The whole point about Russellâs Teapot is / was / still is, that it is unfalsifiable.Quote from Trader666:
You STUpidly miss the point yet again. The original conversation was about Russell's teapot which, as he described, is falsifiable despite your claim to the contrary.
It can never been found or proven. Can it ?!!!
Exactly. He specifically meant his Teapot to be a metaphor for an unfalsifiable concept.Quote from Trader666:
Russell never envisioned SBSS and specifically wrote conditions for telescopes that he thought would make it unfalsifiable
God also, meant as an analogy for something unknowable, may only seem unfalsifiable, but it may or may not actually be so.Quote from Trader666:
Which means, what seems unfalsifiable may or may not actually be.
Well then, as I said, it works on all levels, Russellâs Teapot and God are indeed equally unfalsifiable
Of course God is mythical just as Russellâs Teapot is mythical.Quote from Trader666:
You can't use this template with God because you'd first have to assume God is mythical which would be circular reasoning. Not to mention that all things that seem to be just as unfalsifiable are NOT necessarily equally plausible. That's STUpid childish "thinking."
You couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag.
No amount of searching, no telescope, no dialytic refractor , is ever going to find Russellâs Teapot in any way differently than is the same for God.
They are equally plausible (ie they aren't), they are equally unfalsifiable.
Whatâs astonishing is you destroy your own argument, shoot yourself in both feet at the same time and make my point all in one post.
