What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many people seem to do this, indeed.
This doesn't mean every believer tries to shop around for evidence, though.

Sure... I'm only talking about the ones who pull out things like the ontological or cosmological arguments, or the "argument from morality."

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.

Heh - if you haven't seen a "Biblical believer" on RF arguing that science supports Christianity, wait five minutes.

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 a precious way to announce that you've abandoned reason.

 

[thomas t]

"what I believe is true until someone proves it false" is a most popular stance for theists.

I believe creation to be true yes.

What a precious way to announce that you've abandoned reason.

actually I didn't.
Well I misspoke in my last post. I meant the sum of all universes or worlds (in case there are more than just one...). I meant the whole thing.
I stay believer in God until someone shows evidence for one of the three points noted above (#38).

 

[Left Coast]

I stay believer in God until someone shows evidence for one of the three points noted above (#38).

If someone saw a pregnant woman and said, "I believe you're going to have a boy," and she said, "How did you come to that conclusion?" and then they replied, "well, no one's shown me any evidence it's a girl! And I'm going to keep believing it's a boy until someone shows me evidence it's a girl!" would you say that person is being reasonable?

Isn't it more reasonable to simply say that we don't have enough information yet to draw any conclusion?

 

[thomas t]

If someone saw a pregnant woman and said, "I believe you're going to have a boy," and she said, "How did you come to that conclusion?" and then they replied, "well, no one's shown me any evidence it's a girl! And I'm going to keep believing it's a boy until someone shows me evidence it's a girl!" would you say that person is being reasonable?

Isn't it more reasonable to simply say that we don't have enough information yet to draw any conclusion?

Great point you're making here.
So you're comparing the hypothesis that God created the world... to a 50/50 situation. Not bad. I mean, as a comparison, lots of atheists say they think there is "probably no" God. Richard Dawkins for instance, just to name one.

But why 50/50? I mean it's not quite 50/50 for gender ... but almost.
Theoretically it could be 60/40 as well, you think?
Let me put it that way: unless you present the evidence that chances that God created the world... are 50/50, I stay a believer of God....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

actually I didn't.

From my perspective, you did.

IMO, you may have well as said "unless you can present the evidence of the particular make and model of car that left these tire tracks, I'm going to keep on believing that a dragon made them."

 

[Left Coast]

Great point you're making here.
So you're comparing the hypothesis that God created the world... to a 50/50 situation. Not bad. I mean, as a comparison, lots of atheists say they think there is "probably no" God. Richard Dawkins for instance, just to name one.

But why 50/50? I mean it's not quite 50/50 for gender ... but almost.
Theoretically it could be 60/40 as well, you think?
Let me put it that way: unless you present the evidence that chances that God created the world... are 50/50, I stay a believer of God....

My point is that the choice is binary: either God created the universe, or she didn't. A lack of evidence that something else created the universe is not a rational reason to conclude that she did, or to not believe that she did until someone proves something else did it. The evidence for God creating the universe is independent of any other explanation. And you have no reason to think the probability is somehow greatly in favor of her doing it.

The time to believe something is when you have evidence for it, not merely that you have a lack of evidence for something else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Great point you're making here.
So you're comparing the hypothesis that God created the world... to a 50/50 situation. Not bad. I mean, as a comparison, lots of atheists say they think there is "probably no" God. Richard Dawkins for instance, just to name one.

But why 50/50? I mean it's not quite 50/50 for gender ... but almost.
Theoretically it could be 60/40 as well, you think?
Let me put it that way: unless you present the evidence that chances that God created the world... are 50/50, I stay a believer of God....

I'd say we have no evidence that the chances that God created the world are anything greater than zero.

 

[thomas t]

From my perspective, you did.

honestly I didn't.
We've seen millions of cars making tracks. But not one single dragon. You're making your comparison without any evidence at all that would point to the hypothesis that God having created the universe is more comparable to a dragon making tracks than it is to a car making them.

I'd say we have no evidence that the chances that God created the world are anything greater than zero.

Well I say, you don't have any evidence that the chances that the world has origins besides a potential God or, that the world doesn't have a beginning to begin with, or else (other explanation that do without God)... are anything greater than zero.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

honestly I didn't.
We've seen millions of cars making tracks. But not one single dragon.

Right. Have you seen a god?

Have you even established a mechanism by which a god could exist?

You're making your comparison without any evidence at all that would point to the hypothesis that God having created the universe is more comparable to a dragon making tracks than it is to a car making them.

