The universe was probably created by an Intelligent Designer.

"An example perhaps?" 1. Premise: Humans have free will 2. Free will cannot exist if our mental capabilities are purely natural 3. Therefore, our mental capacities must draw on some aspect of the supernatural. "And are you saying space isn't part of the universe?" I didn't feel it was necessary to specify as it has nothing to do with this debate. Space alone cannot characterize a universe. "Was. Past tense. Implies time." Implication of time is in reference to the crea*TION* not the crea*TOR*. So while the creation of the universe did exist in time (as the very start of time) the creator can still be outside of it. "Does it matter whether it continues to exist?" No. "How can something not physical interact with that which is? Force is defined as, strength or energy as an attribute of PHYSICAL action or movement. Nonphysical forces are a contradiction." I retract the designation of the intelligent designer as a "force". It was unnecessary. "And you have no objection to the earlier statement that such a being would have to be complex and therefore itself designed. So, naturally, you ignored it :D" Humans recognize complexity through observation. The intelligent designer has never been observed, so any attempts to characterize it are subject to bias. The only thing we can say objectively is that the designer is intelligent. Whether or not it is complex is another issue, so we need not make assumptions about whether or not the designer was designed. "Contradiction. You either conclude teleology or you don't." No contradiction. My argument was that a purpose exists, but any attempts to understand the specifics of that purpose through our biased human lens would be inaccurate. "Intelligence is a certain human characteristic. I'd say that justifies such an assumption. Also, design implies a goal." Intelligence is a human characteristic, but not a solely human characteristic. It follows from my argument on free will that the attribute of intelligence is beyond nature. "In order to design something, you need a process of design, you need a starting point" Humans need to plan. The Intelligent Designer need not be subject to that flaw. The act of designing is indeed an act and does imply time. However, I argue that this design and the creation of the universe is one event and the first event, meaning, it is the origin of time. "But you haven't justified that premise in the slightest. What evidence do you have that observed complexity decreases probability of no intelligent influence?" We can, with accuracy, determine whether something has been influenced by human intelligence (watch in a field). By broadening our scope, we can identify when other things have been influenced by intelligence in general. "That would not at all be a "corrected" analogy. The universe is not just a concept, it is reality. Quantum physics itself, is, supposedly, a process in reality. The argument is not whether it's possible to think of the universe without intelligence (what your "correction" implies), only whether it is possible for it to exist." "The goal is part of the nature of poker. Without a goal there would be no playing of poker. There might be playing-card-like objects in places, but there would not be a continously manufactured amount of 52 card sets with analogous symbols." We've both missed each other's points. You used these analogies to show that there is some connection between random chance and complexity, but I was trying to show that your analogies didn't connect the two points correctly in either case. "In which case he'd have to design an infinitely greater universe" By whose standards? "Second, the only way your argument can make sense is if you assume that the act of the intelligent designer designing the universe was somehow an act that can be reduced to probability." Huh? No, YOU assumed that, by putting in the resolution "the universe was PROBABLY created by an intelligent designer." I see what you mean, but that's not what I was saying. Your argument operates under the premise that the probability is slim because the universe existing has a requirement, and the chance of the designer fulfilling that requirement was small. I found this to be ludicrous simply given that the universe exists o.O "You have succeeded in imagining an intelligent designer that is incapable of designing or thinking or doing anything else. Congratulations." That doesn't follow. I stated a few times before that the designer designed *outside* time and that the designing is a single event. The requirement to process information doesn't exist for a being of infinite intelligence existing outside time and acting once. "Intelligence isn't perceived. It's conceptualized. Perception is a lower-order process, by which you turn lines and colors into cars or trees or whatever. Not the process by which you use sophistral devices to imagine impossible beings." I retract the term "intelligence" in that phrase and substitute it with "complexity". "Argumentum ad populum." No. I wasn't using popularity to strengthen my argument, I was using it to be lazy. I meant "My argument is the same as those arguments you see floating around the internet" "It is nothing at all like a clock" I needed only to focus on the aspect of functionality and precision. The fact that we exist in this very form shows both. "This is a misunderstanding of probability. There are quadrillions of stars. With all kinds of random forms and such. Even if each star has a miniscule chance of turning out this way, when you get a sample that huge, almost anything that can happen does. " Probability stops being useful as a tool of determination after a certain point, even given a near-infinite sample set. "Meanwhile you give us a sample of one deity- and expect everything." That's the logical conclusion when you eliminate random chance. You must assume intelligent influence in situations where the probability is essentially 0. *** Since I'm the instigator, this is my last round. I have addressed in what I believe to be a proper manner, each of my opponent's rebuttals. The complexity of the universe cannot be denied. That observed complexity leads to the probability of an intelligence also cannot be denied. The existence of life as we know it, and our very existence simply cannot be the product of randomness. I know several people who cite natural selection, but we are dealing with the concept of abiogenesis, not evolution of species. There have been no conclusions despite many attempts to generate life in vitro. All experiments have fatal flaws. This shows that the level of complexity is so high and the probability of random generation is so low, we must assume outside influence.