An atheist must agree that our organs exist for no reason

Thanks for putting up a good defense con.My definition of "reason" went undisputed. Per round 1: "Reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.' Or in other words, a means towards an end."Rule per round 1: "This debate is over whether organs exist for any reason on a factual level.""Anything that is random cannot be a means towards any end""Without a creator there is no INHERENT purpose but this doesn't preclude self-validated purposes by sentient beings. In order to argue that there is an inherent purpose we must first require evidence of a deity. (1) self-prescribed reasons are irrelevant as I noted in round 1 unless those reasons are fact-based. This debate is over whether organs exist for any reason on a *factual level*. Here is the definition of factual: "concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it." Since evolution is an unembodied process devoid of objectives or goals, and since our organs are an unintended result of that process, it cannot possibly be the case that our organs are a means towards any end. A reason is a means towards an end. So factually, our organs cannot exist for any reason. It is true by the law of identity (one of the three laws of logic) that something cannot be a means towards an end while simultaneously being a means without an end. (2) The claim being made is that if atheism is true, it must follow that our organs exist for no reason (factually). There is no BoP to validate anything other than that claim. "Whether our ogans exist for any reason on a factual level" "Since organs exist within the scope our perception of reality this makes their existence factual. The reason for their existence is to sustain the organism and is evident regardless of any inherent purpose of life.(1) the issue is not over whether organs exist within our perception of reality. The issue is whether there is a factual *reason* for why our organs exist. Facts aren't dependent on human perception. Would the laws of logic still have factual existence in the absence of all human sentience? Of course. (2) The second is statement is just an assertion of what appears to be the case. What appears to be the case is not always factual. It appears to be the case that the earth is flat but obviously that isn't true. Logically, it is impossible for organs to exist for the reason of sustaining the organism because it violates the law of identity. An unembodied process *by definition* cannot be a means towards any end. Including an end to sustain the survival of an organism. Subject: "we cannot consider our own self-prescribed reasons""Why not? If organs required a divine purpose we'd see debates over the purpose of organs based on a persons religious affiliation. We don't see this, what we see is a scientific consensus over the purpose of specific organs."(1) Religious affiliation would have nothing to do with it anyway. Either organs are a means towards an end or they aren't. In order to be a means towards an end this requires organs to exist for a sentient purpose. If it is true that there is absence of sentient purpose for anything naturally occurring (atheism) then the only means for anything naturally occurring are unembodied natural processes that cannot produce anything for any reason or purpose. Again, our self-prescribed reasons are only valid if factual for this debate. I could say that the reason that the sun exists is to make me happy. Of course, that isn't a factual reason. (2) consensus on any issue has nothing to do with truth value. Facts are only things that have definitive truth value. It was once a consensus that the earth was flat. "Did these changes occur in order to promote the survival of the organism?"Yes, with reservation. Initial life forms would've developed these changes not as a means of survival but as a means of enhanced adaptation.(1) Again, you're giving an unembodied process a goal, an end, a purpose, or means towards an end for doing what it does. Evolution is a process with a result. There's no means towards any end by the very definition of what it means to be an unembodied natural process. Your assigning a purpose to something that results in the tendency of more species surviving rather than less. Everything that lives also dies. We could just as easily say that the purpose of anything that lives is to die. That wouldn't be true, however."if atheism is true"Atheism is a lack of a claim to religion. It could be falsified through factual evidence that a deity exist, until then atheism is just a lack of belief.(1) Note: IF atheism *is true* (there is truly absence of any deity) then anything naturally occurring could not be a means towards any end. Con validates this point in his first post by stating that inherent purpose (of anything) depends on the existence of a deity as an actual state of affairs. "Evolution is a natural and unembodied process" "There is no orchestrator for the path of evolution but it's a process that follows 'rules' such as Darwinian Fitness and Natural selection, therefore we cannot say that is "random". All we can posit is that it's not constructed.(1) Our consistent observations of natural processes don't consign them to following "rules". (2) I didn't say that evolution was "random" I said that it was unembodied. It's impossible for an unembodied process to be a means towards an end."Evolution cannot be a means towards an end""This is a misuse of terminology with intent to mislead"(1) My opponent states that it's misleading as a bare assertion. There's nothing to rebut here."Evolution is a process with a result... devoid of goals or objectives"We can suppose this however then must also posit that goals, logic, knowledge, and reason are all human constructs from sentient intelligence.(1) In absence of all human sentience, would the laws of logic still be true (exist as an actual state of affairs)? Of course. Something could not simultaneously be alive and dead at the same time just because no human sentience exists. In absence of all human sentience, could a monkey eat a banana as a means for satisying hunger (for a reason or goal)? Of course. This falsifies your premise. If you're claiming that all human perceptions of reality are illusory then you would lose the debate by default. This would automatically entail that all human perceptions for why organs exist (for any reason) is not an actual state of affairs. "misuse of the words 'reason and why""Words are a human construct that further intelligence and only make sense within the context of human existence. Your premise is flawed because it asks for an explanation of human existence devoid of human perception. This is impossible."Then human perceptions are not an actual state of affairs and you lose the debate by default. Remember, you are siding with the claim that organs have reasons for existing *as an actual state of affairs* (factually). You'll have to dig yourself out of that one. "everything that occurs in nature is inherently a means without an end"End is being misused as "final goal" instead of purpose. The purpose of our organs is to sustain an organism. [Reasons are also human constructs, falsifying your argument].Unembodied processes cannot occur for any purpose either... If reasons are human constructs that aren't an actual state of affairs this would make *you* lose the debate, not me. I'm arguing that organs don't exist for any reason (as an actual state of affairs) if atheism is true. "Everything that naturally occurs is undefined""nature is everything that physically existsI physically exist as part of natureI just defined something in nature"Physical structures, such as organs, and the human body are naturally occurring. Mental concepts are not. I'm out of space and this is my last round but everything has been covered. Thanks for the debate!