What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

[curious_mind]

For those of you who are unaware of Russell's famous teapot analogy, I will direct you here. Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

My question is: What distinguishes any claim of any god's existence from the claim that Russell's teapot exists?

Consider that: Any god is either non-existent (and hence obviously hidden) or existant but hidden, and in the same way, Russell's teapot is either non-existent (and hence hidden) or hidden, but existent. My question for theists is: Why do you think Russell's teapot is non-existent because it is hidden, but not apply the same logic to God? Furthermore, if you are a monotheist, why do you apply Russell's logic to other gods, but not your own? Given the immense sacrifices people have made to thousands of other gods, it seems that many of them believed in them just as fervently, if not more fervantly, as you believe in your god. Why do you dismiss their gods as you would dismiss Russell's Teapot, but not dismiss the one from your own culture?

Let me one up that and see if you can answer this question.

Would you believe me if I stated that my laptop, with all its electrical intricacies and functions, came into being by itself, without any notion of design guiding it, without a manufacturer and without a distributor. Would you believe me?

 

[Rizdek]

Let me one up that and see if you can answer this question.

Would you believe me if I stated that my laptop, with all its electrical intricacies and functions, came into being by itself, without any notion of design guiding it, without a manufacturer and without a distributor. Would you believe me?

I can...

No. I have some knowledge of how computers are made...have built some in the past. So I have first hand experience. And even if I hadn't, I've observed that other things like that look milled and fabricated were built by agents like me. In fact, interestingly enough those features are precisely the way I distinguish between human made items and other things that were designed by other forces. IOW, I agree things in nature are designed...just not necessarily by an intelligent agent. For example, if I were to observe a bunch of marbles all rolling the same direction, I might surmise someone...some agent started them rolling them that way. But another explanation might be that they are on a smooth slope and gravity is causing them to all roll the same direction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me one up that and see if you can answer this question.

Would you believe me if I stated that my laptop, with all its electrical intricacies and functions, came into being by itself, without any notion of design guiding it, without a manufacturer and without a distributor. Would you believe me?

Wait - are you saying that God needs a designer more than a teapot does?

 

[curious_mind]

Wait - are you saying that God needs a designer more than a teapot does?

No, can you quote where I said that?

I am asking, if I told you that my laptop popped into existence, would you or anyone else here, believe me? Simple question, simple answer.

 

[McBell]

Let me one up that and see if you can answer this question.

Would you believe me if I stated that my laptop, with all its electrical intricacies and functions, came into being by itself, without any notion of design guiding it, without a manufacturer and without a distributor. Would you believe me?

Oh geez.
Not the Watchmaker Analogy again....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, can you quote where I said that?

Your post was a bit confused. I asked because I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make.

I am asking, if I told you that my laptop popped into existence, would you or anyone else here, believe me? Simple question, simple answer.

Of course not. Likewise, when someone tells me that God popped into existence (or always existed, or created himself), I don't believe them.

Now... how is your analogy relevant?

 

[curious_mind]

Your post was a bit confused. I asked because I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make.



Of course not. Likewise, when someone tells me that God popped into existence (or always existed, or created himself), I don't believe them.

Now... how is your analogy relevant?

My analogy is not about God, which is the creator not the creation. These are two vastly different things. Your claim, as an atheist or agnostic or whatever confused title you wish to give yourself, is that he universe popped into existence without a guiding force. That universe is vastly more complex than a laptop. If you do not believe a laptop can pop into existence byitself, why do you believe the universe can?

 

[curious_mind]

Oh geez.
Not the Watchmaker Analogy again....

Great, you watched or read some Dawkins. Now, can you actually answer the question?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My analogy is not about God, which is the creator not the creation. These are two vastly different things.

If someone told you a laptop was a "creator," would you believe it poofed into existence?

Your claim, as an atheist or agnostic or whatever confused title you wish to give yourself, is that he universe popped into existence without a guiding force.

If you think that I made that claim, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

That universe is vastly more complex than a laptop. If you do not believe a laptop can pop into existence byitself, why do you believe the universe can?

Psst: do you know what the compositional fallacy is?

"Every cell in my body cannot be seen with the naked eye, therefore I cannot be seen with the naked eye" is just as wrong-headed as "everything in the universe is caused, therefore the universe must be caused."

If you don't believe that a universe can pop into existence by itself, why would you believe that a universe-creating god could?

 

[curious_mind]

If someone told you a laptop was a "creator," would you believe it poofed into existence?

No, because my definition of Creator is from the Quran, and it is not sometihng obviously created, or a laptop lol

If you think that I made that claim, then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Well I assume, which has made an *** of me. But let me ask you, do you believe there was a guiding force in the creation of the universe?

Psst: do you know what the compositional fallacy is?

"Every cell in my body cannot be seen with the naked eye, therefore I cannot be seen with the naked eye" is just as wrong-headed as "everything in the universe is caused, therefore the universe must be caused."

