Existance without purpose?

[weird7]

This topic stems from a couple of statements that were getting off topic in another thread. So I created this thread to address them further.

(Greatest I Am) states: "Since God can do anything that He wants without Angels then they become redundant. Therefore Angels do not exist." and "I know of nothing that exists without purpose."

My argument was: because something is redundant or unnecessary is not proof that it does not exist.

(Greatest I Am) replied: "I do not agree. Existence can always be shown."

My questions are:

1) Can something exist without having a purpose?

2) Can existence always be shown? or Can something exist without being shown to exist?

[weird7]

LOL. It took me a while didn't it. Your point is well taken.

Though I would have to disagree with you. There is no 4 kg stone behind the larger pile of boulders. A miniature family of pink unicorns live there.

[Confused]

This topic stems from a couple of statements that were getting off topic in another thread. So I created this thread to address them further.

(Greatest I Am) states: "Since God can do anything that He wants without Angels then they become redundant. Therefore Angels do not exist." and "I know of nothing that exists without purpose."

My argument was: because something is redundant or unnecessary is not proof that it does not exist.

(Greatest I Am) replied: "I do not agree. Existence can always be shown."

My questions are:

1) Can something exist without having a purpose?

2) Can existence always be shown? or Can something exist without being shown to exist?

1) I will give you the most recent example I am aware of. In the human genome, there are multiple strands of genetic junk codes called ARE's. While it may be theorized that these codes may have had a purpose in the past, perhaps with evolution, we can find absolutely no use for them now. Nor can we show there was ever a use for them. Another example. The human appendix. Does absolutely nothing except get inflammed, infected, and bursts leading to appendicitis and if it burts, peritonitis to boot. Did it have a purpose in the past? Who knows. Last hypothesis was it was similar to the gallbladder in that when man was primarily vegetarian it played a large role, but when man became carnivores as well, well, it negated the need for the appendix. But once again, hypothesis only.

2) If I understand your question right, then it is always possible to hypothesize the existance of a positive though perhaps not show existence through anything more than an equation or hypothesis. Generally, one can almost always prove a positive, however it isn't possible to prove a negative. To prove something never existed would mean that no-one was ever aware of it to begin with, so it negates itself in its own rights.

[White Pony]

And again, it would certainly depend on your definition of "existence". Santa Clause, I would say, exists but no-one in their right mind would say he's real. A better example: your own thoughts exist, but can you measure or show them to me?

[Greatest I Am]

And again, it would certainly depend on your definition of "existence". Santa Clause, I would say, exists but no-one in their right mind would say he's real. A better example: your own thoughts exist, but can you measure or show them to me?

Thoughts can be shown to exist thanks to the product they produce.

If you ask someone to add 2 + 2, and are given an answer of 4, then we see the product of the thought and thus prove it's existence.
A black hole is not seen but its gravitational effects can be seen thus proving the existence of an invisible black hole.

Regards
DL

[ST88]

And again, it would certainly depend on your definition of "existence". Santa Clause, I would say, exists but no-one in their right mind would say he's real. A better example: your own thoughts exist, but can you measure or show them to me?

Thoughts can be shown to exist thanks to the product they produce.
If you ask someone to add 2 + 2, and are given an answer of 4, then we see the product of the thought and thus prove it's existence.
A black hole is not seen but its gravitational effects can be seen thus proving the existence of an invisible black hole.

And yet the concept of a black hole can surely co-exist with its referent even before the referent is found. Similarly, the equation can co-exist with the mathematical principle it describes. But consider the case of: "does 3+2=6 exist?" -(caveat: I think some logicians have discounted the linguistic phraseology of this kind of math entirely). The idea need not have a referent in order to exist, even if the referent does not or if the existence of a referent is impossible or nonsensical. However, whether or not the referent exists is an entirely different matter.

Thoughts are abstract connections of innumerable individual concrete ideas, so the referents are there if you bother to get to the constituent parts (firing neurons). Whether or not thoughts make any sense should be irrelevant when assessing the validity of their existence.

[1) Can something exist without having a purpose?

2) Can existence always be shown? or Can something exist without being shown to exist?

Surely things exist without 1)purpose, but the existence of something must necessarily have some kind of 2) property of existence that can be discovered if only our instruments of measure are sensitive enough (the moon rock problem). If the question is about whether or not we have the technological capability to detect something, then, yes, existence can always be shown -- we just have to wait for the ability to show it. It's just a question of technique. E.g., the proof of God will happen, we just have to die first.

[Cephus]

What about an animal or sea creature living in the great depths of the ocean. Some scientists believe that there may be creatures down there that man has not yet discovered. Isn't it possible that a creature does exist that cannot be shown to?

Considering science finds another couple million new creatures every year, of course there are things that exist that we don't know about. However, until we actually do find them, we're under no obligation to acknowledge their actual existence and certainly, it would be foolish to make predictions about their form and function until we find them. There are billions of planets circling other stars that we've never seen, that doesn't mean they don't exist, but it does mean we really have no say about what they're like until we do.