Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Pontiuth Pilate, May 25, 2007.
Simply put, Teapot analogy is a strawman.
You miss my point. For the idea of God to exist does not require existence of God himself. The idea can be quite easily proven -- merely one person with that belief proves the idea exists.
Assert something exists. Make the properties of the subject of the assertion such that disproof is impossible.
God argument=teapot argument. Strawman my ass.
So hows the big teapot argument going?
I kinda liked Smidlees:
How do you prove this person loves his wife, instead of whatever alternative explanation you care to come up with. Anyway, the arguments here seem to be missing the ball. It doesn't matter what the theists think, get used to the idea that to them God exists, period, the teapot argument isn't about them. It's about the agnostics. They need additional arguments to make rational why they're sitting on the fence, else, why have any doubts about the (non)existence of God at all. Plenty of things that cannot be (dis)proven, no one sits on the fence about teapots.
Imagine you'd never experiences love inside. Why believe in it? It's just metaphysics.
I dont get that, myself. I could send flowers to his wife too. What does it prove? Sending flowers to someone has nothing to do with love.
This was clearly written in an age before space debris...
Exactly the question; what am I trying to prove? You could also say a ring has nothing to do with marriage either yet these objects are uses to express or represent something that can't be demonstrate by materialistic means.
There is really no direct way to prove my love to my wife which to me is just as, if not more, real than any physical object.
Thus if God is greater and more real than any physical object He wouldn't have to limit Himself to visit a person "on the outside" but can deal with each individual directly from within.
Um, I think what is relevant here is God itself, not the "idea" of god. Unless you think an atheist is a person who does not believe religious people exist, a theist is someone who believes religious people do exist, and an agnostic isn't sure whether or not religious people exist.
Symbols. Ok, I can understand that. Sending flowers means: Im thinking of you, because I love you.
Im not speaking of your relationship with your wife, because I know nothing about it. Im only speaking from my own experiences. But Ive always thought that that sort of symbolism is of the Hallmark variety, or McLove. Or a Happy Meal. Completely bereft of meaning because its such a cliche.
So as a spiritual person I believe in a greater reality and meaning than just the physical just the same with the flowers. To someone on the outside like you said "flowers has nothing to do with love" but to me " flowers represent something far greater than the physical present of the flowers itself."
Heh, of the McCross variety, of the McAltar variety, of the McChurch variety. Not so sure why you, of all people, are putting down symbols, Bozo. They are used as an expression of, they are not the real thing itself.
The meaning depends on what you put into it, not on whether it's a cliche or not. I can give cliche flowers, or deeply meant heartfelt flowers. Hallmark doesn't decide which of the two it is. So too you can bow claiming you believe in God, and it means nothing, and bow, and have it be an everyday facet of your experience in and expression of God.
Hey, I'm not supposed to be the one defending Spirituality here...
Since when does a bouquet of flowers have anything to do with spirituality.
You do understand the basic concept of an analogy, one would hope.
If not, I'm bowing out of this discussion. I'm sure there are others better qualified at educating you.
Flowers are a socially conditioned way of expressing an abstract idea, bonding. I mean if you were a primate you would get across the same idea by grooming your mate. All such social actions don't mean anything in themselves but we have been conditioned to link them to abstract things like emotions and intents. It's no guarantee that the gesture is sincere as Clause pointed out.
essentially Smid's argument boils down to "consciousness disproves materialism" which is, number one, not only far from being a cogent argument, but number two, not very relevant to the teapot argument.
then change the argument to say,
"Our material world is all we can see, but somewhere out there is an intangible, supernatural plane of being.
And that plane of being is filled with teapots, by the way."
I don't think our teapot-atheists become teapot-agnostics just because the existence of the Teapot Plane is suddenly undisprovable.
Sorry this is probably only relevant to older UK residents
In an episode of "The Clangers" tiny clanger catches a teapot in space whilst fishing .
If I'm correct the programs creator Oliver Postgate , when young knew Bertrand Russell as he was a family friend .
Maybe he was trying to prove something ?
Yes. From within.
Exactly. One can argue that all "giving flowers to my wife" proves is the existence of flowers. (which on a pure materialistic level seems foolish as cut flowers is of no use)
Flowers isn't spiritual , they are material which can be used as a tool to express the spiritual.
Separate names with a comma.