarly, the mechanism of periodic expansions and contractions is not known, but supporters of the Big Bang cannot object to it, because they do not have a scientific justification for the cause of the Big Bang. If Supernatural Forces are responsible for the Big Bang, then they could as well be responsible for periodic expansions and contractions. Rationally and irrationally, the periodic expansions are about as likely as the Big Bang. Actually, periodic expansions and contractions are rationally more likely, because they do not assume creating something from nothing as the Big Bang does.
      The hypothesis of periodic expansion and contraction allows for a minimum size of the universe (when contraction turns into expansion) to be very big, like half the size of the present universe. This looks much more natural than the Big Bang expansion from a dot millions of times smaller than a single atom, that is paradoxical, and it is more religious belief than science. The Big Bang theory is just a mathematical model. There is no direct experimental evidence. Nobody has observed it. In the same way, the mathematical model of periodic expansion and contraction might be constructed, without explaining who or what causes it.
      The whole visible part of the universe might be just a tiny speck in the ocean of the bigger invisible universe. The expansion and contraction of the visible universe might be just a local spherical wave, such as a bubble in the water. The bigger universe might contain many such bubbles. In fact, only 20 years ago scientists predicted that the universe would start to contract in the future. Now they talk about permanent expansion, but the discussion shows the shaky ground on which they stand.

Religious Justifications

The Big Bang theory is sometimes defended by its advocates due to their conscious or unconscious beliefs that it justifies the existence of traditional Supernatural Forces. The Big Bang is seen by them as caused by God(s) in order to create people. However, from the rational perspective, it is difficult to pass life to the new universe through the mechanism of the Big Bang.
      The Big Bang theory is not a necessary condition for God(s) creating life, because they are able to do it without the Big Bang. Universe creation might be a natural event that Supernatural Forces use to their advantage by implanting life there later, when the universe is big enough. This is similar to God(s) using many other events occurring naturally on the earth to their advantage. The multiple natural creations of the new universes might be compared to creations of new stars and planets in the visible universe.
      The Big Bang could also be caused deliberately by traditional Supernatural Forces or Aliens. It might be compared to deliberate ignition of fireworks where, in the initial stage, a fireball expands into a large oval shape, such as the visible universe. Supernatural Forces might be making those fireworks. If Humans of Future learn this technology, they will be doing it without hesitation, passing life to the new universes later.

Chances of Accidental Life Creation

Single Cell Bacterium

The single cell bacterium is an extremely complex living organism. The total number of atoms in a single cell is about 1014 (digit '1' followed by 14 zeroes) atoms. The theory of primordial soup claims that all those atoms arranged themselves into a single cell bacterium by chance, accidentally. The statistical probability of such an event is extremely small. Some well-known scientists calculated that the chances of the accidental formation of a single cell bacterium is one in 1040,000 (digit '1' followed by 40 thousand zeroes). Some researchers of evolution reject number 1/1040,000 as an incorrect probability of accidental formation of a single cell bacterium. However, they have not come up with any alternative calculation.

Time Required for Probable Life Creation in Visible Universe

The minimum time period required to create life accidentally in at least one place in the entire visible universe, with at least a 50% chance of success, is 1039,906 years. If the visible universe is infinitely old, then the chances of creating life by accident would be almost 100%. This is because eternity is an infinite number of times bigger than a mere 1039,906 years. Given a sufficiently long time, life should be created accidentally, not only on the earth, but on all habitable planets in the universe. One problem is that all planets have a limited habitable lifetime, after which they are destroyed. Another problem is that some theories (such as the Big Bang) claim that the visible universe is not infinitely old.

Creation in Visible Universe Under Big Bang

If the Big Bang theory is correct, and if the chances of accidentally creating a single cell bacterium equal to one in 1040,000 is correct, then statistically, there should be no life in the universe, including the earth and all habitable planets. Would it mean that accidental life creation and the Big Bang are incompatible? Not necessarily. Life could have arrived to the visible universe from outside of it using one of the mechanisms of panspermia. Another possibility is that the outer universe is much bigger than the visible universe, or even infinite.

