dimreepr

I'm suggesting contentment as an hypothesis in how to interpret their meaning and see beyond the 'so called' contradictions. "I didn't say both were correct. I said the analogy of Newton-Einstein and Jesus-Muhammad was good: in both cases, the person who lived later had the other's ideas to draw on." Einstein had the benefit of understanding the language Newton used and could build on that. Muhammad only understood the concept of what Jesus was trying to teach, not the language; so he had to build again. It's remarkable how similar the building's look with no blueprints, measurements or testing...

I think, perhaps, it's the language; as Markus said in another of my topic's, if you understand the language of mathematics, you can just shut up and calculate and come to the same conclusion's as any other physicist. To avoid any ambiguity, I'm a philosophy convert.

I like Frankie Boyle's take. Read more here... Here's a practical use. https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bjmh.2020.0019?download=true&journalCode=bjmh

So is history, the difference?

Which is which? I think Einstein performed some excellent mental gymnastics. The evidence came later...

Philosophy gave birth to science, so... I'm going to stop there, because I want this thread to evolve naturally. Discuss...

Sound's more like they're aiming for 1984; I think George would have had a lot to say about "the echo chamber" in the sequel, 2084...

If both are correct then why do we need a caveat?

But still a prophet, Newton had nothing to do with Einstein, but both are correct...

Then why did Jesus need to turn water into wine?

I'm not offended, I'm interested. But you placed it here, while thinking it has no answer... Challenging the mod's to change it to philosophy, is an exuse not a reason...

So, who's begging the question?

Then why is it here, and not in philosophy?

So, 5 isn't enough... 😉

Do you think there is an answer?

Any test that's limited to only 5 aspects of an infinate range, is more likely to exclude than include; it's almost like it was designed that way.

I think all the profits had problem's in life before they understood how to live; Mohamed for instance, was probably an alcoholic before he understood; why else would he ban alcohol entirely?

What if the bible is just trying to teach us to chill out and live a little? The sermon on the mount seems to fit with that.

AFAIK Hitler didn't, personally, kill anyone, he persuaded other's to do it for him; by falsely accusing people of being 'evil'. You may feel justified in doing the same (sleep better etc.), I just hope you're not as persuasive.

It's not off topic, but it is ironic.

(sigh) Do I really have to dig up the actual study, to show you the difference? So, a lion's freewill is limited to it being a lion, not it's intelligence. An anthill is intelligent, the ant's not so much. Intelligence doesn't divorce us from nature, it just makes us arrogantly assume that we know better. Do you really think Frankenstein's monster, wanted to be?

No one has suggested otherwise, even the video I posted "A world without prison's" included prison. Then why are there so many of them in prison? I'm ignoring you, not your anecdotes, when you present actual evidence of evil 'people', I will listen very carefully. That assumes that the playing field is level, he can rise above it why can't you. You're taking free will, way to literally, even your diet affects the range of freedom you have to make a decision. I study I heard on the radio said "the gut biome of an anxious rat, was given to a brave rat and it became anxious." I think you'll find you have a much tighter range of freedom than you think you have. I'm just asking you for a little more rigor in your thinking about what a fact is. Why is a Lion, "not evil" for brutally murdering and devouring children, but a Human is evil?

You must also accept, that your words can be misunderstood, if I try hard enough...

We could try writing a constitution that incorporates past failures, with a possible future success...