dimreepr

What happens when we take the blue pill???

Doesn't that describe, the difference?

You could always, try asking yourself; he who is without sin etc... Original sin, is not about innocence; it's about forgiving oneself for not being innocent...

Sorry, I meant to post the full version...

How can you be so sure?

How can I cite my philosophy (I don't what it is, as I'm sure @Eise will attest)? I'm just 'trying' to explain what I've learned. That would be a good starting point.

Yet you cite the scientific method with all the zeal of a priest citing the bible. You understand your bible in much the same way as a priest does, it's what you've been taught, not what you've learned for yourself.

I know how a car work's, but when it breaks down I have to trust a mechanic to fix it, I have no alternative but to have faith that he/she can.

No, you just assume I'm not able because I have brittle bone disease, it's like having an eye spy contest for the blind.

I'm not your enemy, winter is your enemy...

Such faith, the god of the gaps argument in reverse.

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?