The Instigator
big_faggot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Critical_Knowledge
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Life has no meaning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Critical_Knowledge
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 37411
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

big_faggot

Pro

For the first round I am just going for a basic argument. Life has no meaning therefore nothing we do has any value. I base this on the fact that the universe will eventually end, rendering the earth, the sun and every other substitute we might try to run to gone.

http://blogs.voanews.com...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Critical_Knowledge

Con

Hello, I'll just call you Peter because that name may be offensive to some people. Great topic; I can't wait to dig into this one.

I can tell you are not a trained philosopher by the way you presented your argument and neither am I; I'm only an amateur logician.

I see several problems with your argument. First, we must define our terms. In the phrase, "Life has no meaning" I'll assume you're referring to human life as we know it on Earth when you say life. However defining meaning is not as easy. At least some people living would say that their 'lives have meaning' to them.

Meaning generally is defined as significance. In the universal scope of things, one could say the human impact is so small even without some universal apocalypse that it is insignificant and therefore has no meaning. However that's another big problem with your argument--you assume "that the universe will eventually end' which is not a fact, but merely one scientific hypothesis.

Finally, I looked at your links which illustrate a few of the scientific hypotheses that you mentioned. The thing is, physicists really don't understand this stuff and cannot prove any of it yet. And what if the cycle repeats and after the universe 'dies' it is resurrected? Was it still insignificant? If the universe is not significant, than what is?

Long after we die, our atoms and energy will remain and we know that we got to be part of something as special as the universe.

You must define your terms if we are to continue an intelligent debate.
Debate Round No. 1
big_faggot

Pro

big_faggot forfeited this round.
Critical_Knowledge

Con

My opponent seems to have missed his opportunity to argue, nevertheless I'll continue.

If one believes in God, for example, the meaning of their life is to worship and please that God.

All that follows is a sampling of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's website [not my words] on the relevant subjects. http://plato.stanford.edu...

Defining Meaning

A large majority of those writing on life's meaning deem talk of it centrally to indicate a positive final value that an individual's life can exhibit. That is, comparatively few believe either that a meaningful life is a merely neutral quality, or that what is of key interest is the meaning of the human species or universe as a whole.

Another uncontroversial element of the sense of "meaningfulness" is that it connotes a good that is conceptually distinct from happiness or rightness.

There is as yet no consensus in the field as to what a meaningful life is. One answer is that a meaningful life is one that by definition has achieved choice-worthy purposes (Nielsen 1964) or involves satisfaction upon having done so (Hepburn 1965; Wohlgennant 1981). However, for such an analysis to clearly demarcate meaningfulness from happiness, it would be useful to modify it to indicate which purposes are germane to the former. On this score, some suggest that conceptual candidates for grounding meaning are purposes that not only have a positive value, but also render a life coherent (Markus 2003), make it intelligible (Thomson 2003, 8"13), or transcend animal nature (Levy 2005).

Soul-Centered Views

A soul-centered theory is the view that meaning in life comes from relating in a certain way to an immortal, spiritual substance that supervenes on one's body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. If one lacks a soul, or if one has a soul but relates to it in the wrong way, then one's life is meaningless.

Naturalism

Among those who believe that a significant existence can be had in a purely physical world as known by science, there is debate about two things: the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings.

Subjectivism

According to this view, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one's variable mental states. Common instances are views that one's life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, the more one achieves one's highly ranked goals, or the more one does what one believes to be really important (

Objectivism

There are certain inherently worthwhile or finally valuable conditions that confer meaning for anyone, neither merely because they are wanted, chosen, or believed to be meaningful, nor because they somehow are grounded in God.

These are all manners in which life could have meaning.

Hope to see you back next round, Peter.
Debate Round No. 2
big_faggot

Pro

big_faggot forfeited this round.
Critical_Knowledge

Con

Critical_Knowledge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
big_faggot

Pro

big_faggot forfeited this round.
Critical_Knowledge

Con

Critical_Knowledge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Gwydion777 4 years ago
Gwydion777
If you say life has no meaning then all that past men have done and all the things future men will accomplish has no effect on anybody. this statement is by all means stupid. men have been on this earth inventing, innovating, helping, and thinking to benefit others on this planet. if we are to deny that men have any worth or power then you sir are denying the very existence of men. i think this debate is an obvious winner. the con side should win by a unanimous vote and common sense.
Posted by neurotic1 4 years ago
neurotic1
ignoring the statement that my life has no meaning, i'd like to point out one thing.

arguing the lifespan of the universe would suggest, in the extreme, that it either is infinite or finite; many people would be content with the resolution of this argument with a logical yes or no supporting either argument. Other people however believe that logical defeats can be overcome, with effort i would agree! For example in the early history of civilisation kingdoms like Egypt, Britain and Sweden etc would be defined by geographical landmarks like rivers, oceans and deserts etc. Logically speaking it would be impossible to cross these obstacles as, statistically speaking, it had never been done. Years later industrial advancement has lead to globalisation and the melding of people in many countries. This is a feat of human ingenuity or genius which overcame the logic of previous generations. Therefore a logical resolution on the topic of the lifespan of the universe is irrelevant, in a centuries time there may be new technology to make a brand new universe, prolong the lifetime of a sun or otherwise.

Stop being so depressed, there is so much meaning to your life.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mysterious_Stranger 4 years ago
Mysterious_Stranger
big_faggotCritical_KnowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the second round and ruined what would have been an interesting debate. Con presented stronger and better structured arguments.
Vote Placed by yay842 4 years ago
yay842
big_faggotCritical_KnowledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF