If there is no need for explanation, why are you a Marxist?

Should I not be for some reason?

Marx explains a lot, but if there is no need, then why make the exception?

Exception for what?

You said that God is useless because there is no need for explanation. So there is no need for explanation full stop. I can apply this dismissal to anything I don't like.

There is no need for it. But you can have it regardless of the absence of the objective need.

Marxism is contingent. <:troll_king:312064227542040576>

lol

There might be a subjective need.

It is different.

No need. Explanation is not necessary.

Objectively? No.

Are you completely objective?

Nope.

Then you might want some explanations due to your subjectivity.

Would you call that a need?

I would call it a timely matter. Subject there is and than there is no.

And with it the need for explanations is gone.

The need to have an active force, a mover with superpowers is a need to have a secured childhood. The child feels good and grows well.

It is natural to need it.

Nothing offensive in it.

Good reflexes.

So sometimes there is a need for explanation, when the subject calls upon it.

No objective need. But subjective, yes. With explanations child works better. Brain develops. Very healthy and favorable for evolution.

I agree with that.

So then here we are, at the intersection of explanations. I repeat the question, if the universe, and the things in it doesn't need to exist, why does it exist when it could have failed?

For now, I no longer care about Big Bang Theory.

It just did always exist like that. I tend to think.

" if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary."

The existence of the contingent universe must rest on something, and if it rested on some contingent being then that contingent being too would require some explanation of its existence. The ultimate explanation of the existence of all things, therefore, must be the existence of some necessary being. This necessary being is readily identified by proponents of the cosmological argument as God.

I do not agree with this mental gymnastics. It can go anyway from here. It may stop existing. Start. Or just keep.

But you have no explanation for that.

I have no data to judge.