You must think you're talking to a high school drop out. Compositional fallacy does not work that way and the idea of the universe being created is not a compositional fallacy (great work reading pop atheism though). Compositional fallacy is based on ideas of "a part" and "a whole". Your example of the cell and the body is indeed compositional, the universe coming into existence by itself (but I await your answer on if that is what you believe) compared to other constructed/designed things is not compositional at all. However, you may use the blind watchmaker's analogy, as that would be more apt, the idea of complexity and the illusion of design not equating to design. But the counter to that is, once again, my analogy of the laptop. Why should I believe he laptop was designed, if I can merely assume it is the illusion of design. But I know and hope, as a sane person, you do not believe that the laptop is merely an illusion of design.

So, do you have a better understanding of the compositional fallacy now?

If you don't believe that a universe can pop into existence by itself, why would you believe that a universe-creating god could?

Because, as I stated, the Creation is not the same as the Creator. If we again following the Islamic concept, God is defined as having no beginning or end. The universe, is known to have some sort of a beginning, so both natures are different. Your question is like asking how many corners does a circle have, not understanding that the nature of the circle is not to have corners.

Answers above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because my definition of Creator is from the Quran, and it is not sometihng obviously created, or a laptop lol

If your reason for not believing that God needs a creator is "because the Quran says so," then you'll hopefully understand why someone like me, who hasn't accepted the Quran, sees your reasoning as nonsense.

Well I assume, which has made an *** of me. But let me ask you, do you believe there was a guiding force in the creation of the universe?

It doesn't work that way. I'm not going to answer your questions if you don't answer mine.

Here's the one you skipped over:

Now... how is your analogy relevant?

You must think you're talking to a high school drop out.

I have no idea what your educational history is, but your posts so far haven't exactly left me with a positive impression of your critical thinking skills.

However, you may use the blind watchmaker's analogy, as that would be more apt, the idea of complexity and the illusion of design not equating to design. But the counter to that is, once again, my analogy of the laptop. Why should I believe he laptop was designed, if I can merely assume it is the illusion of design. But I know and hope, as a sane person, you do not believe that the laptop is merely an illusion of design.

The watchmaker analogy speaks to how a designed object stands out against an undesigned background.

Do you agree that this laptop/watch has an undesigned background against which to stand out?

Because, as I stated, the Creation is not the same as the Creator. If we again following the Islamic concept, God is defined as having no beginning or end. The universe, is known to have some sort of a beginning, so both natures are different. Your question is like asking how many corners does a circle have, not understanding that the nature of the circle is not to have corners.

Do you understand how this was an assertion and not an explanation?

Your response really amounted to "God doesn't need a cause because he just doesn't! That's why!" with a bunch of hand-waving.

 

[McBell]

Great, you watched or read some Dawkins. Now, can you actually answer the question?

The "question" has been thoroughly refuted not once, not twice, but three times in the FIRST persons refutale of it.
It is all (and then some) in the link in the post you quoted.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans own the topic of talking and thinking and claim it concepts.

Science wants a concept in their civilization greed, to resource to be a known quanta for their manipulation.

As we live inside of an atmosphere that sits inside of space then I would truly wonder at them as a theist. About space being a form to abstract from.

When we are not living directly in their theory about space being where God emerged from as a creator to created body concept. The want of a resource first thinking being placed with the planetary mass itself that once was just sitting in space as mass, without our presence.

Either a heavenly body or a human life existing.

The argument I want space to be an infinite/eternal force from which all form was abstracted in a reaction. And it is a condition only of "I want".

So a thinker says, if God was created then where did God come from. To then be argued against that God is everything, to a theist then space is that answer.

But if you quote in thinking God is everything, then space just another body of a concept plus all the bodies you think is also God would be included also in that use of theorising/thinking. In the God is everything claim. Which then could not displace God anywhere else except to think and claim everything is hence God, including space.

To then own human reasoning to ask a question, why is everything different then.

Which should be the answer of your own acceptance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But let me ask you, do you believe there was a guiding force in the creation of the universe?

If we again following the Islamic concept, ..

Each atom, proton, neutron, electron is 'physical energy'. Energy is what constitutes all things in the universe. This is counter-balanced by Gravitation. So, there are theories which say that the net energy of the universe is 'zero'.
Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

Atheists do not follow out-dated Islamic / Abrahamic concepts.

 

[rational experiences]

Each atom, proton, neutron, electron is 'physical energy'. Energy is what constitutes all things in the universe. This is counter-balanced by Gravitation. So, there are theories which say that the net energy of the universe is 'zero'.
Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

Atheists do not follow out-dated Islamic / Abrahamic concepts.

The ancient God theist, as A theist owning A greed group male human coerced teachings, still doing the same today. Said God is everything, which also means space is portion to God...as if every other body. If everything is God, then you cannot abstract it.

God in science by theory, design model, actual abstraction from God as a theist begins only with Planet Earth. Planet Earth sits surrounded by spatial zero, so he said that body was Mother of God. The spatial vacuum cooled mass to allow it to exist. As space was emptied of form, only opening of space, in a self consuming heated mass allowed change to manifest.

By space expanding, becoming more space as mass consumed itself and removed itself. How relativity was taught.

Therefore if science pretends about mass, then all it is involving in science is Planet Earth. Without any heavenly gases or his own life. If he is talking relative exact quotations science thesis.

