/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2235551]

>Dumbfuck argument about souls
>applauded by idiots
>mfw

[Anonymous No.2235562]

Why not post this shit in his thread?

[Anonymous No.2235571]

>>2235562
What do you care?

>>2235551
I totally agree. Actually I was convinced all the retarded "epic win!"-bullfuck was due to shameless samefagging.

I mean, seriously, if it wasn't samefagging there's absolutely no hope left for sci.

inb4 >implying there was ever any hope for sci

[Anonymous No.2235577]

/sci/ should be renamed to /religion/

Because that's all you fucks can care about, religion.

If your faith in science is so strong, why is it shook so easily by a bunch of priests? Why do you feel you need to prove yourself to each other all the time?

[Anonymous No.2235586]

>>2235571
I have hope for /sci/ and humanity.

[Anonymous No.2235597]

Hopefully that was just a big bunch of desperate samefaggery, because it was completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.2235609]

>>2235562

Because the problem is not a single retarded thread. The problem is the systemic infection of retardation throughout this board.

We really need a religion and spirituality board and you don't typically get those things by having your complaints drowned out in a sea of idiots. You need to start your own threads to drum up support to get enough people petitioning moot for this shit.

We badly need an /rs/ board. NAO.

[Anonymous No.2235613]

>>2235609
http://rs.4chan.org/

[Anonymous No.2235618]

>>2235613

[Anonymous No.2235694]

>>2235613

Lawl sorry. I don't go anywhere near that viral shithole, that's why i forgot the acronym.

Maybe rns, as in RnS, as in religion and spirituality.

[Anonymous No.2235717]

>>2235577
>If your faith in science is so strong
>faith
>science
pick one.
Science requires no faith.

[Anonymous No.2235729]

>>2235717
Show me a proof for the scientific principle then.

[Anonymous No.2235732]

>>2235717
>postulating science requires no faith

[Anonymous No.2235758]

>>2235729
>I like bringing in philosophy when I have no argument.
First prove that you exist and are not a figment of my imagination, then I'll worry about proving that multiple observers are actually independent and observing something which is also independent of themselves.

[Anonymous No.2235789]

>>2235758
You're the one who brought up philosophy, not me. All I asked for was a simple proof and what I got was a brunch of insults.

>Christianity
>faith in some scribbles on pieces of dead trees from 2000 years ago

>Science
>faith in the scientific method

I am a strong believer of the latter. But I realize that I can't use logic or the scientific method to prove itself because that would be self-contradictory.

[(aryan)lucis, the prophet !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2235797]

>herp derp science grovels in another thread attempting to escape from the hole they've been put in hurr hurr durr

[Anonymous No.2235826]

>>2235789
>>2235789
>I am a strong believer of the latter. But I realize that I can't use logic or the scientific method to prove itself because that would be self-contradictory.

Philosophy grad student here. What you say is optimally rational, it does not go beyond 'reason'.

[Anonymous No.2235835]

>>2235826

I think faith is the wrong word though. The theist believes in something he cannot empirically substantiate, and through faith justifies this ridiculous procedure.

The only 'belief' the scientist has is that there is a mind-independent reality and that science is approximating and/or describing that reality. The scientist can justify this belief with an inference to the best explanation.

Faith implies 'an' absence of reason, yet this is clearly not going on in scientific realism/scientific world-view.

[Anonymous No.2235841]

>>2235577
That's not true! That's BULLSHIT!

.../sci/ also cares about everybody else doing their homework.

[Anonymous No.2235842]

>>2235826
Care to elaborate on "optimally rational"?

I am believing and practicing something which I have no proof for (because the proof would involve itself). Fundamentally that's no different from all the other belief systems that can't be proved. If you can point out the difference I'd love to hear it.

[Anonymous No.2235873]

>>2235835

Theres loads of things science has an 'educated guess' for, which can be seen as a faith in the scientist who discovered it

[Anonymous No.2235871]

>>2235826
Care to elaborate on "optimally rational"?

I am believing and practicing something which I have no proof for (because the proof would involve itself). Fundamentally that's no different from all the other belief systems that can't be proved.

