The Universe has a Purpose

My thanks to the proposition for the challenge, I shall endeavour to make him rue it. To begin! Firstly, I feel no need to condense my opponent's argument as I believe his opening and closing paragraphs are more than adequate. In my argument I hope to provide and alternative to and question the relevance of the claim that because 'the universe must have been caused by some form of eternal being or deity' that it 'therefore must have purpose'. I do not contend that nothing can come from nothing, nor do I contend the cosmological argument as, rather than being largely exclusive of the first, this is really further evidence for it and I hope to disprove the first. The teleological argument seems unscientific and appears to me to detract from the main argument yet; I shall explain why this is so. The proposition claims that the universe cannot contain or be the result of an infinite chain of causality and goes on to explain the cause. It is logical to assume that this cause must therefore not adhere to our understanding of the universe as otherwise it too would have a cause. However it is illogical to assume that this cause is a being, that it has motives, or even that it thinks at all. In this universe of nothing there would be precisely no stimuli for this being to react to and therefore thought would be impossible. To say the least, creative thought is a vastly complex process and requires a wealth of prior experience. This being would have none and therefore, if it created the universe, it does not think as we do. The same is true of whether or not the universe was created with a purpose: with no stimuli, there could be no motivation and so no motives. If you claim that the cause of the universe is a being then, with respect to the argument above, you cannot assume that any motive or purpose is necessary. I believe that a just as likely candidate in this action is some manner of dimensional anomaly with no brain, thought or motive and although this theory is unlikely it is no less likely than an eternal being as both could potentially exist (though not in the conventional sense) and both are as likely to be proven. Although I believe the proposition's final argument is erroneous and detracts from his argument I must state why. Life, in its simplest forms, react to external stimuli. The difference between a rock being dropped and therefore moving to a cat being dropped and twisting to face the ground is purely down to neurons. These nerve cells are inanimate and can only react to previous nerve cells firing; they do so in ways which have been shaped by experience (i.e. external stimuli, true it is also based on the way others are shaped but in every case the function can be traced back to either external events or DNA neither of which are under the organism's control). Just as when factorising an implacable quadratic we find it to be composed of mundane values: so if any living organism is divided thus we find it to be the product of scientifically measurable and quantifiable events. In short, there is no extra-scientific driving force for life, merely a sum of reactions. Now, in answer to the question of why this process even began to occur, I shall call on probability. The universe is not infinite (were it infinite it could not have began at a fixed point therefore the space it contains must be finite) but it is, undeniably, rather sizeable. In such a vast expanse it is improbable that many more planets (or moons) such as our own possess the qualities of a habitable environment. Now consider that these planets must all have atmospheres - particles in which interact and produce static charges, lightning, and the energy needed for the process - and must have the chemicals essential for building familiar or strange molecules necessary for life. Now consider that for billions of years the earth has existed and for nearly all of that time has been habitable. In a sea containing (in the region of) 4.4*10^46 particles all of which are constantly oscillating and colliding it is very likely that at some point they would arrange themselves in the order necessary for life. It is extremely likely that this would occur considering the other worlds on which this is occurring. Life forming by coincidence is therefore not as impossible as it appears, in fact quite the opposite. Therefore I believe no creator is needed specifically for the creation of life and if there were, it was very sporting to allow evolution to occur in the hope that they would fulfil its specific purposes. It is for these reasons that I believe the universe does not have a purpose. Namely: that as my opponent's argument rested solely on there being an initial creator and I have shown both the illogicality of one, and (to a lesser extent) the lack of necessity for one. Thank you to the proposition for instigating this debate and to the audience for its judgement. References were used for the quantity of molecules in the world's oceans: http://hypertextbook.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...