/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10097195
>If you cloud falsify religion, you should be able to propose an experiment to prove it. But there is none.

You could also verify via deduction. There's no need to proclaim theories but reject theorems.

>OP wants to assault people who doesn't agree with his believes. He is the aggressive one here. I only suggested elegant way to convincing people and proving his hypothesis.

And several people have spoken to the OP before I arrived. However responding to being told that topics are more complicated than some uneducated people believe does not call for you telling him basically "well if you have any better ideas present them". It's blatantly aggressive.

>>10097147
>On the other hand religion cannot be tested. It's fundamentally(by dogmas) true and there is no way to prove or discard them.
Deductive claims are falsifiable.
>If you have superior model you can make a hypothesis
You're being needlessly aggressive.

>>10097058
I find religion to be largely misunderstood by historical westerners seeking to criticize churches. Hence most definitions are strongly eurocentric.

Religion is a formalized way of life based on a metaphysical worldview. The goal, structure, degree of formalization, views, and clarity of the worldview only differ.

>>9818140
No you really can't.

>>9809555
>Just cosmetically change my organs at will
"No"
And worse that this isn't seen as cosmetic but a medical solution

>>9809516
Trans people have a unique brain to bother genders non-trans with some similarities to what they believe they are.

Their body is fine and so this could be seen as an issue with the brain primarily. A physical issue with the brain.

>>9648906
Gender is a categorization of identities corresponding to sex. Gender is innately tied to sex and someone's sex will heavily determine their gender expression.

>>9438916
That's actual history, Anon. I'm not sure why you see it as Catholic propaganda. You tell me.

>>9438850
I'm only comparing Nicolas to Bruno in respect to the plurality of world's claim. The Cosmos story promotes the martyr for science narrative even to the point of sharing the belief that Bruno originated the concept. Bruno is neither of martyr for science nor the originator of the concept as Nicolas already held it and defended it openly while being a Cardinal of all things.

>>9436071
>my version

The records show that he was a friar and philosopher that was tried for heresy for holding beliefs contrary to: The trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the Incarnation, if Jesus was Christ, the core beliefs of Mary, and transubstantiation. He also believed in the transmigration of the human soul into animals and dealt in pagan mysticism. On top of all of this he viewed God as not immanent to the universe but the same thing as the universe. As such he held the infinity of God as the same as an infinite universe. For these views he was killed for heresy. A couple hundred years later the Protestant Reformation revived his story for anti-clerical propaganda and spoke of him as a "Martyr for Science" because he held of there being more worlds being out there and the Evil Catholic Church(tm) didn't like it. This is ignoring that the Catholic Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa held and defended the plurality of worlds and extraterrestrials decades before Bruno was even alive.

>>9436084
>I can only assume
Well I'd recommend not assuming because now you just come off as ignorant.

>>9436058
Cosmos has a segment on Giodorno Bruno and promotes the propaganda version of his history.

>>9435953
If you're younger and don't take the stories from history seriously, sure.

>>9433618
We don't have any idea how the universe came about so we can't answer on random generation. In regards to design, there's generally no reason to suppose it. God is traditionally connected to the idea of Divine Conservation and that's a more complicated situation there though.

>>9060953
It usually comes from Neoscholastics as they would still contend the modern rejection of Final Causality in philosophy. To summarize briefly, the idea of teleological notions in nature was rejected by the early moderns as mental constructs to understand the objects better rather than actual descriptions. Upon trying to discussion the mind-body problem we are now seeing people promote entirely physical systems and so since we swept all other claims of purpose in nature (final causality) under the rug of mental intention we now have to explain the lump itself to effectively maintain these physical systems. To make this worse, information itself inherently involves inferring (which is goal-directed) and so is inherently teleological. And so you're going to have to find a way to effectively argue for the validity of that physical system and Naturalism's rejection of inherent intent without and overcome this. This leads to the common criticism of Eliminative Materialism: "Believing beliefs don't exist".

>>9060939
You what. Thomism is worlds apart from this discussion altogether. You have no idea what Thomism even is. If reductive materialism isn't true there are alternatives such as eliminative materialism or other understandings of mind-body dualism. However I'm rather bringing up how non-dualistic models can make sense of intentionality without being self-contradictory.

>>9060898
Where in the world did you get that at all from what I've said?

>>9060894
Mate can you even read. See >>9060816

>>9060882
>it's all just chemicals
>can't explain how it's chemicals without refuting yourself

>>9060817

>>9060811
I don't give a shit about the Problem of Qualia. I care about the Problem of Intentionality.

>>9060800
?
You what

>>9058348
>consciousness is spoken about
>qualia is the main focus
>the gaining of information and the forming of mental intent is just handwaved over and rejected as illusion
>skip over how information is inherently teleological in nature and using information to deny the reality of information

>>8872279

>>8857565
No. And evil is a complex topic in philosophy.

>>8857534
Ah, so basically "neurologically intersex" would mean just trans person generally. Just another way to say it.

Let me ask though, how are we to understand this mismatching? What exactly does a mismatching of your physicality and neurology look like? Phantom pains?