Bertrandd Russell's China Teapot

[Gorgias]

Since God is supposed to be alive today, it is not necessary to try to find evidence in the past.

That depends. In reaching this conclusion, you’re making some assumptions: that the way that God interacts with the world now is the same (in quality and quantity) as it was in the past; in addition, you’re making assumptions of scale that don’t hold (if the Old Testament documents hundreds of God-creation interactions over thousands of years, then we’re only talking one interaction – on average! – every hundred years; why assume that you would notice this type of interaction, if it existed as such, these days?)

So, in short, you’re concluding that a failure to note God-creation interaction today demonstrates a lack of such interactions, and I think that this is a poor conclusion. It also disregards those instances in the past where such interactions are asserted, and that seems to be poor methodology as well…

For events in the past it is much more difficult to get good, credible evidence.

I disagree, to an extent. For events in the past, a different standard exists.

Usually it boils down to
a) having several eye-witnesses,
b) who have a different point of view (their own “agenda”, if you will), and
c) who have established their credibility by having described other events, which are also corroborated by other eye-witnesses.

Which exists for Jesus, wouldn’t you say?

So it is a complex interaction. But why bother? If God is alive today, none if that is necessary.

Perhaps; yet, it places the burden on the observer to identify (in advance) where such an interaction will take place, doesn’t it? After all, if God’s interactions have physical effects, and these aren’t necessarily distinguishable from other ‘everyday’ physical effects, how do you propose to identify these effects?

Furthermore, such second-hand method can only establish crude generalities. Did Napoleon exist?

And yet, just a few posts earlier, you stated that Jesus probably didn’t exist. Odd how that changes, once you evaluate the criteria critically, isn’t it?

None of these are there when it comes to Jesus’s alleged miracles.

I disagree. We have eyewitness reports which were put in writing by later authors. We have outside sources (Josephus, etc) with their own viewpoints, and we have other writings by our primary sources which are likewise reliable.

Ah, but there are assertions that we can predict. Ask, and you will be answered, knock and the door will be opened, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, tell that mountain to move and it will move… etc. These are categorical assertions. Try them, and nothing will happen.

However, you are yet again forming conclusions based on your own interpretation of the Scriptural texts. What does ‘ask and you will be answered’ mean? What does ‘knock’ mean? How would you identify whether one has ‘mustard seed-sized faith’? How would you determine whether any of these were meant allegorically or literally? You are placing requirements upon the text in your assertion that these are ‘tried’ and ‘nothing will happen.’

So, yes, the tests have been performed and the result was negative. Just peek over into the “prayer intentions” forum, and see all those “unanswered” prayers.

Again, I disagree. Your grasp of the sum of Jesus’ teaching on prayer, IMHO, is deficient.

That is not the point. If some action can be accomplished without referring to some supernatural and / or paranormal, then the null-hypothesis is that the assumption of the supernatural / paranormal is not necessary (Occam’s razor).

Not necessary, perhaps, but not necessarily incorrect. Occam’s razor is only a heuristic. If we agree that it is not necessary that the effects of God’s interaction with creation be distinguishable from ‘ordinary’ physical processes, then Occam’s razor is not only not applicable, but creates a situation in which it is by definition impossible to reach a conclusion; therefore, we cannot apply it and hope to retain rational results…

For the same reason that one is disinclined to set up experiments that pyramidal structures do not have unexplained curative powers. It is incumbent upon the proponents of such ideas to set up the experiments and substantiate their claims.

Again, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Pyramidal structures and curative powers are both physical things; therefore, it’s reasonable to suggest that empirical evidence linking the two may be found. However, the attempt to suggest that there must be an evidential link between a non-physical being and a physical effect is one that can only stand in light of some sort of rationale that demonstrates that it is a reasonable expectation. Unless I’ve missed it, you haven’t made such an assertion. Therefore, while the burden of proof would lie on the believer, if it were possible, the requirement that such proof is obtainable is a burden that lies on you, since you are the one who is asserting that it is both necessary (and obtainable but unobtained). We’re waiting…

When the pharmaceutical factories wish to establish the efficacy of their new products, the skeptics are not supposed to accept those claims as a “default” stance, and try to “disprove” the claims.

