Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
Well what if an alien ship abducted a pottery shop in China and while on their way out of the solar system their cargo leaked all over the place between Mars and Earth? 
Refute the Teapot Argument
- Thread starter Pontiuth Pilate
- Start date
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Warpus, I know. If I became a scientist these subatomic particles would be much less abstract to me than they are right now. So would the Holy Trinity if I became a priest. And we're back to square one.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Er, and what sort of evidence would being a priest allow you access to?
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
brennan, evidence, as you think of it, is about as relevant to a religious person in a church as faith is to a scientist in a laboratory.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
I suspected that your reply would be along those lines. The 'faith' of a religious person has no value to anyone. Scientific evidence has value to everyone.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
It has value to those who accept science and its precepts. Most people today fall into that category. 500 years ago most people felt that way about religion. Back then the mechanism for revealing truth was religion, today its science. Why do people have such difficulty with this?
Is it because theres an implication that ultimately, science isnt The Truth, and thats considered heretical?
Is it because theres an implication that ultimately, science isnt The Truth, and thats considered heretical?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Science is a process for uncovering empirical facts. It cannot be defined as 'true' or 'false'. Religion is a set a statements presented as 'truth'. Spot the difference?
warpus
In pork I trust
Not really.
Ask a scientist why he thinks subatomic particles exist, and he can show you. "Here, right here. Look!". You can experience these particles first-hand.
Ask a priest why he thinks God exists and he can do no such thing.
warpus
In pork I trust
It has value to those who accept science and its precepts. Most people today fall into that category. 500 years ago most people felt that way about religion. Back then the mechanism for revealing truth was religion, today its science. Why do people have such difficulty with this?
So if I said "My house exists" and you said "How do you know?" and I brought you to my house and we stood right in front of it and I said: "Here it is"
and then you said "God exists" and I said "How do you know?" and you looked at me and said "Just because"
that's the same thing to you?
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
"Empiricism is paramount, because science tells us so" is no different than a Christian saying that the bible must be true, because the Bible says its the truth.
So are you just a complete relativist? No knowledge claim is any stronger than any other one?
Yet as I believe you would agree, not all evidence is materialistic. thus the teapot agrument is lame. (I also do not believe in a materialist god)
Now I decided to send my wife flowers (which really isn't much use to her) am I trying to prove to her:
A) the existence of flowers Or
B) the existence of my love for her?
warpus
In pork I trust
So you believe that there exist things inaccessible to science?
Then assume that the teapot isn't materialistic in nature and repeat the thought experiment.
But teapots, flowers and Flying Spaghetti Monster is by definition materialistic. If not then exactly what are we talking about?
It like telling my wife "I flower you"
warpus
In pork I trust
Then imagine one that isn't.
If you're not capable of that, imagine a non-materialistic glurp. What's a glurp? Who knows.. it's not materialistic, we can't investigate it, so we're not sure what it is, but it is out there orbiting the Earth.. at least that's what I claim.
Can you go through with the thought experiment now?
I think that at any one time, he's only agnostic in terms of either their position or momentum.
I am shocked - shocked, I tell you - that nobody seemed to appreciate this deliciously nerdy joke based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I give you people pure comedic gold and yet you're carrying on about interstellar phantom teapots ...
[Kidding, of course - sorry I didn't have much to add to the main conversation, but I'm not really much for agnosticism anyway, so I wouldn't have been any good at refuting the argument as requested. Have a good weekend, all, and may the wise and benevolent Teapot bless and keep us all.]
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
PG Tips now make pyramid shaped teabags. Pyramids I tell you. Maybe they know something we don't and are worshipping the Teapot God.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
A priest would probably say that he experiences his faith much more intensely first hand than a scientist ever does a neutrino.
If a spiritual person could take you inside of them, they could show you God. (Gee that sounds kind of weird doesnt it
)Not a complete relativist, no. I believe that theres a great objective truth out there, but not when it comes to the human level of experience.
Yes, I agree with that.
If the teapot had ever talked to me, ever shown me it is there, I would be a teapotist.
If God hadn't done that to me, I would be an atheist. Granted, there are lots of people who say they have experienced God, and I would say that there is a chance they are not universally mistaken, but I would act as though He/She/It/They don't exist.
If God hadn't done that to me, I would be an atheist. Granted, there are lots of people who say they have experienced God, and I would say that there is a chance they are not universally mistaken, but I would act as though He/She/It/They don't exist.
Gogf
Indescribable
I completely and totally agree with Pontiuth. Technically, we're all "agnostic" about scientific theories because we don't classify them as absolute truth, but we don't lend undue credibility to discredited theories by saying that we're unsure what is true. When not dealing with God, reasonable people accept theories that are best supported by evidence and discard those that have no support. Why should things be different for God?
