Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
At present, yes. I don't believe the primordial conditions that gave rise to first life still exist.Others are definition and # 7 is only cause as you say. since it is the only cause, Is there need to be #7( i.e reproduction ) for livelihood to go on at each instance of the living?
For me the planet itself is a living organism, so we and every other creature grew from the planet when the time and conditions were right.
I dont try to clear things up. It requires to much desire. I just want to look at the thoughts and opinions. It is always kind of you to share.
What causes something to be a living thing? Any news or recent articles that you know? Any ideas,thoughts?
I believe that even scientifically, the answer is that it's a greyscale, not black and white. And we identify stuff as being more alive the more similar it is to ourselves.
Your mother is more alive than a stranger.
Your countryman is more alive than a foreigner.
A human is more alive than a dog.
A dog is more alive than a fish.
A fish is more alive than a plant.
A plant is more alive than a bacterium.
A bacterium is more alive than a virus.
A virus is more alive than an isolated protein.
A protein is more alive than a rock.
The level of humanity you deliver to each of those objects varies according to that scale.
Not to say that this is the scientific definition, but scientists who are expert on the subject would not blame you for saying the definition isn't nailed down, nor would they say it's not worth debating whether a virus is alive or not.
edited to add: And if your mother was a rock, then you get the circle of life.
I used to be able to recite the four items....had to stop and recall....
Consumption, absorption, elimination and reproduction.
(I think that's right)
This keeps items as 'fire' off the list.
As well as acid and other chemistry.
Life in this world is a chemical reaction.
But we should not error to say all things that consume are alive.
Likewise, absorption and elimination are not definitive.
Reproduction seems to require the first three and won't happen without.
But I suspect the topic is intended for a deeper meaning?
I agree with you and in fact I wrote a post quite similar to yours a while back. It is my opinion that what we call consciousness or Life evolves out of the simple actions/reactions or interactions found within all matter.
sorry if i parroted you. You should consider emulation to be highest form of flattery.
You are correct. Life is the result of complex chemical interactions, therefore there is no such thing as Life, only those forms of matter which are more lifelike or animate than others based on the complexity and order of those chemical interactions. Those characteristics by which we define living things...reproduction, metabolism, etc...are merely different structured or more complex forms of those same chemical interactions. All matter is in some way animated or lifelike due to those fundamental forces or interactions. The more complex those interactions become, the more animate or lifelike things appear, but they are never truly living.
Alternatively, you could say that everything is alive to some degree and that nothing is completely dead. I don't take it that far myself, though.therefore there is no such thing as Life