Firstly, a couple people seem confused on one point: I didn't make up the teapot argument, I created this thread in response to a fairly well-known atheist argument first made by Bertrand Russell. Here's the wikipedia article on it if you want more background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot@an alien:
You've shown logic cannot be proven false, which is not the same thing as showing it must be true. Just because something is false does not mean it has been proven false.
This thread is not an attempt on my part to prove God
MUST exist, I'm only trying to show that the classic teapot argument is an unreasonable standard by which to measure things.
@Chemist:
The problem with the original argument is that based on (lack of) evidence the case for logic working and reality making any sort of sense is exactly as solid as the case for the teapot. Yet you laughingly dismiss both the teapot and God, while only a madman would dismiss logic.
The issue I take with the category 'supernatural' is that it's used as a completely arbitrary label. Chemistry, electricity and medicinal drugs were all once considered 'supernatural'.
The "zero evidence" statement is a commonly made one and an unsupportable one. It is invariably followed by me pointing out that theists cite evidence all the time, and just because you haven't been convinced by any of it does not mean it doesn't exist. To which you will invariably respond by saying none of it is valid (even though it's not possible for one human being to have reviewed all of it at enough length to determine if each piece is valid or not) and insist that I re-hash every single bit of evidence. This isn't a valid approach because"
a) You're using a "Burden of proof is on you" approach to support the argument that the burden of proof is on me.
b) It's impossible for one person to defend the entire history of a field in a forum post. It's the equivalent of asking someone to list off the entire history of mathematics in great detail, including offical proofs for all formulas.
c)
You have already decided anything I present is invalid before you even read the post.I'm sorry if I sound excessively cynical towards you, but I think I've litereally had this same discussion a half a dozen times (almost word-for-word) on this forum alone.
Additionally, it does not matter how many different categories you put something into, the fact remains that the logic of "these two things have 'x' in common, therefore they must have 'y' in common as well" does
not work.
@Thalas:
The teapot is listed as obviously false because most people would
assume it is false without investigating.
@The Mormegil:
If the argument takes the form you list, then it is not applicable in the circumstance that most atheists use it in. That is to say, if all it is intended to show is the
possibility of God not existing then one cannot assign burden of proof based on that fact.
As too Dawkin's statement, please tell me I'm not the only one who finds it hypocritical that Dawkins condones hostility towards religion on the basis that some religious persons have been hostile to one another in the past. He's trying to stop division by adding another division on top of everything else.
@Neopeross:
I'm quoting an argument made several times elsewhere on this forum and, as you have said, orginally was made by Russell. I wanted to discuss this topic because I feel many people hide behind the teapot rather than actually discussing things, thus it is a barrier to communication.
As to the complexity argument you make, consider the following:
Person 1: "The milk is out on the table."
Person 2: "Yeah, I just got it out."
Person 1: "No way. In order for you to have gotten the milk out, your hand out of all the hands in the world must have wrapped around the jug. To carry the jug would require a complicated muscle and bone structure. To consiously control the act would require nerves connecting each of those muscles to an even MORE complicated central nervous system. It's way too complicated of an explanation. The milk must have always been there."
Has person 1 successfully refuted the claim that person 2 got out the milk by pointing out that it's more complicated?
No.
Person 1 has tried to force unnecessary complexity into a claim that is, at it's heart, really quite simple. This abuse of Occam's razor is almost as common on the internet as citing Occam's razor.
@Belthus:
I think I'm unclear on what you're trying to say. May I request a clarification?
@QuantumT:
Well, if you take issue with the use of a teapot as an example then please don't take it with me. I'm only quoting what other people have said in the past.