Apples. Oranges. Physical entities, not non-physical. (I’m willing to keep on identifying this distinction, if you’re insistent on continuing to provide examples that don’t fit the context of our discussion… )

 

[Bagheera]

Gorgias:

That depends. In reaching this conclusion, you’re making some assumptions: that the way that God interacts with the world now is the same (in quality and quantity) as it was in the past…

If God exists and is active today, and that activity happens in the physical reality, then the believers should be in the position to point to the result of those activities.

Gorgias:

So, in short, you’re concluding that a failure to note God-creation interaction today demonstrates a lack of such interactions, and I think that this is a poor conclusion.

Why would it? There is a good principle: “the absence of evidence is an evidence of absence”. (Of course the other form: “the absence of proof is a proof of absence” would be false – especially since “proof” only exists in the abstract, axiomatic sciences.) If there is no evidence for “little green men” abducting people and experimenting on them, then the only logical conclusion is that no such “little green men” exist, or that they do exist but do not abduct humans.

Gorgias:

It also disregards those instances in the past where such interactions are asserted, and that seems to be poor methodology as well…

We disregard the unsubstantiated stories of people who also “claim” and “assert” that they, personally have been abducted, and no one thinks that this is “poor methodology”. Claims are dime a dozen.

Gorgias:

I disagree. We have eyewitness reports which were put in writing by later authors. We have outside sources (Josephus, etc) with their own viewpoints, and we have other writings by our primary sources which are likewise reliable.

There are no eye-witness reports. The earliest writings happened at least 40 years after the events supposedly took place. There is one sentence in Josephus, and most historians consider it a late addition. None of the authors made any other writings, which would have established their credibility. The analysis of the books shows that the gospels had multiple authors. The actual names of the authors are unknown. Funny thing is that Jews (who “invented” Yahweh) never accepted Jesus as a son of God, and not even as a Messiah, “merely” a prophet. And they were contemporaries.

Gorgias:

Again, I disagree. Your grasp of the sum of Jesus’ teaching on prayer, IMHO, is deficient.

No surprise. This is the oldest excuse on the books.

Gorgias:

Not necessary, perhaps, but not necessarily incorrect. Occam’s razor is only a heuristic. If we agree that it is not necessary that the effects of God’s interaction with creation be distinguishable from ‘ordinary’ physical processes, then Occam’s razor is not only not applicable, but creates a situation in which it is by definition impossible to reach a conclusion; therefore, we cannot apply it and hope to retain rational results…

On the contrary. First, Occam’s razor is not a “method” to separate the wheat from the chaff, it is merely principle of setting up a null-hypothesis. A null-hypothesis can be refuted by the experiments. Of course the believers can always resort to the “explanation” of “an unknowable being employed unfathomable means made it somehow, magically happen”.

Gorgias:

Again, you’re mixing apples and oranges. Pyramidal structures and curative powers are both physical things; therefore, it’s reasonable to suggest that empirical evidence linking the two may be found.

I am only talking about the generic principle of “whose task is it to establish the evidence”. It is asserted that prayers have a positive influence in curing diseases. This could be established by organizing a double blind test. You asked why don’t the skeptics create these test scenarios? Because such experiments are costly, and there are real problems which yield better results. If the believers wish to put their money where their mouth is, they can get help from the skeptics to set up these experiments.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Your grasp of the sum of Jesus’ teaching on prayer, IMHO, is deficient.

No surprise. This is the oldest excuse on the books.

LOL! And the chance that you might be wrong, even on a matter such as interpretation of Christian Scriptures, isn’t a possibility that you’re willing to consider?

Bagheera:

If God exists and is active today, and that activity happens in the physical reality, then the believers should be in the position to point to the result of those activities.

Two thoughts: first of all, you seem to have completely missed the point that I was making: if you look at the Bible and count the occurrences of divine intervention and divide them over the time span found therein, you’ll notice that divine intervention on the order of physical phenomena (e.g., burning bush, etc) isn’t a common occurrence. Therefore, before you go making your claims about “pointing to results,” I think it would be reasonable to consider whether these are things that we expect to happen with regularity.

Second, your assertion that it should be possible to record such phenomena makes two unsupportable assumptions: first, it presumes that we are ready to notice and record these events (after all, how do scientists know to make observations and measurements unless they already are predicting the time and place that these activities will occur? If they can’t predict, they don’t measure!), and second, it presumes that these activities are distinguishable from everyday phenomena (if you don’t have a means of distinguishing ‘non-physical cause’ from ‘physical cause’ in the effects, then how do you point to a physical effect and have anything empirical to say about it?)…!

