The Universe has a Purpose

I will counter my opponent's points indiscriminately and hope to prove that his rebuttal clashes with his own claims and that his new point can be disproved using an already cited argument. The proposition points out my logical flaw: that I agree that this first cause would not be bound by the laws of the universe and yet go on to apply laws of the universe to it. While a valid point this also highlights problems with his own argument. The proposition claims that thought (certainly a part to our universe) must be what prompted said first cause to create the universe. However, this argument relies on this being thinking, it relies on the fact that the being must have motives, it relies on the fact that the being was provoked. These ideas are just based, just as much as my own, on properties of the known universe and if the proposition wishes to contradict my counter-argument in this way he must refute his own argument or else he shall be illogical - a trait acceptable for a possible non-universal being but not for a debater. The proposition also applies dissonant argument to my alternative of a dimensional anomaly (which was used merely as an example of insentience) by saying that these dimensions must exist in a logical form but that his claimed 'being' doesn't need to. I find this too unreasonable as if he must argue that something must have caused these dimensions to exist while I meant for the same rules to apply to them as to the 'being' then he must argue also that this too has a cause which undermines both of our understandings that there cannot be an infinite chain of causality. My opponent asks me to rationalise my alternative claim, while seemingly forgetting that his own is irrational. As above, insisting that his being must be 'provoked' or, crucially, have a 'purpose' is to clash with his claim that the being will not adhere to universal laws including logic and therefore a purpose is unnecessary. I believe my opponent misunderstands me, the cat is an example of an extremely complex life-form and I would have thought this obvious. I felt it unnecessary to include truly simply organisms in my argument as I believed this to be self-explanatory. Nevertheless I thank my opponent for withdrawing this segment of his argument. My opponent's 'most key' point arises late in the debate yet I shall rebut it as it, at first glance, seems far stronger than his previous points. However, I have already explained, in the first round, that life is a process reliant entirely on abiotic stimuli. As my opponent has already conceded to the logic of this argument it is only necessary for me to show how his new 'key' point is answerable to the same reasoning. My opponent claims that a human and, by extension, humanity has purpose. If he is to believe that life is merely the reaction to non-living stimuli; that non-living things cannot have purpose; and that humans possess no soul or other quality separate from life; then he must therefore conclude, like me, that humans have no purpose. What we call purpose while alive is, in reality, built on nothing but non-living stimuli, none of which can have a purpose. Therefore we cannot have bestowed purpose upon the universe because all purpose would have been bestowed upon us by the universe and none was. My opponent also claims that there is no evolutionary benefit to philosophy etc.. Perhaps this is a debate for another time but I believe that my opponent thinks all our lives are based solely on our evolved DNA. Let him be assured that with only this influence humans would be unable to speak let alone debate with each other. Our modern lives are built on many more things than our evolved bodies: our social interactions, true, are founded on natural empathy, competitiveness and care for our young (among other genetic traits), but they have been extended no end by the combined interactions of our ancestors - with each other and their environment - who little by little taught their descendants what was right or wrong (etc.) until roughly 5300 generations later when this code of social conduct has built to such a complex level that its simple and unremarkable origins seem intuitively preposterous. The ability to 'comprehend complex concepts [wonderful assonance there] such as these' is not, nor does it need to be a direct result of evolution therefore no mystical 'purpose' need be attributed. Therefore, I have countered my opponent's rebuttal to the idea of a non-sentient first cause and I have also proved his new chain of ideas to be as unscientific as his last claim regarding life. This shows that any purpose to the universe was not created after its beginning and that purpose need not, or rather likely not have been vital to its creation. I thank you for your consideration also, despite its being demonstrably not your fault!