Russell's Teapot

[Kamehameha34]

You are just saying something that everyone else should honestly agree with, which is, we don't know for sure whether or not a god exists, and its unknown.

I believe I came into the discussion to establish that the "god" claim is unknown, and should be regarded as such. Dragging my personal beliefs into it is ad hominem.

But, you become an agnostic when you say that NOONE on this planet CAN know for sure.

That's not true for all agnostics.

Read the branches.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pikatore]

You read what I said, just like you read the post I made in the idiotic statements. Pathetic. You might as well stop being a little girl and just put ricksp and me off ignore, if you are going to keep peeking at what we are saying.

[Kamehameha34]

This is getting ridiculous. I took a "peek" to give you a chance to prove yourself mature enough for discussion, and you replied with that bullsh*t when you didn't get the last word. Grow up.

In the meantime, you're officially nonexistent to me. Enjoy all of your parroted last words.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I believe I came into the discussion to establish that the "god" claim is unknown, and should be regarded as such. Dragging my personal beliefs into it is ad hominem.

.... I think I just found another idiotic statement. To humor you, I'll try and answer that seriously.

You came into the discussion to voice your personal beliefs, and I can put those beliefs on the table without using an ad hominem argument. What a ridiculous claim to make.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's not true for all agnostics. Read the branches.

Oh? So you've chosen one of them then? Which one is it? Ill have a look at it then, and see if it actually puts forward an argument in itself, seeing some branches range to 'i dont actually give a damn'.

[bishop]

let's cut the immaturity here people.. stop the personal attacks now and get back to the topic - or just leave it.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE.
Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[ZNFYRH]

Let me try to see if I understand the Russell's Teapot argument.

A person says that a perfectly normal, average, every day and well-known thing is doing something that makes perfect sense if the velocity and distance are accurate. As long as that person doesn't try to convince anyone else that they are right, there is no way to prove them wrong.

I agree with that. What they are saying is based on their own mind, and you can't really force someone to change their mind.

If that person were to try to say that it is impossible to prove them wrong they would be speaking nonsense.

I agree with that. If you just want to keep it to an disc shaped orbit (restricting us to area measurements) then the space between Earth and Mars is finite (1 x 10^24 square feet). A teapot is just about 1 square foot in size, so you're looking at a finite possibility of 1 in 10^24 chance of finding it. Large, but finite.

The third and final part of the quote says that if there is documentation going back thousands of years about this teapot and it was taught in school and taught to children then not believing in the existence of the teapot means you are possibly crazy.

I disagree with that. There is one incredibly simple reason why. Everyone knows what a teapot is, what it does, what it is capable of, and how it works. There are no mysteries to the teapot.

I understand how the Russell's Teapot argument is supposed to appear valid but no one is trying to say that the teapot created the universe or had a son who walked on water.

In all honesty, if you put a gun to my head and told me to choose which one I believe in first, God or Orbiting Teapot, I'd choose the little teapot.

</concludes longest post ever with I'm A Little Teapot song and dance>

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Let me try to see if I understand the Russell's Teapot argument. A person says that a perfectly normal, average, every day and well-known thing is doing something that makes perfect sense if the velocity and distance are accurate. As long as that person doesn't try to convince anyone else that they are right, there is no way to prove them wrong. I agree with that. What they are saying is based on their own mind, and you can't really force someone to change their mind. If that person were to try to say that it is impossible to prove them wrong they would be speaking nonsense. I agree with that. If you just want to keep it to an disc shaped orbit (restricting us to area measurements) then the space between Earth and Mars is finite (1 x 10^24 square feet). A teapot is just about 1 square foot in size, so you're looking at a finite possibility of 1 in 10^24 chance of finding it. Large, but finite. The third and final part of the quote says that if there is documentation going back thousands of years about this teapot and it was taught in school and taught to children then not believing in the existence of the teapot means you are possibly crazy. I disagree with that. There is one incredibly simple reason why. Everyone knows what a teapot is, what it does, what it is capable of, and how it works. There are no mysteries to the teapot. I understand how the Russell's Teapot argument is supposed to appear valid but no one is trying to say that the teapot created the universe or had a son who walked on water. In all honesty, if you put a gun to my head and told me to choose which one I believe in first, God or Orbiting Teapot, I'd choose the little teapot. </concludes longest post ever with I'm A Little Teapot song and dance>

