The meaning of life

(In reply to C1) My opponent, you say you assumed a conscious actor which creates things. assuming can be a debater's worst enemy, I must say. You also say that my expanding my definition of creator does not support the point that there is a meaning of life. If you truly believe that, why did you take the time to question me on it if you feel my answer would not matter anyway? And perhaps you are right, perhaps it does not support my point, however it is an important detail that cannot be taken away without causing a large hole in this debate, which- I'm sure- if I had left out, you would have brought up the fact that I left it out just as you now bring it up saying it is no support. You also say gravity occurs for no reason, however without gravity I find it hard to imagine us being able to have this debate. Also, gravity is irrelevant to our debate, and does little to support your opinion. " The statement offered may support the resolution, but there is no reason to believe it is true." And, might I ask, what valid and supportable reason is there to believe it is not? (In reply to C2) Once again my opponent points out that another of my defences have nothing to do with my resolution, and once again I ask that if it had nothing to do with my resolution, why bother to take the time to challenge me on it during round one? I am sorry, opponent, but you are getting a bit repetitive in your actions. And, once again, though my mention of the daily routine is not my point, it is an important piece of information that I feel our readers must keep in mind. (In reply to C3) The scope of my argument has not shrunk from any religion to only Christianity, I had simply used that religion as an example, which I am sure I stated. Before I even mentioned Christianity I was sure to say "Well, here is an example of what I mean." Really, my opponent, you must pay closer attention. I also ask that you please explain how my two sentences relating the Christian belief to that of mine do not 'follow logically'. (In reply to 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." Perhaps you are paying attention! You seem to have discovered my point. If there were no life, there would be no meaning to life, but there is indeed life- therefore there is a meaning to life. It's as simple as that; how is that possibly illogical? (In reply to C5) "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." And yet (once again, for example. I repeat, 'example.') the Bible was written, therefore is there not proof of God? People fall in love, even though love is simply an abstract idea, but we both know love exists, do we not? "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." I could easily say the same of you supporting the opposite of my argument. You have no 'factual evidence' that my conclusion is untrue, therefore do you agree that your claim should simply be rejected? Conclusion: My opponent has still not given us a reason to believe that the resolution is not true. My opponent has, so far, been rather repetitive and a bit hypocritical. If you wish to debate with me, please pay closer attention to what I say and what you reply. I understand it can be difficult at times, but I ask that you please consider what you say and how to say it before it is actually said. Thank you.