Life, at its simplest?

needs cells or a cell

homeostasis, (maintain a body temperature)

evolves

DNA

Reproduce

Respond to environment

Use materials

Grows and develops

those are the 7 characteristics of life that my biology teacher taught us.

Yes what you are saying is right according to our present knowledge to determine weather something is alive or not but , It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms. Defining life is difficult—in part—because life is a process, not a pure substance. Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and it should be sufficiently general that, with it, scientists would not miss life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.

Perhaps the most compelling reason it is difficult to define life is the lack of objective measuring tools. All of our human methods for defining the undefinable (science, philosophy, religion, metaphysics, etc.) are self-limiting in some way. Unlike other living organisms, human beings seem to be driven to quantify and categorize the world around them. If we can describe a phenomenon such as 'life' well enough, we can bring some order out of chaos. The problem is, once one working definition of life has been created, a previously unknown plant or animal may appear and defy the definition.

Scientists have several qualifications they use to define life, including the ability to reproduce and a reaction to outside stimuli, such as light or heat. But certain computer viruses can use electronics to replicate themselves, and some inorganic materials can be engineered to respond to outside stimuli- plastics which shrink from exposure to heat, for example. Obviously computer viruses and engineered plastics are not living organisms, but they each satisfy at least one of the criteria scientists use to define life. Scientific methods and principles alone cannot adequately describe all of the elements of life.

Just as non-living objects can have similiar qualities as living organisms, living organism may have similar qualities as those not alive. For example, a human child contains a measurable amount of iron, sulfur, zinc, calcium, carbon, water and salt. Coincidentally, a random sampling of gravel and topsoil also contain these elements. Clearly life is not completely defined by a list of elemental ingredients.

Experience tells us that other elements found in our world (minerals, water, metals, etc.) may contribute to life, but are not filled with this undefinable life force. Humans can quantify the objects around us as animal, vegetable or mineral, but we cannot capture and examine the life force which supports the largest tree and the smallest one-celled organism.

From a philosophical or metaphysical point of view, life occurs whether we humans can measure it or not. The fact that we are sentient (capable of self-awareness and thought) tells us that we are indeed filled with a force called life. Plants and animals that share some of our own organic structures are also said to be alive.

I would make the slight modification: able to store unique genetic information. Just a quibble putting perhaps too fine a point on it.