[Anonymous No.2235906]

>>2235842
Certainty/Proof or Evidence/Probability. Pick one.

Nothing has definitive ground. No discipline, no assertion, no claim can be substantiated in the way stipulated by old-school transcendental philosophers (Kant etc). The kind of certainty that the philosopher wants simply cannot be provided. Science doesn't need this kind of certainty however. The scientists simply says X probably exists based on Y evidence.

Thus the scientist/scientific-realist can have reason to believe X exists, reason which outweighs the hypothesis that X does not exist. So lets say I have a full basket of reasons in favor of the scientific realist, and have an empty basket of reasons for God. See what is going on here? No faith is required to legitimate the position of enunciation of the scientific realist, nor do I need definitive certainty to legitimate the scientific world-view.

[Anonymous No.2235929]

>>2235873
>>2235873

The novel predictive success of scientific theories can only be explained by the fact that scientific theories approximate/describe aspects of reality.

If scientific theories didn't describe reality then the predictive success of science turns out to be miraculous. A coincidence on a near cosmic scale, as Worral put it.

We have reason to believe X exists on this basis, this is not faith. It is nothing like faith

[Anonymous No.2235953]

>>2235929
>A coincidence on a near cosmic scale, as Worral put it.
Like number theory and maths being so miraculously similar to cosmological mechanisms and processes. Suddenly cosmologically sized coincidences are ok.

[Anonymous No.2235979]

>>2235953

I don't care. All the scientific realist needs to show is that scientific theories have a greater predictive success then faith based theories. If the realist can do that, then we have reason to believe that science approximates reality. This is an inference to the best explanation, this is not faith, since there is a reason that validates the scientific/realist world-view over and above the theist world-view.

[Anonymous No.2236000]

>>2235979
Mankind evolved spirituality; shamanic animism was a human universal. Its predictive success lasted millions of years and built the brain you're thinking (badly) with.

[Anonymous No.2236030]

>>2236000
I'm not sure you appreciate what novel predictive success means. I suggest you review the philosophical literature (start with the realist/anti-realist debate).

[Anonymous No.2236037]

>>2236030
Frankly, if you don't tell me I won't get around to it.

[Anonymous No.2236069]

>>2236037
>>2236037

How fucking hard is it to google novel predictive success?

[Anonymous No.2236089]

>>2236069
"review the philosophical literature" =/= "google novel predictive success".

[Anonymous No.2236113]

>>2236089

You do not need a series of journal articles on order to find out what novel predictive success is. However you can read Ladyman's article on scientific realism and the case of dephlogisticated air. Also read Devitt, and Wright on Scientific Realism.

Nothing I said is special or original. I merely presented the standard inference to the best explanation for scientific realism in order to show you that the scientific world-view is grounded in a series of rational inferences, and not faith.

Deal with it faggot.

[Anonymous No.2236134]

>>2236113
You're the one who told me I should review the philosophical literature you stupid amnesiac. And I'm not about to spend hours chasing down yet another idiotic badly made argument purporting to show something no one has shown before on your say so. OTOH, I'm already here ITT, so if you have something to say you can say it here and I'll see it. But if you don't want to do that, fine, I'll just get around to it eventually.

[Anonymous No.2236153]

>>2236134
>>2236134

Dude there is nothing to show. The predictive success of some scientific theories is indicative of approximate truth and referential success - not to mention predictive success is indicative of the fact that scientific theories approximate/describe the causal/nomological structure of reality.

No philosophical world-view can account for this novel predictive success EXCEPT scientific realism. So scientific realism is the most rational philosophical position given the history of science and the predictive success of science.

As any rational founded world-view scientific realism does not require faith, it does not require a leap of faith, or philosophical Cartesian magic. Therefore you are wrong.

Now fuck off. I have work-out to continue.

[Anonymous No.2236175]

>>2236153
Oh, so *that's* your stance. Bummer for you, b/c it applies to shamanic animism better.

Plus there are all sorts of other reasons "science" as you are using it is a non-rational and completely delusional worldview. But go ahead, get your workout in. Maybe you can come back in a few years when you're a little more cognitively developed.

