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

"Ah, I see how you are going to play this." If your points were more precise, I wouldn't have to try to hard to figure out what you want to say. "How and what they do in accordance to that is their purpose. because it is what they do best." Ok, so you mean to say that their purpose is not simply the things they do, but the things they do *best*. How can you characterize what something does best? If purpose is objective, and purpose is the thing that something does best, that means there is an objective way of saying that out of an infinite number of actions that a thing performs, the sun, for example, one of those actions is inherently better than all the others. By whose standards? Why is the sun shining on earth better than the sun shining on the moon? I declare that your definition is flawed since there is no objective way to declare what the best action a thing performs is. Therefore, the best action is subjective. Therefore, purpose is subjective. "Things are supposed to do (purpose)what they do (nature), and that's why they do it (meaning). Their meaning is to fulfil their purpose within their nature. Because it is not that they just are, its what they do because they are. That is purpose. Because the sun is constantly in combustion and it cannot defy itself, it must shine, and is meant to do nothing else besides that. Because life is born and must survive, it must live, and anything besides doing that would kill it. Nothing exists without doing something, and because they do something they fulfill a purpose for themselves." I understand this, meaning I did not misinterpret your point. However, my argument is that purpose presupposes intent. You argue that things are the way they are because of the natures of other things. For example, you would argue that the sun undergoes those reactions because other natures of other things led to its existence, correct? The reason why a sun cannot defy itself is that it does not have the potential. Even the concept of the sun not combusting is fallacious. Thus, your statement that things are "supposed to do what they do" is tautological and circular. How do you know what they are supposed to do unless they are already doing it? If you declare that all purposes are the acts of a thing, then all purpose is relative. The fact that I am raising my hand shows that raising my hand is my purpose for existing. Yes, I know this is when you clarify that purpose is what something does best. but who determines that my raising my right hand is better or worse than my healing a sick fellow human, or watching television, or getting an education? None of these actions can be objectively declared to be better or worse. Hence, each action is subjective, as is purpose. "For things to be they must exist, and in order to exist they have to do what they do in order to exist, and that doing is their purpose so that they can exist." A sun that no longer shines does not cease to exist. A living thing that dies does not cease to exist. It's just that our arbitrary definitions of these things have to be wiped out because we witness a change. In that case, if you define the sun shining as being what it does best, its purpose, and you define the purpose as what something must do in order to exist, then the sun no longer shining would mean it doesn't exist any more. Suppose we cease the reactions of the sun using technology. The sun no longer shines. Yet, it still exists. The form just changes and it is different from the sun we know. However, it still exists. Therefore, purpose and existence have no correlation. "Black holes were made and then sucked, not made to suck." I quoted this not to respond, but because it was funny. "They do what they do because when they were made they just did it. They do what they were made to do. They were not predestined to do it by God or nature, but because they did it when they were made, which makes what they are doing their purpose." The reason I call this circular logic is that it presupposes purpose. You say that purpose is what a thing does. Anything does an infinite number of things. You say that purpose is the best thing that a thing does. By whose standards? How can we judge one action better than another? You say that the purpose is the thing that a thing must do in order to keep existing. Nothing can perform any action that takes it out of existence. A non-shining sun still exists. "You must answer my questions, as I call the burden of proof on you." Illogical, since you are supposed to prove the existence of purpose and meaning. That's the same as asking me to prove that god does not exist. The burden of proof falls on you. "You have to prove that there is evidence to your statement, physical (preferred) or rhetorical." Fine. At the end. "I've noticed that on every response you don't actually provide a counterexample to the point but the process. Its not the framework you should be worried about but the painting inside, and so far your argument is a blank canvass." How can you hang a painting when the framework is about to collapse? "Just examining logical fallacies does not further prove the point you should be trying to reach, being: "purpose" and "meaning" are just products of man, they do not exist inherently in the universe." It's the same as showing that God is a human construct and that God does not exist. It's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Thus, the burden of proof falls on you, you're the one who has to prove that purpose and meaning *do* exist. **** First of all, I will reiterate that each of your points suggesting the possibility that purpose/meaning inherently exists outside of human bias has been debunked. The most concise argument I had against it is reproduced below: "You say that purpose is what a thing does. Anything does an infinite number of things. You say that purpose is the best thing that a thing does. By whose standards? How can we judge one action better than another? You say that the purpose is the thing that a thing must do in order to keep existing. Nothing can perform any action that takes it out of existence. A non-shining sun still exists." Your proof and arguments for purpose are logically flawed because your definition of purpose is flawed. You're essentially left with no argument. So now I will propose my own. My argument is for the likelihood of my case, not an absolute proof, since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Mankind associates purpose with many other words. Duty. Job. Occupation. When creating tools or assigning jobs, they dictate purpose. A bowl is to hold things. A spear is for throwing. Thus, mankind automatically assumed that purpose is inherent to the universe. The sun shines so that crops can grow and so that we can be warm. This is inherent human bias. The sun does not have a purpose outside the human realm. Outside the human realm, the sun shines. No one can dictate what a thing is supposed to do, nor can anyone dictate a thing's nature. A sun that no longer shines still exists. Suns that die down still exist, and they still act on their nature. The purpose of them shining has vanished because it was based on a bias. However, the sun dying down and not shining is still natural. Thus, everything has a nature. But nothing has an inherent purpose. Nature is what a thing does. Purpose is what a thing should do. Things cannot go against their nature, logically impossible. Things CAN go against their purpose. I can use a bowl as a hat. Or a spear as a toothpick. Purpose is tied with opinion, bias, and therefore, can only exist if man exists to bestow it.