The Instigator
Pro (for)
22 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Life on earth has no intrinsic value.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 768 times Debate No: 58788
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)




The assumptions for this argument:

1. There is no afterlife.
2. Human beings are headed toward extinction either through self-inflicted or natural catastrophe.


I completely disagree with your utterly stupid idea in your brain that there is no afterlife. I am not one of those crazy people who believe that man came from a hairy animal and the earth came from a big boom! I am a believer of Christ. Jesus Christ is real, and i am posting this debate more for your sake because you need a wake up call! What you need to do is read the Holy Bible, because i fear for you that if you do not read the Bible and accept Christ into your heart, you will have an afterlife ETERNALLY IN HELL! If you start to read the Bible right now, and accept Jesus Christ into your heart, you will have an afterlife eternally in heaven! John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son, and whosoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life." So there is a purpose in life, and that purpose is to glorify God our Savior.
Debate Round No. 1


Although I attempted to edit my initial argument with the following, the debating period already began. However considering that you have already posted your argument maddiezieglerfan, I am forced to answer directly to your assertion that basically changes the original intention of the argument to discuss the intrinsic value of life in itself to the intrinsic value of life... according to God.

maddiezieglerfan, although I respect your beliefs, and do not regard them as "utterly stupid ideas in your brain", I will begin this rebuttal by saying that you did not make an argument. You simply stated what your beliefs are and where they are derived from (the bible, and therefore God),
If you intended to make an argument, it would appear that your argument in a nutshell is that "there is a purpose in life, and that purpose is to glorify God our Savior" or perhaps that Life has intrinsic value either at the behest of or because of the existence of God.

This then changes the argument to whether God exists or not. Which wasn't my intention when creating this debate, but I will meet you where you stand. If your argument is that life on earth has intrinsic value and that value is to glorify God. Then it is safe to assume that the ONLY reason you believe or argue that life has value (or purpose as you"ve noted) is because of God. It is safe to say then that you would agree with me that WITHOUT God, life on earth has no intrinsic value.

Since God is the focal point for you for all of life. Then life derives its purpose and its value from its glorification of God. Now I assume that you fervently believe in God's existence. But just for one second, and just for the sake of this debate and argument, consider if God did not exist. Would you then assert that life on earth has any intrinsic value? If yes then why? If not, then we are on agreement.

With that said, I believe that we can salvage the original intention of this argument in saying that outside the context of God or an after-life, life earth has no intrinsic value.

I will go further and ever concede your position that inside the context where God DOES exist as you have explained, life DOES have intrinsic value" in that in the presence of a GOD; he/she is able to dictate whatever he/she pleases because of his/hers omnipotence. Therefore in context where GOD exists, God dictates the value (or purpose) of life. God in his/her omnipotence could also determine that life has no value if he/she wanted too also. After all, he/she is God. God can do whatever God wants. However in that, there is a problem. If all life"s value or purpose is in the glorification of God, then its value is not intrinsic. Its value would then be extrinsic. What i mean here that that the value of a life simply to glorify God is not value in the life itself but an instrumental value or purpose toward the glorification of God. With the glorification part" your assertion would deem that the life is meaningless, purposelessness, and without value. I would then certainly agree with you, and would be my original assertion.

Consider it. Being familiar with the Christian faith, I think you would agree that a life that categorically rejects God in all forms is doomed to hell. The failure of that life to glorify God is subjected to eternal damnation. Inherent in this assumption is that life is only valuable in the context of its glorification of God, thus meaning life in itself is NOT valuable, but rather life glorifying God is valuable .

Your assertion therefore states that life serves as an instrument for the glorification of GOD (Im sure you do not disagree). If you do agree, life then has NO intrinsic value and that is to say, no value in itself. Rather, it has extrinsic value; it only has value in relationship to its God.

As for the argument for whether or not God exists. I would certainly like to engage you in a separate debate on the manner. Who knows.. we may even be on the same side ? :)

The Information below is what intended to include in my original argument -

The assumptions for this argument:

1. There is no afterlife.
2. Human beings and other forms of life on earth are ultimately headed toward extinction either through self-inflicted or natural catastrophe.
3. There is no God

With these assumptions in mind, life has no intrinsic value " meaning that the notion that the lives of human beings, animals, and plants are valuable are incorrect. Or if any value could somehow be ascribed to life on earth in any scenario, it is ultimately negated by the fact that ultimately, death will come to all living beings eventually.

The practical implication of this argument is that if we assign any value to life, it is because we choose to do so and not because there exists any inherent value to life in its self. Hence the following example

"It is said to be a tragedy if a man dies in unsuccessfully saving a infant from a burning building. and is survived by 3 kids and a spouse."