[Anonymous No.2236193]

>>2235577
>faith in science

[Anonymous No.2236197]

>>2236193
scientism, to be more precise

[Anonymous No.2236198]

waw

[Anonymous No.2236220]

>>2235929
>The novel predictive success of scientific theories can only be explained by the fact that scientific theories approximate/describe aspects of reality.

Also, this is not true. Phonecians' success at navigating the oceans using geocentric model would then indicate that the geocentric model were true.

[Anonymous No.2236225]

>>2236175
>>2236175

Protip: I didn't invent scientific realism or the inference to the best explanation defense.

You would know this of course if put in some research (I guess you find it easier to just throw ad hominems about).

P.S. the predictive success of pre-scientific theories still would not undermine the realist inference to the best explanation, since the predictive success of those pre-scientific theories would still count as evidence as to those theories approximating/describing some aspect of a causal/nomological structure of reality (this is the only thing the scientific realist has to show in order justify itself).

Again thank you for playing.

[Anonymous No.2236247]

>>2236225
>I didn't invent scientific realism or the inference to the best explanation defense.

Yes, I know. I have heard your arguments before. I just hadn't heard (or did not remember having heard them) couched in that specific terminology.

[Anonymous No.2236248]

>>2236220

No. It would indicate that parts of that theory approximate some aspect of reality. Take phlogiston as another example. Phlogiston had predictive success, yet according to current science the phlogiston theory was false. This does not mean that phlogiston didn't approximate some aspect of the causal/nomological aspect of reality.

1. If phlogiston did not approximate some aspect of reality, then the predictive success of the phlogiston theory turns out to be miraculous.
2. There are no miracles.

Read Ladyman's paper on 'the case of dephlogisticated air' if you want to take a look at it.

[Anonymous No.2236264]

>>2236248
>2. There are no miracles.

Unsupported premise.

As to the rest, if you're going to admit that the predictive success of scientifically derived theories only indicates that it "approximates some aspect" of reality, then fine. I have no quarrel with that and certainly seek to integrate science into my own worldview. However this is not a very meaningful argument, since if you're using this to say that science doesn't require faith, then it just as easily supports the claim that non-scientific perspectives which work don't require faith. I didn't think that was your initial argument, but perhaps I was wrong.

[Anonymous No.2236266]

English is my second language, so I apologize if my grammar/spelling is stopping you from grasping this palpably obvious set of arguments.

[Anonymous No.2236269]

>>2236266
Mine too, and ditto.

[Anonymous No.2236276]

>>2235551
>argument about souls is praised for its logical accuracy

Over 250 Posts!

[Anonymous No.2236299]

>>2236276
people praise the bible for its literal accuracy too, ya know

[Anonymous No.2236317]

It was not a premise. My point was simply that once you eject scientific realism, predictive success is on par with miracles.

The inference to the best explanation could support pre-scientific theories providing no better alternative existed (that is predicatively more successful theories).

I'm tempted to say that If pre-scientific theories are predicatively successful, then they are successful precisely because they approximate science, since something about science seems to guarantee amazing amounts of novel predictive success.

Why do like the idea of faith so much btw? Why do want follow Kant and deny knowledge in order to make room for faith (this is essentially what your assertions amount to). And what do you mean by 'meaningful argument'. It is not mean to be meaningful it is meant to be true. You (or someone else) said that scientific world-view was on par (philosophically speaking) with faith faith based world-views. I attempted to show otherwise.

[Anonymous No.2236322]

It's one guy samefagging the whole thread, it doesn't count as praise since it's coming from the guy who's supposedly being praised. I believe the proper term is ego-tripping but with a lot more tripping.

[Anonymous No.2236332]

>>2236322
was meant to be to>>2236276

[Anonymous No.2236362]

>>2236317
>It was not a premise. My point was simply that once you eject scientific realism, predictive success is on par with miracles.
Fair enough, but the way you had it laid out it looked like an argument rather than a metaphor.
>Why do like the idea of faith so much btw?
I don't, really, at least not in the sense I think you're using the term.
>You (or someone else) said that scientific world-view was on par (philosophically speaking) with faith faith based world-views. I attempted to show otherwise.
That was what I was attempting to refute. See, if predictive success makes the adoption of a worldview rational and not faith based, then
>If pre-scientific theories are predicatively successful, then they are successful precisely because they approximate science
then at least one of the cultural phenomena often referred to as being faith based and not related to reality is actually rational and not faith based. So then it's on a par with science.

