The meaning of life

Thanks to my opponent for clearing up a few things as we never had established definitions and there were a few points that obviously could have been taken different ways. C1: By creator, I had assumed a conscious actor which creates things, with a reason/purpose. However, even if this definition is expanded to include random forces, it doesn't support the point that there is a meaning of life. My opponent refers to what she claims is the 'common belief' that "everything happens for a reason." Therefore there must be some reason or purpose to our existence. I disagree. Why should we believe that everything must happen for a reason? Radioactive decay seems to occur for absolutely no reason at all. (1) Gravity seems to occur for absolutely no reason at all. No one seems to have any trouble accepting the fact that there is no greater meaning behind the inexplicable force that pulls objects together. The statement offered may support the resolution, but there is no reason to believe it is true. C2: So my opponent is in fact arguing that a daily schedule provides some but not all of the meaning in life. This has nothing to do with the resolution that "The meaning of life is to give life meaning." C3: The scope of my opponent's argument seems to have shrunk from any religion to just Christianity. The majority of the world's population does not believe in Christianity. In any case, the meaning of life in Christianity as you describe it does not match the resolution. It is not easy to see how they are the same. They are clearly two different sentences with distinctly different meanings, neither of which follows logically from the other. C4: If there were no life, there would be no meaning to life. It does not logically follow that since there is life, there must be a meaning to life. The fact that something exists does not automatically mean it has a purpose or meaning, let alone a purpose or meaning that can be known and defined. C5: My opponent does not seem to understand how the burden of proof works. She has claimed knowledge of a metaphysical truth of profound importance. Am I to automatically accept it as true simply because I cannot find evidence to the contrary? No. If there is no evidence supporting something's existence and no evidence supporting it's nonexistence, it is assumed that it does not exist. Nonexistent things don't go around leaving evidence of their own nonexistence. This also applies to abstract ideas, such as the resolution of this debate. Conclusion: My opponent has still not given us a reason to believe that the resolution is true. There is a high burden of proof when proposing that a certain metaphysical statement is true. My opponent has provided no credible evidence whatsoever that would indicate that a meaning of life even exists, let alone that it is specifically what she has proposed. It is not enough to simply say, "There is a meaning to life because there is a meaning to everything. Therefore the meaning to life is ________." There is no reason to accept any of that is true. Unless there is solid factual evidence that logically supports a claim, then said claim can simply be rejected. This is true not only of the resolution but also of any metaphysical arguments supporting it.