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.
To Areq, did you say that I am deviating from the topic of my thread?
I don't think so, please read the title again and also my initiating post #1.
You see, according to you and other atheists here Bertrand was just stating that the concept of God is similar to the concept of a celestial teapot orbiting in space, and therefore God cannot be proven to exist.
Now some atheists are generous to also declare that God cannot either to proven to not exist.
I am not deviating from my topic, and it is because as I said if Bertrand is serious then he should not have used the figure of speech of a celestial teapot, unless he is also possessed of a penchant for using figures in a context where figures should not be resorted to at all.
As I said already to Sanspeur, the celestial teapot does not prove God to not exist not in logic, but psychologically it does give atheists a ground to feel ceertainty psychological certainty that is, even though on logic it is without any relevance and thus bereft of all persuasive power.
--------------------------
Celestial teapot and all such genres are alien to logical discourse, but I will think about them in regard to God.
You want Christians to accept your contention that there is no proofs, no evidence for God. but Christians want you to accept their contention that they have proofs and evidence for God.
You are not getting me correctly, I am saying that it is a yes no, yes no, yes no, situation.
And that we both groups don't have judges we will accept to determine for us who is correct and who is not correct.
Now, I am asking you if you know of a manual produced by atheists on evidence which people can use.
Do you?
-------------------
What about both you atheists and we Christians for being both humans, we get a list together of things we agree on, and then very probably we can get further on to come to the acceptance of God which is our contention or we can come nearer to your contention that we have no proofs, no evidence.
What about that, work together on a list of things we both groups agree on for being both human beings?
But you will insist again, "You just don't get it, there is no God, period."
Well, I will also say to you, "You just don't get it, there is God, period."
See? that is basically a yes no situation.
Ryrge
Two points we need to get over..no three... before we can wrap this discussion around Russell's teapot
(1) Evidence. There are manuals but you really don't want to read through them. The summary on what evidence is and how it's used I have given before and will do so again, with the reminder that this is taken from dictionaries and authorities in the field of legal and scientific evidence.
Evidence. b : something that furnishes proof .(Merriam - Webster)
In legal evidence "The burden of producing evidence means that in general the party that cites specific facts for the substantiation of its claim also has the burden of producing the evidence to prove these facts." (Enc. Britannica)
Definition of DATA 1.: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation (Merriam - Webster)
Many scientific procedures are not seriously in dispute and are accepted by courts with little or no inquisition into their validity. Examples include fingerprint tests for purposes of identification, blood tests, breathalyzer tests for alcohol consumption, and ballistics tests of bullets and their impact areas. These scientific procedures are so widely accepted that a court may take Judicial Notice of the procedure's validity. .. scientific tests that are universally accepted must be presented by a qualified expert. Scientific Evidence legal definition of Scientific Evidence. Scientific Evidence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
The point here is that the data used in substantiation must be from the validated corpus of data and opinion coming from those with expertise in the field.
The post I made earlier to gramps set out the reason why we use the corpus of validated information as a reason for knowing anything.
(2) The earlier post on Deductive and Inductive reasoning (#38) showed that direct proof is good, but inferential evidence indicates only probablilities and the less probable (based on the data) a claim is the less believable and the more doubtful the claim is.
(3) The thread title refers to the logical position that the one claiming that a god exist has to substantiate it. If they cannot do so to a satisfactory degree the claim cannot be accepted. That is, if the believer cannot prove god, there is no good logical reason to believe in one.
The non - believer does not have to prove anything. It is not logically correct to say that both have to prove something. I don't have to prove that a God doesn't exist. If the believer cannot produce a reasonable degree of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, there is no logical reason why I should accept even the probability of this god, let alone believe in it as a definite fact. This is in accordance with logical, legal and scientific application of evidence.
Now, are we clear on this or is there anything, my good Ryurge, that you would like explained?
To Areq, did you say that I am deviating from the topic of my thread?
I don't think so, please read the title again and also my initiating post #1.
My apologies. I did caution about that and I immediately withdrew it as I thought it was relevant in the wider application of where the burden of proof in logical argument might rest, which is what Russell's analogy is intended to demonstrate.
Quote:
You see, according to you and other atheists here Bertrand was just stating that the concept of God is similar to the concept of a celestial teapot orbiting in space, and therefore God cannot be proven to exist.