Why would it? There is a good principle: “the absence of evidence is an evidence of absence”.

Wow. Just… wow. Seriously? Here’s the thing: that’s not the principle at all! Actually, the principle is “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”! Of course, one has to consider the possibility of the ‘null result’, in which one does his due diligence in observation and experimentation and finds that the result isn’t present. In the face of the null result, then, absence of evidence may suggest that there is ‘evidence of absence.’ You yourself affirm that such experiments with ‘null result’ conclusions do not exist. So, your point really does fall on its face here. Sorry…

There are no eye-witness reports. The earliest writings happened at least 40 years after the events supposedly took place.

No, there are eye-witness reports: they were written down by those to whom the eye-witness reports were orally conveyed. You want an example of good methodology? Let’s look at the statement of methodology that’s found right at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” (Luke 1:1-4).

So, Luke is asserting that eyewitnesses are the ones who have handed down the teaching (so much for the ‘no eyewitness accounts’ theory, eh?). He is also stating that he himself has undertaken to re-investigate the matter personally. Finally, his goal is to confirm the “certainty of the teachings… received.” Sounds a whole lot like the way a scientist would frame up his investigation, doesn’t it?

There is one sentence in Josephus, and most historians consider it a late addition.

Actually, this too is factually incorrect. There are three places in Josephus in which Jesus is mentioned. As to the ‘late addition’ assertion, most scholars recognize that there were later Christian interpolations to the work, but then again, most scholars agree that it wasn’t a wholesale insertion into the writings. That is, they assert that Josephus wrote something about Jesus and then later Christian editors embellished it; the scholarly consensus is that Josephus wrote that Jesus was a teacher and a miracle-worker and that his disciples continued to follow him after his death.

(Another reference in Josephus speaks to James as the brother of Jesus the Christ, and is considered authentic.)

None of the authors made any other writings, which would have established their credibility.

So the only ancient authors that are credible are ones who have multiple works that have survived the ages?

The analysis of the books shows that the gospels had multiple authors.

And this hurts their credibility… how? Yes, Luke used material from other Gospel writers. Are you really suggesting that historians don’t use others’ material? Are you really suggesting that the use of supporting materials decreases the credibility of an author?

The actual names of the authors are unknown.

Which was customary in the literary forms of the day – to attribute one’s work to an older, respected figure!

Funny thing is that Jews (who “invented” Yahweh) never accepted Jesus as a son of God, and not even as a Messiah, “merely” a prophet.

Funny thing is that Jews did accept Jesus as Son of God – not all, of course, but many.

If the believers wish to put their money where their mouth is, they can get help from the skeptics to set up these experiments.

There’s a quote attributed to Thomas Aquinas: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Bagheera

Funny thing is that Jews (who “invented” Yahweh) never accepted Jesus as a son of God, and not even as a Messiah, “merely” a prophet. **

The orthodox Jews, you are right. But the first to accept him as more than a prophet were Jews. The apostles, for example. Paul, a Jew, was the great champion of Jesus as Lord and Savior. It’s surprising that you don’t know this. The orthodox Jews never even accepted Jesus as a prophet, and rejected him as a blasphemer and plotted for his death.

Do you read the Bible at all, or do you get your Bible knowledge from atheist websites?

 

[Bagheera]

Gorgias:

LOL! And the chance that you might be wrong, even on a matter such as interpretation of Christian Scriptures, isn’t a possibility that you’re willing to consider?

Simple utterances: “whatever you ask for…” need no interpretation.

Gorgias:

Two thoughts: first of all, you seem to have completely missed the point that I was making: if you look at the Bible and count the occurrences of divine intervention and divide them over the time span found therein, you’ll notice that divine intervention on the order of physical phenomena (e.g., burning bush, etc) isn’t a common occurrence. Therefore, before you go making your claims about “pointing to results,” I think it would be reasonable to consider whether these are things that we expect to happen with regularity.

But the catholic teaching also says that God constantly needs to “maintain” the world, and as such the “interference” is continuous. We may think that the laws of nature are sufficient in a “deistic” environment, but that is not what the church teaches.

Gorgias:

Actually, the principle is “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”!

