Bertrandd Russell's China Teapot

[KingCoil]

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla."

This part of Russell’s argument seems to me particularly weak. Russell may with impunity mock the gods of Olympus and Valhalla. Who is going to take offense? But the God of Abraham is still taken very seriously by a rather large portion of humanity. Putting the God of Christians in the same burial plot with the gods of Olympus and Valhalla seems not only juvenile, but decidedly premature.

I have read up to the post above.

And I want to commend the author of the thread to bring back the topic of the thread, it is about how Russell dismisses God by comparing God to a teapot in space.

That is a trick of atheists, downgrading God in derisive humor and thus distracting people from examining whether he has made any serious argument against God’s existence.

They also resort to calling God a flying spaghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn, a tooth fairy, Santa, etc.

Yes, they insist that the concept of God is no different from such figures, but that is not a valid comparison, because the concept of God is essentially different from the concepts of those ridiculous figures.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

I do not contend that I am right. All I say that there is no evidence for God, which can be trusted. And you (again) committed the fallacy of demanding “proof” for a negative. Will you never learn?

…]

I have read up to the post above.

I hope I will come to a concept of what is evidence from posters here who demand evidence for God’s existence.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

You are free to believe either proposition without proof. You have chosen to believe the negative without proof. I have faith in God. You have faith in Nogod.

…]

I have read up to the post above.

Nogod is the opposite of God.

Perhaps theists and atheists should work together to concur on the concept of God, so that readers can get to know what and who is God which theists claim to know to exist, and atheists claim to know not to exist.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

The existence of a bear cannot be properly used as an analogy. But, let’s contemplate it for a second. To ascertain the existence or the absence of a bear, all you have to do is: “look”. What method can I use to find out the existence of God? I asked for a method many times. There is no answer, only an evasion stating that God cannot be placed into a test tube, or God cannot be forced to become a vending machine… I am ready to perform an experiment, with a stipulated ending time. But NOT something open ended, like “pray, and eventually, if it pleases God, then he will manifest himself to you”.

…]

That is very good, there has got to be a method to find a bear, and also I submit to find God.

Now, your method to find a bear is to look for it.

We all know how a bear looks like, but do we know how God looks like?

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

For physical processes (and in physical part of the interface everything is physical) there is only one method which is usable: the scientific one. Therefore God can be tested via physical means - within the physical part of the interface. Of course you can attempt to answer with “it is all magic”, but then you simply remove yourself from rational consideration. * Underlining courtesy of KingCoil ]*

I am not asking for “ultimate causes”, since that is a meaningless question.

Rational consideration, that is the method for finding God, I may hazard to propose.

Do you declare ultimate causes as meaningless? In which case, as meaningless is the absence of meaning, perhaps you can enlighten us on what is your understanding of the word meaning.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

The main problem is that the foundations of science and empirical knowledge rest on non-empirically verifiable foundations.

…]

Yes, that is, on rational consideration.

My two cents.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Bageera. God interacts with the physical world in several ways. 1. He has created their essences ( their natures, broadly speaking ), which constests of their matter and their form, through which he gives them their acts of existence. Through their forms, he has given them all their powers and the encoded instructions for their operations by which they tend toward their own perfection and toward Him as their proper end.

His here and now, immediate interaction is his act of sustaining their matter, their forms and their actions in existence. Therefore He is present in every atom and molecule of their existence. Notice that He does not interfer in their operations, He simply enables them to carry them out.This is the way God is present to and moves His creatures to their proper ends.

.

Linus2nd

I have read up to the post above.

God is bigger than the physical universe and more subtle than sub-atomic particles.

That is why we cannot see Him by looking for Him.

That is why and how He is not only the creator of the universe, but also its operator.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Buddy, you are way off the mark. The regularity you speak of is evident. You utter a prayer, ask for something which is NOT trivial, and nothing happens. Here is you regularity. Too bad it points to a direction which is not “palatable” to you. It is true that absence of proof is not a proof of absence. However, absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of the capacity of the evidence seeker to discern the presence of evidence.