Creation in Eternal Universe

If the universe is eternal, or if the first Big Bang occurred over 1040,000 years ago, then it is almost 100% certain that the whole universe is full of planets, meteorites, asteroids, or spaceships, with primitive life forms, that just travel from one region to another.

Creation in Infinite Universe

The 1039,906 years needed for accidental life creation applies only to the visible universe, which is assumed to have 1080 atoms. If the larger universe is infinite, then the number of atoms is also infinite, and the chances of accidental life creation become almost 100%.

Lucky Earth

When the chance of winning lotto is one in a million, and over 1 million people play it, then statistically, there is almost a 100% chance that someone will hit the lucky number. This is despite very the small chances of winning for any particular person. The same goes for accidental life creation on a single planet. If the chance for it is one in 1040,000, and the number of habitable planets is over 1040,000, then the probability that life will develop on at least one of them is almost 100%, even if chances for any particular planet is very small.
      If the Big Bang theory in the local universe is correct, and its age of 14 billion years is correct, but there were more than 1040,000 Big Bangs in the outer universe, then the chance that life was created on at least one planet is almost 100%.

Chances of Life Appearance Under Panspermia

Under panspermia theory, the chances of life appearance are greatly increased. This is due to much higher probability of spreading life via panspermia from planet to planet, than accidental life creation on each planet separately. If life on the earth originated from one of the early planets in the Milky Way, it might have been a totally natural and non-anthropomorphic event, like the accidental bouncing out of an asteroid picking up some genetic material. Alternatively, it could be the deliberate action of anthropomorphic forces living there, such as Aliens.

Accidental Panspermia

Suppose that the universe is either infinite, or infinitely old, or the Big Bang occurred an infinite number of times, and asteroids sometimes are able to cross the boundary between parallel universes or dimensions. Under these circumstances, the visible universe is likely to contain a huge number of meteorites with bacteria. The visible universe and the planet earth with life on it are then not the lucky ones, but rather average.

Directed Panspermia

Directed panspermia has a much higher probability than an accidental one. The chances can come close to 100%. Knowing prolific human nature, it is almost certain that mankind will deliberately try to distribute their own genetic material to other planets in order to civilize them.

Multiplicity of Life Centres

Life could be spread naturally from a planet on which life was created in a supernatural way. For example, if life on the earth was created by God(s), it can migrate to other planets naturally, without God(s) intervention. In such a case, under the classification used in this book, neither life on the earth nor life on another planet to which life spread from the earth, would be treated as natural. Life centre is created naturally if all processes of life creation and distribution are natural. If only one link in the chain of life appearance is supernatural, then all subsequent life centres are treated as created by Supernatural Forces.
      All Abrahamic religions teach that God(s) created humans in its image, and for love of them. Supernatural Forces obtain satisfaction from their creations. Traditional Supernatural Forces are presumably infinitely old. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that they waited an eternity without creating anyone. The Big Bang occurred 14 billion years ago. The first habitable planets appeared soon after. Life on the earth was created 4 billion years ago, that is 10 billion years after the Big Bang. Since God(s) love humans and obtain satisfaction from life creation, they must have created many other lives in the visible universe after the Big Bang. Why would they wait 10 billion years before doing it on the earth? It is reasonable to assume that God(s) have created life on many, or perhaps all habitable planets in the visible universe. This assumption is in line with the generous nature of God(s). The assumption that God(s) created life only on the earth is contrary to the loving nature of God(s).
      Holy books of all Abrahamic religions do not talk about God(s) creating life on other planets. This is highly understandable. Sacred texts were written in antiquity when people had no concept of habitable planets. Some traditional religious people might be disturbed by fact that God(s) have other children apart from humans. They tend to think that they are special and the only ones. The total number of life centres created by Supernatural Forces is the sum of the number of planets where they created it directly, plus those planets that have received life from them by accidental or directed panspermia. This number might be bigger than centres where life was created naturally.

Summary of Reasons for Life Existence Outside the Earth

Ninavism supports the existence of multiple life centres, not only in the outer universe, but also in the local visible universe and in the Milky Way galaxy as well. Natural and supernatural creations are supported, as well as accidental and directed panspermia. The number of life centres in the Milky Way galaxy alone is probably counted in the thousands. The reasons supporting the belief in multiplicity of life centres are:

Key Points of Chapter: