What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
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?
 






Alanantic

Established
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
406
For Christians, little proof is needed to believe in a personal God. All they have to do is "praise the Lord" every time something "good" happens and "curse the Devil" any time something "bad" happens. It gives a reason for everything and unburdens them of a great deal of personal responsibility. In exchange, they worship this God to remind It that they're working hard to obey a set of Iron Age morals in hopes of some small favor in the dog eat dog world.

"The Tao(God/Nature/The Way) is not humane, it treats the 10,000 creatures (of which we are merely one) as straw dogs" (ie. expendable units). -- Lao Tzu
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,510
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 do you verify non-empirically testable hypotheses?
 






Aero

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,891
I thought up a good counter to Russell's teapot awhile back. Basically the burden of proof is irrelevant when talking about things that are hidden. Take the human subconscious for example. I can't prove that anyone has a subconscious beyond my words. I cannot disprove the idea of the human subconscious either. Therefore one cannot follow Russel's teapot logically without concluding at some kind of zero-sum game fallacy.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
I thought up a good counter to Russell's teapot awhile back. Basically the burden of proof is irrelevant when talking about things that are hidden. Take the human subconscious for example. I can't prove that anyone has a subconscious beyond my words. I cannot disprove the idea of the human subconscious either. Therefore one cannot follow Russel's teapot logically without concluding at some kind of zero-sum game fallacy.
For the person to make a positive claim of something they don't know such as this, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. Else it is only words.
 






Aero

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,891
For the person to make a positive claim of something they don't know such as this, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. Else it is only words.
You may want to check your philosophy books. Using the burden of proof fallacy like this creates another fallacy. In essence, you are creating a zero-sum game where the net result is zero. Therefore nobody gains anything from the discussion. Theists don't lose and you don't really win.
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,515
You can’t prove that a teapot exists like that. For one the teapot isn’t something found in outer space. It exists to hold tea and pours tea. So..then one could say that no such thing could exist in outer space and orbiting the sun.

However..with the existence of God we have the heavens, the earth and even us as proof that there is a God. This world is perfect for human life. We have the air we need to breathe, the food we need to fuel our bodies and stay alive..as well as the water we need to stay alive. It’s crazy to say that it all happened by chance when would it really be so perfect a world for us if that happened?
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
You may want to check your philosophy books. Using the burden of proof fallacy like this creates another fallacy. In essence, you are creating a zero-sum game where the net result is zero. Therefore nobody gains anything from the discussion. Theists don't lose and you don't really win.
And that would be because Theists are making an illogical claim, which again, they don't know.

Due to the circular reasoning of such claims, they can be very well discarded.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
You can’t prove that a teapot exists like that. For one the teapot isn’t something found in outer space. It exists to hold tea and pours tea. So..then one could say that no such thing could exist in outer space and orbiting the sun.

However..with the existence of God we have the heavens, the earth and even us as proof that there is a God. This world is perfect for human life. We have the air we need to breathe, the food we need to fuel our bodies and stay alive..as well as the water we need to stay alive. It’s crazy to say that it all happened by chance when would it really be so perfect a world for us if that happened?
We do not live in a geocentric flat earth, so your assertions are false.
 






Aero

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,891
And that would be because Theists are making an illogical claim, which again, they don't know.

Due to the circular reasoning of such claims, they can be very well discarded.
It's illogical to dismiss teapotism without investigating. Therefore it must also be illogical to dismiss God without investigating. Have you investigated God? Moreover, does your God investigation meet the same criteria as investigating the teapot?
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
18,515
We do not live in a geocentric flat earth, so your assertions are false.
I never said we live on a flat earth. But you do bring to mind something I didn’t add. Life couldn’t exist here on earth if we were any further/closer to the sun..we are completely in the perfect spot for our lives to exist. There is no evidence that there is any other life around in the universe..so we are the center of the universe then. And the Bible says God created us in His image..that counts for a lot.
 






Last edited:

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,132
The extreme of Materialism is equally absurd than that of Idealism. In fact more so, because it is nihilistic and can't explain the subjective side of existence. I don't really believe in a personal God, but there is something more than "matter", this is clear and can be experienced.
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,579
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?

1- Scientists mathematically estimate there are literally thousands of intelligent civilisations in the universe (google The Drake Equation), so it's quite possible that a representative from one of them has visited earth and demonstrated awesome powers-
Jesus said "I am not of this world ....though you do not believe me, believe the miracles." (John 8:23,John 10:38)

2- All other religions don't have a front man of Jesus's class, their founders are all corpses in boxes somewhere but Jesus is not, spot the difference?..:)
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
140
How’s that?
You said:

However..with the existence of God we have the heavens, the earth and even us as proof that there is a God. This world is perfect for human life. We have the air we need to breathe, the food we need to fuel our bodies and stay alive..as well as the water we need to stay alive. It’s crazy to say that it all happened by chance when would it really be so perfect a world for us if that happened?
 






Top