Any Transcendental Objective Meaning to Human life is both Illusory and destructive.

It seems Con believes he does not have to justify his position, I can only point to the fact that this is a debate, and you cannot state "I do not need to justify my position", as written earlier, you when accepting the debate do actually have to satisfy your BOP and justify them with reasons.1. Provide a rational framework for a TOM that makes it probable or likely, and therefore not illusory.2. Provide reasons for why a TOM is not illusory or destructive.Note 1, follows into 2, your framework must be likely or probable, if not then it is illusory. If both of these are not satisfied via argument, the debate is lost. By me making positive steps in reasoning my BOP, I not only satisfy my BOP but further negate and trouble his ability to satisfy both his 1 and 2." The first thing he must prove is that any transcendental objective meaning to human life is illusory. The other thing he must prove is that it's destructive."Noting this point, I have done it in detail."God created us and gave us free will, and if space permits I'll provide more support for that premise, but it shouldn't be necessary." Con doesn't provide a rational framework that is probable, he provides an ad-hoc solution to a problem, a framework needs reasons and arguments, not assertions, and therefore why not just say 'The universe has given us a TOM', rather than God, neither are given any reasons, and so without reason, no rebuttal is actually needed. Con is only adding to a list of BOP's now, and I must concede his framework is actually intermingled in this solution to his first BOP and therefore he is actually trying to satisfy point 1, and so, he has added two 'essential' BOP's. these specifically.3. (Added/now essential BOP) Why Con's particular objective transcendental meaning is any more likely than any other. Specifically his framework4. (Added/now essential BOP) Provide adequate reasons to presuppose we have an objective transcendental meaning to life (Con's specific one).Give"The problem with all of these arguments is that each one rests on a ton of assumptions and is answered by the existence of an Omni God."Again, This is merely an ad-hoc solution, and I am invoking a more reasonable explanation, with a far more reasonable solution, the use of God is not only unnecessary but unfounded. As Sean Carroll states in his debate against William Lane Craig, 'God has no explanatory power and theism is not well defined'. Not only that but it is neither supported or defined in such a way as to provide any such reasons to assume its probability and therefore it is an illusory prospect."I'm advocating for a many meanings theory. Each person has unique strengths, talents and desires. In order to pursue your own meaning you need only look as far as your own desires"Con seems to imply subjective meaning, and therefore his TOM, notably 'objective' is now subjective, and therefore Con cannot win this debate, as he has given an incompatible definition."When we talk of brain dead people, not having a will. It's simply not true. A brain dead person would be following God's will without even trying. Their purpose, though unknown to us or even them is being fulfilled without them having to do anything."I have no rebuttal for something so wild. It is not only improbable but pretty morbid that a loving God somehow makes your TOM fulfilling even when you have no cognition, implies either your TOM changes, therefore is not binding, and so is not meeting the initial standard I set, or a loving God wants brain dead individuals, if so then it does not imply loving, and so Con's framework is riddled with improbabilities. His framework is becoming non-sensical."This isn't an argument for a TOM being illusory. It's an argument for it being unknowable and simply doesn't support my opponent's position."Illusory, means a feat or challenge that cannot be met or completed and therefore the goal or conclusion is permanently out of our grasp, and therefore the TOM is an illusory prospect."There is no reason a TOM has to limit freedom of choice. You can have multiple paths to achieve the same ends. "Note the TOM provided gives us 'freedom' to a limited state to achieve a set goal, one which cannot be changed, if it can, it is hardly a binding and objective meaning, thereby validated my claim. Appealing to a large population, is a fallacy in and of itself, success does not translate to 'there exists a TOM'.A MGB assumes a quality of maximum greatness and morality, a world of unnecessary pain and suffering is not compatible with a loving entity, therefore a loving entity is not compatible with a world of suffering. 