Scientifically speaking, What is the Purpose of Life?

[JustHisKid]

What is the scientific reason life exists, or what scientific laws have "pushed" life into existence, on this one planet?

The purpose of life is not scientific. Scientific study is man's attempt to discover and explain what God has created, and they get it wrong much of the time. The purpose of life is to please God.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure there are scientific causes for life to form. After all, it exists.

You would think so.
No one has even hinted
on a theoretical cause yet.
Every effect has a cause.
I'm not concerned about the process.
I'm asking what would cause the process to form?
Of what benefit is living to the non-living?

 

[SkyWriting]

My answers will be very simple and incomplete since I have only an interested layperson's knowledge of science. But on that understanding, and on the understanding that we are dealing with physical causes---not purpose--here goes.

The questions above are almost all explained by the possession, gain or loss of energy. An additional factor is gravity.

Water freezes when it loses energy to the point where it cannot remain in a liquid state. The atoms slow down and form bonds to make crystals. (Note that the atoms never stop moving, but they can slow down quite a bit.)

The sun is hot because the pressure of gravity on the sun generates huge amounts of heat. At the core of the sun, the pressure is sufficient to strip atoms of their electrons and initiate atomic fusion; this also increases the store of energy and keeps the sun hot.

Planetary orbits are a consequence of the force of gravity.

Rocks get warm in the sun because they absorb the radiant energy of the sun which is transferred to the atoms in the rock, increasing their energy and therefore their temperature.



I don't know that life did form from rock. I have heard that rock (in particular clay substrates) may have helped to incubate early life, but not that life formed from rock.

Complex biochemistry.

It is probably not so much properties of matter per se, but properties under certain conditions. For example, so far as we know life has only formed in conditions which allow for water to remain in a liquid state. That demands a certain temperature range. Available organic matter seems to be a pre-condition as well.

The next four are beyond me. You will need to inquire of the relevant experts in those fields. However, I doubt scientists would speak of anything suggesting that life "should" form. Only in terms of conditions allowing the possibility that life may form.

Sure there are scientific causes for life to form. After all, it exists. And the whole field of abiogenesis is quite exciting. Here is a recent new wrinkle on the interactions which brought about life: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150601172834.htm

That's getting better. Why would life form from non-living matter?
For what reason might it form?
It seems to have infinite complexity and amazing adaptability.
What is pushing for that to happen?
Why does it fight against all efforts to kill it?
What is motivating life to keep on, keeping on?

 

[gluadys]

You would think so.
No one has even hinted
on a theoretical cause yet.
Every effect has a cause.
I'm not concerned about the process.
I'm asking what would cause the process to form?
Of what benefit is living to the non-living?

If you are not concerned about the process, you are not concerned about scientific causes. You are looking for a philosophical reason. Can't help you there.

 

[gluadys]

That's getting better. Why would life form from non-living matter?
For what reason might it form?
It seems to have infinite complexity and amazing adaptability.
What is pushing for that to happen?
Why does it fight against all efforts to kill it?
What is motivating life to keep on, keeping on?

Again, you seem to be looking for purposes behind the existence of life. I suggest you ask your priest (or equivalent). Science doesn't answer that type of question. It only deals with the physical causes---the process of chemical and biochemical interactions which produced life.

Given the location of this forum in the Christians Only section, I expect most posters here would identify the purpose behind the origin and existence of life with the will of God.

 

[ScottA]

The purpose of life is not scientific. Scientific study is man's attempt to discover and explain what God has created, and they get it wrong much of the time. The purpose of life is to please God.

Amen!

At the very most, science, by definition, is inconclusive; and should only be viewed as an authority of things within the smaller sphere of life and the past, nothing future, for all scientific futures are speculation.

But, this is not a put down, but rather giving science its rightful place. The great good of science adds quality to life in the world, and is therefore good.

 

[toLiJC]

That is a great explanation for God's "motivation."
But if we can't test out His behavior with social experiments
then we can't provide a scientific answer.

Prayer studies have given us no conclusive results.

this was so because the (taught) faith and prayer were not right enough

Blessings

 

[SkyWriting]

this was so because the (taught) faith and prayer were not right enough

Blessings

That may be true, but the fact remains that prayer has not
produced repeatable results in controlled studies.

In my own experiences, God gives the correct prayer at the
perfect moment, rather than the perfect response to our
decision to ask for a response on our time table.

 

[toLiJC]

That may be true, but the fact remains that prayer has not
produced repeatable results in controlled studies.

In my own experiences, God gives the correct prayer at the
perfect moment, rather than the perfect response to our
decision to ask for a response on our time table.

why must God always do everything while the spiritual servants always be idle?!, what are the spiritual servants for?!

Isaiah 58:3 "Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.",

Matthew 11:12 "From the days of John the Baptist until now, life is given unto the kingdom of the heavens, and the valiant take hold of it.",

1 Corinthians 3:7-9 "neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God:",

1 Corinthians 4:11-12 "we... labour, working with our own hands:",

1 Thessalonians 2:9 "ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you",

1 Timothy 5:18 "the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

Blessings

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Mankind was made out of the compassion of God. He made us to be happy, and to be in love with our Creator. We are an object of His desire.
Why else would God make us? But we fell_ We went from being tha Apple of His Eye to sinners in need of a Savior.

 

[Steve Petersen]

One purpose of life is to increase entropy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Another is to produce a species that can prevent the next mass extinction.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

One purpose of life is to increase entropy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

Another is to produce a species that can prevent the next mass extinction.

And cause it's own, perhaps? Entropy is the idea that everything degrades, that there is no improvement in the universe. It's why evolution is the bastard child of science- completely alien to the logic of reality.

 

[Steve Petersen]

And cause it's own, perhaps? Entropy is the idea that everything degrades, that there is no improvement in the universe. It's why evolution is the bastard child of science- completely alien to the logic of reality.

Closed versus open systems and entropy. Earth is not a closed system, so evolution is not prohibited by that law.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Closed versus open systems and entropy. Earth is not a closed system, so evolution is not prohibited by that law.

Parrots have dyes in their feathers which are shared by no other animal on Earth. Sperm is irreconcilable; the universe is incapable of creating such a complex thing.
It's not like the evidence isn't there. Reality itself is a grand, open system. And it was created by God's likeness.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why must God always do everything while the spiritual servants always be idle?!, what are the spiritual servants for?!

I was not suggesting they be idle.
They are the only connection God has to our world.
The rest is left to Satan.

 

[SkyWriting]

Closed versus open systems and entropy. Earth is not a closed system, so evolution is not prohibited by that law.

Are you saying that evolution is a thermal system?
Or is it an energy conservation system?
Or is it a chemical system?
What is driving or governing evolution?
Is there some known law it follows?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Are you saying that evolution is a thermal system?
Or is it an energy conservation system?
Or is it a chemical system?
What is driving or governing evolution?
Is there some known law it follows?

No. I am rebutting the creationist notion that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[SkyWriting]

No. I am rebutting the creationist notion that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The existence of matter and energy violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If there is some Thermodynamic law involved in evolution, then please cite the reference(s).

 

[Steve Petersen]

The existence of matter and energy violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If there is some Thermodynamic law involved in evolution, then please cite the reference(s).

http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-second

 

[Steve Petersen]

"Creationists originally argued that a decrease in entropy is exactly what evolution requires, hence the conflict with the second law. This argument was used in an article by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) as late as 1973. As is the usual practice among creationists, he tried to support it with out-of-context quotations from the writings of respected scientists."

http://ncse.com/cej/2/2/creationist-misunderstanding-misrepresentation-misuse-second