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

Once again I'll remind people of where the BOP stands."My opponent has the bulk of the BOP here. He must also prove 2 things. 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. If he proves 1 but not the other, he should still lose this debate. Me personally, I'm going to focus on disproving the destructive part."I need to add another point that he keeps bringing up. He continually asks what's most probable. That's not how BOP works. Imagine a single dice/die whatever it's called. It has the numbers 1-6 painted on it. Let's say somebody rolls this die and hides what it lands on. If my opponent started a debate saying that the die landed on the numbers 1-4 he'd have to show that is what happened. It's not enough to show that 1-4 is more likely to have been rolled. He would have to show that it hit 1-4 beyond a reasonable doubt. All I would have to do to defeat my opponent in that scenario is show that it's reasonable that the 5 or 6 may have been rolled as well. I don't need to show evidence for it. I just need to show it's a reasonable alternative in order to prove my opponent wrong.In This debate my opponent has been presented a reasonable alternative that undermines his entire position. Beyond that, he's been presented evidence contrary to his position in excess of what is needed. Problem Of Evil My opponent brings up the problem of gratuitous evil in an attempt to disprove the MOA argument at the end of my last round. There is a few problems with that rebuttal. As I've already pointed out some evil will exist anyway as a result of free will. Beyond that unnatural evils are necessary to keep us from a perfect life. If all things were perfect than we could never truly understand God's capacity to love. Also somebody presented with a perfect life would in essence be forced to love God. He wants our love, not because he gave us a great life but for the sake of love it's self. Gratuitous evil isn't something that is actually provable. As humans we have very limited time horizons, but god's time horizon is infinite in years. What we view as gratuitous may not be viewed the same way if we could see the butterfly affect from those events billions of years into the future. Essentially no matter what my opponent says gratuitous evil isn't provable or even likely. Illusory The common definition for illusory is as follows. Illusory- The definition of illusory is made to be or related to something fake or deceptive. http://www.yourdictionary.com... Look up the word in 10 different online dictionaries if you want. The definition is always something fake or an illusion. My opponent has to prove any objective meaning is an illusion or fake. Regardless of how many dictionaries he scours to find a definition that supports his argument, he is still bound to the common laymens definition/usage of the term. Everything Pro has said concerning illusory has been rebutted by me and offered no counter rebuttals up to this point. He has failed to prove that any TOM is illusory. I've argued that the objective meaning to your life can be known by following your desires. Following your desires is desirable, but ultimately nobody forces it on you. So no TOM would limit freedom, and even if it did limit freedom that wouldn't automatically make it illusory. It would just make it a concept that pro is uncomfortable with. "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. My opponent can't possibly know what happens after death. Maybe death is permanent maybe it's not. It's also possible we have a TOM and life is still finite. Being carnal beings also does nothing to disprove a TOM. It's possible a metaphysical being that exists outside of or invisible from the carnal realm gave us a TOM, before setting all these things in motion. Pro offers nothing more than speculation. "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." In that situation a TOM wouldn't be destructive, now would it? An infant with no brain would have a TOM seperate and distinct from everyone else. Though conscious functioning beings would have a TOM discernable by their desires, the individuals in these situations would have one it just wouldn't be discernable. Destructive In my first round I've shown scientific peer reviewed studies of the benefits of having a TOM. These benefits were offered no rebuttals and it's too late for my opponent to offer then now, as I want have a chance to respond to them. I've offered rebuttals for my opponents arguments for the destructiveness of a TOM and they have went unanswered. This portion of the debate is undeniably in my favor and my opponent can't even answer the objections I've presented without unfair new arguments in the final round. I should win this debate on the destructive portion of this argument alone. Conclusion My opponent had to prove 2 things. 1. Is a Tom illusory? I argue that he hasn't proven it illusory. I've given other plausible scenarios not taken into account when my opponent presented his hypothesis. 2. Is TOM destructive? My opponent has no answers for my peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject and doesn't respond to my rebuttals. Even if you think he fulfilled the first part of his BOP. He has still without a doubt failed to prove the 2nd one and I should win this debate as a result. Good luck to pro. I leave it up to the voters now.