You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
There's not much to retort because comparing the existence of an orbiting teapot to the existence of God as if they're equally plausible is bogus... something that asinine would never be "affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth" and "instilled into the minds of children at school." Obviously humans can, and sometimes do, give more weight to something that's passed down than is logically warranted. But just because something's passed down, it's not necessarily wrong because of that, either.
Quote from Gayfly1:
Still no retort to my earlier reference to Russell's Celestial Teapot.
Let's try it again, shall we?
In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I find it interesting that someone would compare a teapot to a Creator after a physicist who sat in Issac Newtons chair as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University in England just explained how incredibly designed our universe appears.
Does that not penetrate through the skulls of those who are atheists?
Do you realize that the best minds in science are telling you are universe appears designed....
how does that happen?
Does that not penetrate through the skulls of those who are atheists?
Do you realize that the best minds in science are telling you are universe appears designed....
how does that happen?
Are you even aware that you played right into Russell's hands? You just confirmed his argument.Quote from Trader666:
There's not much to retort because comparing the existence of an orbiting teapot to the existence of God as if they're equally plausible is bogus... something that asinine would never be "affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth" and "instilled into the minds of children at school." Obviously humans can, and sometimes do, give more weight to something that's passed down than is logically warranted. But just because something's passed down, it's not necessarily wrong because of that, either.
Quote from jem:
Do you realize that the best minds in science are telling you are universe appears designed.... but it isn't.
how does that happen?
How does that happen? You missed part of what they are actually saying, so I fixed it for you.
See if you can fix the other mistake yourself.
A magic sky fairy is not equally plausible as a celestial teapot? You sure?Quote from Trader666:
There's not much to retort because comparing the existence of an orbiting teapot to the existence of God as if they're equally plausible is bogus...
At least teapots do exist.
..well, something that asinine has indeed been affirmed and instilled.Quote from Trader666:
something that asinine would never be "affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth" and "instilled into the minds of children at school."
Instead of calling that something, the Celestial Teapot ,or the Magic Sky Fairy, calling it God instead.
The understatement of two millenniumQuote from Trader666:
Obviously humans can, and sometimes do, give more weight to something that's passed down than is logically warranted.
....nor sensible, rational ,reasonable or correct either.Quote from Trader666:
But just because something's passed down, it's not necessarily wrong because of that, either.
Yes I am sure because there's absolutely no reason to believe there should be a teapot in space but there is reason to believe we were created, so Russell's premise is flawed.
Russell does make a good point about indoctrination, though, so let's look at that. Humans have also been indoctrinated about scientists to the point that many give more weight to what they say than is logically warranted. Especially scientific "gods" like Stephen Hawking.
Do you believe this is true because Stephen Hawking said so? Which is more likely... this, or that Stephen is hawking his book?
âbecause there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..."
I'd argue that this is no more plausible than the existence of God. And because people have been indoctrinated about scientists, many will give it more credence than it deserves. First, if there truly was "nothing" then there would be no "law such as gravity" from which the universe would spontaneously create itself. Second, humans don't understand the nature and structure of the universe anywhere near well enough to proclaim something like this. The fact that 96% of the universe is currently thought to be "dark energy" and "dark matter" (in an attempt to reconcile differences between theory and observation) clearly makes the point that we're far from figuring everything out.
Russell does make a good point about indoctrination, though, so let's look at that. Humans have also been indoctrinated about scientists to the point that many give more weight to what they say than is logically warranted. Especially scientific "gods" like Stephen Hawking.
Do you believe this is true because Stephen Hawking said so? Which is more likely... this, or that Stephen is hawking his book?
âbecause there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..."
I'd argue that this is no more plausible than the existence of God. And because people have been indoctrinated about scientists, many will give it more credence than it deserves. First, if there truly was "nothing" then there would be no "law such as gravity" from which the universe would spontaneously create itself. Second, humans don't understand the nature and structure of the universe anywhere near well enough to proclaim something like this. The fact that 96% of the universe is currently thought to be "dark energy" and "dark matter" (in an attempt to reconcile differences between theory and observation) clearly makes the point that we're far from figuring everything out.
Quote from stu:
A magic sky fairy is not equally plausible as a celestial teapot? You sure?
At least teapots do exist.
..well, something that asinine has indeed been affirmed and instilled.
Instead of calling that something, the Celestial Teapot ,or the Magic Sky Fairy, calling it God instead.
The understatement of two millennium
....nor sensible, rational ,reasonable or correct either.
Stu, you must realize that Trader666 is fighting for his immortal life here in these arguments. If there is no God, then that greatly reduces the chances of there being a heaven or a hereafter. Meanwhile, Trader666 has plans. Big plans. Long term plans.Quote from stu:
...nor sensible, rational ,reasonable or correct either.