Now if I was doing this in the proper logical order, I'd begin by testing the arguments, each one, to see if there's an error somewhere. Like a mechanic probing the different parts of the engine. Patience, dogged persistence, that's what you need. Mechanics don't give themselves airs. They know there's only one final proof. The motorcycle goes, or it doesn't go. Simple.
Yes, but in my line of work things aren't quite like that. The history of philosophy is a long list of false theories which were once believed to be true, and which some great philosopher argued eloquently for. OK, I accept the point about care and attention to detail. Philosophical problems don't get solved by magical thinking.
But I'm not going to do the mechanic thing. I do that every day with my students. I tell them that's the proper method of philosophy, and it is, by and large. I need to get off the ground, quickly. I can't see from down here. And in any case on this question I trust my feelings more than I trust my capacity for logical reasoning. When you are intellectually deaf, dumb and blind, feelings show the way.
I feel, with complete certainty, that a world without purpose is intolerable and a world with purpose is intolerable. The world cannot be necessary and it cannot be contingent. The world cannot be, and the world ought not to be. But it is. That's scary. Well, obviously, if I'm basing this on feeling, and you don't feel that way, then that's the end of the discussion. But I didn't expect anyone to be persuaded. Not for a while yet.