By the way, I have read up to the post above, perhaps, Bagheera can do us all a favor, please give us your concept of what is evidence and two examples.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

• Underlining courtesy of KingCoil ]*

…]

Again, it comes down to the definition for ‘credible evidence’ – which, I might add, I’ve asked a couple of times that we might try to agree on, but which no one has attempted to address. If you cannot even state what your conception of ‘credible evidence’ is, how can we discuss whether any exists to demonstrate that Jesus existed?

By the way: did Julius Caesar exist? Did Nero exist? Is ‘hearsay’ the only evidence that we have? Your criterion seems to deny existence to anyone who predated the era of photography…

Let’s get some definition around the concept first. Can a non-physical being be substantiated physically? It seems that the answer should be ‘no’. But, can the physical effects that we posit as being produced by God be subject to physical substantiation? It seems that the answer is ‘yes’. However, we have to understand what it means to substantiate something that we cannot predict, don’t we?

It would be ‘unproven through the present’, I would assert. If one could prove that Geller wasn’t taking the same actions that stage magicians use, then we would be left with an undefined result, wouldn’t we? It might require us to take Geller at his word, of course…

…]

I have read up to the post above.

Yes, I think we should always first work on concurring on concepts of things we are dealing with but not agreeing on whether they exist or not, whether they are good or bad, etc., etc., etc.

Otherwise we are talking past each other’s head, which is very foolish.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Those who reject Philosophy and Religion have never justified their faith in Science as **the sole explanation **of reality - a hypothesis which is unverified, unverifiable and unintelligible.

But a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable [sic].

KingCoil

 

[tonyrey]

Those who reject Philosophy and Religion have never justified their faith in Science as **the sole explanation **

One more nail in the coffin of scientism.

 

[inocente]

Absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of the capacity of the evidence seeker to discern the presence of evidence.

No it’s not. Unless you’re saying there’s evidence for the existence of Apollo, the green-eyed yellow idol and tens of thousands of other gods but you lack the ability to discern it, and there’s evidence that black is white and right is wrong but you lack the ability to discern it, etc.

In the OP, Russell says that hesitating to believe assertions which cannot be proven is not eccentric, it’s reasonable. I think you just proved him right.

But a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable [sic]

Not sure what the sic is for - to falsify means to disprove, and falsifiable means open to being disproved. In science, only hypotheses which are open to being disproved by evidence are ever allowed, and the word theory is usually reserved for a hypothesis which has resisted every possible attempt to disprove it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Perhaps theists and atheists should work together to concur on the concept of God, so that readers can get to know what and who is God which theists claim to know to exist, and atheists claim to know not to exist.

Ignostics might strongly agree. I’m all for people trying to establish clear communication. But with [mono]theists being a bit of an umbrella term you’ll find that people following various forms of theism may have various god-concepts, some of which will have attributes that are not compatible with the other god-concepts in the collective. So I don’t think this is an activity that would result in much agreement.

At best one can deal with getting a better description of the god-concept presented by the person which which s/he is speaking.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of the capacity of the evidence seeker to discern the presence of evidence.

By the way, I have read up to the post above, perhaps, Bagheera can do us all a favor, please give us your concept of what is evidence and two examples.

KingCoil

From the perspective of moral agency, God’s apparent absence may, in fact, be explained as his unwillingness to “contaminate” the outcome.

His role may simply be to adjust the conditions so that choices between moral good and moral evil are consistently in balance for each moral agent so that the resulting outcome is the sole responsibility of the moral agent for which s/he is, therefore, ultimately accountable.

Just as a scientist must refrain from unfairly introducing variables that “contaminate” the concluding outcome, if God has the aim, as a condition of free will, to allow each of us to determine our own moral destiny, his absence (or, perhaps better stated as observer neutrality) may be a necessary condition for human moral accountability.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . His role may simply be to adjust the conditions so that choices between moral good and moral evil are consistently in balance for each moral agent so that the resulting outcome is the sole responsibility of the moral agent for which s/he is, therefore, ultimately accountable.

Just as a scientist must refrain from unfairly introducing variables that “contaminate” the concluding outcome, if God has the aim, as a condition of free will, to allow each of us to determine our own moral destiny, his absence (or, perhaps better stated as observer neutrality) may be a necessary condition for human moral accountability.

