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

Burden Of Proof I don't appreciate my opponent trying to turn this into a debate about how BOP works. Let's examine a few things. From Pro Round 1: I require Con to obviously propose a framework for an objective meaning, including specifically a or many meanings, to use the term loosely. Here is where he requests that I provide some sort of argument for objective meanings or a many meanings argument for a transcendental objective meaning for life. I assume he requests this framework so that he can find something incoherent or contradictory about my personal philosophy. The argument is about shedding doubt on his conclusions not about fulfilling any type of perceived BOP. I would've been happy just providing rebuttals and no arguments of my own, but my opponent forced my hand. From Pro round 2: "for this debate, con was not required to provide any specific meaning, but chose to do so anyway, keeping that in mind, let's look at exactly what was required by con and what con also added to his BOP by giving a specific example. " Just look back at the round 1 statement I copied and pasted. You'll see this is untrue and that I was required to provide some sort of justification for my position. All this talk of BOP may confuse the voters and I urge Con to avoid continuing it. Here is the only thing voters need to look at in reference to BOP; From Con Round 1; "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 urge Pro to stop trying to debate BOP after this point and leave that up for the judges to decide. Should he fail to do this, I ask the judges to penalize him conduct points for attempting to distract from the debate. Objective I haven't forgotten about the objective part, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. My opponent opened up my ability to use a many meanings argument in his round 1 statement that I've already copied and pasted. 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. The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to show enough doubt in his argument that he fails to meet his BOP. This free will means that we can go against the higher power's plans for us. You might ask how we discover this plan God has for us. It's quite simple. He gave us all unique strengths and desires. If we "Do What though Wilt" as Aleister Crowley says than we are obeying the objective meaning god has for our lives. My opponent is making arguments that are unsupported by any empirical evidence. My job is to merely show that his logic didn't take certain other possibilities into account. Now I'm being fair by only providing 1 alternate possibility that he didn't account for and can't disprove, but rest assured I can probably bring up a million more examples almost as likely as this. Illusory My opponent did a good job summing up and concluding his illusory arguments. I'll just let his summary talk for me here. "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. Destructive. " 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. 1. We don't know that. The only evidence my opponent gives is that the evolutionary process seems random. There are a lot of things that seem non random, and an Omni god knowing the end result, creating the universe and stepping away would appear just as random (especially if he has an incredibly long time horizon as he most assuredly does) as a universe with no creator. 2. This rests on the assumption of 1 meaning for everyone. 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, not forgetting to leave out compulsions. God gave you these desires for a reason, and that reason is so you know how to follow his will. You follow his will, by following your heart. As far as discussing animals. They probably follow God's will better than anybody. They pursue whatever desires are put in their heart. One of the things that hold man back is our superior intelligence. we're constantly rationalizing our mediocre existence instead of pursuing the will of God, which is already in our hearts. 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. Their purpose, though unknown to us or even them is being fulfilled without them having to do anything. 4. 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. Destructive I'll once again take my opponent's summaries of his own arguments and address them by giving my own arguments corresponding numbers. "1. It limits our freedom of choice. 2. It negates our essence and subjective purposes. 3. It destroys agent responsibility. " 1. There is no reason a TOM has to limit freedom of choice. You can have multiple paths to achieve the same ends. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat. Not to mention, under my scenario a you are given the option to take your chosen path and in fact I would say most people ignore their chosen path. This is probably why the few people who do choose to live the objective meaning for their life succeed so greatly. Leonardo Da Vinci called it his Daemon, Aleister Crowley called it "Do What Though Wilt". Rhonda Byrne calls it the secret. Jim Carey calls it an unreasonable faith in believing in your dream. Napoleon Hill doesn't give it a name, but these successful people pretty much all agree that it's there. That an objective meaning for each of our lives exist, and none of us are forced to live up to our purpose, our meaning. 2. It doesn't negate our essence and subjective purpose. We want to pursue our desires. God gave us these desires and we wouldn't dream of not following them. If we assign ourselves a subjective purpose, than we'd have to go out of our way to make sure that subjective purpose is something we didn't desire, and pursuit of something we don't desire is nonsensical, and ultimately harmful. 3. It in no way destroys responsibility. This conclusion rests entirely on the premise that an objective meaning in life destroys freedom, and I've shown that in fact it doesn't. I'd actually go as far as saying having an objective meaning in life increases your responsibility. It's a lot of times uncomfortable for people to do what they truly desire, and they have to take more responsibility for their actions. A person who desires to be an Olympic sprinter now has increased responsibility when making decisions as what to eat, working out and even who to associate with. Omni-God This isn't really necessary, but it's just an extra bonus for those who feel like reading further. Even without this my points offer a scenario that undermines every single one of my opponent's premises. I'll skip the crash course in modal logic, because space doesn't permit it. The crash course can be found in the following link. . http://www.debate.org... Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. (Borrowed from Alvin Plantiga and various other people) Premise 1 It is possible a greatest possible being exists. There are no logical absurdities here or contradictions. If my opponent can prove this premise wrong then the whole argument falls apart. So far in the history of mankind this has yet to be done so good luck. Premise 2 Necessarily, if a greatest possible being exists he must be omnipotent and omniscient. If it wasn't omnipotent and omniscient then a greater possible being could exist in some possible worlds. Premise 3 If the concept of the greatest possible being is coherent it exists in some possible worlds. Premise 4 If a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds it exists in all possible worlds. It exists in all possible worlds because it is a necessary truth and not a contingent truth. Premise 5 If the greatest possible being exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world. Premise 6 The greatest possible being exists and by definition is God. It is omniscient and omnipotent. Logically Valid The argument is logically valid. Here is the mathematical proof here, as I'm short on space at the moment. . http://jwwartick.com... The Rest Of The Story What's important to note here is that The MOA Omni-God is Omnibenevolent. It is necessary that an omnibenevolent God would give man freewill. No loving God would enslave mankind, so obviously freewill is a necessary thing for God to be considered Omnibenevolent. Now obviously God isn't going to be a character with no direction or purpose and even if he were he wouldn't create anything without giving it a purpose or having a purpose for it.