Existence Necessitates Purpose

"You cannot possibly logically demonstrate that my existence necessitated this debate" 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. It seems to me that you want it both ways. You want existence with no purpose and purpose with no existence, but under no circumstances can either enhance one another or reside in the same realm as one another. Yet reality suggests that both are reliant on one another. I will assume from my opponents position his existence has no purpose as his existence dose not necessitate purpose. So using his own logic his life and existence has no meaning or purpose. A very depressing thought if you ask me. How anyone could go through life with this mind set is quite mind boggling and illogical to me. "In order for something to have purpose, it must first exist." Like I said chicken and the egg. You state this as fact, agreed upon by all without doubt. This is not so. It is your opinion. just as mine is the opposite. but I don't for one minute suggest that it is known fact as you do in your position. "Describe to me please something that has purpose but no existence." Sentient consciousness has purpose but does not exists in the material world. You can't measure it, see it, taste it or touch it but all will agree that it does exist. Well not all, some will deny that sentient consciousness has purpose or exists. "At some point in time, a fowl that was not a chicken (but was very much like a chicken) laid an egg with mutated DNA that WAS a chicken" Again stated as fact and agreed upon by all, which it is not. I addressed this specific case - the purpose is a function of the intent of who or whatever threw the rock. 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. "Man could easily build everything required to live out of wood or bone." What material do all living plant matter need in order to grow. "Soil of some type" yes there are a few exceptions. What is soil? soil is ground up rock. The entire food chain starts here on land that is inhabitable by man. Man cannot exist in the ocean naturally and unaided. Artificial means are needed for even the shortest amount of time. So logically if all rock were removed all living animal life would cease to exist as the food chain wood be completely terminated at its very beginning, thus there would be no trees there would be no bones and there would be no foundation on which to build anything. All inhabitable land is made of rock in varying degrees of density and PH. One could make the argument that beach fronts are made of pulverized shells, but as you can see nothing grows in it and no one builds on it unless they dig down to bed "rock" to support the foundation. My opponent can try and say that rock has no purpose and that man can exist without it, but to this point in the debate this is by far the most illogical thing I have heard yet. "True. But do we really know what the point of existence is? Or is man just a very advanced animal that needs an answer and makes up things to convince himself? For example, the notion that existence necessitates purpose." By my opponents own words he admits to not knowing the answer to his own question but makes statements as though they are known and provable facts to support his argument. Do you know or don't you know? If you don't know, your arguments make as much sense or as little sense as mine. It's up to the voters belief to decide. If neither side can prove their case than neither side is no more right or wrong than the other. Your explanation of rocks being totally without purpose in my opinion is quite illogical when making man try to live without them. It makes absolutely no sense in my opinion. Rock clearly has a purpose if sentient life is to exist at all if one uses any degree of logic. Vestigial structures. Rock is a vestigial structure and exists simultaneously in two distinct different forms. Animal life; Just because part of it's form has changed does not mean the change to the form is now useless and serves no purpose. I don't quite know what my opponent is driving at with this in the context of this debate admittedly. Casual interaction. This seems to be a post existence argument meaning that all purpose is determined by interaction thus giving his argument the leg it needs to stand on. In other words all things that came into existence had no purpose until they interacted with each other thus giving rise to purpose. "Purpose requires intent requires intelligence." Got no argument there. The disagreement is that something can not exist before the known universe as we understand it. Which came first intelligence and purpose or the universe. chicken and the egg. "There is no logical argument that can show that existence necessitates purpose." My arguments are no more logical or illogical than yours neither side can prove anything. "Some things do not have purpose (~P) - the rock qua rock." A major flaw in your mathematical equation. How do you know rock has no purpose. Just saying the words, "Existence does not necessitate purpose." does not make it so. I believe my argument about rock is far more convincing and logical than yours. There is nothing "plain and simple" about the universe and everything in it. We would be traveling the galaxy's if anything were "plain and simple" about life, existence and the universe.