Life

[1] So I see that in the human race itself, and many animals, the only thing stopping us acting madly or badly are the consequences (or fear of them) for dong so. [1A] Pro says that he sees that in the human race, people only act morally out of the fear of negative consequences. But his only evidence for this is himself. Well, that proves that he only acts on consequences. It does not prove it for the human race. Ask just about anybody why they act morally. Sure you’ll get a few people who say that they only do so to avoid negative consequences, but history is filled with people who acted morally because they believed it was simply the right and just thing to do, or who acted morally even when they knew that the consequences of not acting morally would be beneficial to them. (Martin Luther King Jr. Rosa Parks, Ghandi etc.) [1B] Even if it were true that the whole human race only acted based on consequences, that does not make it right. Don’t make an appeal to popularity. [2] You are not anything more than a rock because there is nothing intrinsically incredible about this debate in the first place. The rock exists and erodes and so do you. [2A] I never that humans are more important than rocks because this debate is intrinsically important. I said that the consequence of a thing does not define the thing entirely. Suppose someone intends to do something nice for another person but accidentally hurts the person instead. Would we say the person is immoral just because the consequence he brought about was negative. Of course not. You must separate intentions from consequences. Similarly, you must separate principles from consequences. The consequence that humans will perish one day does not change the fact that the principle that humans have more worth (because we can do great things) than rocks. [3] I find it rather ironic you think you have a soul, you must either give evidence of this or drop that point, we agreed to drop religion and god out of this so don't be silly and raise unfalsifiable religious nonsense into this please. [3A] Why do you find it ironic? [3B] Evidence of the soul is hardly controversial. The word “soul” is just a synonym for mind or consciousness, or personality. Do you really deny that these exist? We couldn’t be having this debate right now if we did not have thinking souls. We would just be blobs of meat with no intelligence. [3C] The soul is not necessarily a religious topic, (it can just be a philosophical topitc) it is not unfalsifiable (you can check to see if there is a soul by asking if we have experiences or not), and we never agreed to not bring religion into this. If your use of God as creator is not religious, then neither is my use of the soul. [4] You [sic] statement about it being impossible for something to become nothing is nonsense, [sic] everything originated from nothing [sic] did it not? If not you must explain how not and then justify and prove the [sic] everything has existed for eternity otherwise it's logical to assume there was once nothingness. [4A] It is not the case that everything originated from nothing. That has never been proven and it logically impossible. 0 plus 0 will always be 0. It will never turn into 1 one day. A 1 can never come from a 0. Something can never come from nothing. I don’t have to prove that everything always existed, but that something always existed. Similarly, a 1 can never become a 0. My soul can never become nothing. Hence my life has meaning in consequence as well as in principle. CONCLUSION Con has still presented no reason for why he believes that life is meaningless. He has only asserted it, saying that we are worthless because we will die, and he has ignored my refutations.