Now some atheists are generous to also declare that God cannot either to proven to not exist.
I am not deviating from my topic, and it is because as I said if Bertrand is serious then he should not have used the figure of speech of a celestial teapot, unless he is also possessed of a penchant for using figures in a context where figures should not be resorted to at all.
As I said already to Sanspeur, the celestial teapot does not prove God to not exist not in logic, but psychologically it does give atheists a ground to feel ceertainty psychological certainty that is, even though on logic it is without any relevance and thus bereft of all persuasive power.
--------------------------
Celestial teapot and all such genres are alien to logical discourse, but I will think about them in regard to God.
Ryrge
I take your point about Russell's teapot but I recall that it was an off the cuff remark of his which caught the public imagination. As in my reply to granpa, I used two more feasible scenarios (alien civilization or alien spacecraft) and the same argument applies. These claims require proof. Without some degree of evidence, there is no reason to believe them.
So far I think we have covered a lot of useful ground regarding the use of -shall we way, extraordinary claims - and what evidence is and how we apply it, and generally pretty amicable. So are we clear on evidence and the principle that the person making the claim (for example that a god exists) has to provide the sound evidence for it? The doubter does not have to disprove it, all they have to do is see whether the evidence compels them to credit the claim.
You mention what is evidence, but I fear no write-up on target of evidence and the mechanism of evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arequipa
Two points we need to get over..no three... before we can wrap this discussion around Russell's teapot
(1) Evidence. There are manuals but you really don't want to read through them. The summary on what evidence is and how it's used I have given before and will do so again, with the reminder that this is taken from dictionaries and authorities in the field of legal and scientific evidence.
Evidence. b : something that furnishes proof .(Merriam - Webster)
In legal evidence "The burden of producing evidence means that in general the party that cites specific facts for the substantiation of its claim also has the burden of producing the evidence to prove these facts." (Enc. Britannica)
Definition of DATA 1.: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation (Merriam - Webster)
Many scientific procedures are not seriously in dispute and are accepted by courts with little or no inquisition into their validity. Examples include fingerprint tests for purposes of identification, blood tests, breathalyzer tests for alcohol consumption, and ballistics tests of bullets and their impact areas. These scientific procedures are so widely accepted that a court may take Judicial Notice of the procedure's validity. .. scientific tests that are universally accepted must be presented by a qualified expert.
Scientific Evidence legal definition of Scientific Evidence. Scientific Evidence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
The point here is that the data used in substantiation must be from the validated corpus of data and opinion coming from those with expertise in the field.
The post I made earlier to gramps set out the reason why we use the corpus of validated information as a reason for knowing anything.
(2) The earlier post on Deductive and Inductive reasoning (#38) showed that direct proof is good, but inferential evidence indicates only probablilities and the less probable (based on the data) a claim is the less believable and the more doubtful the claim is.
(3) The thread title refers to the logical position that the one claiming that a god exist has to substantiate it. If they cannot do so to a satisfactory degree the claim cannot be accepted. That is, if the believer cannot prove god, there is no good logical reason to believe in one.
The non - believer does not have to prove anything. It is not logically correct to say that both have to prove something. I don't have to prove that a God doesn't exist. If the believer cannot produce a reasonable degree of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, there is no logical reason why I should accept even the probability of this god, let alone believe in it as a definite fact. This is in accordance with logical, legal and scientific application of evidence.
Now, are we clear on this or is there anything, my good Ryurge, that you would like explained?
I will just now gather your relevant ideas and put them under three headings: 1. What is evidence, 2. What is the target of evidence, and 3. What is the mechanism by which evidence operates.
--------------------
1. What is evidence?
Something that furnishes proof.
2. What is the target of evidence?
[Sorry, and forgive me, but I can't find any write-up from you on what is the target of evidence.]
3. What is the mechanism by which evidence works?
[Again, sorry, and forgive me, but I can't find any write-up from you on what is the mechanism by which evidence works.]
---------------------
Well, anyway you are at pains to insist that people who don't assert any idea need not produce any evidence, that is already known and observed by everyone in an exchange of thoughts.
Thanks a lot for your disquisition on evidence but it is not a manual on evidence that field workers can consult in the search for evidence to prove whatever they seek to prove with evidence.
