Humans are meant to attempt answering the questions of life

Thanks to Shakespeare for the debate! I shall present by final round as a list of counterpoints; 'Let's save my elaboration about creators and such for another time. I would say that it deserves its own debate' --> Very well. I think you have given up your only chance of victory in doing so, however. 'You keep reiterating things about "natural processes." By nature, *meant* to occur' --> Actually, I only used that phrase once. Saying we were created by nature *meant* to occur is nothing but a rhetorical ploy, however, and really merits no response. 'My contention was not that being alive gives people meaning. Human purpose is endowed upon them by a culmination of things that they do. Not only in life. Unless you're saying that humans are not meant to die...' --> I apologise if I misunderstood your position (the pudding analogy must have led me on a false trail), but it seems you finally understand my position at least. No matter what humans do, how they act or how they question, they are not meant to do any of it. They are not meant to do anything because they were not created for a purpose. They are not meant to live or die, love or hate, act kindly or cruelly, they just do these things because certain characteristics have been instilled in them by purposeless forces. 'Kinesis said that "we are utterly meaningless within the context of the universe." This is disproved in that the human-dwelling planet of Earth is a part of the universe. The universe would unarguably be changed in some way in the absence of humanity' --> Change =/= meaning. There can be meaningless change. More specifically, there can be meaningless change in the absence of a creator. If a knife is manufactured by a company, that knife is created with a purpose- the purpose to cut, to be sold to make money. And because it was intentionally created with such functions in mind, it has meaning. It is MEANT to cut things, to be sold to make money. On the other hand, in the rock example above, the rock was not meant to kill the rabbit. It just happened to fit certain functions. My argument is that humans are, in the context of meaning, like the rock and not the knife. Pro had to demonstrate that humans were like a knife, with the function of answering the questions of life, and she failed to do so. '*You, yourself were meant to attempt answering the questions of life' --> No. I was not created with the function of answering the questions of life-or if I was, you have provided no reason to think I was. Since the burden was on you and you failed to meet it, we are left with no reason to think humans are meant for anything at all. 'Events conspire as they do because they were meant to occur in that way. If they were not meant to be, they would not happen. Whether it is our DNA and environment compelling us to be curious beings, or a rock killing a poor little rabbit' --> Huh? Events that are not meant to be can't happen? Why should we believe that? I think it obvious that events can still unfold in the absence of meaning. The indifferent laws of the universe plug away without any apparent purpose. A rock isn't meant to fall towards bodies of mass; it just does, because the laws of the universe compel it to.