Bertrandd Russell's China Teapot

[Gorgias]

Yes, it does come down to evidence! It always comes down to evidence. I do not currently believe in the existence UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis because those do not have sufficient evidence. If and until they do have evidence for their existence, I am justified in my unbelief.

Exactly … because all of these are things in the material realm! They are either physical creatures (UFOs, Loch Ness monster, Atlantis), or physically verifiable processes/actions produced by physical creatures (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc). As such, we would expect there to be the possibility of the use of the scientific method in order to collect empirical data about these. However, God doesn’t fit into the realm of ‘physical creature’…

What would qualify as sufficient evidence for me to believe in a God? A glib response would be to say that an omniscient deity should already know what I will accept as sufficient evidence for me to believe. But I’ll give more than a glib response.

And a likewise glib retort would be “why is an omniscient deity beholden to provide you with sufficient evidence to prove to you his existence?” …

For me to accept an assertion as evidence for God, the assertion must be testable and falsifiable.

Outstanding. Here’s my question: given that God, as posited, exists outside the realm of the physical universe, why is it reasonable to suggest that you can physically test for him? (Let’s cut to the chase: if God interacts with the material world (as we claim), why do we expect that we can anticipate these interactions, such that we would be able to test for him?)

The problem is that if I am willing to accept a God claim as true without testable and falsifiable evidence, then why shouldn’t I also accept UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy… or any other assertion without testable and falsifiable evidence?

Because God is of a realm different that these other things – it’s eminently reasonable to ask for material evidence for objects and actions in the material world, provided that we can anticipate their presence and test for them. But, inasmuch as God is not ‘in’ the material world, nor a priori ‘predictable’, then why is it reasonable to suggest that this is the applicable standard of evidence? (Such that, of course, when your empirical tests fail, you suggest that this is the ‘null result’, rather than concluding that the test itself is flawed and unable to produce results…?!?)

 

[Gorgias]

You have made a positive claim. The burden of proof is with the one making the positive claim.

Agreed. Yet, can you see that you’re stacking the deck? You’re saying “please provide proof”, and yet, you’re providing a standard a proof that, a priori, is completely incapable of being met. In other words, you’re holding out an empty glass, and telling us that unless we drink from it, you refuse to accept our argument. That, in itself, is an unreasonable approach…

Unless and until there is sufficient testable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim, I cannot accept it.

And yet, that’s not even the approach that science uses! When, in the absence of empirical evidence to support a theoretical assertion, scientists make a claim, it can be accepted on the basis of the logic of that assertion! You’re asking us to meet an even more rigorous standard than you would, for instance, of physicists!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Again, it all comes down to evidence!

I agree.

Since you have been unsuccessful in finding Him, the issue boils down to where you are looking.
What is the nature of, how valid and comprehensive is the evidence that you have been considering and accepting as true?

Now, if you want to find Him, the simplest course to follow is to read the writings of the church (scripture, catechism, Saints, etc) and participate in the mass, sacraments, prayer, mediation, etc.
The easiest path seems to be the one that most people are reluctant to take.

Whatever way you do choose, the essential point is that you have to look for Him.

 

[Area_Man]

Agreed. Yet, can you see that you’re stacking the deck? You’re saying “please provide proof”, and yet, you’re providing a standard a proof that, a priori, is completely incapable of being met. In other words, you’re holding out an empty glass, and telling us that unless we drink from it, you refuse to accept our argument. That, in itself, is an unreasonable approach…

And yet, that’s not even the approach that science uses! When, in the absence of empirical evidence to support a theoretical assertion, scientists make a claim, it can be accepted on the basis of the logic of that assertion! You’re asking us to meet an even more rigorous standard than you would, for instance, of physicists!

I am a philosophical naturalist, so I do not yet accept the assertions that there are paranormal or supernatural or any other realms. If there are realms other than the natural, and they interact with the natural realm, then those interactions should produce testable and falsifiable claims. My mind is not closed to the possibility of realms outside of the natural realm, however I have not seen evidence sufficient to accept any supernatural or paranormal claims.

 

[davidv]

I am a philosophical naturalist, so I do not yet accept the assertions that there are paranormal or supernatural or any other realms. If there are realms other than the natural, and they interact with the natural realm, then those interactions should produce testable and falsifiable claims. My mind is not closed to the possibility of realms outside of the natural realm, however I have not seen evidence sufficient to accept any supernatural or paranormal claims.

What dogma says that testability and falsifiability are criteria of what is, or can be, true?

 

[mgoforth]

…but without a demonstration under proper conditions, why should I believe the logical argument? Again, it all comes down to evidence!

