The universe was probably created by an Intelligent Designer.

" 1. Premise: Humans have free will 2. Free will cannot exist if our mental capabilities are purely natural 3. Therefore, our mental capacities must draw on some aspect of the supernatural. " Argument from ignorance. You do not know that free will cannot exist naturally. "I didn't feel it was necessary to specify as it has nothing to do with this debate. Space alone cannot characterize a universe." Yet nevertheless it has to be an element of one, or there is nowhere to put all the mass :D. " Implication of time is in reference to the crea*TION* not the crea*TOR*. So while the creation of the universe did exist in time (as the very start of time) the creator can still be outside of it. " Doesn't work, a thing that is not part of time cannot perform an action at a specific time. Assuming the thing can even exist outside of time (not demonstrably possible anyway), any action it took must be also not subject to time and therefore must occur at every time or not at all. " I retract the designation of the intelligent designer as a "force". It was unnecessary. " In which case you must also retract it having any interaction with mass whatsoever, as any such action is physical in nature. "Humans recognize complexity through observation. The intelligent designer has never been observed, so any attempts to characterize it are subject to bias." If we follow from that premise, your attempt to characterize it as EVEN EXISTING is mere bias. Your attempt to characterize ANYTHING ABOUT OUR ORIGIN AT ALL is no more valid than ascribing something to a potential designer, as frankly, you did not observe the origin of the universe. If we accept what you say as true, this very debate is invalid. If the debate is invalid no burden of proof can be met, and as that burden is on you... " No contradiction. My argument was that a purpose exists, but any attempts to understand the specifics of that purpose through our biased human lens would be inaccurate." Existence is a specific, therefore your argument must be inaccurate if we accept it as true, which leads to a contradiction. Plus, it doesn't matter what the specifics are when NO SET OF SPECIFICS in a purpose, can result in our universe. "Humans need to plan. The Intelligent Designer need not be subject to that flaw. The act of designing is indeed an act and does imply time. However, I argue that this design and the creation of the universe is one event and the first event, meaning, it is the origin of time. " Then why didn't it happen earlier? No time constraints were in the way. (*grins at the absurdities that result when you assume origins of time.) "We can, with accuracy, determine whether something has been influenced by human intelligence (watch in a field). By broadening our scope, we can identify when other things have been influenced by intelligence in general." We determine the watche's design by comparing it with it's surroundings, and seeing whether those surroundings contain any such mix of compounds, heat, and other conditions that could possible give rise to it (it's not a matter of probability, either the conditions make it possible or they don't.) In a heap of natural mixed metals that due to geology had all kinds of intricate designs in metals, we wouldn't know whether the watch was designed. We haven't observed the surroundings of the universe and so the process is invalid for it. " By whose standards?' By the standards that are the only ones the entity can have if the entity is infinite. Either you think something worth effort or you don't. Failure to put full effort into a thing when one is invested to it is a product of being finite, of having limits, without limits the idea of failing to fully reach your potential is absurd. If an infinite thing can design our universe, it can design better quality by virtue of being infinite. If it is motivated by our current quality enough to do what it has done, it is motivated enough to produce a greater quality, for it requires no more effort. Standards are based on the facts of one's existence and one's choice to continue it. If the fact of the existence is infinite, the standard must be perfection. " I see what you mean, but that's not what I was saying. Your argument operates under the premise that the probability is slim because the universe existing has a requirement, and the chance of the designer fulfilling that requirement was small. I found this to be ludicrous simply given that the universe exists o.O' Not when the requirement can be fulfilled without the designer. "That doesn't follow. I stated a few times before that the designer designed *outside* time and that the designing is a single event. The requirement to process information doesn't exist for a being of infinite intelligence existing outside time and acting once. " Which is precisely why it can't design, because design is a process, not an event, and so is intelligence. *Poof* is an event. The concepts of intelligent and design rely on time, without time they cannot be present, you need different concepts. " I needed only to focus on the aspect of functionality and precision. The fact that we exist in this very form shows both. " No it doesn't, because we aren't precise. Our lifespans change with every generation, and so do many facts of our nature, our form. Clocks don't except for external damage, and they are designed to minimize that (an infinite designer would of course design that infinitely better rather than worse :D). Imagine a clock that suddenly shrunk when it went 24 hours, or grew, or obtained a different varnish, spontaneously. " Probability stops being useful as a tool of determination after a certain point, even given a near-infinite sample set. " After what point? Infinity? We have not reached that point and cannot. "That's the logical conclusion when you eliminate random chance. You must assume intelligent influence in situations where the probability is essentially 0." But it isn't "essentially zero" in account with the number of stars. It is only essentially zero (more like absolutely considering the contradictions :D) when given the deity's one trial. "That observed complexity leads to the probability of an intelligence also cannot be denied. " I just did. "There have been no conclusions despite many attempts to generate life in vitro. All experiments have fatal flaws. This shows that the level of complexity is so high and the probability of random generation is so low, we must assume outside influence.' No, we mustn't, especially when it took BILLIONS OF YEARS for life to originate on earth. Every second of that in some of the chemical pools around back then was a trial. The miniscule resources of scientists and our century or so of attempts is nothing compare with that sample size. A key fact of any lottery is someone wins once in a while, whether you've bought enough trials to be that someone or not.