[Anonymous No.2236365]

Also, the thread in question shouldn't even be on /sci/ since it's using NSFW content in OP's pic and NSFW content isn't allowed on SFW boards.

[Anonymous No.2236376]

>>2236362

No. It would require referential success, and it would have to actually make accurate predictions.

P.S. Again I still don't think you understand what novel predictive success actually means. I cannot give you a pithy definition. I suggestion you look it up.

[Anonymous No.2236396]

>>2236376
I am having trouble finding a concise definition; mostly there are pages using the terminology as given and already understood. Ditto referential success.

[Anonymous No.2236402]

>>2236362

And do no confuse a rationalist justification with a demarcation criteria. I can still suggest (re: Lakatos) a demarcation criteria to exclude faith based theories.

This is an entirely separate matter, and has nothing to do with argument presented for scientific realism. This is a separate debate altogether.

[Anonymous No.2236408]

>>2236396

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

[Anonymous No.2236410]

>>2236402
Well the problem with entering another debate on the subject is that we don't have a good track record of successful communication here, since I can't find an explanation of what "novel predictive success" means, and you can't explain it. Also, that there is now another tangent with referential success, and that I'm not convinced of the predictive success theory anyway.

[Anonymous No.2236415]

>>2236408
"novel predictive success" does not appear on that page

[Anonymous No.2236434]

>>2236415

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/

Enjoy (re:novel predictive success)


I'm not going to explain referential success either. I'm not going to give you a free class in the philosophy of language over the internet. I don't have the time, nor do I care enough.

[Anonymous No.2236443]

>>2236434
...and in return I wouldn't care enough to invest the time in learning your terminology, since I doubt that it would support your argument in the end anyway.

[Anonymous No.2236448]

So, the impression I'm getting from that page (because it doesn't seem to give an actual definition) is that novel predictive success is when a theory successfully predicts some event that was not known about when the theory was created, is that right?

[Anonymous No.2236465]

>>2235551
The Op's argument in that thread seems logical. Can someone tell me why he is wrong? Is he wrong?

[Anonymous No.2236472]

>>2236465
He's wrong because it's a strawman argument.

[Anonymous No.2236488]

I look up corruption on wikipedia.

Corruption as a philosophical concept isn't much appreciated is it? I guess it's most popular with rock fans where it's known as "selling out".

Seriously, how is it fucking possible to have the slightest comprehension of ethics without understanding the nature of corruption?

MFW

[Anonymous No.2236490]

>>2236465
He sets to prove that the commonly thought religious notion of only 1 soul per person, is false, he seems to do that well. What about this is a strawman?

[Anonymous No.2236515]

>>2236490
First, the commonly thought 1 soul per person is not that common
Also, he's equating mental experience with soul, which is probably worse

There may have been others, but I haven't looked at the thread for a while.

[Anonymous No.2236532]

>>2236488
wat

[Anonymous No.2236541]

>>2236515
All the Abramatic religions believe in 1 soul
per "mind", they also believe in a 1-1 correspondence between a soul and a "mind".
They also don't believe that a "mind" can be divided. Hence his argument works perfectly well for abramatic religions.

I looked over this thread, and it is nothing but bitching. No one actually provides an example of why the other OP is wrong (at least I couldn't find one). Are you just mad it doenst work for every single religion?

[Anonymous No.2236549]

>>2236541
It doesn't work for the ones that are correct about what a "soul" is.

[Anonymous No.2236554]

>>2236541
If he was correct, then why does he samefag his thread claiming that OP is near god status and shit like that?

