Philosophical discussions are great, but you can't deny scientific knowledge just because you don't like it...
It seems the term philosophy has different meanings.
I had the impression that the thread was partially weighted in a mental exercise, with bounds which might be atypical from some perspectives.
(Impressions vary, and mine are far too often leagues away from any valued mark.)
If such ~imaginative play was the focus, it might be taken for granted that injections of hard scientific expression can quickly spin the aim of the game amiss.
There may have been a very specific, desired direction, or at least, potentially a number of known unfavorable directions, for what the thread source was seeking, if it was seeking.
(Expiration is preferred for the thread source, but conflict of interest is avoided, unless bad taste is more than sufficient, so that the strain is made ~enjoyable.)
(Where does the first mention of term "Einstein" appear?)
I think that's where it inevitably went wrong.
In general that's usually why it doesn't make much sense to argue with a religious person, they will deny what we do know and go by pure faith.
(The ~they tend to almost always repeatedly, flow with ill and wrong, in nearly the same cycling ways.
Collusion must be avoided, so there ~they are.
Let it go, or let it and they eat you.)
So, on many sides, as usual, it went wrong with attitudes, lack of understanding, obstructive needs of self (selfishness), bias, accumulated prejudice, embedded malignant stances, etc. ???
(If so, it's good to be included in the party.
Any will do, if the selection carries guilt and feeds opposition, naturally.)
This or that, gods / faith and knowledge / science, here and there, are many mind constructs of a being so lofty it fails at simple unity gains?
:collapsed:
