Bertrandd Russell's China Teapot

[KingCoil]

…]

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.

I am requesting you to present whatever information you have of the concept of God in the Christian faith, that should keep everyone busy, namely, the concept of God in the Christian faith.

'Please do that.

You say:
“My main point in my previous message was once concept may not fit all theisms.”

May I please ask of you to give the link to that post, so that I can if possible come to what you are at least in the direction to some kind of concept of God in the Christian faith, even just the information of a concept of God in the Christian faith.

The more people with at least some information of the concept of God in the Christian faith, the more I am glad; for then I will be in a position to see whether their concepts of God have some common directions.

I have produced my concept of God; forgive me, here is the repetition:

For myself as a Christian, in relation to man and the universe God is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

So, please tell me if you at all have some information on the concept of God in the Christian faith, and second, give the link to your post where you say, “My main point…”

KingCoil

 

[HardRockGTR]

The whole Russell’s Teapot/burden of truth concept should be taken with a grain of salt; there are things that are probably wholly unprovable, such as the existence or inexistence of God. However, some things are definitely more likely, which, even to the atheist, is a form of faith (if not faith in your perceptions).

 

[ShameonMe]

This was discussed in the 2010 Issue of Ars Disputandi.

arsdisputandi.org/

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You say:
“My main point in my previous message was once concept may not fit all theisms.”

May I please ask of you to give the link to that post, so that I can if possible come to what you are at least in the direction to some kind of concept of God in the Christian faith, even just the information of a concept of God in the Christian faith.

I was referring to an earlier message in this thread.

Perhaps theists and atheists should work together to concur on the concept of God,
ThinkingSapien;11381614:

… 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…

As “theism” could include the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and others. I added “mono” to filter out other forms of theism, such as polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, or panentheism.

After that the you specified Christianity, which now excludes some of the other theistic god-concepts and instead concentrates on Yahweh-concepts.

I am requesting you to present whatever information you have of the concept of God in the Christian faith, that should keep everyone busy, namely, the concept of God in the Christian faith.

What be the objective of keeping everyone busy?

And are you asking me to tell you about the Yahweh-concepts that other Christian’s have asserted/described to me?

The more people with at least some information of the concept of God in the Christian faith, the more I am glad; for then I will be in a position to see whether their concepts of God have some common directions.

There are both common attributes and differences. The differences that immediately come to mind are who is Jesus with respect to Yahweh, what is meant by the omni-max attributes, and descriptions of Yahweh’s personality and how he “feels” about various groups of prople. Though since we are now only talking about Christianity instead of Theism the primary differences in the forms of Christianity are more in the doctrine (or how it’s interpreted) than the Yahweh-concept invoked, such as what is literal and what is a metaphor, what is the message behind the metaphor,did Yahweh give the writers the words to write in the documents that became the bible, does Yahweh, continue to interact and intervene in people’s lives, how are apparent contradictions in the bible resolved, what happens to a person after death, and so on…

Since the topic has shifted a bit I’m not quite confident what you are looking for.

I have produced my concept of God; forgive me, here is the repetition:

Yes, I saw earlier, and I commented earlier.

 

[inocente]

We are talking about the concept of God.

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

I wrote “Many would say instead that by definition God is beyond all definition”. As that’s what I wrote, and I said many would agree with it, I thought you might have guessed that my concept of God is … that God is beyond all definition.

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?

As I said before, “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.”

If we’re going to have a conversation, you need to respond to what I wrote rather than just presenting a monolog.

Could you also explain where you’re going with this in terms of the OP?

 

[KingCoil]

Well, everyone participating in this thread, and of course I am not the author of this thread, but I just want to know whether you at all have any information of the concept of God in the Christian faith.

If you prefer, go to the Catholic Catechism, and may I just request that we all just keep to the Roman Catholic Church when we talk about the Christian faith.

Now, if you really have no information at all, then please read up on God in the Catholic Catechism, use Google to search for God the concept of in the Catholic Catechism.

I will not repeat my definition of the concept of God, the information I have in the Christian faith, as I have distilled it to express the most quintessential idea of God in relation to man and the universe, and as coming from my understanding as a Christian though a defector from Catholicism.

So, if you in effect do not have any information at all which you care to put here in this thread, please, I cannot talk with you about God’s existence.

And also try your very best to distill whatever information you have so that you can say what in its most core idea is the concept of God in the Christian faith in His relation to man and the universe.

Summing up this message:

Please get information of God in the Christian faith in relation to man and the unverse, distill the information you get into a very core substance, and put it here, and then we will all who do have information work to come to concurrence on what we agree to be the core substance of the concept of God in the Christian faith.

I apologize if you have put a concept of God here, but I have not reacted to it.

Try to do it in as concise and precise as you can; because when people have to write so many words to express a thought… etc.* let the reader finish what I am going to say to complete my thought ].*

No, I am not requiring you to accept the concept, but just to produce the information of the concept.

Now, if you keep on and on insisting that God is beyond definition, etc., etc., etc., then please just do what is logical, start a thread on God is beyond definition: where participants will talk about God but without any concept whatever of God, I mean any information at all.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Post #1 ]

Title of Thread: Bertrand Russell’s China Teapot

---

**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?

The way I see it, the thread is all about concepts, in particular of God and of teapot and of Gods of Olympus or Valhalla, and Russell without stating what he has of any information of God in the Christian faith, and neither presenting any concepts he has at all of the concepts of teapot and of Gods of Olympus and Valhalla, after so many words sums up:

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.

He does “not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. [And] …a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”

I beg of you posters here to not digress to other matters. Keep to concepts of the Christian God and the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla and of a china teapot in orbit.

And then we will judge whether the thinking or not thinking of Russell is to be given any serious attention at all, namely:
I [Russell] do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. [And]…a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit. … I [Russell] think the Christian God just as unlikely.

KingCoil

 

[Area_Man]

I’ve read most of the topics in this post, and to me the entire debate boils down to this question:

What is (are) the most reliable way(s) to distinguish between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity?

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

The faculty would be something like intuition.
God reveals Himself to humanity in general and His Church in particular.
He makes Himself known through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
The reliability lies in our ability to share the knowledge with each other.
In this way we can distinguish the truth from idolatry.

Your asking the question is a step towards that truth.
Like what is the meaning of your life, you have to figure it out.
There’s lots of material out there to help.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve read most of the topics in this post, and to me the entire debate boils down to this question:

What is (are) the most reliable way(s) to distinguish between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity?

Introspection!

 

[Area_Man]

Introspection and intuition are fine ways to determine our own feelings or opinions about a statement. Introspection and intuition are not reliable or even useful ways to determine an objective truth about reality.

 

[Aloysium]

I exist, you exist, everyone here exists in their moment. How would you determine this pretty much irrefutable (remaining in reality of course) fact.

 

[tonyrey]

Introspection and intuition are fine ways to determine our own feelings or opinions about a statement. Introspection and intuition are not reliable or even useful ways to determine an objective truth about reality.

In other words you reject the objective truth that you exist… or at least you equate yourself with the molecules which are described as “your body”…

 

[KingCoil]

I’ve read most of the topics in this post, and to me the entire debate boils down to this question:

What is (are) the most reliable way(s) to distinguish between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity?

1. A nonexistent entity saves you from inquiring on whether it is a physical entity or a nonphysical.
2. A nonphysical entity still requires you to inquire on whether it is an existent entity at all or an altogether nonexistent entity.

Ryrge

 

[Area_Man]

1. A nonexistent entity saves you from inquiring on whether it is a physical entity or a nonphysical.
2. A nonphysical entity still requires you to inquire on whether it is an existent entity at all or an altogether nonexistent entity.

