>>24681265>Using Spinoza's second argument>not realizing that this argument makes it so pokemon exist because there is no proof that pokemon do not exist (they have yet to be discovered, and you can't prove they aren't out there)>Thinking that the burden of proof rests with the person trying to state a negative existential claim with reference to agnosticism instead of the person making a positive existential claim>not understanding that the only real epistemically valid belief is total and absolute agnosticismShit, Spinoza's god was just nature personified anyways
Dropped harder than fucking Heideggar.
