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

I'd like to start by saying that I'm not 100% happy with the specific wording of the debate, but I have accepted it because I agree in principle with the statement and am looking forward to debating it with DiverseSynergy.I'm going to change my debating style somewhat for this debate. My aim is no less than to convince DiverseSynergy themselves of my case. I shall try to reduce the degree to which I focus on winning a debate, therefore, sacrificing rhetoric for a genuine attempt at convincing somebody to see the World differently.I invite DiverseSynergy to join me and try to convince me of their position; I believe that we are both rational people who therefore ought to have half a chance of listening to the other person's perspective.I hope that the gentle voters and DiverseSynergy won't mind, therefore, as I change my form of address to "you". By "you" I shall from here on in mean DiverseSynergy, as I feel that this direct form of address is easier than beating around the bush.==So, I hope that you won't mind if I start by quoting your comment to my other debate; I'd like to start by engaging there before turning my attention to your argument here, to which I will return in future rounds."If you argue that your brain is a random by-product of a random universe, then on what logical basis can you conclude that your random brain of chemicals and electrical signals is capable of independent rational thought in any case? And how would you hope to empirically prove it, even if you believe that your brain can have independent rational thought in such a scenario?"Well, I do argue that my own brain is a highly evolved and remarkable piece of machinery; that it is capable of independent rational thought is simply an empirical fact. If you wish me to design a thought experiment that would confirm an individual's capacity for independent rational thought, I would be happy to do so, but I don't think that this would help much. I think that I understand what you are getting at with this question though: in the philosophical sense, a soul.Rather than tackle this issue head on, I'd like to start by directing your attention to the Homunculus Argument, a well-known philosophical blunder which is well explained by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org.... You may notice some interesting ideas in the Counterarguments section and I note a nice link at the bottom to one of my favourite sayings "turtles all the way down". The linked article about the great Daniel Dennett's derisive term "Cartesian Theatre" is also worth a read.The point at hand is: what is consciousness? What is "free will"? What is it to be me?These questions demand an answer; they are pressing questions that we all ask at some point or another in our lives. The questions themselves can be presented in such blunt and simple Anglo Saxon that a 5-yr-old could understand them and, indeed, we often start to ask such questions very early in our lives. Unfortunately, though, the answers are complex and in many cases not "satisfying". It often feels that we are being let down, somehow; missing out on some important truth. It is in a way debasing to think that our very essence, our spirit (a beautiful word meaning "living essence" from the Latin for "breath"), is but "random" electrical fluctuations in some cleverly arranged stardust.Daniel Dennett has provided the best answer that I have heard, but it's not intuitive. Then again, truth is not always intuitive! If you have the time, I'd highly recommend that you listen to Daniel put it in his own charming way https://vimeo.com...(you need both, I know it's a lot of effort!)But if you haven't the time, the quick version in my words goes something like this:Termites produce buildings like human architects: s://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...; alt="" />Now, here's a really good question about design: If this is designed, where is the designer? Where is the design?Where are the blueprints to the termite colony?There is no one "master architect" termite. We could look in the brain of each termite and none has an idea of the overall goal.The termites are competent, but they have no comprehension - they know not what they do.Likewise, the first "computers" were humans who were employed in their thousands to do calculations for engineering firms... Alan Turing recognised that in order to be a good computer, you did not need to understand mathematics. This is equally counter-intuitive... again we see competence without comprehension...Daniel Dennett asks us to focus on this idea: our intuition expects competence to derive from comprehension, but in reality comprehension is a phenomenon which is "built up" from competence.So, evolution drives animal brains to become competent (like termite nests)... no neuron "knows" what the greater design is... but together, all following relatively simple rules of behaviour, the group begins to exhibit intelligent behaviour (without any need for the animal to be consciously clever). Natural selection is the force that does the choosing, picking individuals out and granting them success when their neurons, all following simple rules, produced a "desired" behaviour (nobody, not even Mother Nature, is doing the desiring!).It turns out that one of the things that a brain (any brain) is best at doing is predicting the future... it is a pattern seeker that is constantly expecting what's going to happen next... and whenever something fit's the expected pattern, the idea is reinforced... whenever something doesn't fit the expected pattern, the brain sits up and pays attention... a "what is THAT" type reaction.This is a competence and, the theory goes, it certainly pre-dates comprehension. The human brain evolved to become an excellent predictor of the future... this was a competence (and is in all animals)... and did not have any part of conscious mind playing a part in the prediction... indeed, it's still subconsciously doing those things, displaying competence without comprehension. One might say that the conscious part of your brain is significantly less competent at specifics and doesn't seem to account for much of the overall effort...Except that there really is something wrong with the wording I used in that last sentence. I said "the conscious part of your brain", but this really is a fallacious way of thinking about cognition. There can be no homunculus! Consciousness is what happens when the brain takes itself as one of the things that it models and tries to predict.It is interesting to understand how we can become conscious of things after they start... for instance, you could be in a quiet library room reading a book, totally absorbed... then at some point, your brain could become conscious of the fact that a clock is chiming the time in the distance. You may not become conscious of the fact (and decide to start counting the chimes) at the second or third chime. BUT, when you make the conscious choice to count, you can check your short-term memory and remember the first and second chimes and know to pick up the counting at the right point. A key point to note here is that your brain was already doing a lot of aural processing (and maybe more) without your conscious mind becoming aware... consciousness gives us the illusion of being a homunculus, the illusion that we have perfect sensory inputs, the illusion of complete control over ourselves and our own thoughts.I'm not going to on for the moment, wanting to hear what you have to say about the things I've spoken of before continuing.Essentially, though, I'm asking you to accept, at least in principle, that the way we should rationally be approaching the question of what consciousness is does not need to involve the supernatural. I can go further in the rational theory of consciousness if you'd like, or you're not so far convinced.But I also beseech you to consider that as soon as you believe that people have souls that create the consciousness, it is so much easier to hate and blame and want vengeance for people's wickedness; so much easier to believe that homosexuality is a choice; so much easier to believe in reincarnation and that people might be punished in this World for things they did in a last life; so much easier to wish for evil people to experience eternal torture; so much more fearful of ceasing to exist yourself; so much more likely to see abortion as a sin; so much more likely to oppose GM which could save millions of innocent men, women and children their suffering, illness, blindness and death through vitamin A deficiency; so much more likely to judge people who believe in other gods on the apparently reasonable notion that your god will judge and punish them; so much more likely to say silly things like "love the sinner, hate the sin"... than... than you would otherwise be.Please do try to convince me of your side but, I humbly ask, spend some time to tell me what you think about the things I have laid out so far.