• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm sure that's all good for you, but 2 points:

First, most every place of worship that I've encountered has either a place specifically designed to kneel, or lovely prayer mats for abasing yourself completely.

Which still wouldn't mean that these things are the be-all and end-all of what it means to practice devotion to the gods (aka, worship). I mean, every science lab I had in undergrad had sinks in it, but that doesn't mean that everything we did in our labs revolved around using sinks. Or that sinks were even the point of what we were doing.

Second, you use another word that has no meaning for me, and that is "sacred."

Then don't use the word "sacred." Use the phrase "awe-inspiring" or "beautiful" or "arousing" whatever else floats your boat. The specific word doesn't matter. The substance does, and I don't know of any human who doesn't engage in behavior that honors things they value. Worship really isn't that complicated. Don't use the word if you hate it. I used to have huge hang-ups about that word too (then I got over it).
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Which still wouldn't mean that these things are the be-all and end-all of what it means to practice devotion to the gods (aka, worship). I mean, every science lab I had in undergrad had sinks in it, but that doesn't mean that everything we did in our labs revolved around using sinks. Or that sinks were even the point of what we were doing.



Then don't use the word "sacred." Use the phrase "awe-inspiring" or "beautiful" or "arousing" whatever else floats your boat. The specific word doesn't matter. The substance does, and I don't know of any human who doesn't engage in behavior that honors things they value. Worship really isn't that complicated. Don't use the word if you hate it. I used to have huge hang-ups about that word too (then I got over it).
I'm fussy about words -- they're what I use to communicate. It's like the current phrase "defund the police" which is creating so much havoc in a few places. As one might expect, police, and those responsible for police, are likely to take such statements as an existential threat, and react accordingly. My own view is, if you mean, "reform the police in meaningful ways to deal with problems that aren't always criminal," then why not say "reform" instead of "defund?"

Words have meanings, and they carry import. There is a difference between "appreciate" and "worship," and that difference is large. Note what you said, that I was responding to when we started this conversation:
the point of declaring something as worthy of worship (aka, granting something the title of "god")
And what I have been trying to make clear is quite simple: for me, there is nothing at all that I would categorize as such.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
For those of you who are unaware of Russell's famous teapot analogy, I will direct you here. Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

My question is: What distinguishes any claim of any god's existence from the claim that Russell's teapot exists?

Consider that: Any god is either non-existent (and hence obviously hidden) or existant but hidden, and in the same way, Russell's teapot is either non-existent (and hence hidden) or hidden, but existent. My question for theists is: Why do you think Russell's teapot is non-existent because it is hidden, but not apply the same logic to God? Furthermore, if you are a monotheist, why do you apply Russell's logic to other gods, but not your own? Given the immense sacrifices people have made to thousands of other gods, it seems that many of them believed in them just as fervently, if not more fervantly, as you believe in your god. Why do you dismiss their gods as you would dismiss Russell's Teapot, but not dismiss the one from your own culture?



How about this? Burden of proof rests on the one who seeks the knowledge. If one seeks the teapot, one must Discover that the teapot exists. If one seeks God, one must Discover that God exists.

Here comes the tricky part. If one can not find the teapot or God, one can still believe they exist. This leads to the important question. If one is satisfied with the mere belief that the teapot and God exists, does one really care about the Real Truth???

It all comes down to what one wants to Discover and how badly one wants to Discover it.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
How about this? Burden of proof rests on the one who seeks the knowledge. If one seeks the teapot, one must Discover that the teapot exists. If one seeks God, one must Discover that God exists.

Here comes the tricky part. If one can not find the teapot or God, one can still believe they exist. This leads to the important question. If one is satisfied with the mere belief that the teapot and God exists, does one really care about the Real Truth???

It all comes down to what one wants to Discover and how badly one wants to Discover it.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
I actually agree with most of this.
The part I disagree with is your idea of burden of proof.
The burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim.
IF the one seeking knowledge, yet who has not made a claim, wishes to seek the proof, then so be it.
But the burden of proof is one the one making the claim.
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
My question is: What distinguishes any claim of any god's existence from the claim that Russell's teapot exists?
Trying to prove God's existence assumes God is visible (denying one of the main attributes of God), so it is not relevant to Russel's Teapot example. Russel's Teapot is only for illustrating that burden of proof lies upon those making unfalsifiable claims.which only applies if you're trying to prove something. The invisibility of God goes against that. Hence Russel's Teapot is irrelevant in the general context of the OP.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If males as the science self said, Jesus was the first life sacrificed, origin male, origin DNA life, then the theme Jesus says sacrificed the origin of male DNA, spiritual.

For the highest owned male DNA self spiritual self invented the states of science in life.

So he knows that he cannot exist sacrificed and be first, what he said was that he sacrificed the origin of owning his highest DNA life.

