Life on earth has no intrinsic value.

Although I attempted to edit my initial argument with the following, the debating period already began. However considering that you have already posted your argument maddiezieglerfan, I am forced to answer directly to your assertion that basically changes the original intention of the argument to discuss the intrinsic value of life in itself to the intrinsic value of life... according to God. maddiezieglerfan, although I respect your beliefs, and do not regard them as "utterly stupid ideas in your brain", I will begin this rebuttal by saying that you did not make an argument. You simply stated what your beliefs are and where they are derived from (the bible, and therefore God), If you intended to make an argument, it would appear that your argument in a nutshell is that "there is a purpose in life, and that purpose is to glorify God our Savior" or perhaps that Life has intrinsic value either at the behest of or because of the existence of God. This then changes the argument to whether God exists or not. Which wasn't my intention when creating this debate, but I will meet you where you stand. If your argument is that life on earth has intrinsic value and that value is to glorify God. Then it is safe to assume that the ONLY reason you believe or argue that life has value (or purpose as you"ve noted) is because of God. It is safe to say then that you would agree with me that WITHOUT God, life on earth has no intrinsic value. Since God is the focal point for you for all of life. Then life derives its purpose and its value from its glorification of God. Now I assume that you fervently believe in God's existence. But just for one second, and just for the sake of this debate and argument, consider if God did not exist. Would you then assert that life on earth has any intrinsic value? If yes then why? If not, then we are on agreement. With that said, I believe that we can salvage the original intention of this argument in saying that outside the context of God or an after-life, life earth has no intrinsic value. I will go further and ever concede your position that inside the context where God DOES exist as you have explained, life DOES have intrinsic value" in that in the presence of a GOD; he/she is able to dictate whatever he/she pleases because of his/hers omnipotence. Therefore in context where GOD exists, God dictates the value (or purpose) of life. God in his/her omnipotence could also determine that life has no value if he/she wanted too also. After all, he/she is God. God can do whatever God wants. However in that, there is a problem. If all life"s value or purpose is in the glorification of God, then its value is not intrinsic. Its value would then be extrinsic. What i mean here that that the value of a life simply to glorify God is not value in the life itself but an instrumental value or purpose toward the glorification of God. With the glorification part" your assertion would deem that the life is meaningless, purposelessness, and without value. I would then certainly agree with you, and would be my original assertion. Consider it. Being familiar with the Christian faith, I think you would agree that a life that categorically rejects God in all forms is doomed to hell. The failure of that life to glorify God is subjected to eternal damnation. Inherent in this assumption is that life is only valuable in the context of its glorification of God, thus meaning life in itself is NOT valuable, but rather life glorifying God is valuable . Your assertion therefore states that life serves as an instrument for the glorification of GOD (Im sure you do not disagree). If you do agree, life then has NO intrinsic value and that is to say, no value in itself. Rather, it has extrinsic value; it only has value in relationship to its God. As for the argument for whether or not God exists. I would certainly like to engage you in a separate debate on the manner. Who knows.. we may even be on the same side ? :) The Information below is what intended to include in my original argument - ******** The assumptions for this argument: 1. There is no afterlife. 2. Human beings and other forms of life on earth are ultimately headed toward extinction either through self-inflicted or natural catastrophe. 3. There is no God With these assumptions in mind, life has no intrinsic value " meaning that the notion that the lives of human beings, animals, and plants are valuable are incorrect. Or if any value could somehow be ascribed to life on earth in any scenario, it is ultimately negated by the fact that ultimately, death will come to all living beings eventually. The practical implication of this argument is that if we assign any value to life, it is because we choose to do so and not because there exists any inherent value to life in its self. Hence the following example "It is said to be a tragedy if a man dies in unsuccessfully saving a infant from a burning building. and is survived by 3 kids and a spouse." When exploring this scenario, our society regard this as a tragedy because we choose to do so. We ascribe value to the life of the infant, because it will never grow up to become a flourishing member of society. We ascribe value to the life of the man, for the very least because he is survived by other who presumably who love, or depend, or may suffer because his loss of life. For a wide variety of reasons, our society regards this scenario as a tragedy because we have chosen that life in one form or another. has value. However, an argument that life in itself contains no such value makes the observation that the infant's life, and any contribution or experience it would have in its future life had it survived is of no significance in the face that one day that infant would surely die and any impact it may have had on either its environment or the people around it would also be of no consequence in the face of eventual existence. The same could be said of the man who attempted to save the infant. Had he been successful in saving the infant, the infant who eventually grow into an adult, would subsequently die along with all of his/her contributions and accomplishments when considering extinction of life itself. Assume the same for the family man's life. So in the most simplistic terms, the arguments says: "Since everyone is going to die anyway in one way or another, why is valuable to save lives?" "Why are lives valuable in the first place." "Life exists simply because it wishes to exist, only to not exist thereafter." Proponents against this argument may contend that even though we may accept that extinction is the ultimate fate of life. Life still contains value in: In the present, even if only temporarily, or throughout its existence, or in the here and now. Or Life is valuable because of its impact on other life. To these arguments or similar rebuttals, I say that this is a subjective and relative view of the intrinsic value of life. It is an value assigned by a person who finds value in a persons life which in essence is extrinsic value. ************