Just one more thing very important for me:
You say, "(1) Evidence. There are manuals but you really don't want to read through them."
Forgive me, but you have not given me any link to any manual you know about.
If you can just direct me to a manual specially freely accessible in the internet that will be most highly appreciated.
What exactly is the point of Russell in using the figure of speech of a teapot orbiting in space?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
Is There a God?
by Bertrand Russell
(commissioned-but not published-by Illustrated Magazine in 1952)
[...]
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day. ...
[...]
What exactly is the point of Russell in using the figure of speech of a teapot orbiting in space?
The title of his article commissioned but not published (why?):
"Is There a God"?
clearly indicates that it is his intention to use it to support his answer to his own question, "Is there a God?" in the negative, "No, there is no God."
But he is not to be given serious attention because in such a question as "Is there a God," where already the best minds of mankind in history have given the answer yes, Bertrand should have gone into genuine logical argumentation instead of an appeal to a figure of speech, which in the present context is appeal to the emotion of people already biased like himself against the existence of God.
--------------------
Still, all such figures of speech applied on God, like the one of Bertrand Russell and later ones in imitation of his, like flying spaghetti monster and invisible pink unicorn, are deserving of examination from my part to find in them some usefulness for the advancement of the knowledge of God's existence for mankind.
And no, I am not into proselytizing, just into the advancement of knowledge of the existence of God as an object for man's cognitive quest, and not necessarily to bring man to submit himself to God in a religious faith like Christianism.
Sanspeur is correct. The argument is about how the burden of proof lies on the one positing x exists. Russel's celestial teapot argument also goes on to say that there are many people who say they have had experiences with this celestial teapot and there are many texts that have been written about its reality, but said teapot is undetectable by the five senses. Would it still be logical to believe the celestial teapot exists or would you think that the existence of the celestial teapot is pure hogwash. Analogously, there are many people who say they have had experiences with a divine power and there are a variety of holy texts written about it, but god is undetectable by the five senses. The burden of proof lies on the believer because they are the ones positing god exists.
You want Christians to accept your contention that there is no proofs, no evidence for God. but Christians want you to accept their contention that they have proofs and evidence for God.
You are not getting me correctly, I am saying that it is a yes no, yes no, yes no, situation.
And that we both groups don't have judges we will accept to determine for us who is correct and who is not correct.
Now, I am asking you if you know of a manual produced by atheists on evidence which people can use.
Do you?
-------------------
What about both you atheists and we Christians for being both humans, we get a list together of things we agree on, and then very probably we can get further on to come to the acceptance of God which is our contention or we can come nearer to your contention that we have no proofs, no evidence.
What about that, work together on a list of things we both groups agree on for being both human beings?
But you will insist again, "You just don't get it, there is no God, period."
Well, I will also say to you, "You just don't get it, there is God, period."
See? that is basically a yes no situation.
Ryrge
You keep blathering that you have proof, but for some reason you keep failing to present any.
You may have reasons of your own for this, but many of us will conclude that it's because you have no evidence that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny or logical examination.
=Ryrge;20456442]I will just now gather your relevant ideas and put them under three headings: 1. What is evidence, 2. What is the target of evidence, and 3. What is the mechanism by which evidence operates.
--------------------
1. What is evidence?
Something that furnishes proof.
2. What is the target of evidence?
I didn't write that up but it's obvious. The target of evidence is whatever the adducer or producer of the evidence is trying to prove.
Quote:
[Sorry, and forgive me, but I can't find any write-up from you on what is the target of evidence.]
3. What is the mechanism by which evidence works?
[Again, sorry, and forgive me, but I can't find any write-up from you on what is the mechanism by which evidence works.]
#28 p. 3 this thread. This was establishing the validity of empirical knowledge and pointing to the way that scientific experimentation discovers the how and why behind empirical knowledge.
Quote:
---------------------
Well, anyway you are at pains to insist that people who don't assert any idea need not produce any evidence, that is already known and observed by everyone in an exchange of thoughts.
Thanks a lot for your disquisition on evidence but it is not a manual on evidence that field workers can consult in the search for evidence to prove whatever they seek to prove with evidence.