Today we all know that life began returning to its origins, reincarnating back to its original form, after radiation nucleation of the Earth atmospheric gases, why he said the human spirit went to Hell. For a human is only a human in human life, aware, conscious making the claim I am a human. It cannot be said anywhere else, before self, or after self.

The story actually said that the ownership of male human DNA first and origin got sacrificed.

So today DNA has historically returned to its regained natural healthy life form, and it was evolving. Therefore only in the returned higher healthier DNA presence, evolution of mind/conscious and science self can you own that experience to ask and then claim is it real, was it real, did it occur.

In the want theme of I want to know God, I want to know what God is. Males in science own this theorising.

So then you ask self, did you not already explain that the spirit is a gas. You said Earth was God the Creator entity of its own Heavens. That the gases originally were cold and clear and that the Sun attacked Earth and set the gases alight?

Yes, said the male.

The spoken concept describes, spirit gases in the great deep spatial void, burning, cooling, lay as movement on the face of water O circular movement. MOVEMENT being the teaching. Not a signal, not a statement, inferred movement.

Meaning that males prove that they thought about the idea of it above their own head and it was how they idealised the circle in that moment.

About self conscious awareness, and how you thought first and origin about a CIRCLE O.

Which for a rational thinker would then quote....it is why you burnt us all to death in combustion, as a realistic teaching against self human lying about the idea of O the spirit movement of GOD.

A male is his own human self. When he contemplates life in the past the information of his life said 2 human being parents existed as humans. If he quotes a human before that idea, there is no human which is a direct lie.

When he idealised God as a human male in science, he burnt his own self. He burnt the ancient UFO satellites that had been sucked out in the spatial vacuum, that had already sucked into it Earth gases and water. Why out of space owns Earth satellites naturally.

Therefore his own machine pyramid transmitted interacted with newly burning UFO satellites, that fed back by his own male life being the DESIGNER his burning image which first is unnatural image in gases burning...where the evil male spirit manifested falsely then it cooled to own his Jesus self male image, having come back from out of space changed communicators.

Which he caused in occult sciences. And he has been mind possessed by that causation ever since claiming that male life originally was a sacrificed male life in the Heavens who first existed as a Satanic angel from a UFO machine, that converted into the human male image.

Yet the whole time he was living already as the scientist. What human lying actually entails about I will know God, when God never actually existed, it is only inferred to be everything that a male named in science about Earth history. As a truthful human review of I then self idolised my own sacrifice, only due to having survived the attack.

Full male scientific memory, originally I self combusted when I first tried that form of pyramid science. Hence he believed he had somehow become higher in scientific intelligence for surviving it. The true information says the UFO mass was less than the origin life self combustion of his preaching I sent you all to Hell...as the lying Satanist scientist he is.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
And what I have been trying to make clear is quite simple: for me, there is nothing at all that I would categorize as such.

That's fair. What I've been trying to make clear is that from my point of view, you do practice worship but don't use that word because you choose to define it in a way that means you won't use it. You still engage in behaviors I would call by that term even if you don't use that term. Just like you have gods in my view, even though you don't call your highest values "gods." You don't have to see things that way, nor should you. Mainly, I aim to point out that the substance of what people do with their lives transcends the words we put to them. I really don't care if someone calls themselves "theist" or "atheist" or "religious" or "irreligious" - they all engage in similar behaviors (more or less) anyway. If we eschewed the divisive labels, we'd probably do a better job of seeing that. That's not to say there aren't differences, but it isn't because of the superficial labels we put on ourselves and our practices. :D
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I actually agree with most of this.
The part I disagree with is your idea of burden of proof.
The burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim.
IF the one seeking knowledge, yet who has not made a claim, wishes to seek the proof, then so be it.
But the burden of proof is one the one making the claim.

But you don't have to make a claim that requires the burden of proof.
It makes sense for me to believe in God and as long as I don't use that to claim Objective Authority, then what is the problem?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
But you don't have to make a claim that requires the burden of proof.
It makes sense for me to believe in God and as long as I don't use that to claim Objective Authority, then what is the problem?
The one making a claim doe snot have to show burden of proof unless they want the claim to be taken seriously.
Happens all the time.
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
I actually agree with most of this.
The part I disagree with is your idea of burden of proof.
The burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim.
IF the one seeking knowledge, yet who has not made a claim, wishes to seek the proof, then so be it.
But the burden of proof is one the one making the claim.

Talk is cheap. The Discovery of knowledge is no one else's responsibility.

I think religion has corrupted a lot of people's thinking. If you are a person deciding to accept or reject, then you will require others to convince you, your so called burden of proof. This has convince many that others need to do the work on Discovery allowing one to merely accept or reject the knowledge.

Discovery takes work. If one is not willing to do the work, relying on accepting or rejecting, does one really care about Real Truth?