When exploring this scenario, our society regard this as a tragedy because we choose to do so. We ascribe value to the life of the infant, because it will never grow up to become a flourishing member of society. We ascribe value to the life of the man, for the very least because he is survived by other who presumably who love, or depend, or may suffer because his loss of life. For a wide variety of reasons, our society regards this scenario as a tragedy because we have chosen that life in one form or another. has value.

However, an argument that life in itself contains no such value makes the observation that the infant's life, and any contribution or experience it would have in its future life had it survived is of no significance in the face that one day that infant would surely die and any impact it may have had on either its environment or the people around it would also be of no consequence in the face of eventual existence.

The same could be said of the man who attempted to save the infant. Had he been successful in saving the infant, the infant who eventually grow into an adult, would subsequently die along with all of his/her contributions and accomplishments when considering extinction of life itself. Assume the same for the family man's life.

So in the most simplistic terms, the arguments says:
"Since everyone is going to die anyway in one way or another, why is valuable to save lives?" "Why are lives valuable in the first place." "Life exists simply because it wishes to exist, only to not exist thereafter."

Proponents against this argument may contend that even though we may accept that extinction is the ultimate fate of life. Life still contains value in:

In the present, even if only temporarily, or throughout its existence, or in the here and now.


Life is valuable because of its impact on other life.

To these arguments or similar rebuttals, I say that this is a subjective and relative view of the intrinsic value of life. It is an value assigned by a person who finds value in a persons life which in essence is extrinsic value.


My opponent seems to believe that I am saying that without God we would be worthless, but my opponent seems to forget one simple fact when he tells me to assume that God does not exist. My opponent seems to forget that without God, there would be no people at all. for God created all human beings. In debate you need to have fact, and all of my proof comes from the Bible. Here is a verse about how God created man: Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." So with this fact, it proves that you are wrong and I shall not be joining your side, for your side is incorrect. That also proves the point that if there were no God, we would not be here, therefore we would not even have life. Here is another Bible verse that supports my point: Isaiah 42:12
Let them give glory to the LORD And declare His praise in the coastlands.
You see, God has created everything and our purpose in life is to glorify Him, because (you may not understand this) if you glorify God in everything you do (which is not just doing good things. you must ask Christ into your heart and believe, and you will receive everlasting joy) and believe in how holy and wonderful He is, then if you do these things and trust in God through everything you do, God will tell you "Well done, my servant!" in heaven, and you may live eternally in heaven where there is nothing horrible at all, and you will live FOREVER in heaven with God"s grace and joy. If you do not, He shall say to you in heaven, "Depart from me! I never knew you!" and you shall live forever (eternally! it never stops!) in hell burning, and there is nothing good in heaven. Now do you see the value of life? If we just go out there and murder these unsaved people, they shall burn forever in hell! Also, if you go and murder these Christians, they will be unable to spread the good news of Jesus around the world! I suggest that you take action now and read the Bible and go to church and ask your local pastor about how to get saved, and you will realize the TRUE purpose of life!
Debate Round No. 2


*sigh* maddiezieglerfan.... you're killing me. I did not post this debate to argue religion or the existence of God.
maddiezieglerfan, do you know whether I am a Christian or a believer or not? I can answer that question for you. You don't know, because I have been sure to not indicate whether I am or not in order to save this debate from subjective biases. We should and can debate on the topic on whether Life on earth has any intrinsic value without launching into rhetoric about salvaging my immortal soul. You assume because I've posted this debate that I am not Christian. How do you know that I am not saved and this is just me exercising my debate skills and trying to capture the oppositions point of view?

You also have mis-interpreted my instruction to "assume". When I said assume, I meant "pretend", meaning lets pretend for a minute that God did not exist. Your rebuttal is then,

"My opponent seems to forget that without God, there would be no people at all. "

I did not forget that from Christian perspective, that God is ultimate creator. What I was asking you to do was to set aside the preaching and the bible for one moment and just "imagine" human beings being on earth and God not existing. Imagine if the theory of evolution were actually true. I am not asking you to believe in it. You obviously don't. But for the sake of saving this debate, I was asking you to pretend for a second.

You are either incapable or unwilling to do so. Which means this debate will be about God and the bible, which is fine.. but I was hoping to debate those items at another time. So I begin my argument.

Faith = Belief , as in to believe.
Knowledge = facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

If you know something, there is no need to believe in it. Ex: You've heard someone say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow" Yet it would strike you odd if someone said "I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow" . You know how to drive a car, you don't have faith in how to drive a car if you know how to drive one. You may have "confidence" which is something entirely different.

