Message from @Missy
Discord ID: 608721224541143045
do they?
Yeah. For example LCA.
If you subscribe to PSR
'Necessary force or necessary being'.
no abbreviation plz
Leibniz Cosmological Argument
whos trolling
Principle of Sufficient Reasoning
Those two
thats non sequitur though
Vaati
I was not trolling!
@Deleted User you are an obvious troll
I am telling it like it is!
Omg why is he saying metaphysics again
@GoldenGail3 THE FUCK DID YOU SAY TO ME YOU LITTLE SHIT?!
ur schtick is pretty annoying i have to say
^
I cri
@Missy Stop crying about metaphysics. It's legit man. You don't need to be empirical to know things
But you've demonstrated you haven't actually researched thoroughly any of this
You linked the first article that comes up on Google after searching with metaphysics
Because I went and checked lmfao
Wtf you were asking about their metaphysical laws
So I linked you it
I can't summarize it in one post
theories*
@chuckayy Established theories. Classical theism is built off them two
we're talking about *what is possible* and if the existence of god is *possible*, so this is irrelevant. we're talking from the true perspective that you don't know anything except for what you are sensing and thinking at the moment. yes the laws of physics are *almost certainly in line with reality in one way in another*, but you can't know for certain.
Also just to make it clear, I'm not really *open* for say of the idea of a god existing but it is undeniably possible, but there is no rational reason to believe in god just like there is no rational reason for me to believe that there's a glowing hippo fairy standing on my back.
An established theories are not laws
Let's not be unintelligent pricks
LIKE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
^ Theory of evolution is proven. To argue against that is stupid.
@waiting for silksong Do you think moral facts exist? You're limiting yourself to empirical evidence, is there anyway that you can argue against that the laws of physics are not in line with reality? Saying there is a possibility without reasoning is stupid.
Again, where is the reasoning for this, if metaphysical forces are actually evident in reality?
While science deals with specific situations, metaphysics deals with general matters. For example, whilst a scientist talks about the laws of nature, a metaphysicist will study what the characteristics are to make that statement to qualify as a law.
Well I've never heard of the law of evolution. I've heard of the law of gravity, but evolution is still just a theory
Things still change, yes. But Evolutions reasoning as to where we come from is completely false
How is it not?
Please state your reasoning.
Did he just say evolution was proven