How is God not comparable to a dragon?They're both mythological beings; if you have any reason for us to give more weight to the idea that gods exist than the idea that dragons exist, let's hear it.

Well I say, you don't have any evidence that the chances that the world has origins besides a potential God or, that the world doesn't have a beginning to begin with, or else (other explanation that do without God)... are anything greater than zero.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that God is some sort of default answer... which is why I say that you've announced that you've abandoned reason.

 

[rational experiences]

Right. Have you seen a god?

Have you even established a mechanism by which a god could exist?


How is God not comparable to a dragon?They're both mythological beings; if you have any reason for us to give more weight to the idea that gods exist than the idea that dragons exist, let's hear it.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that God is some sort of default answer... which is why I say that you've announced that you've abandoned reason.

First of all I would claim if a human believed in a dragon, it would have been a flying dinosaur set alight when Earth life got destroyed and ICE saved Earth.

Would be what I would logically think was the claim of dragon belief, for volcanic eruption was involved also.

A teapot, is a human designed physical manipulation of physical. ONE in first science themes was always Planet Earth O the stone mass which all invention comes from, ONE....why you gave the planet the title ST and ONE. As fact of self advice...the only ONE theme, scientific invention is planet Earth.

What you can manipulate.

The spirit of GOD was a self taught male lesson in gas relativity, that quotes, the cold clear gases are spatial womb holy owned natural evolution. Relativity.

Set alight by the Sun UFO attack.....so not relative to any string theory.

As said before strings is the O mass of an asteroid wandering star, that moved through heated spatial radiation, exploded and released by spatial vacuum, its mass into a line ___________ Satan the star, destruction of the theme MATHS and space O the circular body.

As given to the first origin and ONE stone mass, a PLANET. So we said a planet is a fixed cycle body around a Sun. Wandering stars were Satan fall of God O.

Seeing the moon was an asteroid as PROOF.

So as you think about gases burning, cooling in a spatial vacuum, it was how space, being a HOLE forms O circles....the spirit in the great deep spatial vacuum, Earth heavenly gases, burning forms circles, which you pondered, as a spirit...so it is not REAL advice, on the face of water.

It was a conscious realisation given to the psyche thinking about conditions.

God in the atmosphere just a spirit manifestation, not real....just as taught.

Self human living inside of the atmosphere, changed the Heavens as gases burning x mass above their heads....and learnt what it was like to pretend self was a GOD...got sacrificed, had their own human image put above their heads as that proof, why their life cell body, died in extreme irradiation attacked agony.

Real human story said for humans on behalf of humans living in a future life on Earth....to never allow it to recur ever again. For the science Satanic psyche pattern is to believe in phenomena, which is a cause and effect, it is not natural history and then destroy us with it.

 

[Willamena]

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?

For those for whom god is not an object, that would be the distinguishing feature.

 

[rational experiences]

For those for whom god is not an object, that would be the distinguishing feature.

God was always an objective male scientific reasoning that began with the object of ONE O the Earth planet history.

If you ask a male today why do you want to believe you are God? The answer is relative to the history of what science did to our life by not supporting the conditions of O one, the planet as the object as compared to self.

Consciousness, the spiritual body, the thinker, the imposer of stories.

So then you would question, why do you male claim the gas spirit are eternal?

When you know that space never owned the gas, the ONE O stone body did?

Fact of the thinker, where God O historically had come from, and then where self had come from.

So the self thinker living inside of spirit in science terms is quoted, the gases.....says I only came into the Heavenly body from the eternal...due to it filling in emptied out space, once historically an eternal portion changed.

For change to the higher state always existed first.

So we all know that O the planet evolved the heavenly gas mass in space...we are neither the planet and nor are we the gases and nor are we the space body.

Historically the only entry in the science review is the UFO mass radiation, as UFO mass radiation, which we also are not.

We are not there in any of the mass reviews speaking about natural history and mass.

So a human says I came like God historically did, released from out of the eternal.

Now God, came from out of a burning mass body. We KNOW we never did. Yet Satanic science tries to convince us that we did....for science/invention and machines. So the UFO is the Father of the sciences, machines and machine babies. Evil.

We came out of the eternal body, as a pre owned spirit eternal that was forced to change into a lowered spirit body. So we know that we are always the highest spirit body in creation, that inherited change....seeing spirit changed their own body.