1. Gratuitous suffering exists in our universe2. A loving intervening God(MGB) is incompatible with 1.3. Our universe contains 1.4. A loving God(MGB) does not exist in our universe. It is possible that a MGB exists. ( In where? )A. Our universe? No.B. In Some Universe with no suffering, perhaps, but the movement, from some to all, includes ours and then meets my argument.C. In some abstract plain of existence, perhaps, but again movement from some to all meets 1.In conclusion, Con's 'added' bonus is not actually an added bonus, he is trying to prove his BOP and therefore his arguments are not substantial, he talks about God, Brain dead desires, free will, subjective desires transcribed by God. We have seen no rational justification for this framework, or its probability. Remember, Con has to provide reasons to presume this, and so far only The Ontological argument has be given, and as we can see, it is hardly probable or likely with all the conflations of its problem.What Con has not done successfully. 1. Con must give some reason to presuppose why ANY transcendental meaning to life was not destructive or illusory.Con attempted to disprove my reasons, and we will now look at them in more detail. Let's look again at my position.1. It limits our freedom of choice.2. It negates our essence and subjective purposes.3. It destroys agent responsibility.Con offers a reason against 1. He assumes that we can take multiple paths to achieve the end, so what? That is still a restraint or barrier on the freedom of the individual to make ready what he feels is a satisfactory life. Also, Con complains that doing what we 'don't desire' is ultimately harmful, unfortunately Con offered no reasons for this, and this point validates 1. by assuming certain routes are unadvised and restricted under his framework.2. Con offers no reason against negating our essence, and then writes '. God gave us these desires and we wouldn't dream of not following them.', If so, then God acts as an agency thereby converting our choices to his desires inflicted upon us. Con's framework destroys subjective purpose even more so than assumed, 2. has been further pushed by Con. on 3. Con assumes a TOM just makes us 'more responsible', we see no reason to assume this, and note in my opening."A business man who undercuts and steals, appeals to simply 'playing the game', the soldier, appeals to his commanding officer. The house wife appeals to tradition. These are just samples of 'pushing' the responsibility of our choice away from the agent and onto the nature and context of the choice."Furthermore let us look at his contentions to illusory.1. We are finite, material beings create through a non-cognitive process.Con believes we cannot know this. I think we can, I think we are material beings, made up of material in the world, our skin, bones, teeth, brain matter etc etc, it is self evident via embryology. We are finite. We do not survive our death. and Natural-selection, that is nature is not an agency. Con is simply again assuming too much.2. Human life is so diverse, the probability of a TOM is further complicated.Con states 'We only need to look at our desires'.Note my position.humans are not all cognitive beings. Some are born with no brain, some are severely disabled, some are even sociopaths with no feelings. To prescribe a reason to presume a TOM for the abilities of conscious behaviour is not to prove or make probable a TOM for humans, but rather to presume one for beings with those attributes. Therefore that attempt would fail to prove the debate title, that is 'to human life', in all its diversities."How can we infer that a brain-dead or infant with no brain even has a TOM? Or desires for that matter, and without desires Con's specific TOM is illusory.3. The lack of agency in our existence makes it even more improbable.3. When we talk of brain dead people, not having a will. It's simply not true. A brain dead person would be following God's will without even trying. This is just absurd.Con and me agree I have two BOPs. 1. Provide reasons that a TOM is destructive.2. Provide reasons that a TOM is illusoryI believe I have given multiple specific reasons and defended them in this debate, and therefore I have not only met my Burdon of proof but refuted his, also my reasons make his bop more improbable and his framework harder to prove, his framework implies 1 and 2 are false, and therefore he needs to dismantle and construct to meet his Burdon of proof.Con's BOP to win this debate is as follows.1. Rational justification for holding that a transcendental meaning is in any way probable or likely, thereby not making it an illusory prospect.Please note this does not say 'Any Plausible scenario' or even 'any scenario that can be conceived'. It asked for1. Rational justification, therefore reasons upon reasons2. Probability.I have already noted against his framework1. Argument from Evil2. Non-agency of evolutionary processes3. Occam's razor makes his solution non-probable and unnecessary, thereby making it more improbable than not.I have given positive evidence for this and therefore made his BOP even more challenging. Con has not met his BOP, I have met mine.