What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

[Brickjectivity]

well, the creator would have more relevance than teapots.

The teapot analogy also doesn't apply to God if the universe exists within God. Its only applicable to a creator acting upon nothing to create something. It is not generally applicable unless somebody is trying to tell you miraculous reasons to believe in God, to coerce or convince you. Then the teapot analogy is applicable.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Kindly read this to get some information on where science stands:
Virtual Particles Explained in 60 Seconds | Facebook
The Epistemology of the large hadron collider (LHC): A1: Virtual Particles
Yes, Virtual Particles Can Have Real, Observable Effects

 

[rational experiences]

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.
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

What about the self thinking all concepts, when everything natural and owned is present in the great expanse of everything, and the thinking human talks and discusses information, in their consciousness about what conditions?

Conditions he says he is aware of in the act of a destructive blast. Destruction being that concept and precept and what is left afterwards.

As the idealisation of self being the God consciousness, the Designer inventor of all scientific self idealisations, studies and researched themes, whilst every great huge massive powerful energy forms and bodies exist in their held natural forms....imagine if one of them exploded, would your information change scientist?

Yes he would say, more than probably as I died in an attack on Earth.

 

[thomas t]

Kindly read this to get some information on where science stands:
Virtual Particles Explained in 60 Seconds | Facebook
The Epistemology of the large hadron collider (LHC): A1: Virtual Particles
Yes, Virtual Particles Can Have Real, Observable Effects

certainly interesting.
So even if virtual particles can have real observable effects and can appear out of nothing/ the vacuum as the facebook source said... this doesn't mean that physical energy came into being by itself or is eternal.
That was my point.
I don't say these virtual particles don't exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. this doesn't mean that physical energy came into being by itself or is eternal.
That was my point. I don't say these virtual particles don't exist.

How would we know if we leave it at 'Goddidit'. We have to search and find the answer.
Well, it may not be of concern to all people, but there are some to whom these things matter.
We do not know if they are eternal or arise from 'absolute nothing',
i.e., a vaccum where not even fundamental forces exist. Is there a thing like that?
Space expands, can it fold back into itself without leaving a remainder?

 

[thomas t]

Is there a thing like that?
Space expands, can it fold back into itself without leaving a remainder?

science will tell

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps, I do not know when.

 

[rational experiences]

certainly interesting.
So even if virtual particles can have real observable effects and can appear out of nothing/ the vacuum as the facebook source said... this doesn't mean that physical energy came into being by itself or is eternal.
That was my point.
I don't say these virtual particles don't exist.

O One God, Earth stone is the relative teachings about Planet Earth stone philosophy as the term to God in its original form....mass. That stated as a known historic and subliminal constant male teaching relating to how its volcanic body released its ejection into the spatial womb. As relative advice, that by pressure, the spatial vacuum and cold converted that ejection into forming a heavenly body.

Science says...........
Particles are sometimes called tephra—which actually refers to all solid material ejected by volcanoes. Ash is a product of explosive volcanic eruptions. When gases inside a volcano's magma chamber expand, they violently push molten rock (magma) up and out of the volcano.

God One in the spatial womb relative teachings said the history of the Immaculate heavens was a science mystery, and in fact their ancient technology supersedes anything anyone thinks today for a reason. Their technology existed before the life of the dinosaur/giants, as humans were once far superior in their wisdom than their development/return to human DNA after the dinosaur extinction.....where atmospheric ICE cooling brought the returned/reincarnated human DNA back into form again.

Science archaeological finds of metallic and scientific articles inside of stone fusion and coal products is that proof.

 

[thomas t]

Thank you for answering my post.
Now, can you please refer to anything I said?

some notes for you:

a known historic and subliminal constant male teaching

Your "historic and subliminal constant male teaching" is not known.
BTW, this thread does not have anything to do with "a known historic and subliminal constant male teaching"... are you highjacking a whole thread here?

Science archaeological finds of metallic and scientific articles

wrong grammar.

scientific articles inside of stone fusion and coal products

this doesn't make sense.

 

[Onoma]

I'm curious what Russell would have said when confronted with the fact that " proof " only exists in mathematics, and not science

 

[MonkeyFire]

The universe does not exist because of a teapot, and there is no reason to believe that. God is fundamentally the source of life, a teapot has no special abilities. If there is a "teapot" why would I care? Religion isnt for teapots.

 

[rational experiences]

Thank you for answering my post.
Now, can you please refer to anything I said?

some notes for you:

Your "historic and subliminal constant male teaching" is not known.
BTW, this thread does not have anything to do with "a known historic and subliminal constant male teaching"... are you highjacking a whole thread here?

wrong grammar.

this doesn't make sense.

Are you on the forum to teach humans grammar or are you on the forum to be challenged?

Subliminal brain mind conditions, Russian and NASA studied brain conditions for many years is known in the science community, as psychic precepts or the ability to think for self but also be coerced by mind contact or transmitted relays.

That circumstance givens false and non physical relayed thinking advice back twice to the same consciousness, why the thinker then quotes irrational statements about God being non physical.

For science cannot achieve science unless they are standing on a stone planet from which they resource energy mass to convert to build invention, and to remove energy from a fixed and physical held state.

Yet they quote thinking information in a gas mass burning radiating body, that is not physical but is attacked by a form of physical mass in the UFO cold radiation in space heating up in a burning gas atmospheric condition. Falsification of natural advice, where a human thinks, atmosphere.

