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.

Seek modern materialist philosophers too.

Marx and Engels heavily criticized Feuerbach. But they followed him on the main materialist line.

The Essence of Christianity seems to be based on an anthropological explanation of religion, stemming from Hegel's assumption that 'the Creation remains a part of the Creator'. I see the logical process, but it is more a refutation of Hegel than of Aquinas' Cosmological Argument.

Anyway, I am so sick of this.

From my understanding of it so far it also makes false claims about Christianity.

Such as being about the worship of man.

It is based on Hegel's theology.

And Feuerbach's idea is that there is an anthropological (man-made) explanation for religion.

Which is fine and dandy, but it doesn't get to the root of the issue of metaphysical claims.

These are two separate things. You have to be a believing Hegelian to have relevance to this critique.

This fucking guy.

Hegel was a Protestant.

Saving that picture

That's a good one too

Where are you getting these?

I found this website called Google.

I see

I'm going mad.

Feuerbach does not exactly say there is no need for God. He says that God is explained by anthropology. The God that man projects is not the same God posed by Aquinas. He establishes God's essence through logic not inference of common traits.

Did you actually read Feuerbach?

I'm reading it right now https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/