It is more rational to believe humanity is a random by-product of this universe than created by God.

I guess this is my lucky week, as I have discovered two very amiable atheists to debate this similar topic line with in a civil discussion! Your stated aim is lofty, but I admire somebody who likes a challenge. Sadly we humans are all too defensive of our positions, given that we all assume we have used sensible logic and intelligence to arrive at what we adhere to, and I am far from the exception to this rule. Generally you find people end up entrenched, depending on how far invested they are in their position. For instance Richard Dawkins always says that if the evidence emerged, he would be one of the first to accept creationism - however I remain sceptical because I consider that he is much too far, and much too publicly, invested in the position he has entrenched himself into. Plenty of wars have been fought because people would rather "save face" than admit they might be wrong. Having said that, I have changed my stance to a moderate extent on several issues in my life's journey so far having studied and listened to other worldviews, so your cause is not entirely without hope :o) I welcome the equitable nature of your invitation to make my aim the reverse, however changing your mind or "converting" you to my brand of religion is somewhat secondary to my intent behind this discussion. It is more that you seemed like a rational personality who might logically state your position for me to consider, in a tolerant and open debate so that we might both take something away from the discussion, which pleasingly seems to be a mutual goal by what you say in Round 1. ---- So onto the debate: Your brain might indeed be a highly evolved and quite remarkable "computer made of meat", but being capable of independent rational thought is not a "given". It certainly isn't empirically provable. If you believe it is, please do demonstrate. In the not terribly brilliant film, Transcendence, it poses the question that if a human mind could be uploaded to a computer which then assumed that person's consciousness - is it still that same person? Or is it just a jolly clever imitation? And critically, how would you prove it!? It is the same with a brain postulated to be created purely as a random result of the matter of this universe. Whilst it may appear remarkable, and humanity may achieve remarkable feats such as the splitting of the atom, landing on the moon and the building of the Hadron Collider etc - and we may appear to show all the facets of "free will" - the ends don't empirically "prove" the means, because the brain could just be a jolly clever imitation of independent rational thought. Even to the point of convincing ourselves of it. Much like your termites, maybe we are just "hard-wired" to do all this stuff. Your other points are interesting, particularly the Homunculus Argument - and the variant of this you also pointed me to, which Daniel Dennett attempts to use to counter the idea of Dualism. Whilst it is all jolly fascinating, it is not actually provable or falsifiable - but I do take your point. The crux of all the points you raise is reached in your third to last paragraph: "...approaching the question of what consciousness is does not need to involve the supernatural." And you are of course correct. It need not necessarily be supernatural. It could genuinely be that we are merely random by-products of the matter of this random universe. I have faith that this universe was created, but that doesn't mean that I don't leave space for doubt that it might not have been - for all of the reasons you postulate. Faith without any Doubt is basically Delusion, and that is far from helpful. BUT, and it is a big but, in order to convince me to abandon my Faith and go along with your postulation would require at the very minimum for you to demonstrate: 1) That it is more advantageous for me to want to accept that I am just a random by-product of this random universe, rather than a created being with meaning, purpose and significance. Some key problems with being a random by-product: - This renders our entire existence ultimately meaningless. Even if you believe that you can somehow derive your own meaning out of life whilst you're here on Earth - one day you will just drop down dead, and forever cease to be. Maybe a couple of generations of your family or close friends may remember you, but within a very short space of time you will just be some random name in a family tree. Even if you happen to become famous and have your own Wikipedia page, no-one reading it will know the "real you" - they'll just have a list of random facts about your life. And besides, eventually this planet and ultimately the entire universe will cease to be, and all record of humanity and everything we have "achieved" will be for naught. Why on earth would anyone want that over the possibility of having eternal significance? Particularly when there is evidence that we are not just random by-products - eg through the record of the Bible and the historic Christ. - This means that morality is at best a by-product of Evolution. I find it fascinating that you so easily find potential dangers where people hold the belief that people have souls, with the curious list you provide in your second to last paragraph - but surely the belief that we are just a random by-product opens its own veritable Pandora's Box of problems. For instance, give me one good logical reason why I should obey the law and "love my neighbour" etc if morality is just a by-product of evolution? Why not instead make my life's purpose to exert as much sadistic dictatorial power and control over as many other human beings as possible during my short, pointless existence here on Earth? (Plenty of historical figures have chosen to do precisely this!) Also, why not argue to run society like the Nazis attempted to? There is a very strong argument that morality "gets in the way" of Evolution - "survival of the fittest" is hardly best served by keeping the elderly, sick and those with genetic disorders alive now is it? It is surely far more Darwinian in style to aim for a "master race", completely devoid of the morality which would cause them to expend valuable energies and resources looking after the weaker members in society. Indeed, it was Adolf Hitler himself who stated: "I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience - imperious, relentless and cruel". If human life is not "sacred", and we are just random matter - why not just kill off the elderly, sick and unproductive - particularly now on our dangerously overcrowded planet with rapidly declining resources? The logical choice should be simple, keep only the most productive human beings alive, and cut out the dead wood. This is what all the other animals do - give me one single logical reason why we should be any different, if we are just random by-products of matter? Morality does nothing but hold humanity back in a Darwinian/evolutionary sense. Only with the concept that human beings are "sacred" does it make any sense to look after the weakest and most vulnerable. - I come back to the point that if our brains are just a random by-product, then I don't see any sensible argument that our consciousness has any "validity" whatsoever. Why should anything randomly created be assumed to have any "coherence" at all? All the arguments you postulate are as a direct result of your own brain, so it could just be random garbage that your brain has convinced you is coherent. How can you possibly demonstrate that it is trustworthy? 2) You would need to demonstrate that Christ wasn't who he said he was. Because it is all well and good to hypothesise why we might not need to be created (even though this entails all the issues I raise in point 1 above), but in order to do so you would also need to be pretty certain that Christ's claims were fallacious. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on Christ? How do you empirically do away with the evidence that exists in respect of the historic Christ, or is it sufficient to say simply that there is not enough evidence for you to accept it? That then raises the further question, of what does constitute sufficient evidence for you to accept something (particularly in light of solipsism/brain in a vat)?