You are pretty fond for the bible so If my example does not convince you of this Faith is different from Knowledge premise, then lets take it from Jesus:

John 20:29 ; Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.
Im sure you that you remember the story in the bible from which this versed is derived. To paraphrase. Thomas did not believe Jesus had been resurrected until he put his fingers through Jesus' wounds. The only way for Thomas to have KNOWN (have knowledge of) whether Jesus had risen from the dead is to see Jesus walking around with his own two eyes. Jesus however said: "Blessed are those who HAVE NOT seen and yet have believed." This is to say that those who had FAITH in the fact that Jesus had risen, even while they had no way of KNOWING THAT he did.

So there you have it maddiezieglerfan. You are faithful. You have faith in God, the bible, and in his son Jesus Christ..... our savior. But you don't KNOW anything. You believe in the authority of the bible and the Lord God, and because you believe, you are promised and will obtain eternal life.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever BELIEVES in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

God is giving you a chance at eternal life if you decide to BELIEVE that his son Jesus Christ died for your sins. This is of course a challenge because the devil or "Satan" wishes to influence you to NOT believe in Jesus... so you get can be with him in hell presumably . So the challenge and the fight over all of our souls is for us to have FAITH, ... in spite of not being able to see readily with our own yes any proof of God or Jesus in modern times. Also not committing a bunch of sins as outlined in the bible.

If we KNEW (or had KNOWLEDGE of) of Jesus being our savior, as in modern times (today) and he came and spoke with us, provided us verification that he was Jesus by performing a couple of miracles (forget considerations of the antichrist for this argument), then there would be no need for FAITH. Only obedience. We would at the very least KNOW he exists.

I make this whole argument just to confront the wide and wild targets of your next argument against this assertion:

Faith does not equal knowledge. You don't know anything, but you believe in God, Jesus , and the bible. and if you claim to know, as in have actual knowledge of, then you don't have faith.

Here is why I make this assertion. You said in your last argument

"In debate you need to have fact, and all of my proof comes from the Bible"

Well...." How do you know that the bible from which you got your proof isn't tainted by the devil?" because God told you so? How do you know that when you pray to God, the devil isn't intercepting your messages and pretending to be God? According to Christianity ...he of course wanted to be God which is what got him in hell in the first place. Isn't the devil a liar? How do you know that he's not lying to you? and making you believe that your getting instructions from God and not him?

This silly question is of course rhetorical, but the point being is that you don't know anything and you HAVE NO FACTS. You have FAITH. Explicitly and by your own admission, your "proof" being in the Bible.

But this is a bad argument or at the very least, poor proof. Which version of the bible should I seek proof from? The following is a list of Bible's that are currently in existence. From which bible do you contend that I seek authority from or in which your find your proofs and facts?

King James Version (KJV)
New International Version (NIV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
New King James Version (NKJV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
New Century Version (NCV)
New English Bible (NEB)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Good News Bible (GNB) / Today"s English Version (TEV)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Today"s New International Version (TNIV)
New English Translation (NET)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
God"s Word Translation (GW)
Common English Bible (CEB)
New International Readers Version (NIrV)
Easy-To-Read Version (ERV)
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Bible in Basic English (BBE)
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
World English Bible (WEB)
Revised English Bible (REB)
Jerusalem Bible (JB)
New American Bible (NAB)
The Living Bible (TLB)
The Message (MSG)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
The Bishops' Bible
Douay-Rheims Version (DRV)
Tyndale Bible
Geneva Bible

This is only to name a few. Also I assure you, they DO NOT all say the same thing. Don't make me prove it to you. So ... from which of these bibles, in which each many say something different than the other, should I find my proof?
You may rebut here that all of these bibles fundamentally have the same content however, you would be wrong. Some of these bibles do acknowledge Jesus, but refuse to acknowledge him as a savior of our sins. The constituents who read these bibles regards themselves as Christians , just as you do. But you wouldn't say that you two are the same would you?

I take it further, why should I assume that any of these bibles have any kind of proof at all? Couldn't some "evil doer" go to Fedex and make an exact copy of the King James Version or NIV version of the bible (the most popular in the U.S) and change some important words for their own benefit and distribute them to the masses? Don't you think it hasn't happen already? In Jesus' day, the were no copy machines. Every copy of a "the bible" was hand written over long periods of time. Today not all Christians agree about everything that in the bible, because their versions are different from other Christians. In the age of handwriting-copies of the bible, do you not think that it is possible someone who believes in God just as much as you do, changed some words in the bible because he/she didn't like something in it?

