Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Russell's Teapot

Page 1 of 1 [ 11 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

29 Jan 2012, 3:14 am

Do you think Russell's Teapot is an adequate or inadequate argument against the existence of God and why or why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

29 Jan 2012, 3:18 am

It's an interesting idea.

I would say that absence of proof is sufficient reason to doubt, but lack of evidence does not entirely disprove the idea. I think that until proof of non-existence is shown, one should remain open to the possibility (however remote the possibility).


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

29 Jan 2012, 3:21 am

abacacus wrote:
It's an interesting idea.

I would say that absence of proof is sufficient reason to doubt, but lack of evidence does not entirely disprove the idea. I think that until proof of non-existence is shown, one should remain open to the possibility (however remote the possibility).


My issue with Russell's Teapot is that the idea of a teapot floating in space is just inherently more absurd than the idea that the universe was designed intelligently. But then again, who knows, maybe ancient aliens had teapots!



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

29 Jan 2012, 3:22 am

just remember how remote it is when you start using it as justification, toher than that it only highlights the issue with any supernatural claim where there is no verifiable evidence, it doesnt speak of their general possibility as such.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

29 Jan 2012, 3:23 am

donnie_darko wrote:
abacacus wrote:
It's an interesting idea.

I would say that absence of proof is sufficient reason to doubt, but lack of evidence does not entirely disprove the idea. I think that until proof of non-existence is shown, one should remain open to the possibility (however remote the possibility).


My issue with Russell's Teapot is that the idea of a teapot floating in space is just inherently more absurd than the idea that the universe was designed intelligently. But then again, who knows, maybe ancient aliens had teapots!


That's the whole point. It's meant to be incredibly absurd.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Bun
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,356

29 Jan 2012, 3:25 am

I agree with it.


_________________
Double X and proud of it / male pronouns : he, him, his


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2012, 9:17 am

I think it exists.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

29 Jan 2012, 9:37 am

^

I thought I was the only one! :o I feel a cult coming along.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

29 Jan 2012, 9:53 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I think it exists.


I think that Shrodinger's Cat knocked Russell's Teapot off the table causing such a clatter that Occam cut himself with his own razor!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It doesnt by itsself disprove the existence of God.
But it does demonstrate that the burden of proof is on anyone making any kind of positive assertion. You cant just say "unicorns must exist because there is no evidence that they dont exist." But you can say "unicorns dont exist because there is no evidence that they do exist". Beleivers in God have what they thnk is evidence. But its up to them to present it not for atheists to present evidence of the nonexistence of God.

Its up to the positive asserters to do the work



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

29 Jan 2012, 11:13 am

If you're going on a quest to prove/disprove the existence of God, you don't bring logic with you.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jan 2012, 12:59 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
Do you think Russell's Teapot is an adequate or inadequate argument against the existence of God and why or why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However absence of evidence is a good reason for not believing what is asserted.

ruveyn