The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

"However, my analogies showed that the existence and the continuance of existence cannot be purposes." No they don't. All they show is that the continuance of existence is sometimes not a purpose. To expand that and say that the continuance of existence can never be a purpose is logically flawed. "However, as I have shown through analagy, [that something can exist just to exist] is logically impossible." All my opponent has shown is that it is sometimes not the case. It is a big leap to go from "sometimes not the case" to "logically impossible". If I lived in the 1800s and cited numerous examples of space travel not working, it would not prove that space travel is impossible. (Yes, that was an analogy, but my argument in no way relies on the analogy. It was merely for clarification.) "My opponent's argument that 'life has always and only been reproducing'; therefore, 'the meaning of life is reproduction' is false in that life has been doing many other characteristics as well as reproduction." It is not that it is false. It is that it is not necessarily true. Any of the characteristics of life could be seen as the purpose or "meaning" of life, if my original point is extended. But they are all simply cyclical. Why does life acquire energy? So it can continue to live and acquire more energy. Why does life mutate? So it can continue to survive and continue to mutate. The argument can be applied across those six points, for example, I could say that the purpose of reproduction is to acquire energy; but there are no continua across all life other than these six things, which all in a sense cause each other. So my argument still applies. "subsistence is necessary; however the meaning of life cannot be subsistence." Why can the meaning of life not also be a necessity of life? "All companies strive to make money. This is their purpose." What about companies that make money by handling money, such as banks? *** An analogy cannot prove that the meaning of something is NEVER a necessity for its continuation. But an analogy can prove that the meaning of something CAN BE a necessity for its continuation, by providing a single example of this. I can do that very easily. I have written two fairly simple programs in Ruby in which the purpose is to produce itself. This file rewrites itself. {code} file = File.new("write_self.rb", "r") text = "" lines = file.readlines() lines.each { |i| text += i } writer = File.new("write_self.rb", "w") writer.puts(text) {/code} This program ends whenever am_i_dead becomes true, and the purpose or meaning of the program is to assign am_i_dead to false. So the program's own meaning is to prevent it from stopping or "dying". {code} am_i_dead = false while am_i_dead == false am_i_dead = true # This is the center of the program, the "meaning". end {/code} Even if you don't program in Ruby, you shouldn't have too much trouble understanding what the programs do. I have proven that in not one instance but two, it is possible for something's own function to be to keep itself going; I have thus refuted the statement that my opponent's case relies upon, that statement being that something's meaning or purpose cannot be to continue itself.