[Anonymous No.2236557]

>>2236541
>All the Abramatic religions believe in 1 soul

Incorrect.
>The Kabbalah posits that the human soul has three elements, the nefesh, ru'ach, and neshamah. The nefesh is found in all humans, and enters the physical body at birth. It is the source of one's physical and psychological nature. The next two parts of the soul are not implanted at birth, but can be developed over time; their development depends on the actions and beliefs of the individual. They are said to only fully exist in people awakened spiritually. A common way of explaining the three parts of the soul is as follows:

Nefesh (נפש): the lower part, or "animal part", of the soul. It is linked to instincts and bodily cravings.
Ruach (רוח): the middle soul, the "spirit". It contains the moral virtues and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
Neshamah (נשמה): the higher soul, or "super-soul". This separates man from all other life-forms. It is related to the intellect, and allows man to enjoy and benefit from the afterlife. This part of the soul is provided at birth and allows one to have some awareness of the existence and presence of God.

[Anonymous No.2236562]

>>2236541
>They also don't believe that a "mind" can be divided.

And now you're arguing that Abrahamic religions ought to have had knowledge of a phenomenon that they might not have had experience of. That's just dumb.

[Anonymous No.2236566]

>>2236549
So, your problem is that you don't understand math or logic? His proof works perfectly, given the initial assumtpions, he is 100% correct.

However if you don't assume his initial assumtpions, then the proof simply don't apply to you. His proof still isn't wrong though.

Did you never take a basic logic course? It's the "IF-THEN" shit. Remember?

[Anonymous No.2236572]

>>2236566
It's still a strawman. It's a meaningless argument that doesn't address anything but his own misconceptions of what a soul ought to be,

[Anonymous No.2236573]

>>2236562
But religion argues all sorts of shit it knows nothing about. Hey don't take that shit up with me, take it up with religion.

[Anonymous No.2236578]

>>2236562
>doens't know how religion works

They make up shit.....DURRRR

[Anonymous No.2236580]

>>2236573
I'm taking it up with you because you are the one bringing it up. It wasn't even part of the initial proof you're supporting, yet somehow you had to go and make this about a disproof of religions that you don't follow.

I can see why you like to support strawman arguments.

[Anonymous No.2236584]

>>2236578
>doesn't know how religion works

You're making shit up, DURR

[Anonymous No.2236591]

>>2236572
I don't think you know what a strawman is, nor do you seem to know what a mathematical proof is. You don't seem to logically be able to explain why you think he is wrong? Nor can you explain why you think it is a strawman?

I was expecting some actual reasoning as to why he is wrong, but you don't seem to have any. I guess he was right, thanks anyway though.

[Anonymous No.2236598]

>>2236591
>Hmm... perhaps I can salvage this failed argument of mine by pretending to know what I'm talking about and saying that the other guy doesn't. Yeah, that migh work...

[Anonymous No.2236603]

>>2236580
I'm not supporting anything. I just want to know why you guys think he is wrong. You don't seem to be able to provide anything though. You just keep calling it a "strawman", yet you can't explain how he is wrong. Given his initial assumptions, what different conclusion do you come to? Or are all your arguments just faith based?

[Anonymous No.2236609]

>>2236603
I did say he was correct as regards his definitions. It's irrelevant and a strawman because what he is defining a soul to be is not what a soul is, by any definitions that aren;t his.

[Anonymous No.2236610]

>>2236598
Look, jackass, I am just asking why you think he is wrong. It is not my fault yall can't provide a answer.

If yall are just pulling out faith based nonsense, let me know and I will stop wasting my time. If you actually had some mathematical/logical/phil argument about why he is wrong I would like to know.

[Anonymous No.2236616]

OP of the troll thread abandoned his old thread and has taken over this one using the images of Bender.

[Anonymous No.2236618]

>>2236609
IOW one could disprove evolution by saying that evolution means that humans evolved from monkeys, and then showing that humans did not evolve from monkeys, and claim to have disproven evolution. THat would not mean that you had *actually* disproved evolution, though.

[Anonymous No.2236625]

>>2236541
You are a faggot.

He keeps samefagging and bumping his shitty thread.

I bet you are OP.

[Anonymous No.2236626]

>>2236610
>pretending your question hasn't already been answered

[Anonymous No.2236627]

>>2236618
Humans evolved from apes, not monkeys.

[Anonymous No.2236629]

>>2236627
THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT YOU RETARD

[Anonymous No.2236633]

>>2236618
You would've disproven the theory that man evolved from monkeys tho'.

