Does the Universe Have a Purpose

It seems my opponent has failed to provide any evidence that God does not exist. The original premises were that if God does exist than then the universe has a purpose. If God does not exist then it is more likely that the universe has no ultimate purpose. For my opponent to win this debate he had to present credible arguments to why he thought God did not exist, he has failed to do so. In fact he presented more arguments for my main contention that God does exist. He argued that God did not exist because of suffering and evil in the world. This requires an objective morality or objective measurement of good for their to be evil, otherwise how would one know if something is evil if we don't have an objective standard of good. Just to recap, I have presented several arguments regarding the existence of God in which a small attempt was made to rebut them, though not very well. My main contention was if God does exist then the universe has some sort of ultimate purpose. I will state my arguments again: Argument 1: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. Argument 2: 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2. The universe, the actuall collection of beings in space and time exists. 3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. Argument 3 1. We have ideas of many things. 2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us. 3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God an infinite, all-perfect being. 4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause. 5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God. 6. But only God himself has those qualities. 7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him. 8. Therefore God exists. Argument 4: 1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. 2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. 3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. 4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever." I will also reiterate my rebuttals of his refutation: >>The premise of this is to prove that the universe has ultimate purpose and thus existence of god.<< (Argument 1) No the argument is the other way round, if God exists then the universe must have a purpose. >>While the universe does indeed have a cause for coming into existence it did not necessarily have a purpose for coming into existence.<< Again the argument is not to prove the existence of a ultimate purpose, but the existence of God. For if we can establish that God probably does exist then it is likely the universe has a cause. >>Yet the rock has no inherent purpose of being eroded and the river has no divine plan in its course.<< This is a straw-man argument and also comparing apples with oranges. First the argument is not the rock or river has a ultimate plan or purpose, however it does have a purpose to some degree outside of itself. I think my opponent misunderstood my argument, I was not arguing for the ultimate purpose of the universe from argument 1 but for the existence of God. The cause in argument 1 is what Christians call God and on the balance of probabilities and the acceptance of argument 1 by the opponent that is the universe had a cause and theists call that cause God. >>The universe must contain itself<< (argument 2) Not that is not correct, if we had a floor covered in red tiles, we say the floor is red, all red. If we have a universe full of dependence then we have one big "hull" of dependence and thus illogical to say it is dependant on itself. Again my opponent has misunderstood the argument. I will add some commentary to the arguments presented. The second argument can be tied into the first argument relating to the cause of the universe. If the universe had a beginning then that means time, space and matter had a beginning as they are products of the universe. Which then would entail that the cause discussed in argument 1 is outside of time, space and matter. Something that is outside of time, space and matter must be by definition "supernatural", because it is not natural. Theists call that timeless, spaceless and matterless cause God. >>The idea of perfection is one that is as human as imperfection.<< But is that really enough? How can we think away limitation or imperfection unless we first recognize it as such? And how can we recognize it as such unless we already have some notion of infinite perfection? To recognize things as imperfect or finite involves the possession of a standard in thought that makes the recognition possible. Does that seem farfetched? It does not mean that toddlers spend their time thinking about God. But it does mean that, however late in life you use the standard, however long before it comes explicitly into consciousness, still, the standard must be there in order for you to use it. But where did it come from? Not from your experience of yourself or of the world that exists outside you. For the idea of infinite perfection is already presupposed in our thinking about all these things and judging them imperfect. Therefore none of them can be the origin of the idea of God; only God himself can be that. >> Opponent effectively saying that natural desire has no real objective<< This is really not an objection to the argument from desire only, but to every deductive argument whatsoever, every syllogism. It is the old saw of John Stuart Mill and the nominalists against the syllogism. It presupposes empiricism that is, that the only way we can ever know anything is by sensing individual things and then generalizing, by induction. It excludes deduction because it excludes the knowledge of any universal truths (like our major premise). For nominalists do not believe in the existence of any universals except one (that all universals are only names). This is very easy to refute. We can and do come to a knowledge of universal truths, like "all humans are mortal," not by sense experience alone (for we can never sense all humans) but through abstracting the common universal essence or nature of humanity from the few specimens we do experience by our senses. We know that all humans are mortal because humanity, as such, involves mortality, it is the nature of a human being to be mortal; mortality follows necessarily from its having an animal body. We can understand that. We have the power of understanding, or intellectual intuition, or insight, in addition to the mental powers of sensation and calculation, which are the only two the nominalist and empiricist give us. (We share sensation with animals and calculation with computers; where is the distinctively human way of knowing for the empiricist and nominalist?) When there is no real connection between the nature of a proposition's subject and the nature of the predicate, the only way we can know the truth of that proposition is by sense experience and induction. For instance, we can know that all the books on this shelf are red only by looking at each one and counting them. But when there is a real connection between the nature of the subject and the nature of the predicate, we can know the truth of that proposition by understanding and insight—for instance, "Whatever has color must have size," or, "A Perfect Being would not be ignorant."