The argument, of where did creation come from. From a Satanic theme or from an eternal to God theme.

If a human said, why did I get removed out of spirit, the answer was One God O the planet history caused it.

Cause is a very different teaching to relativity. Relativity is used for invention, cause is natural history.

Theme, human needs to believe in their owned holy One planet body, which is given the title God first. Reason to say without God I do not exist as a thinker.

Theme, where did God come from owns 2 stories. A human science thinker about how gases above his head moved from burning and cooling into a circular movement. A theme for science as science God.

Natural humans spiritual self, say my parents came out of spirit eternal. Were given a lowered life for due to God cause, the planet and its heavens, when I die I still own one spirit in the eternal as a spirit.

As consciousness I know why the Jesus life sacrifice image above our heads in the clouds occurred, I never taught that it was spirit or where I came from. Why I never believed in God preaching as a spiritual conscious memory, the only reason.

 

[thomas t]

Honestly I didn't abandon reason. I just believe in God.

Right. Have you seen a god?

Have you even established a mechanism by which a god could exist?

may I ask you, since you came up with the comparison...
Have you seen a force X different from God making the universe... or have you seen how the world does not have a beginning but was there all times?

Have you established a mechanism by which a universe could have come into existence without the help of a God?

So when you compare God to the dragon in your example... then something else gets the place of the (existing) car evidently. Let's the something else be called x. So what's the evidence that your x is reponsible of setting up the universe?

How is God not comparable to a dragon?

Just like that teapot... the dragon is not relevant.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Any god is either non-existent (and hence obviously hidden) ..

I think you have a problem there and someone must have pointed it out. What exists can be hidden, what does not exist cannot be hidden.

Have you seen a force X different from God making the universe... or have you seen how the world does not have a beginning but was there all times?
Have you established a mechanism by which a universe could have come into existence without the help of a God?
Let's the something else be called x. So what's the evidence that your x is responsible of setting up the universe?

Ah! You have seen God and his force. Did you see God face to face or only his hind parts as Moses saw? Who has said that the universe is eternal?
That is God of the Gaps. Since you do not know or are not sure, so 'Goddidit'. You would settle for a falsehood rather than wait for the correct answer.
Not yet, if you are talking of science. But what proves that your God did it (and not YHWH, Allah Ahur Mazda, for one of the thousands of Hindu deities?)
Right, my 'X' is 'physical energy', which is all that was there at the time of Big Bang (if the Standard Model is correct), and a bit of space.
They say it was around the size of a foot-ball.

Fundamental forces and Elementary Particles

 

[McBell]

Just like that teapot... the dragon is not relevant.

Just like the dragon and the teapot, god is only as relevant as you make him.
No more.
No less.

 

[thomas t]

I didn't see God

That is God of the Gaps.

You say God-of-the-Gaps, I say the alternative is your gapfiller.
But of course you can say physical energy. Then this is your gapfiller. If you say it came into existence without a creator or it was eternal...
where's the evidence for this hypothesis?
You didn't have any evidence in your post... so I don't think the God proposition is falsehood. It has the reputation to be falsehood, this yes.

 

[thomas t]

Just like the dragon and the teapot, god is only as relevant as you make him.
No more.
No less.

well, the creator would have more relevance than teapots.

 

[McBell]

well, the creator would have more relevance than teapots.

Only if you put more relevance on your "creator" than a teapot...

 

[Aupmanyav]

I didn't see God
You say God-of-the-Gaps, I say the alternative is your gapfiller.
But of course you can say physical energy. Then this is your gapfiller. If you say it came into existence without a creator or it was eternal...
where's the evidence for this hypothesis?
You didn't have any evidence in your post... so I don't think the God proposition is falsehood. It has the reputation to be falsehood, this yes.

If you noticed, I said "Not yet, if you are talking of science." But yes, we have come to know a lot, and will know more in future.
If I do not know how energy came about, you too do not know how God came about.
If God can be eternal, then energy also can be eternal.
Again not yet. But we know about virtual particles, we know about the possibility of Zero-energy universe or Multiverse.
You do not have even that much evidence.

 

[thomas t]

I was referring to the God proposition being falsehood, according to you.

But we know about virtual particles, we know about the possibility of Zero-energy universe or Multiverse.
You do not have even that much evidence.

But you even lack the evidence that "virtual particles" or the possibility of Zero-energy universe or Multiverse... hints to physical energy having come into being without a Creator or being eternal.