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?

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Weird7

1) Can something exist without having a purpose?

Of course it can. The whole notion of things having purpose is a teleological view of the universe preferred by theists. Not only is this one very particular philosophical/theological way of looking at things, it is also heavily laden with metaphysical presumptions. If you prefer your philosophy minimalistic then the teleological viewpoint looks completely bogus.

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

Depends what you mean by "exist". But if in principle there is no way of testing for something, or proving it does not exists, and it has no observable effects, then this meets one set of criteria for something not actually existing.

[weird7]

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?

[McCulloch]

There are many more things that exist than what we have shown to exist. On Phobos (a moon of Mars) there is a small irregular shaped rock of about 4 kg sitting just to the west of the lip of the third deepest crater. It has no purpose and I cannot show that it exists.

[Furrowed Brow]

There are many more things that exist than what we have shown to exist. On Phobos (a moon of Mars) there is a small irregular shaped rock of about 4 kg sitting just to the west of the lip of the third deepest crater. It has no purpose and I cannot show that it exists.

The brown one. or the grey one?

We can't get to phobos just yet, and there are probably loads of creatures at the bottom of the sea still unknown to science, but in principle all these things can be checked, and tested at some point. So if the question is - can things exists that cannot be shown to exist right now? - then the answer is going to be yes.

[weird7]

McCulloch wrote:
"There are many more things that exist than what we have shown to exist. On Phobos (a moon of Mars) there is a small irregular shaped rock of about 4 kg sitting just to the west of the lip of the third deepest crater. It has no purpose and I cannot show that it exists."


But hasn't someone shown it to exist? Maybe not in person but by telescope?

[McCulloch]

]

There are many more things that exist than what we have shown to exist. On Phobos (a moon of Mars) there is a small irregular shaped rock of about 4 kg sitting just to the west of the lip of the third deepest crater. It has no purpose and I cannot show that it exists.

The brown one. or the grey one?

The gray one.

We can't get to phobos just yet, and there are probably loads of creatures at the bottom of the sea still unknown to science, but in principle all these things can be checked, and tested at some point. So if the question is - can things exists that cannot be shown to exist right now? - then the answer is going to be yes.

We all agree then, that there are things that exist that cannot now be shown to exist. I think that it is safe to say that this will continue to be the case, as we do not have time to demonstrate all the things that really do exist while our planet is habitable.

But hasn't someone shown it to exist? Maybe not in person but by telescope?

I don't think that any telescope on earth can detect a 4 kg stone, behind a larger pile of boulders as far away as Phobos.

[weird7]

Please bear with me, McCulloch, I am ignorant about astrology. I would also like to say that I am new to this forum though I have been reading it for a while. I love reading your posts the best, McCulloch. They are simple, logical, and I have found them to be the most enlightening for me.

Getting back on track... we do know this stone to exist correct? Scientists have seen it by some means correct? Satellite maybe? And if we have seen it by some means, telescope, satellite photos, ect... does that not qualify as showing it to exist?

[McCulloch]

[W]e do know this stone to exist correct? Scientists have seen it by some means correct? Satellite maybe? And if we have seen it by some means, telescope, satellite photos, ect... does that not qualify as showing it to exist?

Nobody has seen it. It is hidden from view. But it (or one like it) exists.

This answers your question, "Can something exist without being shown to exist?" Lots of things exist that are beyond our current ability to show that they exist.

The point is, I think, that for me to assert that something exists, I am required to show that it does, in all probability, exist. You could just as easily assert that this particular stone does not exist. Until we see the spot in question by some means, our knowledge of the existence of this stone has to be undetermined. The stone itself, exists or it does not exist. Its existence is independent of our knowledge of its existence. Its existence is independent of our ability to show that it exists. However, I am clearly on shaky ground to assert its existence without evidence.

Angels and invisible pink unicorns might exist. But no one is justified in asserting that they exist without some evidence.

[Furrowed Brow]

Is there not a difference between rocks and supernatural stuff? Ok just now we can't prove the existence of that rock on Phobos. However, we can observe other rocks. We've got rocks here on Earth. So the proposition there is a 4kg rock on Phobos etc makes sense, though it could be true or false. Supernatural concepts aren't like that. We can say stuff like there are demons, angels, fairies, heaven, hell, spirit, soul etc. But such assertions are not logically equivalent to there is a 4kg rock on Phobos, because by definition these things are supernatural and completely unobserved. If the chances of proving the existence of supernatural stuff is nil, then I am happy to say such stuff don't exist.