Why would life want to perpetuate itself? How is this logical per say if you analyze it in purely materialistic terms?
>>19277790
The process of reproduction is not exact and sometimes produces anomalous traits, which may or may not make it more or less likely for an organism to reproduce. Everything that doesn't reproduce dies out and dissappears. Everything that does reproduce almost always passes down the traits that make it reproduce to their offspring. Wanting to reproduce is a trait that makes things reproduce.
>>19277790
You can't make it seem logical in materialistic terms because life is not a materialistic phenomenon, life is spiritual. Death is akin to material and life is akin to spiritual. Hence why when the spiritual soul manifested as consciousness leaves the body, a lifeless corpse of material remains. Life is valuable in and of itself, something that cannot be understood by materialistic thinking.
Well, you don't know. Maybe the organism that spawned all of us had a complacent brother who didn't feel like breeding. We're not going to be hearing from his ancestors though.
>>19277790
>purely materialistic
Is an orgasm purely materialistic, OP? I know of some who want you to believe exactly that.
>>19277790
because creatures who dont want to live generally dont procreate and thus remove themselves from the gene pool
>>19278820
This, materialism is a poison in your mind.
>>19277790
>Why would life want to perpetuate itself?
it doesn't "want" to retard, just like a car doesn't "want" to be driven—it is the nature of cars to be driven, that is the reason why cars exist; similarly, life exists to perpetuate, it is the nature of the living
>>19277790
It started out that way.
so the universe is constantly expanding, right?
what if life exists to imitate that expansion, and different lifeforms are different methods of expansion?
>>19279243
don`t fucking compare natural life to cars or else fags will say "well cars have an intelligent creater so according to you, humans also ahve 1 checkmate athiests"