Not true. The saying is: “the absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence”. And that is undoubtedly correct – especially since there is no PROOF for the propositions about reality. Proof can only happen in the axiomatic sciences. And most definitely the absence of evidence is a very serious evidence of absence. The lack of evidence for the “little green men”, and the absence of evidence for Loch Ness monster, and the lack of evidence for Bigfoot … all these are compelling evidences of absence.

Gorgias:

There’s a quote attributed to Thomas Aquinas: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

Whoever invented that proposition was wrong. No one can deny a good, strong kick in the butt. That kind of evidence is impossible to “explain away”.

 

[tonyrey]

LOL! And the chance that you might be wrong, even on a matter such as interpretation of Christian Scriptures, isn’t a possibility that you’re willing to consider?

Two thoughts: first of all, you seem to have completely missed the point that I was making: if you look at the Bible and count the occurrences of divine intervention and divide them over the time span found therein, you’ll notice that divine intervention on the order of physical phenomena (e.g., burning bush, etc) isn’t a common occurrence. Therefore, before you go making your claims about “pointing to results,” I think it would be reasonable to consider whether these are things that we expect to happen with regularity.

Second, your assertion that it should be possible to record such phenomena makes two unsupportable assumptions: first, it presumes that we are ready to notice and record these events (after all, how do scientists know to make observations and measurements unless they already are predicting the time and place that these activities will occur? If they can’t predict, they don’t measure!), and second, it presumes that these activities are distinguishable from everyday phenomena (if you don’t have a means of distinguishing ‘non-physical cause’ from ‘physical cause’ in the effects, then how do you point to a physical effect and have anything empirical to say about it?)…!

Wow. Just… wow. Seriously? Here’s the thing: that’s not the principle at all! Actually, the principle is “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”! Of course, one has to consider the possibility of the ‘null result’, in which one does his due diligence in observation and experimentation and finds that the result isn’t present. In the face of the null result, then, absence of evidence may suggest that there is ‘evidence of absence.’ You yourself affirm that such experiments with ‘null result’ conclusions do not exist. So, your point really does fall on its face here. Sorry…

No, there are eye-witness reports: they were written down by those to whom the eye-witness reports were orally conveyed. You want an example of good methodology? Let’s look at the statement of methodology that’s found right at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: “Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” (Luke 1:1-4).

So, Luke is asserting that eyewitnesses are the ones who have handed down the teaching (so much for the ‘no eyewitness accounts’ theory, eh?). He is also stating that he himself has undertaken to re-investigate the matter personally. Finally, his goal is to confirm the “certainty of the teachings… received.” Sounds a whole lot like the way a scientist would frame up his investigation, doesn’t it?

Actually, this too is factually incorrect. There are three places in Josephus in which Jesus is mentioned. As to the ‘late addition’ assertion, most scholars recognize that there were later Christian interpolations to the work, but then again, most scholars agree that it wasn’t a wholesale insertion into the writings. That is, they assert that Josephus wrote something about Jesus and then later Christian editors embellished it; the scholarly consensus is that Josephus wrote that Jesus was a teacher and a miracle-worker and that his disciples continued to follow him after his death.

(Another reference in Josephus speaks to James as the brother of Jesus the Christ, and is considered authentic.)

So the only ancient authors that are credible are ones who have multiple works that have survived the ages?

And this hurts their credibility… how? Yes, Luke used material from other Gospel writers. Are you really suggesting that historians don’t use others’ material? Are you really suggesting that the use of supporting materials decreases the credibility of an author?

Which was customary in the literary forms of the day – to attribute one’s work to an older, respected figure!

Funny thing is that Jews did accept Jesus as Son of God – not all, of course, but many.

There’s a quote attributed to Thomas Aquinas: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

:clapping: A superb post.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bagheera

Why do I get the feeling you would rather believe in Russell’s china teapot than in the existence of God?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

[tonyrey]

Bagheera

Why do I get the feeling you would rather believe in Russell’s china teapot than in the existence of God?

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

The modern China teapot is composed solely of atomic energy…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . No one can deny a good, strong kick in the butt. That kind of evidence is impossible to “explain away”.

I agree, but first:
Russell’s Don Quixotic tilting at philosophical windmills of imagined dogmatic impositions does nothing to further our understanding of the human condition and the world into which we have been thrown.