Luckily, God has directly intervened in the world in a way that can be tested. He intervened by entering the world physically in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus and the effects that his life had on the world are enough to prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. It is widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him as a true historical person as well.
2. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.
3. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever changed their story in the slightest.
4. It is highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie.
5. It is highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.
6. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.
7. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

 

[Aloysium]

I am a philosophical naturalist, so I do not yet accept the assertions that there are paranormal or supernatural or any other realms. If there are realms other than the natural, and they interact with the natural realm, then those interactions should produce testable and falsifiable claims. My mind is not closed to the possibility of realms outside of the natural realm, however I have not seen evidence sufficient to accept any supernatural or paranormal claims.

Is the chemical composition of the paint impacted by the meaning and beauty of a work of art? Not the best analogy, but close.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Okay, Area Man, no more muddling the issue like Russell does, keep to the issue which is to prove that there exists an object in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence outside our mind that corresponds to the concept in our mind of God.

Well, exactly the issue of Russell is that God does not exist in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence.

He is a good logician, and thus he knows that before something is being sought for in the realm of objects, the seekers and also the opponents of seekers must both sides concur on what is the concept of the object being sought for.

Do not bring in teapots and unicorns whatever, unless they are being sought for in the realm of objects, in which case then both the seekers and their opponents have to work together to come to the concepts respectively of teapots and unicorns.

I have to tell you that you are also into muddling up the issue.

Are you into the question that God exists or not exists in the realm of objects, and therefore we have to first concur on the concept of God?

If not, then you are writing to muddle up the issue.

KingCoil

 

[tonyrey]

Is the chemical composition of the paint impacted by the meaning and beauty of a work of art? Not the best analogy, but close.

Does the chemical composition of the human body even constitute a person?

 

[tonyrey]

What dogma says that testability and falsifiability are criteria of what is, or can be, true?

Only the untestable and unfalsifiable dogma of the naturalist!

 

[KingCoil]

Allow me to propose to everyone, do we concur on what is the issue with Russell?

Here is my take, he is into the issue that God does not exist in the actual objective reality of existence.

And he uses lots of words but to no avail because he does not ever bring forth his information on what is the concept of God that he is into uttering God does not exist.

So, please, let us not waste time and labor, get connected to the issue, and then let us work together to concur on the object in issue, namely, God, in particular that He exists or not exists in the actual objective realm of objects existing.

The way I see it, atheists just keep on and on and on not facing the issue and not being systematic and disciplined in regard to the resolving of an issue, namely: first, formulate the issue; next, determinate the concept of the object in issue; then, with the concept in our mind let us all go forth in the realm of existing objects to search for the object, God, that corresponds to the concept.

I will be repeating my idea again and again, but I invite you all who are interested in systematic and disciplined treatment of an issue, to discern that there is a lot of muddling or evasion from the camp of atheists.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Please, Area Man, present your information on what is concept of God from your reading of sources in the Christian faith.

You have presented three adjectives to describe God Who in concept foremost in the Christian faith in His relation to man and the universe is that He is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

Let those three adjectives be put in abeyance, is that all right with you?

I mean to ask you, do you have any reasons why you should not first take up with the idea that God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself?

KingCoil

 

[tonyrey]

Allow me to propose to everyone, do we concur on what is the issue with Russell?

Here is my take, he is into the issue that God does not exist in the actual objective reality of existence.

What are your criteria of “the actual objective reality of existence”? The objects you can hear, see, smell, taste and touch? Nothing else?

And he uses lots of words but to no avail because he does not ever bring forth his information on what is the concept of God that he is into uttering God does not exist.

So, please, let us not waste time and labor, get connected to the issue, and then let us work together to concur on the object in issue, namely, God, in particular that He exists or not exists in the actual objective realm of objects existing.

Do you regard yourself solely as an object? And never as a subject?

The way I see it, atheists just keep on and on and on not facing the issue and not being systematic and disciplined in regard to the resolving of an issue, namely: first, formulate the issue; next, determinate the concept of the object in issue; then, with the concept in our mind let us all go forth in the realm of existing objects to search for the object, God, that corresponds to the concept.

I will be repeating my idea again and again, but I invite you all who are interested in systematic and disciplined treatment of an issue, to discern that there is a lot of muddling or evasion from the camp of atheists.

They are not the only ones!

 

[tonyrey]

Well, exactly the issue of Russell is that God does not exist in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence.

He is a good logician, and thus he knows that before something is being sought for in the realm of objects, the seekers and also the opponents of seekers must both sides concur on what is the concept of the object being sought for.

Do not bring in teapots and unicorns whatever, unless they are being sought for in the realm of objects, in which case then both the seekers and their opponents have to work together to come to the concepts respectively of teapots and unicorns.

I have to tell you that you are also into muddling up the issue.

Are you into the question that God exists or not exists in the realm of objects, and therefore we have to first concur on the concept of God?

