U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2011, 05:42 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,203 times
Reputation: 33

Advertisements

Bertrand Russell according to my stock knowledge is the author of the celestial teapot argument against the Christian God.


Let me just refresh atheists and agnostics here on how the celestial teapot proves the non-existence of God.

And correct me for I can get his argument totally wrong, so correct me in all ways where I am getting Russell wrong howsoever.


He states that God is as impossible as a celestial teapot orbiting what? the earth.

Voila, therefore God does not exist.


He is talking about the Christian God for he also wrote a book about why he is not a Christian.



So, everyone atheists and agnostics, tell me if and how I get Bertrand wrong in any way at all.



And many atheists follow him and his argument, bringing up Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and what else of the same genre.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2011, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,872 posts, read 31,747,081 times
Reputation: 12620
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial teapot, Cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion....It had nothing at all to do with disproving god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 06:04 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,203 times
Reputation: 33
Default Cognitively but psychologicall it is very strong in proving God does not exist

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial teapot, Cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion....It had nothing at all to do with disproving god.


Cognitively, but psychologically it is very strong in proving God does not exist for people who want to convince themselves that there is proof God does not exist.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,872 posts, read 31,747,081 times
Reputation: 12620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Cognitively, but psychologically it is very strong in proving God does not exist for people who want to convince themselves that there is proof God does not exist.




Ryrge
Wrong, it is simply an analogy demonstrating where the burden of proof lies...In this case since you are the believer in god and claim such an entity exists, the burden of proof lies with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 11:09 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,203 times
Reputation: 33
Default Forgive me, but you did not give the link to Wikdipedia, did you?

About your text,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanspeur
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial teapot, Cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion....It had nothing at all to do with disproving god.
Here is the original from Wikipedia:
Quote:
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial teapot, Cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (18721970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiablility of a teapot to God.

-----------




Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Wrong, it is simply an analogy demonstrating where the burden of proof lies...In this case since you are the believer in god and claim such an entity exists, the burden of proof lies with you.

Well, do you know whether Russell himself has an argument or a proof or himself has written about how God can be and is proven to not exist?



Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 11:15 PM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
7,945 posts, read 4,736,927 times
Reputation: 1328
No, Russell just wrote about why he is not a Christian and why he doesn't believe people's radical claims, he believed such theistic religion claims are equal to a "celestial teapot" claims, in that they were purposefully made vague and hard to disprove, yet he wasn't going to believe them unless he had some better proof or reason.

Last edited by LuminousTruth; 08-13-2011 at 11:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 11:21 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 13,038,023 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Cognitively, but psychologically it is very strong in proving God does not exist for people who want to convince themselves that there is proof God does not exist.




Ryrge
Well.......not exactly. One of the first rules of formal debate is "he who asserts must prove" the christworshippers maintain the existence of a god. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence that this god thing, in fact, exists, the default position is, this god thing is not real. Any actions attributed to this godthingy are, logically speaking, also not real, and, any offspring from this non-existent god-thingy, are also not real. invisible imaginary friends neither create stuff, nor sire children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,872 posts, read 31,747,081 times
Reputation: 12620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
About your text,



Here is the original from Wikipedia:



-----------







Well, do you know whether Russell himself has an argument or a proof or himself has written about how God can be and is proven to not exist?



Ryrge
What, did you not get it? One cannot prove or disprove that either the celestial teapot or god exists but the one making the claim bears the burden of proof...Since Russel made the analogy, why would you think that he would put any effort into proving or disproving that which is unprovable?

Your efforts are also wasted, since no person can prove the existence of any god or gods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 12:10 AM
 
608 posts, read 530,203 times
Reputation: 33
Default We are into a conflict of positions, who is going to be our judge?

Well, Christians have been saying that they have proofs that God exists.

But atheists have been saying that Christians don't have proofs.


Now, who is going to decide, do Christians have proofs or are atheists correct that Christians don't have proofs that God does exist.


How do we prove that something exists in objective reality?

Once we can agree on how to prove something exists in objective reality, then we don't need others to decide for us whether Christians have proofs God exists, or atheists are correct Christians don't have proofs that God exists.


What do you say, atheists, how do we, as both of us are human beings, as human beings prove something to be existing?




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 01:24 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,872 posts, read 31,747,081 times
Reputation: 12620
You really do not get it do you? Only the natural can be proven. Since God is not a part of nature it cannot be proven by anyone...If god should exist only god can prove itself, man cannot.

I repeat...You are just wasting time with any efforts to prove any gods...Which one of the thousands are you attempting to prove....Let me guess...The god that Christians worship, am I right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top