What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

[Rational Agnostic]

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?

 

[Quintessence]

Well, my gods are easily observed so... I don't think this applies to polytheist theology or any other god-concepts that reject a categorical separation between gods/nature/universe. So there's that distinction, I guess? Many god-concepts simply aren't analogous to the teapot?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or god is place holder name for the first unmoved mover, but the teapot is not a first unmoved mover. All gods are not theistic, so your question doesn't apply to me.
My God is natural god in that she has none of the usual characteristics of a theistic god.
For theistic gods I am an atheist and agnostic.

So I resent that you limit the concept of a god to a theistic god. If you want to know, I am even an agnostic about the God, I believe in.

 

[sun rise]

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

Nothing. If something exists, it can be visited. If the teapot exists, however small it is, it could theoretically be visited and detected.

God's existence is also of that kind. Those who visit God, by walking the spiritual path, by analogy have done the same thing.

The problem then becomes once removed - believing in the one who says she'd verified the existence of the teapot or God.

 

[Quintessence]

To add, I also think the teapot analogy misses the point of declaring something as worthy of worship (aka, granting something the title of "god"). For few aspects of our day to day lives is proof a relevant measure to begin with, as most of our lives are driven by values and emotions, both of which are subjectively determined and a product of life experiences. Declaring something worthy of worship is fundamentally a question of values, which needs no "proofs" in the sense the teapot analogy is demanding. You either decide something is worthy of worship and grant it a special honorific title to describe that like "god" ... or you don't. There's no right or wrong of it, no proving or disproving it.

I wish we would do a better job of moving past the shallow dimension of what it means to "believe in" something, especially gods. The most superficial way to evaluate that statement is to make it about mere existence (and usually a narrowly-defined matter of existing at that) instead of addressing how the heart of "believe in" from a religious standpoint is usually about values or trust. But when education about theology of religion is an order of magnitude more terrible than education about the sciences, I probably expect too much...

 

[epronovost]

My God is natural god in that she has none of the usual characteristics of a theistic god..

Would you be willing to describe your deity?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or god is place holder name for the first unmoved mover, but the teapot is not a first unmoved mover.

I am always troubled by this "unmoved mover" notion. It seems a little daft, to me, anyway, to assume that in order to explain how something came from nothing by proposing something that appears to have done just that! (In other words, to explain an impossibility, I must propose exactly that impossibility as the explanation.)

Well, if you can do that, you've finished the job, and might just as well say "god" and "existence" are entirely equivalent, and there's nothing more need to be explained.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Nothing. If something exists, it can be visited. If the teapot exists, however small it is, it could theoretically be visited and detected.

God's existence is also of that kind. Those who visit God, by walking the spiritual path, by analogy have done the same thing.

The problem then becomes once removed - believing in the one who says she'd verified the existence of the teapot or God.

But we can, in principle, do exactly that! We've already landed multiple vehicles -- complete with cameras, sensors, automated labs -- on Mars. After that, it's almost trivial to get a probe out there into Saturns rings, find the teapot and take a photo.

This idea of "visiting God by walking the spiritual path" is 100% indistinguishable from an entirely neural event -- and we know of many such neural events which do not demonstrate the presence of what is claimed. (Read any of the works of neurologist Dr. Oliver Sacks for plenty of examples.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To add, I also think the teapot analogy misses the point of declaring something as worthy of worship (aka, granting something the title of "god"). For few aspects of our day to day lives is proof a relevant measure to begin with, as most of our lives are driven by values and emotions, both of which are subjectively determined and a product of life experiences. Declaring something worthy of worship is fundamentally a question of values, which needs no "proofs" in the sense the teapot analogy is demanding. You either decide something is worthy of worship and grant it a special honorific title to describe that like "god" ... or you don't. There's no right or wrong of it, no proving or disproving it.

