Knowledge without speculation is more trustworthy in this case.

For me.

Hello

No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygu6GFIa2m8&t=9s

Name: Nathan125

Age: 15 Thousand

Species: Time lord Hybrid

Likes: Minecraft, Being there for my mates, Traveling around space and time, ETC

Dislikes: Porn, being bullied, Death, ETC

Bio: I'm a pony hybrid that lived on earth but didn't know that I became a Time Lord/Time Worlder. I have a TARDIS that can taking me anywhere in time and space and also different dimensions.

Stable: I travel alone. Basically No stable

>Google+ RP group, this was a no joke character forum

and it was accepted

Why does the universe exist rather than not exist?

There is no purpose.

It is how it is.

Can the universe ever not exist?

Have no idea. I'm leaning towards eternal universe.

But I don't know.

You will want to say that it must always exist. If it ever becomes non existing then something else will have to make it exist again. Unless matter is self generating from nothing.

@Deleted User Who want? No, I don't want to say this. We don't know. I don't.

Okay, you do not want to answer. But I was just warning of problems.

There is no reason for it to exist.

My head hurts.

Thanks for the chat.

Turns out I was barking up the wrong tree trying to see if science (cosmology) can show whether the universe had a beginning or not (it can't).

It is important to follow philosophy from the beginning. If you started with theologians after Greeks its all good. There going to be rise and fall of metaphysics after that. More objectivity with more modern philosophers and finally dialectics. Do not completely reject any of it. It is important for study of dialectics and materialism. The history of human thought is of value by itself even if it is very far from reality in the beginning.

Yes, right now I am stuck on Aristotle and Aquinas' commentary.

This peppy little virgin is giving me a headache.

Turns out he has an argument for God for an eternal universe as well. 😢

Most European philosophers after Aquinas will give you same ideas for another 300 years minimum.

I know, like Bertrand Russell. But his objection that the universe is necessary by itself is not really convincing.

"contingency of the universe"

Spinoza and Descartes will start to get more objective. But you have a long way understanding metaphysics of old.

Some people say to pass the methaphisicists completely

Because no use anymore for them

I feel like I cannot progress with this niggling problem. Most philosopher's in some way make an argument that God is a necessary being. I have yet to see a sound refutation of this and it is driving me crazy.

Hume's critique of the Causal Principle is not very good either. It is based on the idea that possibility depends on how conceivable it is. This is wrong. If someone fails to understand a necessarily true proposition and conceives of it being false, it does not follow that it possibly is false.

I'm telling you were to seek the cure for metaphysics. Like Spinoza also believe in god, Hegel too. But they manage to rise on top of metaphysics in their intelligence. After intelligence progressed there were no need for god anymore.

What makes you think intelligence progresses in a straight line?

It is not. Took us dark ages

To pass through

This is an emergency. I need the cure. Where did intelligence progress to show there was no need for God?

Thats will be Marx. Marx himself was an idealist and believed in god before studying Feuerbach and other materialist of his time. Both Engels and Marx were believers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbach

Thanks, comrade.