Existence Necessitates Purpose

>> "My opponent suggests that everything in the universe is predetermined from it's beginning to it's end, or it has no purpose at all, which is is it." You mischaracterize my argument. I am not arguing for determinism in this debate (although determinism is a very good theory). I am also not arguing that existence is purposeless. I am arguing that nothing about existence NECESSITATES purpose. >> "So using his own logic his life and existence has no meaning or purpose." My opponent is in need of some logic courses. While existence may HAVE purpose, existence does not NECESSITATE purpose. >> "Sentient consciousness has purpose but does not exists in the material world." But it exists in thought - the same way ALL abstractions like love, friendship, unicorns, and perfect polygons exist. This is a complete red herring. You can do better. >> "Like I said chicken and the egg. You state this as fact, agreed upon by all without doubt" http://en.wikipedia.org... - Except in strange definitions of what constitutes a valid "egg" - the logical answer is that the egg came first. Unless you accept creationism as a logical answer - and that would be a strange type of "logic." >> "Why would someone even think to trow a rock if it had no purpose and no relevance to existence, why would the rock even exist." Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. At some point in time, the rock was given purpose, therefore it always had purpose. This is ludicrous. Someone would think to throw a rock because they are aware of the effects of throwing a rock. Nothing about the rock simply being there necessitates that it has the purpose of being a missile. >> "What is soil? soil is ground up rock" Fair enough, though I suppose one may be able to argue a difference between soil and rock. >> "By my opponents own words he admits to not knowing the answer to his own question" It is a rhetorical question. Nobody knows the point of existence. >> "Rock clearly has a purpose if sentient life is to exist at all if one uses any degree of logic." Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Come on now... rock preexisted life, even in the Bible. By your logic, before life, rock had no purpose. ******************************* 1. Vestigial Structures. All that is needed here is the following: 1. Do vestigial structures exist? Yes. 2. Do they currently have purpose? No. -------------------- :. They exist, yet have no purpose. The resolution is negated. 2/3. Causal Interaction & Purpose Requires Intent Requires Intelligence. Purpose is determined by factors that are not dependent in any way upon the object. Consider a stick. By itself it has no purpose. However, it can have the purpose of a tool, a weapon, or a home for termites. To suggest that it has the purpose of these things before tool or weapon-using creatures exist is ludicrous. Clearly purpose cannot cause existence, because something must exist before it can have purpose. Therefore, existence must precede purpose. Since purpose is a function of intelligence, which my opponent has conceded (""Purpose requires intent requires intelligence." Got no argument there."), intelligence must ALSO precede purpose. Thus, the existence of intelligence and existence of the object must BOTH precede intelligence. Logically, this is as follows. 1. (P -> I) - If there is purpose (P), then there is intent (I). 2. (I -> G) - If there is intent, then there is intelligence (G). 3. (G -> O) - If there is intelligence, then an intelligent object (O) must exist. 4. ~(O) - There was a time when no intelligent objects existed. ------------------------------------- :. ~P ------------------------------------- 5. ~G (3,4 by Modus Tollens) 6. ~I (5, 2 by Modus Tollens) 7. ~P (6, 1 by Modus Tollens) 4. No logical argument for the PRO side. Existence does not preclude purpose, but neither does it necessitate it. This means that while existence may indeed have purpose, that purpose is not REQUIRED. Thus, the resolution is negated. *************************************************** I ask the readers to consider one simple question. If a rock existed by itself, ONLY the rock, nothing else, would there be anything at all that REQUIRES that this rock have a purpose? The answer is clearly no. The resolution is negated.