That's because you made no point. — Hillary

Goodbye.

So your point is they have a different kind of relativism. Then what's the point? — Hillary

I see nothing productive from this conversation.

ike I wrote, different forms of relativism. It's only a word both have in common. — Hillary

which was my point

Okay, but their relativism is a different one. — Hillary

Leibniz:
"As for my own opinion, I have said more than once, that I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is, that I hold it to be an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions. (Third Paper, paragraph 4; G VII.363/Alexander 25–26)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-physics/#LeiSpaTimSec

would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable? — ratgambling

I think it can only state value.

What then did you mean with the comparison between L and E? — Hillary

I said it already.

Then Einstein thought differently. E saw space as really existing with objects in it. And space between them. — Hillary

Ok.

It's my question. If the relation between It's parts, as L defines space, is different for two observers then would they be different gloves for each? — Hillary

If the glove does not fit you have to acquit. Same realm.

Space is subjective? — Hillary

Relational. No such things as things occurring in space for Leibniz.

L says the relations between the parts are dependent in the observer. So how does this apply to a glove? It fits for you but not for me? — Hillary

I genuinely have no idea what the glove thing is supposed to mean.

Not so sure. The distance between objects varies, according to L? — Hillary

Conceptually. Like I said, Leibniz did not present mathematical demonstrations.

How, according to Leibniz, are the relations of the parts of a goive, damned, a glove! different for you and me? — Hillary

What does human anatomy have to do with the structure of the universe?

What did he mean by that? — Hillary

Exactly what Einstein meant. There is no absolute measure of time or space.

Trust me Jackson, 180 Proof is clueless about Kant. His Wiki is the full extent of it. — Constance

Anyone citing wiki for philosophy should not be discussing philosophy.

If it has the properties omnipotence, omniscience, omni benevolence, omnipresence. — ArmChairPhilosopher

No.

How many gods there are. — ArmChairPhilosopher

None.

The relation between objects stays the same fir every observer in Leibniz' view, — Hillary

No.

Leibniz didn't use relativity as Einstein did. — Hillary

Leibniz explicitly said time and space are relative and not absolute as Newton stated.

Again, I seriously have no idea what the glove thing is. I've heard others say it and it means nothing to me. A glove is about human anatomy. What does that have to do with the structure of the universe?

This is why I do not understand things like California's board diversity law (which I guess was just ruled unconstitutional). California tried to pass a law saying that boards of companies in California must have underrepresented minorities on it. Is the assumption that there simply needs to be more underrepresented minorities on boards (why?), or that the underrepresented minorities bring a different perspective (what would this be? Is this on average or overall?) — Paulm12

How about someone on the board who is not a capitalist! That's diversity.

But it was used to show Leibniz was wrong. All relational properties of a left hand and a right hand are the same. Still they are different. — Hillary

I think Leibniz is right. He stated a principle of relativity Einstein demonstrated to contemporary physicists. Again, the left and right thing would be based on an absolute measure of space.

Yes. He considered space as the relation between objects only. Which would make a left glove the same as a right glove. Which the aren't. — Hillary

I never understood the glove and left and right thing in Kant. Seems trivial.

Those are superficial generalities. What differs is where we take god's nature - what god wants from people, what behavior is moral, the extent of god's judgement. That's where the vast differences are located and the source of many conflicts between creeds. — Tom Storm

Ok.

One can stay Kantian, obviously. Kant had a wrong view on spacetime though. You could incorporate all scientific progress, spacetime being relative and left-right asymmetric (he offered Leibniz the glove left example to refute his relational concept of time), but in his view space is no material, which is the question. — Hillary

Leibniz was a relativist about space and time and severe critic of Newton.

I hate to break it to you but you don't. You may have an illusion of knowledge, just as they do but if you put your "knowledge" to the test, you'll find it lacking. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Fine, tell me what I do not know.

Christians are all over the place on theology or the Bible. — Tom Storm

The properties of God Christians teach are:
1. All powerful
2. All knowing
3. Creator of universe
4. Spirit rather than physical entity

Not at all. Christians are all over the place on theology or the Bible. I grew up in the Baptist tradition in Australia. We were taught that the Bible is an allegory and most of the stories myths. We were pro abortion, pro gay rights, pro feminism, etc. Christianity takes many forms and some, like theologian Paul Tillich even hold that we can't know god and he doesn't exist because by definition god is outside of the category of existence which is reserved for corporeal creatures. — Tom Storm

Tillich's definition is pretty mainstream. What are the theologies you see as conflicting?

It would be so much easier if the Theists could decide what they mean when they say "god". — ArmChairPhilosopher

I know what they mean. I just don't believe it.

Slightly longer version: Knowledge is transferable. If I know something, I can teach you, show you the evidence or the proof. I.e. if there were any objective knowledge about the nature of god, after several millennia Theists would have come to an agreement. They obviously haven't. (There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone.) Thus, they obviously don't know what they are talking about. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Mormons asked me this morning if I believed in God. I said no. Not in the sense you understand it.

And of course the Bible is pretty clear that the issue is of faith, not of reason. That couldn't be said more clearly. — ssu

And that is my point. I do not think agnosticism is a legitimate position. They choose to be undecided.

I don't think so. But it's a great metaphysical question, to say at least.

Of course it's interesting just what "existing" means as there are the intangible, the immaterial things that we do take to "exist". At least for their usefulness. — ssu

I think it is pretty straight forward for Christians. God as described in the Bible and supported by theology.

It's a joke Jackson (referencing my Kantian thread) hence the wink emoji. — Tom Storm

Yes, Foghorn Leghorn. "I said, that's a joke, son!"

The only thing I can defend is that god is currently not known. — ArmChairPhilosopher

What does that mean?

Believing in God or not is one thing. God's existence or non-existence is another. — ssu

I think it is the same. The first Christian theologians posed God's existence as a proposition. Thus, the question is whether you believe God exists.

Ok. You're a Kantian — Tom Storm

I am not. Every definition of agnosticism I have seen is based on the idea that there can be no knowledge of God to prove existence or nonexistence. But God is a function of belief, so I think the agnostic is wrong.

To make the claim knowledge of god is not possible is a rather extreme metaphysical position. — Tom Storm

That's the definition I would use for agnosticism.

The agnostic says knowledge about God is not possible. Thus, existence or nonexistence cannot be determined.
The problem is, claims about God are based on belief and not knowledge. Thus, the agnostic just refuses to make a decision.

BTW - Big fan of Clapton's playing in Cream - Disraeli Gears, etc — EricH

And Blind Faith.

I don't think about it as long as I don't get a definition.
But for the rest, yes, there is a possibility that god exists. I can even prove it to you. Regard this little syllogism:

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: God exists.

Pretty undeniable, don't you think? — ArmChairPhilosopher

No, because the conclusion does not follow since your use of "god" and "God" are different.

Bringing this back to your OP, the assumption addressed in the article is that we can only see things according to our 'type'. It strikes me as stereotyping in an attempt to overcome stereotyping. — Fooloso4

Yes. Imagine being in a philosophy class and constantly hearing, why are we studying dead white European males?

And yet, how I am treated will influence how I see the world. — Fooloso4

Yes, not disagreeing. But just because others treat me as type 'white male' does not mean I must treat myself that way.