I wish we would do a better job of moving past the shallow dimension of what it means to "believe in" something, especially gods. The most superficial way to evaluate that statement is to make it about mere existence (and usually a narrowly-defined matter of existing at that) instead of addressing how the heart of "believe in" from a religious standpoint is usually about values or trust. But when education about theology of religion is an order of magnitude more terrible than education about the sciences, I probably expect too much...

"Worship" is a notion that is entirely foreign to me. I have never had the desire to worship anything, in all my 72 years.

I have liked many things, appreciated many things, loved people, arts, music, etc. I've even been willing to grant a few people the right to treat me unkindly, though not often. I've applauded great performances most enthusiastically (Colm Feore's Cyrano de Bergerac, and his King Lear, for example), but I've never been even tempted to get on my knees and worship him.

I love my life partner deeply, but have never had the urge to worship him, or the ground he walks on. It's just ground, and love is just love (grand, but still just love).

I remember long ago admiring the cellist Pablo Cassals no end, and nowadays, Stjepan Hauser is nearly as wonderful...but worship? No. Listen, yes, any day, any time. But not worship.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing. If something exists, it can be visited. If the teapot exists, however small it is, it could theoretically be visited and detected.

God's existence is also of that kind. Those who visit God, by walking the spiritual path, by analogy have done the same thing.

The problem then becomes once removed - believing in the one who says she'd verified the existence of the teapot or God.

That will give rise to a new set of questions as to where the teapot is.

Is it actually somewhere where others can see it, or is it tucked away in somebody's mind where it remains conceptual ? Albiet real to that person who envisions a teapot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

If you get a bunch of people together who all believe in Russell's Teapot, they won't get a special tax break.

Oh - and people who believe in Russell's teapot are less likely to kill you for not believing in the teapot, or for believing in a slightly different teapot than the one they believe in.

 

[Scott C.]

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

If I had no more reason to believe in God than I have to believe in a teapot orbiting the Sun, I would not believe in God.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Russell's Teapot is an idea, but not a reality capable of experience.
God is at root an ontological concept, not a concept of thought though, but of the quality of existence itself; the very ground of reality itself.
If God was merely a belief of the mind, then it would not be worth much. And for religious people that "believe" like that, I would insult them myself.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I am always troubled by this "unmoved mover" notion.

My problem with the unmoved mover argument is that it takes a linear view of time, which (according to most religions AND to science as well) is illusory in nature and in fact not linear, despite perceiving it day-to-day as such.
No sane Abrahamic or Dharmic would use that argument, but many stupid people are convinced of it.

 

[McBell]

What distinguishes God from Russell's Teapot?

Um...
That there are far to many people on this planet that accept "God told me to" as a valid excuse to engage in evil?

 

[rational experiences]

When males as the inventor designer of all science quotes from human consciousness quotes God themes as HE or HIM with self inference, then you use rationality.

Look at an animal before us historically and say animals do not do science, speak or own scientific theory....as conscious awareness.....rationally.

Then you would ask self, the designer of science, being one condition ARTIFICIAL form....machines. Built by human males, controlled by human males as the bio self inference, Creator self. Seeing he owns control of a machine that changes natural.

Now historically the information reasoned that owns the ability to RECORD exists as a vision condition in the natural O planetary and atmospheric mass conditions. Image and recorded sounds. So historically that CONDITION exists before all Nature and bio existence when you apply thinking ability.

Yet in the past the actual science VISION/IMAGE which did not own sound/voice recording or self in that vision image, was a flooded Earth mass. ^^^^^^^^^^^^mountain peaks above the water line, and o UFO attacker, ending its converting of Planet Earth from the God O sun body that rebelled against form.

A self consumer.

No human in the vision and image, just the mountain conversion, stopped by mass off the ground water evaporation.

When a male decided to emulate ground mass physical stone conversion, the UFO then introduced his life, voice and image into the vision also. How he got encoded/recorded in radiation mass atmospheric feed back.

A fake vision of self, male....a fake mass male population recorded voice. Why he began to quote that self was a God, when the spiritual male is owner.