If not, then you are writing to muddle up the issue.

KingCoil

First of all we have to concur on the concept of an object…

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Allow me to propose to everyone, do we concur on what is the issue with Russell?

Well, I am now trying to get atheists to come up with their information on the concept of God foremost in the Christian faith in His relation to man and the universe.

You are introducing a new question on the criteria for our determination of what is included in “the actual objective reality of existence.”

That is connected of course to the question of God being an object in the “the actual objective reality of existence.”

What is your purpose with your introduction of this new question?

I will just present some examples of what are objects included in the “the actual objective reality of existence.”

You and I for a starter, and all the things that make up the universe and everything else that are connected with the universe whatsoever, even though we do not have direct contact with them, is that enough for you to know what is “the actual objective reality of existence”?

Or you just want to muddle up the issue by not being systematic and disciplined?

First things first, let me ask you, what do you think about my concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to man and the universe is that God is the creator of everything that is not God Himself?

That is what atheists are most good at, muddling up the issue by not being systematic and disciplined, and evading the issue at hand by introducing ever new issues, by which such tactics they will never have to face the issue at hand.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Well, exactly the issue of Russell is that God does not exist in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence.

I took that up already with Area Man, have you seen that post?

That is the post where I took up the utterance of Area Man that ‘thing’ is the most broad word and concept.

Please look that up.

Or are you here just to waste time and labor of others who are sincerely keen on the systematic and disciplined resolution of the issue God exists or does not exist.

Dear Area Man, yes! I really love to have a serious exchange of thoughts with you on non-existent things and non-physical things, in this thread on Russell’s teapot.

I keep mentioning Russell’s teapot because it is the topic of this thread and we must avoid digressing from it.

Now, the way I see Russell, he is not doing any serious thinking at all because he does not define his terms: teapot, Christian God, Gods of Olympus or Valhalla, and in that respect I say that we must not give any serious thinking to his thinking or non-thinking on the probability [sic] of God existing.

You say: “Are we talking about something intelligent, or are we just talking about ‘a thing’? A thing is the most broad so I’m going to propose that as my definition.”

That is a very good thought, that “A thing is the most broad so I’m going to propose that as my definition.”

I concur with you on a thing is the most broad word and concept to keep in mind on non-existent things and non-physical things.

So, I will use the word thing to refer to concepts about a thing, which thing covers everything at all that refers to our to be concurred on concept of what is a thing.

First, how do we at all get to concur on a concept of what is a thing?

Here is my suggestion, we can before anything else concur that we are both talking about what the word thing refers to in our each one’s respective mind.

Here is my thinking on what is a thing in our each one’s respective mind, it is what we can concur on to be a thought in our minds.

We have many thoughts in our mind which thoughts can each one be called a thing.

So, let us give examples of thoughts in our mind which we can and do call things, about which when we concur on to be in our minds, then we can get connected at all as to talk on the same thoughts or things.

For examples of thoughts or things in our minds: you and me, the posts in this thread, a computer, a dog, God, invisible pink unicorn, teapot, etc., etc., etc.

So, when we talk about the thing called God and we concur on the thought in our mind which we call God, we can talk on the same thing or thought, that is a connected exchange of thinking, and not a case of talking past each other’s head.

Now, let us call that thought or thing or word for example God, which thought, thing, or word we talk about in connection together, let us call it ’ a concept’.

Wherefore, a thing insofar as we are talking in connection together is a concept.

Next, we ask ourselves the question, Does this concept God have a corresponding object in actual objective reality of existence?

If it does then we can agree that the concept God has an object outside our mind that corresponds to the concept of God in our mind.

Are you following me, namely, that we now have two thoughts in our mind:

1. Concepts in our mind
2. Objects outside our mind

Let us think about concepts in our mind and objects outside our mind, in this direction, namely, that

A concept can correspond to an object outside our mind or it can just be only in our mind.

So also an object can correspond to a concept in our mind or it can just be outside our mind.

At this point, let me read about your thinking on what is a thing.

Please, do not require posters here to have to repeat for your sake, think of contributing something that is effective toward the resolution of the issue, God exists or does not exists, without attempts at muddling up the issue or evading it altogether, by diverting and distracting the attention of readers and even posters here, who are as I said keen to resolve the issue in a systematic and disciplined manner.

KingCoil

 

[Gorgias]

Area Man:

If there are realms other than the natural, and they interact with the natural realm, then those interactions should produce testable and falsifiable claims.

I agree. Yet, think for a second about what you’re suggesting: testable claims are ones that can be tested – that is, are ones that can be anticipated and planned for and measured. Tell me, how can an observer anticipate the actions of a God who is fully spiritual, such that he’s able to test God’s interactions with the world? Therefore, short of the ability to run tests at all times in all places, the observer cannot conclude the ‘null result’ in his attempts to predict God’s interactions in the physical world. Don’t you agree? If not, then you’ll have a procedure to suggest for us that would allow us to anticipate God’s actions, right?

