"Purpose" and "Meaning" are not just products of man. They inherently exist in the universe.

"As pro, my points will be based on the title, meaning that I stand for "purpose" and "meaning" being inherently existent in the universe...This would mean, in a natural sense, that everything has a purpose as to why they exist...Anyway, the purpose of anything in the universe is firstly is to do what you do best...That's what they were made to do...By that I don't mean made by a maker, they where just made, however that came to be...But it did happen, my proof is that they exist...But when they were made, they simply had to do what ever came naturally, which I've already stated. Not for a divine purpose, but randomly. The raw materials that made the sun caused it to burn, so that's what it does. When a sun supernovas (no longer able to do what its made to do, aka death) it makes a black hole which happens to suck stuff so that's what it does..." This entire argument, though well worded, is a very large logical fallacy. Your argument reduces down to "Things exist" "Things perform certain actions" "They perform certain actions because that's their purpose" You beg the question, assuming that purpose exists. The things that things do are random, are they not? If that is true, purpose is just what they do, correct? And meaning is just what they do, correct? We have a word for that. It's called "nature". It is the NATURE of the sun to burn and the NATURE of black holes to suck. NATURE = what things do PURPOSE = what things are SUPPOSED to do MEANING = why things are supposed to do certain things You agree with me in saying that certain things in the universe just ARE. This means, there is no objective meaning to them. Any attempt to explain WHY things are the way they are would be invalid. Thus, you have conceded half my argument, that meaning does not inherently exist in the universe. "Then there is life...Because we are not perfect there is only a certain amount of time we exist but we kind of keep living by reproducing. So let me address your issues" This was a very well written and long piece of text that argues that Earth and life essentially exists the way they simply because of how they came to be, which I agree with "reason of meaning: to do what your made to to" Your argument is also that what we are made to do, is what we do. Black holes suck, therefore, black holes were made to suck (not by an intelligent maker, just by nature) Therefore, by substitution, your reason of meaning is "to do what you do." Your argument is a tautology because it is circular in nature. Anyone who reduces your argument and is not thrown off by the length can see that. "So now your job is to prove that everything I just said is false. This would mean you would have to know: How the universe was made without bringing faith into it (but I'll let it slide), how life was REALLY made (as in the actual truth to life), and how doing what you do best cannot possibly be any kind of purpose at all (with specific examples in accordance to mine, being: the sun, black holes, Earth, the creation and continuation of life, showing that everything they do has no possible way of being purposeful/meaningful). Failure to answer these thus causes the assumption that you concede to my point and that I win that argument. My information comes from the articles of accredited periodicals like Science Weekly, Discover, and National Geographic, among others (if you doubt this you can find the articles yourself, I assure you they are out there). So all my info is also the best guesses by professional professors." Not really. Your argument is strong because it is tautological and circular in nature. In order to defeat it, I need not do any of those impossible things you cited, I can simply examine your argument logically, diagnose the logical fallacies, reduce your argument, and call you out on an unsound and invalid conclusion. *** When someone declares that something has a purpose, it means that it acts towards a certain goal. When someone declares that something has a meaning, it means that there is a significance beyond what is physically present and visible. These things are clearly different from what my opponent describes. My opponent describes a thing's "nature", which is simply WHAT it does. If something performs an action randomly, it means it doesn't do so towards a goal. We can invent a goal, but that would be intervening and it would validate my point about meaning and purpose being artificial.