You missed a small detail, that is, he claims that the teapot is so small that even our most powerful telescopes can't see it. And if our telescopes WERE powerful enough (if they aren't already), he would stick by the claim that it is still too small.

It doesn't have to be a teapot. It could be a unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, ANYTHING. What it is isn't important. Also remember that the average teapot wouldn't be intact in the conditions of space.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore You missed a small detail, that is, he claims that the teapot is so small that even our most powerful telescopes can't see it. And if our telescopes WERE powerful enough (if they aren't already), he would stick by the claim that it is still too small. It doesn't have to be a teapot. It could be a unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, ANYTHING. What it is isn't important. Also remember that the average teapot wouldn't be intact in the conditions of space.

While I chose to dwell on the size of the teapot, what matters is that the teapot is a finite thing. The existence of a finite thing in a finite space cannot rationally be compared to the existence of God.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH The existence of a finite thing in a finite space cannot rationally be compared to the existence of God.

The point of the analogy focused around an unprovable claim.

He can claim that there are flying monkeys in a parallel universe, alright? It doesn't matter. You are missing the point. Finite or infinite, it isn't about questioning the validity of unprovable claims.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore Finite or infinite, it isn't about questioning the validity of unprovable claims.

Then what is the point?

To me, it appeared as though the point of the whole "Russel's Teapot" is the third part.

The third part basically says that if you disagree with contextual history regarding something which can't be proven that you need to see a psychologist.

You can't just use that as a summary judgment towards those who dismiss theistic beliefs because it is lacking one, small detail. The teapot is not being credited with creation of the universe.

[pikatore]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Then what is the point?

Firstly, apologies. In what you quoted, I mean that the overall point of the analogy IS to question the validity of unprovable claims, no mater how long they may have existed, or what writings may have been made about them.

Quote by: ZNFYRH To me, it appeared as though the point of the whole "Russel's Teapot" is the third part. The third part basically says that if you disagree with contextual history regarding something which can't be proven that you need to see a psychologist.

It's point was that if you disagree with historic religious writings, then some people can question your sanity. You missed the point.

For example, I was in Lebanon, a predominantly Muslim country, and I told a few Muslims that I didn't believe in a God. They looked at me like I was insane and laughed, whereas if I said that there is a God, they'd be friendly and receptive, although saying it aloud makes me feel like I'm spouting complete crap. THAT'S that point it is trying to make, by saying that if there were ancient writings about the teapot, then many people would take his teapot claim much more seriously.

Quote by: ZNFYRH You can't just use that as a summary judgment towards those who dismiss theistic beliefs because it is lacking one, small detail. The teapot is not being credited with creation of the universe.

I never used it a summary judgement for anything. It's an analogy based solely on logic and reasoning, nothing more. It's simply something I use to further my claim that the burden of proof should rightly be placed on theists.

Ok. So Russell says the teapot DID create the universe. What has changed in the core ideas that analogy is presenting? Nothing. Whether or not it was credited with creating the universe, it still is a claim without any proof, other than writings in stone from ancient times, which somehow is enough for many to take it up as fact.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: pikatore It's point was that if you disagree with historic religious writings, then some people can question your sanity. You missed the point.

If that was the point then I got it.

In my opinion, the difference is that if you tell me there's an undetectable teapot in that septillion cubic feet, I'll smile and say, "Maybe." If you tell me that there is a teapot that created the universe, I would laugh.

In the end, I agree with you. Telling someone they are crazy because they don't agree with man-made writings is... for lack of a kinder word... nonsense.