Meaning of Life

default what??

The default of the scientific method which has an observable better track record of discovering truth and improving our lives than any other single method of evaluating the universe.

Wrong, God has the most answers, but the scientific theory proves god

Evolution requires a BOP

Evolution taking place in real time under laboratory conditions.

GOD IS REAL

Yes and I will prove it
1) Kalaam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
   
2. The universe began to exist;
   
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
   

The first premise is fairly self explanatory. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. Something cannot come from nothing. This cause must exist independently and outside of that which began to exist.
The second premise is also fairly self evident. The universe is not eternal. As Stephen Hawking notes:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever . Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

The Beginning of TIme
This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Professor...
A big bang/big crunch hypothesis that Hawking argues for in his lecture cannot stand up to scrutiny. Dr. David Abel writes:

"Appeals to multiple or ‘parallel’ cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic ‘Big Bang/Crunch’ oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability . Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable , currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age.

As quoted here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html
2) Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance
   
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
   
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
   
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
   

debate.org user Contradiction argued this premise fairly well:

To say that natural entities tend toward ends is to say that they behave with a goal, purpose, or function in mind. It is to say, for example, that the heart tends toward the purpose of pumping blood or that the eye has the function of seeing. That natural entities of all sorts behave in this way is undeniable. Indeed, it is presupposed by discipline of medicine, which seeks to restore bodily functions to the way they ought to be. It accounts for why certain effects are regularly brought about by their causes . A match tends to cause fire – and not rainbows – when lighted because that is its function. A plant matures according to its kind because that it is directed toward that sort of development. Teleology is also present in the inorganic realm, such as in the water and rock cycles. If causes weren’t directed toward their effects, then there is no reason why causes can’t literally produce any effect.
Now to speak of causes as being directed toward certain purposes or functions is to admit to a type of intentionality. Intentionality is of course the mark of the mental, and there thus must be a mind who imparts teleology to the natural order. Just as how a match derives its function from the intentions of its creator, so do natural entities derive their characteristic behaviors from a grand creator. Similarly, to say that a heart ought to pump blood or that a human ought to think rationally is to admit to the existence of normativity, which also indicates the presence of an agent.

The universe appears to be ordered and designed. The complexity of life itself requires a creator and requires moving parts that simply cannot put itself together. Dr. Abel notes:

For even the first simplest cell to come to life spontaneously would have required incredible organization . A cell is not just a blob of protoplasm. Hundreds of integrated circuits, biochemical pathways, feedback cycles, and cooperative orchestration would have been required for the simplest life to generate spontaneously .
Organization, integrated circuits, and highly conceptual coordinated functions don’t just “self-organize” by chance and/or necessity (law). 18-20 Mass and energy cannot generate formalisms like mathematics, logic theory, value, esthetics, ethics, design, and engineering. Organization is a formalism, the same as mathematics, logic theory, and language. Formalisms are nonphysical, abstract and conceptual.

Conclusion
Why is there something rather than nothing and why is there life rather than non life? For atheism to be even remotely probable it must show a way for something to come out of nothing, and then have this something organize itself into complex structures and eventually create complex life. I personally see this notion as highly improbable. But why think these are caused by God? From these arguments we learn that this cause must be eternal, uncaused, and have intellect. This is what we call God.

Also what does evolution to do with our argument?

That was from Virt btw

to show your scientific theour

I reject the first premise of the kolam cosmological argument but even if the argument were not deeply flawed it does not tell us anything about this prospective first cause. It does not tell us the cause is some god(s) over any other possibility. At best the Kalam is an argument for deism.

who cares about deism

I am not sure what this means but the theory of evolution is not my theory. It is simply a widely observed and documented process.

I'm sure I don't know but the kalam does not support anything beyond deism.

WRONG, deism is fake

I agree that there is no sufficient evidence to support deism but the kalam does not make a case for anything else. If we accept the kalam (which I do not) it is still quite a leap from "some cause" to "some god" and an even further leap to "some specific god".

Something cant come from nothing

Then where did your proposed first cause come from?

Kalam argument

Sorry but even if we accept the kalam it does not explain the presence of a first cause. You cannot solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery.

Whats the greater mystery

Your first cause. The kalam does not actually explain where this first cause came from. That makes the entire argument no more than a case of special pleading.

The first cause is the creation of the universe and GOD

Let us assume for a moment that some god(s) created the universe. What then created them?

Picture if you will, The God family. 

Daddy God.

Mummy God.

They had Two Kid boy Gods. 

Orrrrrrrrrr 

A God God.

The meaning of life I think is " to live."

The meaning of life would be it's purpose, relative to a context.

If a creator God needs to have been made by a creator, that creator would also need a creator who needs a creator … like an infinite chain of toppling dominos, which is an impossibility.

WOuld you search for that meaning?

Yes infinite regress. Your solution to the problem would seem to be to make a case of special pleading. 

My solution is to admit we do not now how the universe came into existence.

Another term for the-logical-necessity is NOUMENON.