Ryrge

I’m not sure I follow you. If I ask a non-physical entity exists or not, should I expect a response? What will that response look (or taste, smell, sound, or feel) like? If it comes through a faculty something like intuition, is there a way I can test my intuition to be sure that the response is a product of a non-physical entity and not a product of my culture, hopes, fears, thoughts, and emotions? If I follow intuition and introspection isn’t it possible that I could be lead towards atheism, or Scientology, or Islam, or Catholicism, or Lutheranism or Mormonism?

 

[Aloysium]

I’m not sure I follow you. If I ask a non-physical entity exists or not, should I expect a response? What will that response look (or taste, smell, sound, or feel) like? If it comes through a faculty something like intuition, is there a way I can test my intuition to be sure that the response is a product of a non-physical entity and not a product of my culture, hopes, fears, thoughts, and emotions? If I follow intuition and introspection isn’t it possible that I could be lead towards atheism, or Scientology, or Islam, or Catholicism, or Lutheranism or Mormonism?

What does your existence taste, feel, sound or smell like? How do you know you exist? How would you test this? Are you just hoping you exist? Do you just think it? When you stop thinking about your existence, do you stop existing? If you follow your intuition, introspection, you will be led to yourself. Continuing, you will be led to the Ground of that existence. If you were to ask me where one finds the greatest truth and the best way to live that truth, I would point you to the Catholic Church.

 

[Area_Man]

What does your existence taste, feel, sound or smell like? How do you know you exist? How would you test this? Are you just hoping you exist? Do you just think it? When you stop thinking about your existence, do you stop existing? If you follow your intuition, introspection, you will be led to yourself. Continuing, you will be led to the Ground of that existence. If you were to ask me where one finds the greatest truth and the best way to live that truth, I would point you to the Catholic Church.

My 5 senses tell me I exist. I cannot prove that this isn’t an illusion and that we’re living in the Matrix. I cannot prove that what I think is reality is just a dream. I can’t prove that I my body isn’t dead and what I call reality is Heaven. I cannot prove that I have free will. The list of assertions that can’t be proved is infinite. Going on about what can’t possibly be proved may be a fun mental game, but it isn’t a path to truth.

So what do I do? I deal with reality on the terms of what I believe to be reality is perceived by my brain. Is there any other way to live? I’m only aware of one alternative to operating like this, and that is a one way trip I don’t want to take for a long time!

If I were to ask a serious atheist, Scientologist, Muslim, Lutheran or Mormon where I would find the greatest truth and the best way to live, I think we all know what each of them would say.

Is there a reliable way to distinguish between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity? Is the answer to this question even knowable?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

My 5 senses tell me I exist. I cannot prove that this isn’t an illusion and that we’re living in the Matrix. I cannot prove that what I think is reality is just a dream. I can’t prove that I my body isn’t dead and what I call reality is Heaven. I cannot prove that I have free will. The list of assertions that can’t be proved is infinite. Going on about what can’t possibly be proved may be a fun mental game, but it isn’t a path to truth.

So what do I do? I deal with reality on the terms of what I believe to be reality is perceived by my brain. Is there any other way to live? I’m only aware of one alternative to operating like this, and that is a one way trip I don’t want to take for a long time!

If I were to ask a serious atheist, Scientologist, Muslim, Lutheran or Mormon where I would find the greatest truth and the best way to live, I think we all know what each of them would say.

Is there a reliable way to distinguish between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity? Is the answer to this question even knowable?

It is only knowable by you only, but you’d have to look for it.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Is there a reliable way to distinguish between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity? Is the answer to this question even knowable?

You seem to be saying that you have no way of distinguishing between the nonphysical reality of your very being from the possibility that you do not exist. I believe you are overthinking the matter.

 

[Area_Man]

You seem to be saying that you have no way of distinguishing between the nonphysical reality of your very being from the possibility that you do not exist. I believe you are overthinking the matter.

The reality of my very being is physical. I have a body! Someone could make the claim that my thoughts, memories and emotions are non-physical, I suppose. However, my thoughts, memories and emotions are dependent on a physical body (or my brain, to be more specific.) Without a living physical body and brain, how else could I have a “being” or an existence or thoughts, memories and emotions?