Humans who attack the self on forums are not really in want of being challenged, such as grammatical correctness. Based on a self imposes thesis that the self thinks intelligence belongs to word usage. Intelligence is not to believe in particles when the stone planet is fused upon which you stand as the only constant teaching and male taught precept with the claim God.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Not quibbling with your basic argument, but wanted to point out that something that is non-existing isn't hidden. You cannot hide something that does not exist.

 

[thomas t]

Are you on the forum to teach humans grammar or are you on the forum to be challenged?

you could write better grammar:
take this one for instance:

Subliminal brain mind conditions, Russian and NASA studied brain conditions for many years is known in the science community,

grammatically it makes no sense. I think this is impolite. Do I have to search the meaning in this sort of speech?

But again, now that you have answered my post, can you actually refer to anything I've said appart from criticising the grammar you use?

Humans who attack the self on forums

I don't do this.


I won't quote more of what you've said because the grammar in your post is a problem.

 

[rational experiences]

you could write better grammar:
take this one for instance:

grammatically it makes no sense. I think this is impolite. Do I have to search the meaning in this sort of speech?

But again, now that you have answered my post, can you actually refer to anything I've said appart from criticising the grammar you use?

I don't do this.


I won't quote more of what you've said because the grammar in your post is a problem.

Did you ever bother to think that human conversation and self expression is one of the main reasons that our human shared experience became difficult. When irradiation of the brain mind chemicals changed hearing, it changes language and speech and ability to remember in a heavy metal condition.

I had told anyone who cared to ask I had been brain irradiated burnt, and how my brain now processes information is how it infers information. As a human who shared my life and support with brain injured and challenged intelligence, I already learnt what it was like to be grateful for my own health. Pity the sort of spiritual reality and self gain is rarely practiced today.

The topic, about God. As males as scientists can only own in their own life presence and group, speaking, talking, discussing and reasoning then if you did not exist, then no theme about God exists either.

As the discussion is only relative to humans in human life, then you would question all meaning of scientific inference to the detailing of describing God as a male inference. Seeing it is what biblical information does, as he or him in a third person quote in thinking......which is the Holy Spirit.

And then do a scientific occult review about being natural first and then pressing a machine button that changed natural spatial frozen cold radiation and then think about the consequences of how that changed the nature of human reality, thinking and feeling in phenomena conditions.

Then you would give yourself a correct answer.

 

[thomas t]

ok you're ill, I didn't know that.

And then do a scientific occult review about being natural first

no, I won't.

One thing:

The topic, about God.

no, that's not the topic.
The topic is not "post anything coming to your mind with regard to God".
That's not the topic.

 

[rational experiences]

ok you're ill, I didn't know that.

no, I won't.

One thing:

no, that's not the topic.
The topic is not "post anything coming to your mind with regard to God".
That's not the topic.

Then why use any worded inference as God then?

 

[thomas t]

Then why use any worded inference as God then?

That's a very good question.

This title that contains the notion of God does not mean everything that could come to one's mind.

This topic... is rather about an aspect of the God proposition.
Find out which one it is!

Regards,
Thomas

 

[rational experiences]

That's a very good question.

This title that contains the notion of God does not mean everything that could come to one's mind.

This topic... is rather about an aspect of the God proposition.
Find out which one it is!

Regards,
Thomas

The review would state just my own thought of God. For to think is first in human life.

So if you first think of God as God, then the first, a thought, thought God. Yet the thought is a thought about God.

Then you would quote I am conscious, I am aware, everything else exists and when I look at it I see it. What I look at, I know I am not. Therefore did you, male self see God?

The Bible says no man can look upon the face of God.

So then you would think again and state, what am I looking at? The answer is what motivated your own human male self to think about a Creator.

For a male human, to think about a Creator is for his motivation as a human to cause/own and change a condition by understanding the concept Creator by his thinking about the Creator.

So you would then quote...above me in the heavens is a very bright light. I know that I cannot look upon it, it hurts my eyes, so I cannot really see anything but light.

Yet I am thinking as that male to the light itself, first.

Science as a statement, male would then claim, so that light is the spirit burning, the spirit is a gas and the gas is being sacrificed. Thus the first quote, a spirit body is being sacrificed to produce light.

Then you would question self, why then am I not burning?

To then give yourself a science answer that would quote because the void/spatial vacuum sucks heat out of burning bodies...a self aware lesson. Water and evaporation is also involved he said, so the spirit of the sacrificed body, gases moves upon the face of water.

And in that first and original thinking Creator concept, was when he idealised the circular movement of O into a G spiral back into a O that could split D/D and form double OO. How the spirit moved in the heavens above me he quoted, first thinking.

Those statements are all natural first.

Then he owns a motivated male reason for that study, which was the idea of science invention. A machine that as yet owned no presence. So it was artificial.

How he came about idealising self, male as a Creator/operator and owner/ motivated controller of the machine to try to copy the Creator theme.

How a radiation/radio wave machination historically then encoded his image male fed back from that burning gas light, as he included self in a history of information natural, where his natural life never existed. Which is called feed back.

It is why he tells a human male story about how looking for the reference a Creator sacrificed his life also, asides from the natural gases.

The concept of God/the Creator.

 

[Rizdek]

I am an atheist, but I would say the theist who believes in the necessary being type God and a being "than which nothing greater can be imagined" would say that the teapot is not necessary and is not such that "nothing greater can be imagined." Also, the teapot doesn't explain anything while God...if he existed...would explain things. There may be other things a theist might say in response, but that's all I can think of for now.