My mind is not closed to the possibility of realms outside of the natural realm, however I have not seen evidence sufficient to accept any supernatural or paranormal claims.

What evidence is sufficient to accept claims of any act in antiquity, then?

 

[KingCoil]

What is the purpose of humans debating on the existence of God?

With Russell, the man is not debating but into muddling, and I cannot accept that intelligent people are getting themselves tricked into talking about how God and teapot in space are equivalent, so that as we humans don’t talk about the existence of teapot in space so also we need not talk or much less debate about the existence of God.

And humans feel so in awe of Russell’s thinking which is no thinking at all but all muddling up the issue of God exists or does not exist.

He is just thinking of making fools of us all who do want to think seriously and to get to locate God in the actual objective reality of existence, like we you and I posters in this forum are having our being in, namely, in the actual objective reality of existence.

Now, here is my proposal to everyone participating in this thread of Russell’s teapot, of which the issue is “Does God exist in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence or not,” and this issue is not about the general question of the burden of proof between two talkers, and not either on the concept of God and the concept of teapot in space are generically equivalent (they are not! unless you are being self-uncritical but all in slavish awe of Russell’s mastery of trickish words).

Here is my proposal, the debate of God between God knowers and God deniers should be an invitation by God knowers i.e. theists to God deniers i.e. atheists to please join us theists to search for God in the actual objective reality of existence.

And be systematic and disciplined with the search if atheists do accept the invitation.

But atheists are not at all into accepting the invitation, instead they are giving only the appearance of engaging in debate, while all the time they are into all manners of dodging the issue, which issue at the bottom-most level is to search for God in the actual objective realm of existence.

At this point I like to introduce the concept, the totality of existence, but if folks here are happy to accept my term of the actual objective realm of the reality of existence, that is all right with me, because (and I stand to be corrected) everyone with a functional intelligence knows what is meant by the words: the actual objective realm of the reality of existence.

Now if someone here wants to correct me that I am wrong in saying that everyone with a functional intelligence knows what is meant by the words: the actual objective realm of the reality of existence, in which case I will be corrected by recommending that he should take up a course in some institute of reading comprehension, or by private lessons with a teacher of reading comprehension.

So, addressing everyone here, the debate between theists and atheists is in effect an invitation from theists to atheists, to come along and search with theists the object in the actual reality of existence, which object corresponds to the concept of God; but the search is carried on in a systematic and disciplined manner, by starting off with an examination of the concept of God in the Christian faith in regard to God’s relation to man and the universe.

KingCoil

 

[Area_Man]

And be systematic and disciplined with the search if atheists do accept the invitation.

But atheists are not at all into accepting the invitation, instead they are giving only the appearance of engaging in debate, while all the time they are into all manners of dodging the issue, which issue at the bottom-most level is to search for God in the actual objective realm of existence.
KingCoil

You must know something about the existence of God that I do not know. Is there some knowledge or logical argument that you can teach me to convince me that philosophical naturalism is incorrect? I would love to hear what you know and how you know it.

At this point I like to introduce the concept, the totality of existence, but if folks here are happy to accept my term of the actual objective realm of the reality of existence, that is all right with me, because (and I stand to be corrected) everyone with a functional intelligence knows what is meant by the words: the actual objective realm of the reality of existence.
KingCoil

I believe I have a functional intelligence (that is debatable ), and I have no idea what your phrase “*the actual objective realm of the reality of existence.” *Can you give the definition to this phrase you made up? Seriously, I googled the phrase, and this discussion is the only place google could find it on the internet.

So, addressing everyone here, the debate between theists and atheists is in effect an invitation from theists to atheists, to come along and search with theists the object in the actual reality of existence, which object corresponds to the concept of God; but the search is carried on in a systematic and disciplined manner, by starting off with an examination of the concept of God in the Christian faith in regard to God’s relation to man and the universe.
KingCoil

You keep using the word debate. This isn’t so much a debate as it is me asking for the knowledge and reasons to justify moving from my position of philosophical naturalism. Can anyone teach me how they know that 1) There are supernatural or paranormal realms outside of the natural universe. 2) Of all of the possible things that exist in the supernatural/paranormal realms we can know that is a God 3) How we can know that the God of Abraham is the only, or at least the only “true” God in the supernatural realms 4) That Christianity as taught by the Catholic Church is the most true of all of the Christian teachings.

 

[DanielJT]

This is true. God can neither be absolutely proven nor disproven.

The tea pot can.

With the tea pot, we ask, “Does it exist? Let’s find out.” We cannot do this with God.

Maybe we are asking the wrong question . . .