If you give the subject of study/teaching a review....imagine if all humans stopped having sex. You would all live, age and die out....no humans left on Earth, the storyteller theist about self being a God in science. As the reality.

Self is the highest consciousness, the most spiritual consciousness, total innocence.

Science was re the search, attacked by conditions of falsification of information that involves artificial male human machine controlled states, and it was always just his own self feed back, in a very large atmospheric forced feed back.

Self idolisation actually.

 

[sun rise]

That will give rise to a new set of questions as to where the teapot is.

Is it actually somewhere where others can see it, or is it tucked away in somebody's mind where it remains conceptual ? Albiet real to that person who envisions a teapot.

I have hot water on the stove and a tea bag. Think I'll find the teapot in time for a nice cuppa?

 

[Quintessence]

"Worship" is a notion that is entirely foreign to me. I have never had the desire to worship anything, in all my 72 years.

I have liked many things, appreciated many things, loved people, arts, music, etc. I've even been willing to grant a few people the right to treat me unkindly, though not often. I've applauded great performances most enthusiastically (Colm Feore's Cyrano de Bergerac, and his King Lear, for example), but I've never been even tempted to get on my knees and worship him.

I've noticed that when worship is "foreign" it's because folks define worship in a way that makes it so. They have this weird caricature or stereotype in their heads about what worship looks like that isn't really accurate.

I never "get on my knees" or debase myself when I worship, nor was this a part of my religious upbringing. Worship was participating in traditional rituals, engaging in the fine arts (especially singing), and simply investing time in the study and acknowledgement of God (yes, that god). As a Pagan who then began exploring world religions, my understanding of what worship looks like expanded even further. With this background, I just have to scratch my head at the folks who think worship is some sort of extreme thing that requires debasing oneself. I don't feel the urge to "get on my knees" either. I still know how to experience joy, awe, fascination, and gratitude towards the sacred... which is what worship is actually about.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've noticed that when worship is "foreign" it's because folks define worship in a way that makes it so. They have this weird caricature or stereotype in their heads about what worship looks like that isn't really accurate.

I never "get on my knees" or debase myself when I worship, nor was this a part of my religious upbringing. Worship was participating in traditional rituals, engaging in the fine arts (especially singing), and simply investing time in the study and acknowledgement of God (yes, that god). As a Pagan who then began exploring world religions, my understanding of what worship looks like expanded even further. With this background, I just have to scratch my head at the folks who think worship is some sort of extreme thing that requires debasing oneself. I don't feel the urge to "get on my knees" either. I still know how to experience joy, awe, fascination, and gratitude towards the sacred... which is what worship is actually about.

I'm sure that's all good for you, but 2 points:

First, most every place of worship that I've encountered has either a place specifically designed to kneel, or lovely prayer mats for abasing yourself completely.

Second, you use another word that has no meaning for me, and that is "sacred." As I said in my prior post, Colme Feore's Cyrano de Bergerac was astonishing in the beauty of his performance...I mean this literally, at the Stratford Festival's main theatre, the audience quite literally erupted at the end -- all as if they had been exploded out of their seats. I could actually feel the pressure wave (I was in excellent seats at the edge of the thrust stage). But while I will remember that performance for the rest of my life, and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to see it, I don't hold it sacred. I'm all for another actor, another director, another company having a go at it, to see what they can do. And I'll probably go to that, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am always troubled by this "unmoved mover" notion. It seems a little daft, to me, anyway, to assume that in order to explain how something came from nothing by proposing something that appears to have done just that! (In other words, to explain an impossibility, I must propose exactly that impossibility as the explanation.)

Well, if you can do that, you've finished the job, and might just as well say "god" and "existence" are entirely equivalent, and there's nothing more need to be explained.

I generally take stuff like that as motivated reasoning.

It's an example of the God of the Gaps; it's not the product of an open-minded search for truth.

Instead of starting with the evidence and trying to find the best explanation, it's a backward process: they start with the assumption of God and then shop around for evidence they can use to suit their predetermined conclusion.