Valuing Beliefs might make things easy, however what do you really have?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The one making a claim doe snot have to show burden of proof unless they want the claim to be taken seriously.
Happens all the time.

I don't claim that God exists. I just believe in God and I can show you proof for that fact, than I don't need proof in order for just believing in God. I am doing it right now and I have no proof what so ever.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
God's relevance.
But I actually don't care about this teapot.
Furthermore, if you are a monotheist, why do you apply Russell's logic to other gods, but not your own? Given the immense sacrifices people have made to thousands of other gods, it seems that many of them believed in them just as fervently, if not more fervantly, as you believe in your god. Why do you dismiss their gods as you would dismiss Russell's Teapot, but not dismiss the one from your own culture?
I think this is a misunderstanding.
Christians don't deny supernatural powers other than God.
Bible says some gods are entirely made up.
But as far as I know, Bible does not deny the existance of other supernatural powers.
Many Christians bvelieve that Allah exists also, for instance.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I don't claim that God exists. I just believe in God and I can show you proof for that fact, than I don't need proof in order for just believing in God. I am doing it right now and I have no proof what so ever.
Then why all the chatter about proof if you do not feel the need to prove?
Me thinks you protest to much.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Christians don't deny supernatural powers other than God.
Most of them I know sure do.

Bible says some gods are entirely made up.
If you think about it, the Bible is basically a sales pitch for YHWH.

But as far as I know, Bible does not deny the existence of other supernatural powers.
Interestingly enough, I agree.
Even though most Christians I know would completely disagree.
If witches did not have power, why the need to kill them off?
And then there is The Satan.

Many Christians bvelieve that Allah exists also, for instance.
The Christians I know believe that Allah, for instance exists along the same lines as unicorns, dragons, Santa Claus, tooth fairy, etc.
Yet they get all up in arms when their chosen deity is thought of in the same way.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The historic argument, where did creation come from, and where did self come from, is discussed in the living presence human being thinker.

Stories about spirit, either conjured spirit or a story of spirit which infers we came from a higher place of spirit and changed.

Rationally as a human being thinking and telling stories.

Science says that it knows how creation got created by reviewing space as if it always existed, as their science theme. Which is for artificial invention only. So it is not a spirit story, does not speak on behalf of spirit or own spirit inference.

It is just for a human thinker for his scientific inventions and for formulas to claim to gain power, rationally.

However humans state that the state creation and space once never existed and a higher body mass presence took up what never existed, space.

Space in science is inferred by 2 bodies of space, an empty cold vacuum of space, devoid of any mass or radiating bodies...and a radiating mass owner of and in space by description amount of radiating mass.

Earth obviously as a body in space owns a huge amount historically of radiating mass. The UFO condition in space is a lesser amount of mass in radiating space. As you cannot view it until it gets heated in a burning gas mass science cause....rationally.

Therefore spiritual humans own an argument against artificial scientists rationally.

Science says spirit does not exist, for science says occult conjuring of evil spirit is a science cause in full knowledge of it, historically and in modern day science organization studies and themes about it. All just human thought and pondered, as a one of self, in groups talking and sharing one of human natural thoughts.

Then there is the spiritual human who says, space once never even existed, it was how God was given presence O form of circular bodies, removed from eternal mass historically that formed a thinning of space presence, bodies burst and burnt in history. The spirit story.

Our personal parent spirit story only after the Earth gas heavens once totally clear and cold was Sun burnt irradiated attacked/Earth converted its mass, did the eternal spirit, existing on the other side of space as eternal, not radiation or radiation mass, eternal.....had been contacted by Earth cold gas mass heavenly amassing, the bread TH of it.

Space was filled back in spatially by a breadth and a form of depth to re contact where creation was released from.

Our spiritual argument, where did we come from. Spiritual humans know we did not come as an alien inside of a gas/metal UFO body. For the science theme is AI recorded/encoded. The story says that the UFO was not only stopped heated radiation conversion of earth by opening a hole in its metal mass, that sucked in Earth gases/water, the spatial vacuum dealing with the radiation mass sucked it back into space.

Space therefore dealt with artificial radiation mass attack. But it was how out of space Earth communicators were formed. The knowledge of which is just scientific invention.

When those UFO cold body mass come back into the Earth and re open by burning gases, the atmospheric gas mass that they removed previously gets released also. Why we are all still alive. And never owned any human creation, for we WERE NOT invented by a male human thinking, and button pushing on his metal machines inferred historically to the UFO.

So the UFO is the machine baby if you want to be crude...for we need to be that crude to sink into a Satanic science mind psyche, when he falsifies sexual natural bio information as his conscious being to scientific themes, just as the bible imposes.

Psychology introduced in life due to occult intervention owned its reasons to teach that the life psyche of a male thinks sexually falsely into machination.