No, it isn't a manual but a short pointer. We are all familiar with the way we try to support our arguments. I imagine we are all familiar with the provision of evidence. What is more of a problem is getting people to see what is is sound evidence and what isn't. Logical arguments are often important here and it is necessary to be familiar with common false arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Quote:
Just one more thing very important for me:
You say, "(1) Evidence. There are manuals but you really don't want to read through them."
Forgive me, but you have not given me any link to any manual you know about.
If you can just direct me to a manual specially freely accessible in the internet that will be most highly appreciated.
Best regards,
Ryrge
The subject is exhaustive and this is just a sample.
(note the links to short descriptions of the way evidence is used or 'operates' as you put it.
1. proof, grounds, data, demonstration, confirmation, verification, corroboration, authentication, substantiation There is no evidence to support this theory.
2. sign(s), mark, suggestion, trace, indication, token, manifestation Police said there was no evidence of a struggle.
3. testimony, statement, witness, declaration, submission, affirmation, deposition, avowal, attestation, averment Forensic scientists will be called to give evidence.
In order to ensure that we don't all drift off topic. This thread is not about proving or disproving gods or rather, examining the validity of the evidential support for god - claims, but explaining Russel's analogy of an established logical principle that the person making the claim has to support that with reasons and of course the reasons must be logically and evidentially sound, or they are worthless.
An actual discussion of evidence presented to support god - claims might be better in the Religion forum.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-14-2011 at 09:32 PM..
Agreed totally that the burden is with the one with the idea, but deniers have to listen at least to what the idea is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
Sanspeur is correct. The argument is about how the burden of proof lies on the one positing x exists. Russel's celestial teapot argument also goes on to say that there are many people who say they have had experiences with this celestial teapot and there are many texts that have been written about its reality, but said teapot is undetectable by the five senses. Would it still be logical to believe the celestial teapot exists or would you think that the existence of the celestial teapot is pure hogwash. Analogously, there are many people who say they have had experiences with a divine power and there are a variety of holy texts written about it, but god is undetectable by the five senses. The burden of proof lies on the believer because they are the ones positing god exists.
Agreed totally that the burden is with the one with the idea, but deniers have to listen at least to what the idea is.
See the totality of existence thread from me, I tried my proof there but had to stop further...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
You keep blathering that you have proof, but for some reason you keep failing to present any.
You may have reasons of your own for this, but many of us will conclude that it's because you have no evidence that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny or logical examination.
See the totality of existence thread from me, I tried my proof there but had to stop further... you know why.
Okay, here is my proof of God's existence as maker of everything that is not himself.
But wait, wait, this thread is about the celestial teapot of Bertrand Russell.
Anyway, the deviation is not that bad that there will be trouble from anyone on the alert to cry, off topic!
1. There has always been existence, existence is the default status.
2. Existence makes up the universe that we are living in and are part and parcel of, including God, so that God is immanent to the universe but for being maker of everything He is transcendent also to the universe.
3. There was a status once when there were no material things which are now being studied by scientists, so that in that status the only component of the universe was God all by Himself -- at least that we know of as humans (perhaps He had created other things which are not subject to time and space).
4. Now scientists today tell us that there was a beginning to time and space and matter and all the things that for scientists make up the to scientists observable universe, and they are still looking for more components like for example the Higgs Boson.
5. At that default status of existence when the observable to man universe was not yet around, the universe then was all God Himself.
6. Then the observable universe came about.
7. How do you explain that?
8. It could not have come from nothing, but from something, and that something is God, that is why the author(s) of Genesis 1:1 say that "In the beginning God created heaven and hell."
Is that good enough for you?
By the way I believe that proof above is in my thread on the totality of existence, I might have brought it up also elsewhere, or it is elsewhere; but it is always in my heart and mind, and like the idea of God as some kind of colloidal medium that is penetrating all the beings which He did create, so that He is a kind of ether to all creation thus immanent to creation but as maker also transcendent to His creation, I mean this idea also is always in my heart and mind.
There was an ancient poet in the land of the Greeks(?) who more than 2,000 years back also tells us that in Him we live and move and have our being.
Now, see if you will someone will be shouting off topic!!!!
By the way, where is the evidence there? Look for it and you will find it.
Ryrge
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.
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.
You mention what is evidence, but I fear no write-up on target of evidence and the mechanism of evidence.
