Jackson

Then you do not like paintings.

All experience is transient.

I've read things by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Sean Carroll that were philosophical and insightful. But most of science is as interesting as r...

I've studied a lot of science in college and on my own. I can't really say there is anything from science that has helped me understand the world. A f...

That seems right.

I was not asking you for help.

I cannot think of a single thing from science that helps me understand the world. Not being contentious.

correct

If you really have no idea what philosophers of science do then you need to find out. I mean, this is extremely elementary.

The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts.

If you talk to someone who cannot talk back you are talking to yourself.

The argument presented is: I like vanilla ice cream. Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream. Therefore, vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream.

Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why.

Aristotle defines metaphysics as first philosophy. The discussion of the basic principles one uses in philosophy.

It seems that you're interested in science and not philosophy. Hard to get much more than that from your explanation.

Yes. Since time and space are not absolutes only relations exist.

That is what I think.

Leibniz: "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....

Leibniz was the first critic of mechanistic science. He tore into Newton for saying there is absolute time and space.

Space is just things, for Leibniz.

The topic of the thread is the why proofs of God fail. I gave reasons. I did not talk about theism other than in terms of proofs.

I will read it.

I never said I want a proof.

Please do.

I never said that.

Yes. Which is the topic of the thread. There are no proofs for God because people choose to believe.

No offense, but I do not think you have a point and just want to bash philosophy.

I never said that.

Yes, correct.

What are these rules?

Sorry, I really do not understand this allegation.

Okay, I did not make that claim. I only described the method he uses in the Phenomenology,.

Not Hegel's concept of dialectic. I forget who said that, but it is not Hegel.

270.

Science only explains the motion of physical particles. Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion.

Remember, the topic of the thread is why proofs for God are not legitimate. I said nothing about your reality.

Conditionals are not a form of skepticism.

There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy.

You said, "Why not try to produce actual knowledge?" My question is, what standard are you using to determine what actual knowledge is?

Yes, I think all truths are conditional. And I don't know why that bothers some people.

Solipsism. Just because you have an experience does not mean it is true for other people.

What is your standard for philosophical knowledge?

Simplifying. Hegel often referred to his method as dialectical history. That ideas which are commonly believed eventually are discovered to contradict...

Yes, I have an MA in philosophy.

I don't agree.

It is like saying that anyone can be an artist. That's fine. Now show your work to other people. Convince a gallery to put on a show. Get people to wr...

Not method but a standard of how a philosophy article is written. Very few philosophers believe there is a method to philosophy.

I can agree with that.

You proved nothing. You just related an experience. Since I do not have that experience you proved nothing.

I do not understand this sentence.