>>512971444
physical laws describe HOW nature behaves, while metaphysical inquiry asks WHY nature is such that it can be described by laws at all.
when physicists say "we don't know" about quantum phenomena, they're acknowledging empirical gaps, not asserting that brute contingency explain the very possibility of physical law.
your naalogy would only hold if physicists claimed the laws of physics "just exist" without any underlying mathematical necessity, a position no serious physicist would endorse.
by dismissing the conneciton between theism and reason as "whackjob," you're employing the very faculty of reason whose existence your worldview cannot account for.
if human cognition is merely adaptive noise (as naturalism implies) then your objection carries no more weight that random neuron firings. theism doesn't "tie unreality subjects together" it recognizes that intentionality, logic and physical law all demand the same grounding in a necessary mind.
science operates within a framework of contingent operation, metaphysics deal with necessary preconditions.
when you demaned "confirmed observable phenomenon" for metaphysical claims, you're making the same error as demanding to see a mathematicians observable evidence for euler's identity.
different domains require different epistemic approaches, your scientism itself is an unprovable metaphysical assumption.
the heart of the matter remains, you've offered no alternative account of why
1: physical laws exist rather than chaos
2: mathematical truths are necessarily true
3: your own reasoning should be trusted.
until you can address these questions without either borrowing theistic assumptions (like the reliability of reason) or retreating into brute contingency (which explains jack shit) your position reduces to shouting "whackjob" at problems you can't solve.
