"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. Rather than actually attack any of my arguments, you are going to try to debunk them based on their format. I also noticed you have a tendency to bastardize my explanations with manipulated summaries and out-of-context quotes. I write lengthily to convey my whole point, rather than a short version that can be skewed, but you have tried to anyway. I ask the reader to make note of this, and I will proceed. I assume purpose exists because things exist, yes. Everything in the universe is not stagnant, it is always doing something, yes. However, because they perform certain actions they make their own purpose, their own definition into being. Things were created randomly, then began to react to themselves and the things around them. How and what they do in accordance to that is their purpose. because it is what they do best. In fact, you agree with me with you "nature' statement, as that is exactly what I purposed in the beginning: Perhaps it is not that meaning is meant to be taken from a religious stand point, but a natural one. 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 do not restrict myself to saying Earth and life exist because they exist. I say that because they exist and do something they perform a purpose of some kind. 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. Again, I notice you skew my words on reason of meaning. Black holes were made and then sucked, not made to suck. 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. Its not circular unless you make it that way, something you seem to do repeatedly. It is not purpose+purpose=purpose, it is composition+reaction=purpose. And equation, not a tautology. Perhaps if you stopped taking things out of context you'd see that. You must answer my questions, as I call the burden of proof on you. You have to prove that there is evidence to your statement, physical (preferred) or rhetorical. 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. I'm the only one of us who has actually tried to prove our point, not just disprove the opponent. I can do both, add while subtracting. 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. I have shown that because of a things nature they go beyond the scope of man, and exist inherently in the universe within themselves. All you've shown is your annoying ability to manipulate text. "Good show", "well done", "I'm blown away". Certain goal: to exist, and doing what you must to exist = purpose I do not stop at what it does, but also elaborate on why it does it (its purpose). It was created randomly, and after that started doing things. Because it does things there is some kind of objective that goes beyond human knowledge. Purpose means "to what end does something do something", I responded that that end is its own existence, and what it does adds to that existence. Because of that extra process it gives itself meaning, thus purpose. There, I have rebutted your claims. Unfortunately, because you have not built upon your argument, only tried to subtract from mine, there is nothing I can directly refute. Thus my side is stronger. I have more evidence and reasoning that adds to my position, while you've only copied and pasted words. So I ask you again to actually try and prove your point. What about the nature of the universe is determined by man? How is it nothing in the universe is not acting towards some certain goal somehow? What proof do you have? You've shown no evidence towards any of these claims that are fundamental towards your position. Not in round 1 or 2, you've only posed questions and summarized manipulated sentences. You have 1 last round to attempt and give any evidence towards your proposal, otherwise I have won.