Our parents are life voice/recorded of image, proven not only by a huge natural human being ability to review vision and gain factual information, but also proven by phenomena occult studies in the sciences. So no human can argue against its reality.

As we are only all babies born by their sperm/ovary sharing, the male with sperm and the female ovary both change to enable either the same male life human to own form, or the female to own form. Which means a male is only associated to his Father life, and the female to her Mother life, no matter what science says about sex. We ARE NOT 2 bodies in 1 body.

The vision life recording that I saw and experienced as if I was living it in my dreams, showed our human Mother coming out of the eternal spirit, as an eternal spirit, in female form, that changed in the Earth water atmosphere into a bio life.

So the vision owned all the advice that spirit bodies were pre owned, were released from being with the eternal spirit and was forced out of that body. And it is on the other side of space....and the Earth heavenly gases was the only reason it was contacted.

Eternal therefore owns no inference/reference in the sciences, and never did.

Most spiritual humans own a story and a claim that when they die they still own one spiritual higher self being in the eternal. For that spirit body directly communicates to all living form, seeing we got released from their body.

So when the physical body that was forced to live inside on the Earth atmospheric gas mass dies, the eternal being part of our higher spiritual awareness always existed then just continues to be its owned self...which was never a human.

The memory just tells a story of where we came from.

That same memory describes how God as a false o O sound was sung for in the eternal as a study of a concept, spirit image/language in spirit....for that language and spirit was not actually an eternal being, the mass caused the arising of that spirit that went in and out of any body in a discussion in spirit.

How the spirit information exists to tell its story of how the first cause, change and notification of the motivation to own change, to activate change occurred, to have space form owning changed language....a spirit body.

Hence proof of that history for any scientist is the fact that science owning a radiating constant can produce and conjure the presence, evil spirit or awareness of a spirit image in the production of the sciences, as creation had in fact historically come from a place of spirit, in all use to reason, to be of wisdom, to realise, to experience, to have proof, the knowledge of.

God therefore O one planet, owned the human reason for their self life presence, for it had by its heavenly mass communicated back to the eternal body, forced it release spirit from its body, so we consciously state, God caused it....as a rational human spiritual self advice.

The reason for the storytelling.

Now if you asked a spiritual medium or psychic do they know and understand their own spirit self after a human dies, the rational status is no, it is not understood, but a human can reason why and how that spirit can still use our heavenly spiritual imagery, voice and body recording to communicate to us.

As another scientific caused phenomena outcome....a loss of from our own body original use of atmospheric mass, given to a spiritual occult science cause.

The reason why humans claim and Jesus or a spirit Father or a spirit Mother, a brother or sister or friend that you lived with is seen or heard talking to you. For it is already proven real.

Infinite by a male in science reasoning is an involvement with numbered factors relating to mass and change to mass only. Science therefore in any of its stories does not own in any reasoning any status of spirit information, it is all for machines, METAL. Not human.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Most of them I know sure do.
we know different Christians.
Bible is pretty clear about the matter: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12, ESV.
All Christians going to churches that involve in spiritual battling... they often go as far as to even adress these powers. Some African churches do this all the time. Ever heard of the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries (MFM Munich – Regional Headquarters ), for instance? As far as I understand it, the "Fire" stands for the tool they use when fighting against the spiritual powers they do not want or like. They want to become "prayer warriors" as they say... These are the growing churches, as it seems to me.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Instead of starting with the evidence and trying to find the best explanation, it's a backward process: they start with the assumption of God and then shop around for evidence they can use to suit their predetermined conclusion.
Many people seem to do this, indeed.
This doesn't mean every believer tries to shop around for evidence, though.
Biblical believers won't try to bolster their faith through science, in my opinion. They don't look for it to believe. Romans 10:17 explains.
I am an A-atheist. Unless you present the evidence that the universe 1 popped up by itself or 2 never had a beginning or 3 (other non-theistic explanation)... I stay a believer.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I am an A-atheist. Unless you present the evidence that the universe 1 popped up by itself or 2 never had a beginning or 3 (other non-theistic explanation)... I stay a believer.

"what I believe is true until someone proves it false" is a most popular stance for theists.
And believe it or not, it merely reinforces what 9-10ths_Penguin said.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
we know different Christians.
Bible is pretty clear about the matter: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12, ESV.
All Christians going to churches that involve in spiritual battling... they often go as far as to even adress these powers. Some African churches do this all the time. Ever heard of the Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries (MFM Munich – Regional Headquarters ), for instance? As far as I understand it, the "Fire" stands for the tool they use when fighting against the spiritual powers they do not want or like. They want to become "prayer warriors" as they say... These are the growing churches, as it seems to me.
One wonders why it is, with the Bible being so clear about it, that so many Christians can not see it...
 
Top