A Philosophical Discussion, Need Input

[cottonmountaineering]

If you even spent a moment on google, you could come up with this article illustrating much of the scientific research on the subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The answer is NOT "it just did"

Okay, I am currently wading through this data, but would like to reiterate my point that it is going to help answer HOW life arose on Earth, but not WHY?

My main point is that there doesn't need to be a reason why, and often there is not a reason why.

To make an analogy, let's look at a koala. It evolved to be stupid, slow, and eat a low-calorie poisonous plant called eucalyptus. You could ask why did it the animal end up being this way - if there was any intelligence behind why this animal evolved the way it did, none of these choices would make any sense at all. The only reason why is it just happened because, in this case, they evolved to do so in that one niche. Reproduction, survival, etc.

[LifeIsGood]

It evolved to be stupid, slow, and eat a poisonous food

You are making this statement about Koala bears, but, embarrassingly, this seems to also describe our current human trajectory.

[LifeIsGood]

tmp.gif

[SkaredShtles]

26ghf8JGQ2YIU.gif

[BillMiddlebrook]

It doesn't sound like you "need input," but rather need output.

[Jorts]

I was raised in a Judeo-Christian household though I was never religious at any point in my life. A long time ago, I came to the conclusion that the point of life is to enjoy it and to bring joy to others. There's plenty of nuance with that governing philosophy but as an adherent to the absurdity of thinking myself special in a world filled with 8 billion+ other humans, it brings me comfort. This life is your one shot, enjoy it and don't take it too seriously. In 1000 years nobody will remember you or Elon Musk, if humans are even still around.

[Veory]

We have to remember that it isn't the job of science to tell us the moral why. It's a process of refining helpful models from data. Nothing about science is actually true forsay, it's just the best model we have from the data we've gathered. It's important to remember our models, such as evolution or the big bang, may very well be looked back on with laughter just as we do the simplistic models of times past. The big bang, while considered the standard cosmology, still has lingering questions about it that could throw the whole concept in the trash. This is why there is, in my opinion, no conflict between science and religion.

Science isn't supposed to be Truth (capital T), but asymptotically approaches it. Religious texts, too, can be interpreted in so many ways that are still changing after thousands of years.

If you keep asking why, eventually you'll hit the frontier of knowledge, and that's okay. There are still infinite scientific and philosophical "first ascents" out there. What you do to fill in the gap is really up to you.

Regardless, there is only one actual Truth as to the ultimate "why", we just don't know or agree on what it is. Perhaps we can't know. I'm certainly not going to tell you I have the answer, because I promise I don't.

Anyways, TLDR, it's not the job of science to tell us "why" we're here.

[LifeIsGood]

the point of life is to enjoy it and to bring joy to others.

Thank you for your response, and this simple yet elegant phrase nicely sums up my current perspective and prevents me from having a full-on existential crisis.

I definitely think humans will still be here in 1,000 years from now, unless an enormous meteor hits, but I predict that all of those “Why” questions will remain unanswered.

The significance of this topic is not just personal- to achieve any degree of global harmony, it will probably require everyone gradually coming to view reality in the same way. Yet this seems very elusive if none of us truly understand WHY we and the Universe exist at all.

[LifeIsGood]

it's not the job of science to tell us "why" we're here.

While your post is, in general, excellent, and greatly appreciated, I have to somewhat disagree on this particular statement. Science is what we utilize to attempt to answer any and every question in which it can be applied. Or maybe you are saying it cannot be applied in this case.

But yes, no matter how much data exists on any given subject, scientists are always prepared to discard ideas, explanations, and theories that turn out to be flawed.

[LifeIsGood]

It doesn't sound like you "need input," but rather need output.

Well, maybe I need both! I bet you have some great words of wisdom to add to this discussion.

[Jorts]

The significance of this topic is not just personal- to achieve any degree of global harmony, it will probably require everyone gradually coming to view reality in the same way. Yet this seems very elusive if none of us truly understand WHY we and the Universe exist at all.

The “why” question is an exercise in futility. Like a curious kid asking, “Why is the sky blue?” Because the earth’s atmosphere scatters short wave blue light. “Why?” Because the molecules that make up air in our atmosphere reflect some frequencies of light, diffract others, refract others. “Why?” It’s the laws of physics kid! “Why?”

No matter how much we as humans understand, there will always be gaps in our understanding. Why doesn’t the universe collapse on itself? The cosmological constant. Dark energy. But those are just place holders to explain it cause the math doesn’t work without those. Historically gaps in the “why?” have been filled with BS to placate the masses. It takes a little humility to accept “I don’t know” once in awhile and still be at peace.

[cedica]

IN SUMMARY, these answers are deeply unsatisfying.

Sounds like La Vita È Bella might not be the best username for you. May I propose The Marriage of Heaven and Hell?