Back to your quote:
The thing about a kick in the butt, suffering in general is that it causes one to focus.
Things really, really hurt. There is no escaping it and the more we reject it, the stronger it becomes.
The one sore tooth, obliterates any appreciation of the remaining thirty-one.
Philosophize all you want, it is real, to the core of one’s being.
And, what is it? Why is it? What are we supposed to do truly with this final fact?
Dance in the sun while you can, corruption patiently waits in the shadows.
Pain chases you down; run and it runs with you.
Ah yes, assisted suicide, the final hope of those with no hope.
Put me in that teapot and blast me into space.
Inevitably the basic questions emerge: Who is it that feels? What am I?! How can it possibly be that I am!?!!??!!
The truth is that in each human incarnation, I am; perhaps more correctly, we are.
The contemplation of that complexity, that wonder, that lonely horror draws one to He who is the Source of all being: loving, eternal Beauty and Truth.
In this vale of tears, unfortunately it is easier to connect through suffering.
However, there is so much joy!!
I have found no explanation, no activity that unites me with my Creator, than what I have found in the Church.
It may be something to, at the very least, put on a back burner; it may help when you will, most assuredly, need it.

 

[Gorgias]

Simple utterances: “whatever you ask for…” need no interpretation.

Bagheera,

This is beginning to get tedious. Yet, since it’s important to help you understand that you’re missing the point, let me respond:

You might be talking about John 16:23. If so, then the context is knowledge, not things that you might measure in a double-blind test: in this verse, in the context of ‘the day of the Lord’ (i.e., the day of Jesus’ second coming), Jesus says, “On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you.” See? The context is questioning, and the timeframe is ‘the day of the Lord.’

Or, maybe you’re talking about John 15:7? Here, the context is ‘bearing fruit’: “Remain in me, as I remain in you… Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit… [a]nyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither… if you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you.” (John 15:4, 5, 7). So, this isn’t an unconditional guarantee of ‘whatever you ask’: it comes in the context of a requirement about ‘remaining in Jesus.’

But, perhaps you’re talking about John 14:13; there, the context is that Jesus is talking to his apostles about their own ministry in particular (and not about prayer in general): “Philip said to [Jesus], ‘Master, show us the Father’… Jesus said to him, … ‘Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do… and whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son’”. (John 14:8, 11-13). So, here, Jesus is speaking about the apostles’ ministry which they will perform when Jesus has left earth. Again, no context is present that allows you to assert that Jesus is talking about the prayer of the faithful.

Of course, you might be referring to Matthew 21:22. Let’s look at it in context: “Immediately the fig tree withered. When the disciples saw this, they were amazed and said, ‘How was it that the fig tree withered immediately?’ Jesus said to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, if you have faith and do not waver, … [w]hatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.’” Again, this isn’t an unconditional promise, as you seem to take it to be, but is tied to the notion of ‘unwavering faith.’

So… I still hold to my assertion that you’re mistaken in your understanding of Scripture. Of course, if you care to disagree – with citations to ‘whatever you ask’ quotes and in contexts that fit your assertions – I’m willing to listen…

But the catholic teaching also says that God constantly needs to “maintain” the world, and as such the “interference” is continuous.

Your inference that this ‘maintenance’ implies ‘continuous interference’ (such that the ‘interference’ might be measurable) is mistaken. From the Catechism: “With creation, God does not abandon his creatures to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end. Recognizing this utter dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence.” (CCC, 301) So, you see, this notion of ‘maintenance’ is not about ‘interference’ in the natural order, but rather, about our dependence upon God’s Providence to sustain us; I would argue that this sustenance takes a number of forms – which, I might suggest, speak to graces and spiritual nourishment.

We may think that the laws of nature are sufficient in a “deistic” environment, but that is not what the church teaches.

Perhaps you might consider showing us where this is what the Church teaches?

Not true. The saying is: “the absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence”.

Actually, no. In The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan wrote, “Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” But hey, if you can substantiate your alleged quote, I’m willing to listen…

And that is undoubtedly correct – especially since there is no PROOF for the propositions about reality. Proof can only happen in the axiomatic sciences.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! And see… I was just about ready to give up on you! OK: let’s follow the train of logic in your assertion: “proof can only happen in the axiomatic sciences”; you wish to obtain proof of God’s existence; God’s existence is not in the context of ‘the axiomatic sciences’: therefore, the demand for proof of God’s existence is… irrational. Thanks for playing; please come again!

