The Universe has a Purpose

I intend to disprove both of my opponent's standing arguments by showing that without logic there is no basis for a balance of probabilities on the first cause topic and that human purpose, whilst a strong point, cannot be said to exist. I agree here with my opponent: there is no way of proving nor disproving the nature of a first cause if we assert it to be unbound by any laws we would need to do so. I will go further than the admission we 'cannot disprove...beyond reasonable doubt'; I say we cannot even determine the probabilities of such. My opponent concedes to work on the balance of probabilities but even this is not possible: we have nothing to work on, no logic to apply, in fact this first cause may as well not exist for the impact it will now have on this debate. My assertion of a dimensional anomaly, as I previously stated, was merely an example of an unthinking cause. My claim of its probability was that it equalled any other kind of cause seeing as we cannot apply logic. My opponent cannot claim that his (or my own) suggestion is the likelier. My opponent's second argument is far more cogent and requires that we explore a number of things. Firstly: what is real? Here is yet another immovable question which we could not hope to tackle comprehensively yet I shall do my best. It seems to me that there are two possible schools of thinking - what is real can be empirically measured and quantified, it can be proven to be not an illusion and agrees with laws we have formulated upon this assumption; or - what is real is simply what our brains interpret of the world and so any measurements we take or, for that matter, theories that we form could really be an illusion. I argue against the second school, for the sake of this debate, because if it is true then we cannot prove the universe to be real at all and therefore cannot prove that it has purpose. If we, then, support the first school purpose, if it is anything, must be real and scientifically quantifiable. I believe this is the case: thoughts are simply the reaction of neurons in a complex series and purpose is surely a subset of thought. Secondly: what is purpose? If we examine the origins of purpose I'm sure anyone would agree it can be traced back to hunger, a desire to mate etc. in short - the will to survive. If we trace this back to its roots, we meet single-celled organisms with no capacity for thought reacting to their environment. Purpose, therefore, is rooted in the mundane. Purpose, like life, is the complex result of many simple factors. Thirdly: can we have unintentional purpose? The short answer: no. By this, I mean that if someone touches a hot stove they will immediately pull back without the electrical signals needing to reach the brain. This action was unintentional, it was not their purpose to do so. If this were the sole action of their life they would have no purpose. If we are to believe that life is a series of such reactions then ultimately, nothing we do is intentional and thus we cannot have purpose. Thus I have shown that no assessment of probabilities can be made regarding a first cause in the universe and so this portion of my opponent's argument must be ignored whether or not intuition tells my opponent otherwise. I have also rebutted my opponent's claim to the universe having purpose because we do since we cannot have purpose without intention (not personal purpose, and any exterior purpose must follow the same rules) and the nature of life negates intention. With both of my opponent's remaining arguments disproved we cannot pass the motion and I conclude that the universe does not have purpose which is demonstrable or otherwise reasonable. Many thanks to the proposition for such a delicious motion and to the reader for their judgement. -Cluckelite