The meaning of life

C1: My opponent asks why I take the time to question a point if I do not feel it supports the resolution. The reason I do is because silence is consent, by ignoring this point I would have been agreed with it. Also, I fail to see why I my opponent assumed I would have brought up the possibility of a creator is I am arguing against a meaning of life. However, during this discourse my opponent revealed a critical misunderstanding of reality that explains much of this debate: "You also say gravity occurs for no reason, however without gravity I find it hard to imagine us being able to have this debate." Just because we are able to have this debate because of gravity does not mean that our debate is the reason for gravity. If A implies B, B does not imply A. This is a logical error called Affirming the Consequent (1). I only brought up gravity to explain that some things happen for no reason, but it seems to have revealed that my opponent does not understand cause and effect. This will be relevant to the debate later on. The only reason I said this may support the resolution is that if we were created by a creator, there would be some justification for believing there was a meaning to life. However, it is not my responsibility to disprove this. It is not my responsibility to seek out evidence for the nonexistence of every nonexistent entity my opponent proposes if no evidence is offered in support of its existence. C2: Again, silence is consent. If my opponent finds that fact that I dismiss irrevelevant arguments as irrevelevant than perhaps she should not offer them. As Con, I must address each argument and explain why it is either invalid or does not support the resolution. Bear in mind that this method of arguing was successful as my opponent conceded both of these points. C3: The meaning of life in Christianity, as my opponent described it, is to follow the path that God has laid out. The resolution is that the meaning of life is to give life meaning. These are two different meanings to life that do not relate. In any case, something is not true because a religion says it is true unless you prove said religion to be true. My opponent has not demonstrated how the world's religions support the resolution. C4: I am offended that my opponent asserts I was not paying attention. I have understand that statement perfectly and I did not discover the point, I knew what it was an I completely contradicted it. " If there were no life, there would be no meaning to life. It does not logically follow that since there is life, there must be a meaning to life." Perhaps you are paying attention! You seem to have discovered my point. If there were no life, there would be no meaning to life, but there is indeed life- therefore there is a meaning to life. It's as simple as that; how is that possibly illogical Let: L = life M = meaning of life My opponent's argument: 1. not L implies not M 2. L 3. therefore M This is in exactly the same logical mistake as before (1). We do not know that there is a meaning to life on the basis that life life didn't exist there would be no meaning. What my opponent is attempted to argue works like this: Suppose I decide not to build a house. If I don't build a house, the house could not be painted. Therefore, if I were to build the house it would have been painted. It denies the possibility that I could, for whatever reason, not paint the house I built. It is extremely illogical to assume that any trait a thing lacks if it does not exist, it must then possess if it does exist. C5-1: The Bible being written is not proof of God any more than the Lord of the Rings is proof of Frodo. Love on the other hand exists tangibly as a behavioral phenomenon which we can clearly see exists. There is no evidence for the existence of God so therefore I reject it in the same way I reject your theory about the meaning of life. Love on the other hand is not an abstract idea, it definitely exists. C5-2: My opponent contends that I need evidence to support the opposite of her resolution. I have not proposed an alternative. I am assuming that the meaning of life is nothing, that it does not exist. If I do not know what is in a box and I have no prior knowledge, context, or information, I assume it is empty. Why? Because the chances that my random assumption of what is in it is correct is extremely small. Subsequently, because I don't know what the meaning of life is, I assume there is none. How can the burden of proof be on me to proof nothing? What evidence would exist to prove nothing? I think the fact that there is no evidence would support the conclusion that there is nothing to believe it. In essence, the lack of evidence is my evidence. Conclusion: My opponent's first two of my opponent's arguments were not relevant. My opponent's religion argument does not agree with the resolution. In any case, my opponent has assumed that religion is universally accepted as the truth, which it is not. My opponents attempt at using logic to prove that there is a meaning to life was logically incorrect. Still, this would not have proven what the specific meaning of life was. Furthermore, my opponent still does not understand the burden of proof despite my generous attempts to explain it. One cannot simply proclaim the meaning of life an expect all others to agree if they cannot find evidence specifically disproving it. The lack of evidence IS evidence. I do not appreciate being told that I did not pay attention to what I have reading. I have been generous toward my opponent in repeatedly trying to explain the burden of proof so my opponent can perhaps offer a proper argument. I do not look forward to another response asking me to find some evidence that specifically shows that the meaning of life is not to give life meaning. The universe is not going to spontaneously spat out information telling us everything that ISN'T the meaning of life. I could say the meaning of life is fried chicken and there isn't one shred of evidence against it, but there's not way it could be proven. Would anyone accept that as the meaning of life? Of course not, if something really is the meaning there should be evidence. However, my opponent has offered none. Sources: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... I also forget to cite a source explaining radical decay before, which is why there is a random (1) in my response. Here it is: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...