[Anonymous No.2236637]

>>2236629
I see...

[Anonymous No.2236638]

>>2236633
Yes, a trivial thing, since it's already been done. But if you did that as a means to try to discredit evolution in general, you'd be laughed at, and rightfully so.

[Anonymous No.2236641]

>>2236609
Ok, so his proof is correct. Ok, that's what it seemed like to me too.

You should study proofs more. It seems like you are so bothered by his initial assumtions.
For some reason you think he is claiming these as true. He is not. He never claims the initial assumptions to be correct, these are assumptions....DURRRR.

The point is, that if you make those assumtpions then you will find his conclusion. Nothing more. HE NEVER SAYS THE ASSUMTPIONS ARE TRUE. You should stop being all butthurt.

[Anonymous No.2236649]

>>2236641
I am not butthurt, I am explaining to you why what he says he's doing is not what he's actually doing.

[Anonymous No.2236654]

>>2236641
So you're saying he (you) knowingly presented bullshit data from the start?
That's admittance to trolling.

[Anonymous No.2236659]

>>2236557
Id, ego, superego. We DO believe in those, we just don't believe they're anything supernatural or anything distinct from the mind.

[Anonymous No.2236665]

>>2236638
True, true.

To preface what I am about to say; I haven't actually read the original post regarding this soul thingie.

But it was my understanding he disproved the one mind-one soul thing by some medical phenomena. Wouldn't this by extension disprove any religion relying on having a singular soul per mind?

To use the anology, if a theory of evolution hinged on humans evolving from monkeys, and you disproved that, you would've disproved that theory of evolution.

[Anonymous No.2236669]

>>2236659
Well then you're not a rabbi, are you?

Also, those are really watered down explanations from wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.2236682]

>>2236669
>>2236669
Oe puto callate. A nadie le importa.

[Anonymous No.2236684]

>>2236665
The theory of evolution doesn't hinge on humans evolving from monkeys just like how the belief in the existence of the soul doesn't hinge on anything that he supposedly disproved.

[Anonymous No.2236687]

>>2236665
>Wouldn't this by extension disprove any religion relying on having a singular soul per mind?

If any such religion existed, that might matter.

[Anonymous No.2236698]

>>2236682
You might not care to know what you're talking about, but that doesn't mean other won't.

[Anonymous No.2236702]

>>2236654
Are you so fucking retarded, that you don't know what an IF-THEN statment is?
Seriously? You are saying an IF-THEN statement is a troll? WTF? Are you like 12?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biconditional

>>2236649
He does exactly what he says he is doing. You need to reread that thread. He does say that it only applies if you assume his intial conditions.
It sounds like you are just jumping to conclusions, becuase of some preconcived biased you have. In anycase, thanks for the discussion. I got to go. (pic was for the other guy)

[Anonymous No.2236710]

>>2236654
>doesn't know basic logic

[Anonymous No.2236724]

>>2236702
When you use a term incorrectly in a proof, you're not actually proving anything about the actual thing therm actually refers to. You're just *lying*.

[Anonymous No.2236725]

>>2236684
Yes -.-'

>>2236687
While not an expert on theology myself, doesn't christianity believe that? Obviously, your tone suggests they do not. So, fair enough then I quess

[Anonymous No.2236733]

[Anonymous No.2236737]

>>2236702
He didn't really present it as an if/then statement, more as a "this is true so this MUST be false" statement.
Troll harder.

[Anonymous No.2236740]

>>2236733
And?

[Anonymous No.2236745]

STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION

[Anonymous No.2236748]

>>2236725
I'm not a christian, so I may not know their claims deeply enough, but OP/troll is basically exploiting argument by ignorance. IE, he's saying that a phenomenon the religion never had experience with should have been explained within that religion anyway. And that's intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous No.2236752]

sdfa
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION
STOP SUPPRESSING PERPETUAL MOTION

[Anonymous No.2238678]

Going to rephrase the question.

Does any school of moral philosophy consider selfrestraint to be of prime importance?

[Anonymous No.2238696]

>>2238678
Stoicism?