Just Being Alive Requires So Much Work/Maintenance It's Exhausting.

[MicropBaldCurrycel]

Nope. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not.

yep thats why life is unfair.

 

[whatevs]

Chaos is a very real and observed aspect of this world, hence "randomness" does exist. "Nothingness" also exists, just look into the atom and you will see that nothing exists between the electrons and the nucleus of the atom. The phenomena have been observed in this physical world and extensively studied and classified so denying their existence is a purely pseudo scientific approach. There is nothing unique about your thoughts and emotions, they are just the biochemical interactions between the various enzymes and hormones in your body. There is no "greater" purpose to life. We are born, we live on, and then we die and from our ashes or detritus new life is born. This is the same for any animal that lives on this planet, for the plants the mechanisms are slightly different.

Life as you know it had it's humble beginnings on the young Earth's surface which was ravaged by violent weather. The ocean served as the ideal medium in which the atmospheric chemicals could interact and form the first organic compounds which eventually paved the way for life. There is no need for the consciousness for a person to come from some higher plane of existence, consciousness is a consequence of humanity's survival instincts, one which can be observed in almost every living being. Nobody wished to be conscious hence nobody needs to take responsibility for this life.

Your materialistic perspective is useful but not complete. I find that where it looks more shaky, this semi-scientific nihilism, is in the origin and continuation of something so complex and willful as life. Knowing that there's only a very distant resemblance to the phenomenon of life from things like the 'life' cycle of planets or gravity (i.e. life as a phenomenon is supposedly extremely rare in the Universe and has no equal) , your position on this can be summarized as 'this incredible self replicating, self perfecting machine started casually, but furthermore, it also keeps its coherence and direction casually every nanosecond'.

It stands to reason that if 'chaos' spawned life, despite the systematic inertia of life (think of a program that can create programs, that means stability), chaos should be able at any moment to disassemble life, which is just atoms arranged whimsically by chance. This is problematic, as proposing that something with the characteristics of life has been spawned chaotically AND chaotically keeps its shape and goals constant is absolutely illogical. It's much more likely that there's an underlying and invisible force, impulse, will, that acts as the structure that supports the whole thing, from one point to another, billions of years later.

In particular, when I speak of the scientific impossibility of nothingness, I speak of zero-point energy and the existing/not existing subatomic particles that fill a 'vacuum'. What am I saying? It ISN'T a vacuum. That's why there's something there. Some philosophers ALREADY had elucidated this long ago, that it stands to reason that nothingness not only is inconceivable, but also impossible, and that behind the manifested, which is mutable, there must be a constant which is not manifested.

 

[MicropBaldCurrycel]

Your materialistic perspective is useful but not complete. I find that where it looks more shaky, this semi-scientific nihilism, is in the origin and continuation of something so complex and willful as life. Knowing that there's only a very distant resemblance to the phenomenon of life from things like the 'life' cycle of planets or gravity (i.e. life as a phenomenon is supposedly extremely rare in the Universe and has no equal) , your position on this can be summarized as 'this incredible self replicating, self perfecting machine started casually, but furthermore, it also keeps its coherence and direction casually every nanosecond'.

It stands to reason that if 'chaos' spawned life, despite the systematic inertia of life (think of a program that can create programs, that means stability), chaos should be able at any moment to disassemble life, which is just atoms arranged whimsically by chance. This is problematic, as proposing that something with the characteristics of life has been spawned chaotically AND chaotically keeps its shape and goals constant is absolutely illogical. It's much more likely that there's an underlying and invisible force, impulse, will, that acts as the structure that supports the whole thing, from one point to another, billions of years later.

In particular, when I speak of the scientific impossibility of nothingness, I speak of zero-point energy and the existing/not existing subatomic particles that fill a 'vacuum'. What am I saying? It ISN'T a vacuum. That's why there's something there. Some philosophers ALREADY had elucidated this long ago, that it stands to reason that nothingness not only is inconceivable, but also impossible, and that behind the manifested, which is mutable, there must be a constant which is not manifested.

stop with your red herring fallacy.

This got nothing to do with the original topic.

No one asked to be born, we only become ourselves after birth and once we die we no longer exist.

This is a fact using reason, logic and biology.