Being familiar with the Christian response in this, you would refute this possibility by claiming God's omnipotence and his ultimate protection of the words in the bible. Perhaps referring to the book of "Revelations" curse where people who add or remove things from the bible will be dealt with.

My whole point being is what do you truly know? You can only believe and that is enough in Christianity. You can believe and act accordingly and obediently to those beliefs and be given eternal peace and salvation. But you KNOW nothing.

You cannot argue what you do not know. You may tell me... "Yes Jesus loves me" till the sky turns red, and when I ask " How do you know Jesus loves you" You can reply "cuz the Bible tells me so". But if I ask you:

1. Which version of the bible?
2. How old is the bible?
3. How many persons wrote in the bible?
4. How did they make copies of the bible in ancient times?
5. Why were some books put in the bible and other left out?
6. Who made those decision? Who gave them the authority to make that decision?
7. Why are their contradictions between books in the bible.
8. What was the original language that bible was translated from? Was the translation done accurately.

Chances are you don't know the practical answers to these questions beyond "divine intervention" or that " God protected the the bible for 2000 years from being messed with, it is perfect"

But it doesn't matter that you do not know. You have faith. Therefore you do not need to know. However, you DO need have knowledge to make a valid arguement.

Lets say I have proof that there is flying monster behind the moon. I saw it on the internet. Does that suffice as proof for you? I imagine that it does not. Why then would the bible suffice as proof for those who do not have the same faith as you?


There is only one thing i must say because you keep on assuming that i do not "know" that God is real and that the Bible is no proof: I KNOW that God is real and the Bible is REAL proof you fool!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Irrelevance 3 years ago
Sorry I didn't reply before, but I mean without a creator there isn't a final goal. If there was some sort of god, which I don't believe there is, he would have set a goal, possibly to get into heaven. But life wasn't created so it could do something.
Posted by Berend 3 years ago
Someone in the vote stated Pro did not prove there is no after life. Sorry, but he is not supposed to prove something that literally can not prove it. He has top prove the likelihood of it, the chances and speak of it in a philosophical way, not literally prove there is or is not an afterlife. That is an impossible question and answer.
Posted by IndianaFrank 3 years ago
So much for comments are not suppose to be rude. This debate should have never been allowed to start. There is no way anyone can prove that god exists, so its pointless. So far all I have read is " I believe in god " which is your right but that in itself in not an argument winner.

However, there was recently a special on the History Channel in which a scientist proved that there is an "energy" that's leaves the body after death. Some may call it a life force, some may call it a spirit. Be that as it may, it always is tracked as heading to the same point in space. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by crazedAtheist 3 years ago
con was disgraceful in this debate.
Posted by PrimeLunatic 3 years ago
"I completely disagree with your utterly stupid idea in your brain that there is no afterlife."

The first sentence alone has already caused me to disagree with everything you have said, regardless of its content and of my true opinions.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
I try not to be rude, but con is stupid.
Posted by Stanoneman 3 years ago

Your counterargument is flawed. Your argument assumes that in order for there to be life at all, that there must be a creator.

Why? Because you said so? As we know it, everything has a beginning and an end, by why must that beginning be a creator? It can't be... the big bang? If we assume that the big bang is the creator of all life, what life is the value of life then?
Posted by Irrelevance 3 years ago
This argument is flawed. For life to have had a value, or a purpose at all, there would have to be a greater being who created us. There is no purpose, and as such there was no creator nor a final destination.
Posted by Berend 3 years ago
Wow Con, you lost me for voting for you now... Try to not be an arse hat next time.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Berend 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did much better, but had no real source to support his claims. While Con used the bible, it is at least a source for HIS answers, but not a credible source.
Vote Placed by Samreay 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Disgraceful conduct by con, immediately ignore the stated rules of the debate and insulting Pro. Given that the working assumptions of the debate were outlined in Round 1 very clearly, I consider Con's decision to completely ignore them and try and debate a different topic to be a full forfeit. Con, if you aren't prepared to debate the thesis presented, do not accept the debate.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not present any tangible evidence the afterlife doesn't exist. Con had some biblical validity but failed to demonstrates life's intrinsic value through real world tangibility. Con's S&G is slightly better. English Biblical translations are notoriously unreliable in which Pro pointed out practically.
Vote Placed by Lerch 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke basic rules by accepting a debate, ignoring the rules for acceptance (which were clearly outlined in the "assumptions" section,) and then altering the debate to be over an entirely separate subject than that which was posted. All points go to Pro, as Con is disqualified. It should also be noted that Con's conduct was excessively immature, including personal attacks.