1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Refute the Teapot Argument

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Pontiuth Pilate, May 25, 2007.

  1. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    No it isn't. Obviously God exists as an idea, and atheists will say that the idea of God exists (indeed, you'd have to acknowledge the idea of God in order to reject it!).

    But theists believe that God is something that actually exists.

    Nope - and his post made a strawman of both atheists and theists (atheists don't believe that God exists as an idea? Theists don't believe God really exists, but only as an idea?)

    Exactly. And clearly, the theism / atheism debate is not about whether the idea exists (since that is trivially true), it's whether God actually exists.
     
  2. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    Atheists and scientists are quite happy to accept more indirect evidence - of course the act of giving flowers could be taken as evidence that someone is in love. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

    The problem with God is not that there is only this kind of evidence, but that there is no evidence whatsoever. Much like the teapot.
     
  3. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    Actually there was a poll done here a few years ago where some atheist was honest enough to admit even if God appear to them physically they would still not believe. (they would just explain it away) If someone no matter who they are refuse (or find it hard) to accept something then often indirect (sometimes even direct) evidence isn't good enough.

    I totally disagree. The problem isn't a head problem (no evidence) but a heart problem which cause man to reject God.

    Also the only thing really unique about this teapot is it's location. It would be just as silly to claim God is floating around between Earth and Mars. Kind of like when a Russian went to space then state "Nope, God isn't up here"
     
  4. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    You are confusing "evidence" with "evidence for God". The problem is that it is hard to think what could be evidence for God, but would also allow us to know that the being wasn't something like an alien lifeform. It's a bit like saying that "my bike has gone missing" is evidence that "aliens took it". Well no, that's stupid, the only thing it's evidence for is that "my bike has gone missing", and I would need to construct a test to distinguish "aliens took it" from other possible explanations.

    I suspect that everyone who answered that poll would believe that _something_ had appeared before them, hence my claim is still correct. Whether that something is God or not is something that needs a way of testing, and unfortunately "God" is a pretty much an untestable hypothesis.

    A what problem?

    What's the evidence then, if you totally disagree?

    Yes, and just as silly to claim that God is everywhere, or God is "outside" of the Universe.
     
  5. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    Not as silly what an atheist has to believe which was revealed on the Colbert Report vs Dawkins. Thus the belief that computers, cars, Dawkin's book "The God Delusion",etc. are products of intelligent design (requires a creator) but man which produces such things isn't. Colbert asked Dawkins "Is not man also a part of nature?" which points to the Creator which isn't.
    Added: There are signs that atheists know they are losing the scientific argument against God. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2007/05/27/academias_assault_on_intelligent_design
     
  6. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    51,522
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    "If there was evidence you would dismiss it" does not change the fact that there is no evidence, thus nothing to dismiss.

    Besides, it is a huge assumption on your part.

    There is no scientific argument for or against God. It is not a falsifiable argument (either way) and thus not scientific.
     
  7. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    It does points to the fact that just because an atheist goes around shouting "there is no evidence" doesn't prove there isn't.
     
  8. Swedishguy

    Swedishguy Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Eskilstuna, Sweden IQ: N/A
    Whoever said that?
     
  9. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    (Some have claimed science can't prove anything 100%)
    So is the statement that dinosaur were birds either but this doesn't stop some scientist making this claim. Science can be use and has been use to determine that which is more likely.
     
  10. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    51,522
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    Well.. there kind of isn't any, is there? Did I miss something?

    The theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs is falsifiable.
     
  11. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Let's review a line from the New Testament.

    An admittedly imperfect translation of the original language, but the key to understanding what we really believe.

    "the Word" is supposed to be "Thought".

    Belief in the idea of God is God. God is not a being, that has never been the point. God as "being" is a convenient way to explain the greater truth. Atheists are trying to make a pretty good argument, but they are missing the target entirely because Belief is the proof of God's existence. God is Belief.
     
  12. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    This is based on someone's belief and opinion. Dino bones isn't enough to falsify any of these wild claims which is all we have.
     
  13. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    Yes, believing something which is supported by overwhelming evidence is ever so silly isn't it. You do realise that plenty of theists (most of them, in Europe) believe in evolution too?

    And I'm sure if some random webpage says it, it must be true.

    PS - is there something wrong as threads seem to keep being randomly locked for no reason today?
     
  14. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    I don't know if your definition of "idea" is different to mine, what I mean is this - we can believe that say, the _idea_ of Gandalf the wizard exists right - do you agree?

    And if you answer yes, does this mean that Gandalf the wizard exists?

    I can have other ideas too, for example, I had this idea of an invisible fairy with three arms. So the idea exists, because I just had it, but does this mean that this invisible fairy exists?

    Atheists aren't making any argument. The (usually) acknowledge the idea of God, but do not believe he exists. Theists most certainly believe that God exists, by definition - we're not talking ideas here. Ideas don't create the Universe, or answer prayers, or judge people in an afterlife.
     
  15. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    Duh? I also believe in evolution. Everybody believes in evolution. Of course it all depends on how much you are trying to imply with the word "evolution".
     
  16. Eran of Arcadia

    Eran of Arcadia Stormin' Mormon Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    23,090
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Sunshine and Lettuce Capital of the World
    We mean by "evolution" what scientists mean by the term - you know, people who actually study it. Whatever definition you use I cannot vouch for.
     
  17. Smidlee

    Smidlee Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    Who's we? What group do you speak for?
     
  18. Pontiuth Pilate

    Pontiuth Pilate Republican Jesus!

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,980
    Location:
    Taking stock in the Lord
    That's a pretty weak and silly God, then, if he only exists insofar as anything that I choose to believe in exists.
     
  19. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    51,522
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    I don't think you understand what falsifiable means.

    Copout.

    That's like saying that my belief in Zeus is the proof for his existence.
     
  20. Clausewitzian

    Clausewitzian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    90
    Intelligent Design and Science cannot go together, for Intelligent Design requires assumptions Science was designed not to make.

    Actually, accepting neodarwinistic evolution should be pretty hard for most people who believe in God, since it proposes a mechanism for our existence that does not require a Creator. That is why, of all the branches of science, evolution is the most vilified by extreme versions of christianity, as it undermines their message.
     

Share This Page