 

[Gorgias]

:clapping: A superb post.

Thank you…!

 

[Bagheera]

Gorgias:

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! And see… I was just about ready to give up on you! OK: let’s follow the train of logic in your assertion: “proof can only happen in the axiomatic sciences”; you wish to obtain proof of God’s existence; God’s existence is not in the context of ‘the axiomatic sciences’: therefore, the demand for proof of God’s existence is… irrational. Thanks for playing; please come again!

I did not demand “proof”, I demanded objective, physical evidence. But you are correct in one respect. This dialog is getting tedious and boring. So thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Bagheera

I did not demand “proof”, I demanded objective, physical evidence. **

You want to see God up close and personal? That would be somebody impersonating God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Russell said:

“To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”**

Here is the fatal flaw in Russell’s analogy. It doesn’t matter whether there is a china teapot orbiting the Earth. It matters very much whether God exists. All our fate both in this life and after this life depends on whether God exists.

 

[Peter_Plato]

**Russell said:

“To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”**

Here is the fatal flaw in Russell’s analogy. It doesn’t matter whether there is a china teapot orbiting the Earth. It matters very much whether God exists. All our fate both in this life and after this life depends on whether God exists.

Ah, yes, but Russell was a Brit and one ought never to underestimate the importance of a good cup of tea!

 

[Gorgias]

I did not demand “proof”, I demanded objective, physical evidence.

OK – fair enough. You’re drawing a good distinction between ‘proof’ (e.g., mathematical proof) and ‘evidence’ (e.g., empirical data gained through experimentation). I would agree that the distinction is important. But, just as it’s impossible to require ‘proof’ outside of axiomatic systems, I would assert that you need to demonstrate that it’s possible to gather ‘objective, physical evidence’ of God before you assert the non-existence of God (due to the lack of such evidence). After all, if you want to demand a ‘smoking gun’, you need to identify that the plausibility of identifying such a smoking gun (in this context) is possible. I’m all with you – if you can show the reasonableness of your demand!

(Please note my request: I’m not arguing whether there is physical evidence of God’s interaction with the physical universe; I’m asking what methodology you propose in order to gather such data. Without such a framework, it’s unreasonable to conclude that ‘absence of proof is proof of absence’! )

(And, btw – why did you go down the whole route of ‘absence of proof’ if you agree that ‘proof’ isn’t the standard that we’re interested in, here? I’m confused at your seeming conflation of the terms ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ and subsequent distancing of yourself from the ‘proof’ demand… )

But you are correct in one respect. This dialog is getting tedious and boring.

It’s difficult to feel good about your your argument when someone’s willing to be able to refute every assertion you make, isn’t it?

So thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

You’re welcome! I hope you consider what I’ve said with respect to how Catholics interpret the role of prayer in our lives, and how the philosophical considerations of what it might mean for the ‘spiritual’ to interact with the ‘physical’ plays itself out in terms of how we might (1) notice, (2) recognize, and (3) demonstrate a Creator-creation interaction.

Peace!

G.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Peter

Ah, yes, but Russell was a Brit and one ought never to underestimate the importance of a good cup of tea!**

 

[tonyrey]

Ah, yes, but Russell was a Brit and one ought never to underestimate the importance of a good cup of tea!

I’m a Brit, rejected tea twenty years ago and reject Russell’s religious or sexual libertinism. Yet he didn’t go as far as the Marquis de Sade:

"In libertinage, nothing is frightful, because everything libertinage suggests is also a natural inspiration; the most extraordinary, the most bizarre acts, those which most arrantly seem to conflict with every law, every human institution … even those that are not frightful, and there is not one amongst them all that cannot be demonstrated within the boundaries of nature."

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Tony

Yet he didn’t go as far as the Marquis de Sade:**

As D.H. Lawrence pointed out, Russell was too timid!

 

[tonyrey]

**Tony

Yet he didn’t go as far as the Marquis de Sade:**

As D.H. Lawrence pointed out, Russell was too timid!

Yet, surprisingly, D.H. Lawrence subsequently deplored the sexual permissiveness of English society:

“One must learn to love, and go through a good deal of suffering to get to it… and the journey is always towards the other soul.” !