An example is the warning He gives Cain about the direction his passions are taking him. In His Omniscience, God knows the outcome, but that outcome, Abel’s murder, was to be a fully conscious decision made by Cain.

 

[KingCoil]

Ignostics might strongly agree. I’m all for people trying to establish clear communication. But with [mono]theists being a bit of an umbrella term you’ll find that people following various forms of theism may have various god-concepts, some of which will have attributes that are not compatible with the other god-concepts in the collective. So I don’t think this is an activity that would result in much agreement.

At best one can deal with getting a better description of the god-concept presented by the person which which s/he is speaking.

I will start, I am a theist of the Christian faith, and my concept of God is the following:

God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

So, please, all kinds of posters belonging to any ism and they want to talk God exist or not exist, please present your concept of God in the Christian faith.

Why Christian faith?

So that we can for the present limit ourselves to the Christian faith, that should already keep us very busy.

Suppose you don’t think you care to talk about any information you might have of the concept of God in the Christian faith?

In which case please when you have a care, then please contribute what information you might have of the concept of God in the Christian faith.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

• Post #1 ]*

**In 1952 the philosopher Bertrand Russell said this:

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

In 1958 Russell said this.

“I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. 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.”

This, Russell wants us to believe, is a reasonable rationale for rejecting the existence of God.**

What say you?

What do I say?

I say Russell is in substance obviously saying that God does not exist or he cannot have enough evidence to ascertain for himself the existence of God.

So, if it was in an open meeting where the audience could talk to Russell, I for one would ask him, What is your concept of God, sir?

Because otherwise he might be having a concept of God which is not my concept of God and therefore we would be talkng past each other’s head.

Now, he compares God to a teapot and also to the gods of Olympus and/or Valhalla, I have to ask him what are his concepts of the teapot and of the gods of Olympus and of Valhalla.

If he asks me, What is your concept of God, Sir? I will tell him, Sir, my concept of God as a Christian is that in relation to man and the universe God is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

KingCoil

 

[inocente]

I will start, I am a theist of the Christian faith, and my concept of God is the following:

God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

That’s what is known as a god of the gaps, in other words a god to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. Many theists from all faiths strongly disagree with that definition, since it means the more we learn, the less is left over for God to create, so the smaller God becomes.

Many would say instead that by definition God is beyond all definition.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
I will start, I am a theist of the Christian faith, and my concept of God is the following:

We are talking about the concept of God.

I have given my concept of God, but you have not given your concept of God.

How do we get connected at all since we are talking about God, but you do not have a concept of God, and I have.

So, will you for the purpose of us getting connected accept as information about the concept of God as coming from me that for myself: God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself?

Otherwise, I would not know what you are talking about: so I would rather not talk with you about God, but if you do want to talk with me, I would rather suggest that we talk about something else.

KingCoil

Annex, original version:

Originally Posted by KingCoil
I will start, I am a theist of the Christian faith, and my concept of God is the following:

We are talking about the concept of God.

I have given my concept of God, but you have not given your concept of God.

How do we get connected at all since we are talking about God but you do not have a concept of God, but I have.

So, will you for the purpose of us getting connected accept as information about the concept of God as coming from me that for myself God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself?

Otherwise, I would not know what you are talking about: so I would rather not talk with you about God, about if you do want to talk with me, I would suggest that we talk about something else.

KingCoil[/INDENT]

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I will start, I am a theist of the Christian faith,

Okay, that narrows it down from theism.

my concept of God is the following:

God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

Okay. That also is compatible with deistic god-concepts. “Man” also seems to be a superfluous element of the definition since as far as i see here it’s not playing any significant role (ex: I could replace it any other noun, like “cat” or “air.”).

Suppose you don’t think you care to talk about any information you might have of the concept of God in the Christian faith?

In which case please when you have a care, then please contribute what information you might have of the concept of God in the Christian faith.

I have come across lots of interesting god concepts, but they probably are not relevant here. My main point in my previous message was once concept may not fit all theisms. So coming up with a single concept for the theistic religions may not get you too far.