If you are not there, then God is held and fixed and fused without you forcing changes to its mass, actually. Relativity about males lying in groups, just as humans, for and on behalf of humans by coercive history, the group.

As he has to own design thesis first, his particles all come from mineral mass first of Earth, so he cannot say that science did not begin with Planet Earth mass as design and theme reaction, when his thesis to design and build the reactor came out of the body mass of Planet Earth.

Why a natural human in natural life was always the spiritual self telling you, the occult self, science what a liar you are.

 

[curious_mind]

If your reason for not believing that God needs a creator is "because the Quran says so," then you'll hopefully understand why someone like me, who hasn't accepted the Quran, sees your reasoning as nonsense.

But that is my reason for believing and states the qualities of God. You, as a person who himself has claimed has no criteria for anything should take it at face value. Why would you claim it is not something you accept, ify ou have no idea what you really accept. You are a confused individual.

It doesn't work that way. I'm not going to answer your questions if you don't answer mine.

Here's the one you skipped over:

Now... how is your analogy relevant?

Please, please...mate, stop trying to backtrack. I answered already and told you what the analogy was about and also discounted. Now, you claim that when I stated you believe the universe popped into existence without an intelligent guiding force, I was wrong and made assumptions regarding your beliefs. So tell me I am wrong and what you actually believe rather than pretending to be clever.


I have no idea what your educational history is, but your posts so far haven't exactly left me with a positive impression of your critical thinking skills.

I'm assuming it is far superior to yours as you have quickly (and rightly) dropped that compositional nonsense after I explained to you what it actually is. Good work

The watchmaker analogy speaks to how a designed object stands out against an undesigned background.

Do you agree that this laptop/watch has an undesigned background against which to stand out?

Jeez lueez kid, do you want me to explain what the blind watch maker analogy is? Just like I did with that compositional nonsense? Heck, for a guy who initially stated he did not want a philosophical response to God, you have brought up a lot of philosophy....much like Dawkins in his useless the God Delusion.

Do you understand how this was an assertion and not an explanation?

Your response really amounted to "God doesn't need a cause because he just doesn't! That's why!" with a bunch of hand-waving.

The only one waving hands is you...or is it a white flag? I repeat, you claimed (not me, I gave you more credit than that) that you have NO CRITERIA. I am presenting you with a criteria for God, if you deny it you have to explain what your alternative is, however, we know in life and this comes through the basic experience of life with a sane brain, that various things have their properties. The universe has a very obvious property where it had a beginning, does it have an end....maybe according to science, definite according to monotheistic faiths. God's property is that He has no beginning and no end, why would you deny that property as you yourself have no criteria for anything. This is utter intellectual dishonesty from people like you BUT I assume you think you like science, so let me tell you what modern physics teaches on the matter, that before the universe was an unending, always existing (eternal) field of energy which existed before the universe and would exist after it. This is where the universe originates from. Now can you explain why that scientific concept would be unacceptable to you?

I assume some more ridiculous responses

 

[Rizdek]

No, can you quote where I said that?

I am asking, if I told you that my laptop popped into existence, would you or anyone else here, believe me? Simple question, simple answer.

I'll give you a simple answer...no. If someone came on some discussion website and said they were posting from a lap top that EITHER just popped into existence OR that has just always existed we wouldn't believe them.

But what is that saying? It's saying we would doubt the word of the person making the claim.

Is that the point you were trying to make?

 

[curious_mind]

I'll give you a simple answer...no. If someone came on some discussion website and said they were posting from a lap top that EITHER just popped into existence OR that has just always existed we wouldn't believe them.

But what is that saying? It's saying we would doubt the word of the person making the claim.

Is that the point you were trying to make?

So you are doubting the claim of a person. Let's say the world pre-eminent physicists, whoever that is, told you directly that his laptop popped into existence, would you believe him?

Do not try and play childish games, you know what the issue is....you would not believe ANYONE, forget who is making the claim because you know the claim is ludicrous. So why would you believe a universe that is infinitely more complex, why would you believe that popped into existence without a designer. It is nonsensical and you end up with the silly arguments some have posted on here.

 

[Milton Platt]

For those of you who are unaware of Russell's famous teapot analogy, I will direct you here. Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

My question is: What distinguishes any claim of any god's existence from the claim that Russell's teapot exists?

Consider that: Any god is either non-existent (and hence obviously hidden) or existant but hidden, and in the same way, Russell's teapot is either non-existent (and hence hidden) or hidden, but existent. My question for theists is: Why do you think Russell's teapot is non-existent because it is hidden, but not apply the same logic to God? Furthermore, if you are a monotheist, why do you apply Russell's logic to other gods, but not your own? Given the immense sacrifices people have made to thousands of other gods, it seems that many of them believed in them just as fervently, if not more fervantly, as you believe in your god. Why do you dismiss their gods as you would dismiss Russell's Teapot, but not dismiss the one from your own culture?

What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

The teapot has a handle and a spout.....as far as I know, none of the gods do???

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

The teapot has a handle and a spout.....as far as I know, none of the gods do???

I believe that the Church of England's God also has a handle and a spout.