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

Since Con used his Closing as an opportunity to further contend and make points, I am happy to continue that and I will make a closing rebuttal and overall summary. I would like to point out I have to prove ANY TOM was destructive and illusory, please note my accumulative arguments are general and I believe available to any alternative of a TOM given plausibly, not simply possibly, otherwise risk being illusory in its account only being possible. "He continually asks what's most probable. That's not how BOP works." 2.Con needs to give Rational justification for holding that a transcendental meaning is in any way probable or likely, thereby not making it an illusory prospect. Now, note this point, Con is dodging the central point of his BOP, that is give rational justification for his framework, without it, it is simply a set of possible circumstances with no justification, and therefore we would agree to hinge a belief on nothing more than possibility is in and of itself irrational and illusory. The point of this debate was for me to demonstrate that any TOM is. 1. Illusory & 2. Destructive If something is not-probable or even improbable, it is an illusory prospect to hinge your entire life on its validity, an illusory prospect would be one in which the conclusion or ultimate goal is unachievable or unreachable, if the TOM is improbable or unlikely, then it is an illusory prospect to believe in it and therefore I have furthered my position due to a lack of reasonable evidence for the existence of a TOM in the framework Con has set. Now, I have given 6 reasons for believing the proposition any TOM is not only illusory but also destructive. Those reasons and further defence can be seen in my opening and second post and since my defence has not be challenged, I will not return to them as my BOP has been satisfied. Now I concede evil possibly exists as a result of agents acting according to their will, but my objection notably was not 'evil', it was suffering. Please note, evil implies agency acting consciously in a morally bad way. An animal is not a rational agent, and therefore it is not immoral for them to act in a way that causes suffering. I made the argument that 1. Gratuitous suffering exists in our universe 2. 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. Please note, a loving and caring God does not have to play by any rules to avoid suffering, it does not have to use natural selection, it does not even have to give animals the ability to feel, but in our universe they do. Now to me, it is incompatible that a all-loving and note INTERVENING God would create 99% all of life just to watch it suffering endlessly and inevitably die. Not to mention, our pre-ancestral descendents who died from tooth decay and environmental pressures. This is suffering that is wholly gratuitous, if we accept God is as Con wants to state a Maximally Great Being, one who can change any amount of factors he so chooses and therefore I must simply extend my argument due to a misinterpretation by Con. Con says 'evil' exists to stop use from living a 'perfect' life. How does he know this? And secondly, how does a species of Mammoth dying via environmental pressures cruelly, make my life any less or more perfect? What I will say is that Con holds that 'Illusory' implies deceptive, well if so, then your framework involving God is most probably , if not definitely false due to incompatible natures, and therefore deceptive in its falsehood. For that contention, we can fully say your framework for a TOM is neither probable, (fails to meet original BOP) and apart from my accumulative argument (illusory) via incompatible properties. "My opponent has to prove any objective meaning is an illusion or fake." I am sorry, no I do not, for no reason does my accumulative case fail on this point. It is a red Herring, this late in the debate. Meaning as in what does X mean? I don't see Con's point, I provided reasons that satisfy illusory, thereby making it improbable and unknowable, and so it is deceptive to believe this, also note, illusory is not limited to simply being false, it can be an unobtainable goal or standard. "and offered no counter rebuttals up to this point. " I must implore everyone to note my numbered responses in my last post, I went through each and every point in good detail, I cannot see how you ignored those points. "even if it did limit freedom that wouldn't automatically make it illusory. " I think Con has misread my position, I argued a TOM would lead to an inability to give full responsibility to the agency at hand and therefore if acting in anyway caused the individual to do harm, his responsibility would be exempted onto simply following orders of a nature in which a TOM exists. I argued this under DESTRUCTIVE not illusory. Destructive as in responsibility and freedom. "My opponent can't possibly know what happens after death." I never argued we have knowledge after our death, death is the defined as the end the individuals life, if our bodies are material and we concede we do die, then we cannot survive our death because we cannot live past the end of the life we are living, you need to give further points against this. It logically follows. "In that situation a TOM wouldn't be destructive, now would it? An infant with no brain would have a TOM separate and distinct from everyone else." How can you know this? I see no reason to suppose this. Destructive as in it implores and individual unable to do menial tasks to achieve a standard set beyond them, even if the standard is just 'breathing', the idea of this is simply callous via your loving God. Also, the concept of this is pretty disheartening to parents and loved ones, imples God either changes your TOM, incompatible with our agreed definition or in some cases callous because he expected this to happen, not very loving. "In my first round I've shown scientific peer reviewed studies of the benefits of having a TOM. " Con showed that having some subjective preference or goal is somehow beneficial, that is not a TOM, and also that is not an externally imposed and agent heavy Meaning transcended upon your life, Con has missed the ball on this one. Having a TOM is an imposed meaning on your existence, note transcends and objective, having a purpose you root out in your life, is the antithesis of a TOM, this is not a good comparison. IN CONCLUSION. I have argued my BOP, that is that a TOM is both Illusory and Destructive. For Illusory I stated. 1. We are finite, material beings create through a non-cognitive process. 2. Human life is so diverse, the probability of a TOM is further complicated. 3. The lack of agency in our existence makes it even more improbable. 4. We couldn't know it, even if we had it. In closing summary Point 1-3 are improbabilities against a TOM, not necessarily Illusory on individual basis but accumulated to make a belief in a TOM both illusory as in unobtainable and deceptive as in not probable or rational to believe. 4. is the nail in the coffin, if our TOM is unknowable, which Con never challenged or gave a reasoned framework apart from (follow your subjective preferences) which is not a TOM, then it is obviously that a TOM based on the arguments is unknowable, improbable and unobtainable, and therefore illusory. And for destructive I stated 1. It limits our freedom of choice. 2. It negates our essence and subjective purposes. 3. It destroys agent responsibility." In closing summary, Limiting our freedom via restricting our ability to transcend its purpose, it negates the ability of our essence to drive ourselves in our lives, and responsibility has been argued in a lot of detail. I believe I have fully argued my BOP and using common knowledge constructed a framework that is not only true in a empirical sense. (note. diversity, finite, material) but logically probably in my destructive points that challenges ANY tom not just his. Con to me, didn't provide reasons to believe his framework, from brain-dead infants, free will, loving God, subjective purpose leading to a TOM, all this was plausible, bar God, given my argument, which therefore destroys his framework, furthering the illusory point specifically against him. In Conclusion, I have given reasons why ANY TOM negates and is illusory and destructive, I encourage you to give both our sides a critical read, thanks, Con has to leave his closing point empty.