"Purpose" and "Meaning" are not just products of man. They inherently exist in the universe.

I do not have to characterize what something does best, they do it for themselves. Like you said it is objective. The human mind does not have to distinguish what anything does best in order for it to be doing it. We don't even have to be identifying correctly what any object is doing, it will still be doing what it does best. Perhaps the sun is doing something beyond our perceptions, greater than we can imagine, but for now, human knowledge is limited to thinking that what the sun does best is combust in on itself, and because of the chemical effects of the constant fire it shines. Shining is a side effect, combustion is what it does best, so far to what we can see. It does what it does best no matter what anyone thinks. It is performing its purpose, we happen to be benefiting from it. By nobodies standards. I never said shining on Earth was better than the moon. If someone does they are only lying to themselves, assuming they can dictate specifically what goes on in the universe, rather than just accept something is happening and we benefit from it. I said that there is a purpose, and being that something simply does what it does best, whether or not we identify it is null. Therefore, I claim your subjective definition flawed. Purpose is objective, and happens whether man likes it or not, or knows about it or not. I would agree that yes, via some kind of creation we have both omitted to trying and explain because it is impossible to do so, rather we both worked on the here and now. Again, I did not claim purpose presupposes intent. I have specifically said on many occasions that purpose comes from intent. The sun was made and then combusted. It was not presupposed (unless we are arguing about God, which we are not) it was made somehow, and then did what it did best. It is not tautological, it is an equation, as I have already exemplified. If you did understand this, as you claim you do, you would have realized this with my example. Again you twist my words, making it seem as though I have said something else that I did not. I hope the reader will realize this upon closer examination. Your hand is a side effect of a greater purpose you have. Not a specific, flawed, and human thing like curing cancer, watching the news, or going to college, etc. Your purpose as life is to live. As long as you live you are accomplishing your purpose, everything else is a delusion of human ignorance. Raising your right hand is inconsequential to that purpose. It is much like the sun having sun spots, a black hole spinning counter-clockwise, or the Earth being an inch off its orbit than last year. It does not effect the larger picture, being the ultimate purpose (doing what you do best). The sun still combusts/shines, black holes still suck (yes, quite amusing), and the Earth still spins in space. Your purpose is still objective, you've just confused it as being something insignificant and subjecting it. A sun that no longer exists is no longer a sun. It is either a black hole after falling in on itself or a white dwarf. These are not just words. When a sun(star) dies it changes its physical state. It is no longer what it was (we designate it as a sun for classification) but something else. Its old self's purpose is done, it now has a new one. Its changed state will do what it does best, no mater what we say. Still Objective. Shining and combustion are the same thing, we must clarify this. You can't shine without a cause, the cause is combustion, so for all intents and purposes, we will recognize them to be the same. If you stop the shining by, shall we say a giant shield, so Earth can no longer see it, but it is still shining. If you mean stopping the shining by extinguishing all flames then it is no longer a sun, but something else. You changed it, thus it changes its purpose. It still exists, so it is doing what it does best, and doing what it takes to exist. If you mean that you will destroy the sun, then it no longer exists and does not have a purpose anymore, except maybe the debris which will do what it physically can to exist. Still performing a purpose. [painting: the mona lisa would still be the mona lisa without a frame, you can hang the canvas itself on the wall. The frame itself is meaningless without the art, therefore it is the picture itself that matters, the frame just helps.] But you have to add to the argument as well, otherwise you are only saying "nu-uh", not constructing a point. I believe I've given sufficient proof to prove my case, now I'll examine the evidence you've only now presented. Upon reading it, I noticed that it seems you completely agree with my stance that Purpose is not a product of man, as you yourself said: "No one can dictate what a thing is supposed to do, nor can anyone dictate a thing's nature. A sun that no longer shines still exists. Suns that die down still exist, and they still act on their nature. The purpose of them shining has vanished because it was based on a bias. However, the sun dying down and not shining is still natural" This is what I have been saying all along. A things purpose is in its nature. It made its purpose based on what it did once it was made, however it was made. Man does not dictate a things purpose, it does it on its own. A bowl serves its purpose by existing by doing what it does best determined by how it reacts to how was made, whether being a substance holder or hat. Same with a spear. Your new definition of purpose defies your first, were you said "PURPOSE = what things are SUPPOSED to do" Now it is suddenly what a thing should do? Were did this contradiction come from? It seems to me your definition of purpose is flawed, if you haven't been able to agree with yourself what it is. I've given you a very specific definition of purpose, which you have skewed to no avail. It applies and proves my premise, being that "purpose" and "meaning" are not just products of man, but inherently exist in the universe. I have countered every argument you've made against my examples that only provide more evidence for my case. You have only given rebuttals, and only in your last round did you provide any evidence for the point you were supposed to have been making from the beginning, which I have easily rebutted. Most of your argument had nothing to do with your proposition at all, but was just copied and pasted clips of my arguments (many times out of context) and questions intended to manipulate my point. All evidence would point to my side being the better argument made. I've stayed on topic, proved my point, provided evidence, and shown yours to be wrong. I would implore the audience to vote based on who point was better made, not on personal beliefs (as that is how it supposed to be determined anyway), and I've given all the evidence I can to show that that side is mine. Darth_Grievous_42 out.