Why Why?

[Ferrocyanide]

Nothing to something is a bit vague and unrepresentative.  There are all sorts of processes that can turn disorder into order, though.  Life, broadly, is one of them.

This one touches upon physics/chemistry.
I think you are aware that there is that book by Lawrence Krauss titled “A Universe From Nothing”. To summarize, Lawrence states that perhaps the philosophical nothing doesn’t exist. Also, he states that empty space which was called a vacuum or a nothing, is not a nothing.

It’s that philosophical nothing that I was talking about. I don’t think you would have nothing and then out pops a proton. I don’t think such a process exists.
On the other hand, transformation from energy to matter and matter to energy is something that is observed.

Life and order: This can be summarized to a molecule that makes copies of itself. The copy has to be accurate. Once you get different molecules that can make copies of themselves, the one that wins is the one that makes the most copies (and perhaps it destroys the other versions in the process).
A portion of this concept has been demonstrated in the lab. They have made RNA molecules that can make copies of themselves to a 90% accuracy.

If people want to call that order, they can I suppose but what is order?

but if escaping death were the entire answer to why I have a why

I’m not sure if I understood you.
Having questions such as “Why I exist” is not related to death. It’s just human curiosity which is tied to the desire to know, desire to explore, curiosity. These are tied to emotions. We are all emotional machines.

“What happens when I die”, “Where do I go when I die”, those ones are related to escaping death, which are also related to emotions.

There are all sorts of reasons for our existence, and all sorts of attendant processes related to that. Is there some specific reason that these things are incapable of providing valid insight into human purpose? When people insist that science or the natural world can't provide such purpose..is that a true statement or something born out of the history of attempting to avoid conflict with answers to purpose which arise from the divine?

For me, purpose means having a job to do. The purpose giver is an intelligent being. For example, a hammer is build by an intelligent being and its purpose is to drive nails into wood.
If you want, you could state that nature (a brainless thing) gave us the purpose to procreate, understand natural laws, build cities, build Space shuttles and go explore the rest of the universe.

#1 You can try having that conversation with a christian and I am guessing his response will be “Your god is nature, my god is a caring ultra-being.”
In his mind, you are a blasphemer and you are in the crosshairs of god. You are in big trouble. Pascal’s wager (Pain, torture).

#2 The christian will use the “argument from design” argument. He will say only an intelligent being can design something as complex as DNA.

A purpose we're individually dissatisfied with. Is it not possible, similarly, for there to be a valid natural teleology that disappoints common human misapprehensions and demands of purpose?

If you want to claim that nature (a brainless thing) gave you a purpose, you could.
For a theist, it creates a problem:
#1 The theist says to himself “I am the superior creature on this planet. I am the most intelligent. I can create a hammer and a VHS player”.
#2 The theist will say to himself “Not even I can create a single cell, a single strand of DNA. How could nature create me? Nature is stupid therefore the natural answer is that a super intelligent being created me.”

Why do you wake up every day and do what you do? Why do you put in the effort, why do you sacrifice? Why do you risk? Are there things more important in your life and to your life than your life? It's not gods, but it's something..and how does it escape the criticism offered of divine purpose, or, indeed, the insistence that there is no purpose at all? Does that apply to you, to whatever it is that compels you? Is that a non thing? Say a person told you, to your face..... that there is no why to any of what you do or are in mere reality. Is that something you'd accept as a true statement? Think of the thing(s) that you are the most invested in, that you feel the closest to. It could be big or small, it doesn't matter, just that you derive a sense of purpose and meaning that informs you on how to live your life (or give up your life) from it. Can you argue against your own statements with respect to that thing, or are you forced to concede that your thing is no more or less false than the belief that the why is to worship a god?

One word: emotions.
Emotions are part of my programming and it leads me to do certain things. Even though I use logic, emotions play a big role in what I do.
If we had no emotions, would it bother you if I cut you with a knife?

Why do I choose to remain alive? I would have to say that we enjoy being alive instead of just being separate molecules scattered around.

I concede that my thing is no more or less false than the belief that the why is to worship a god.
In other words, maybe there is a god and maybe he wants me to worship him.
That’s fine and dandy but ............ Before I worship him, I would need to have conversations with him.