Why?
I would actually say that, even with biology considered, it's still a philosophical question.
As to a purpose for life,
Adam, actually, is closest.
If we stick to the observable, there is no living phenomenon in the Universe quite like humanity. I know that grates on a lot of people's nerves, but in the observable, there are no little gray men in sport-model saucers.
It would seem, therefore, that what is unique about humanity is the degree of self-awareness and the sense of comparison that awareness demands.
We are the eyes and ears of the Universe. What we experience, it experiences. What we see, hear, taste, touch, smell,
feel ... so, too, does the Universe. Consider that without humanity, nothing in the Universe could fall in love, yet we see the chemical reactions existing in the Universe so that people can fall in love. No part of the Universe can know any other, except through the compilation and comparison of apparent data. Human beings are, at least, a suitable instrument for this exploration. As we evolve, so, too, will our perspective. As long as humans are in the Universe, we can guarantee that someone will be examining the Universe through a process not recognized anywhere else.
A couple of notes on the topic:
The existence of God does not really effect life's meaning or futility. (Voodoo Child)
I'd rather say it does. Take, for instance, the Christian God. Life goes from a natural part of the Universe to a pointless racket if that God exists.
Why did the first single cell of conventionally-defined "life" decide to form? Why didn't nature just like to exists all as separate elements? (Nebula)
For the purposes of the debate, the point has been addressed. I consider life an inevitability of a balance of matter and energy. All differentiation in the Universe is a mere matter of ratios.
However, if you look at, say, a Periodic Table, you'll notice that working in a given direction (I forget which), one can follow the return of an original element to a ground state. Theoretically, nature existed as one element (per se), exploded into many, and is dissipating as we speak. Eventually, that differentiation will settle out. In an expanding-Universe scenario, matter will eventually be sparse enough that differentiation will eventually cease, and only one material/energetic state will remain.
That is to say that as the diversity of substance fades, it will be replaced by a singular style. Watch humanity, you can see the same process taking place in a different form.
• The first organic cells did not "decide" to become. (Adam)
• Decide? It did not decide. Pure chance and the evolutionary process "created" it. (Xev)
• As people have pointed out it is anthropomorphic to use terms like "decided" to describe the behaviour of chemical compounds. "behaviour"? Fuck. Now you've got me doing it.(Voodoo Child)
Lighten the hell up, people. Such rhetorical paranoia is laughable.
For the record, it is this sort of thing that observably results from subjective objectivity. I mean, really ...
Xev,
Adam ... this duck-and-weave method is less than hilarious. It's shameful and disgusting.
To take this aside for a moment, since it's sitting right in front of me, this symptomatic inability to communicate is part of the reason I left atheism behind. It's what happens when one becomes too subjectively objective. I mean, crap, can you not answer a question or address an issue unless it meets your presentation standards? Are there any other polls we should rewrite to your accommodation in the meantime? Any other self-centered foci we should make a topic out of?
Adam: What, for instance, was so damn hard about your second post? Why waste that many more lines correcting someone's phraseology? Seriously: your second post was right on. Why waste time with the first? Less than a third of it is worth
anything.
Survival and self-gratification is the name of the game, sweetie. It's perfectly valid until you start wishing for things that ain't. (Xev)
Wishing for what things that ain't? Like society? After all, survival and self-gratification. I'm hungry and I'm horny. Oh, hey, the one's cute
and she stopped at the grocery store. What will the headlines say when I leave her hurt in the bushes?
Woman contributes to meaning of life? No, it will use ugly words like "rape" and "victimization".
Survival and self-gratifiction ... hey, it doesn't matter if I hurt her, and hey, I'm gratified afterwards, right? It's just like nature, right? Take what you want?
Sorry, it's the first counterpoint that springs to mind.
Nonetheless, it is a valid assertion worth considering. As I asked another, what the hell was so hard about getting to that point in your first response?
Nebula ... it's a good topic, despite the self-defeating title (long story ... it requires the whole of Sciforums' library as pertains to atheism). I'll try to put better detail to the actual response portion when I'm not so damned distracted, but that's the way the day goes.
thanx,
Tiassa
