Are you an atheist?

[dan-cat]

You are saying science can't detect god because god is supernatural, whereas the teapot can't be detected because it is too small. That is a fine distinction to make, but it is irrelevent to the argument. The premise of the argument is that the teapot, like god, cannot be detected, the reason why it cannot be detected is not important.

Correct, if I agree that the supernatural concept of God is unimportant. However it is crucial. That is why your analogy fails because you attempting to make the supernatural aspect of God unimportant. It is therefore a false analogy.

Given the claim that something exists, and given that it is impossible to detect the existence of this thing, for whatever reason, it is reasonable to assume that the thing does not exist.

I understand your point of view, you have repeated it several times.

BTW, I believe a strawman argument is when you make a false argument for the opposing viewpoint. I don't believe I am doing that here . . . I am making an argument for my own viewpoint.

Your viewpoint is countering the theist! You are attempting to make an analogy of God in order to knock it down. I believe it is a false analogy and therefore a strawman. If you do not wish to attack the theist stop making analogies of their belief!

 

[dan-cat]

Well put -

I thought you'd stop reading this preposterous piffle a while back

 

[Alisa]

Correct, if I agree that the supernatural concept of God is unimportant. However it is crucial. That is why your analogy fails because you attempting to make the supernatural aspect of God unimportant. It is therefore a false analogy.

ok, say it is a supernatural teapot, that is flying around the universe, that we can not and never will be able to detect. Does that suddenly make it believable for you? Or would your natural reaction still be to discount the existence of such teapot?

 

[Alisa]

Alisa

Trying to apply physics/science to a supernatural is by definition a waste of time.

I am not applying science to the supernatural. In the analogy, we have a teapot, or whatever you want to use, that BY DEFINITION cannot be detected or measured or analyzed with science. Just like your god, which BY DEFINITION cannot be detected.

 

[dan-cat]

ok, say it is a supernatural teapot, that is flying around the universe, that we can not and never will be able to detect. Does that suddenly make it believable for you? Or would your natural reaction still be to discount the existence of such teapot?

I think you need to stop making analogies out of the infinite altogether.

A supernatural teapot flying inside the universe is even more absurd.

Stick with the Occam's razor approach.

 

[KenHigg]

I thought you'd stop reading this preposterous piffle a while back

There's a greater probablity of one of us spotting the teapot than there is of this thread changing anyone's views -

 

[Pauldohert]

There's a greater probablity of one of us spotting the teapot than there is of this thread changing anyone's views -

Its just your lack of education. You need to adopt a willingness to learn. Come on Ken buck your ideas up and stop distrupting the class.

Some of us want to learn!

 

[Darth Vodka]

A supernatural teapot flying inside the universe is even more absurd.

erm..around the sun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

between Earth & Mars

 

[Alisa]

A supernatural teapot flying inside the universe is even more absurd.

So exactly why is it that a supernatural teapot is more absurd than a supernatural god?

 

[dan-cat]

erm..around the sun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

between Earth & Mars

No. I was referring to this teapot.

"ok, say it is a supernatural teapot, that is flying around the universe, that we can not and never will be able to detect."

But my argument of a false analogy applies to Dawkins comment featured in that article.

 

[dan-cat]

So exactly why is it that a supernatural teapot is more absurd than a supernatural god?

Because it is a supernatural object existing within nature. I fear you have no idea where I am coming from.

 

[KenHigg]

Its just your lack of education. You need to adopt a willingness to learn. Come on Ken buck your ideas up and stop distrupting the class.

Some of us want to learn!

There's over a 1000 posts in this thread, would you mind showing me just one that indicates anyone has learned anything (other than another way to mis-spell disrupt and another use for a teapot )

Learn? Get real, you just want an audience to spout off in front of and get a feeling of importance just like the rest of us -

 

[dan-cat]

Learn? Get real, you just want an audience to spout off in front of and get a feeling of importance just like the rest of us -

If that was an intended pun, it was hilarious.

 

[KenHigg]

No it wasn't but it still is

 

[dan-cat]

I really have to finish this bit of code off today. Might be back later.

 

[Alisa]

Because it is a supernatural object existing within nature.

Isn't that what god is?

 

[Rabbie]

No. I was referring to this teapot.

"ok, say it is a supernatural teapot, that is flying around the universe, that we can not and never will be able to detect."

But my argument of a false analogy applies to Dawkins comment featured in that article.

But unfortunately organised religion has done all those things that Dawkins referred to. Lets hope the teapot cult doesn't catch on or Dawkins may find that teapot cultists become just as bigotted.

 

[KenHigg]

Yeah... I really need to get back to work myself. Someone else may have to humour Paul for a while. Alisa, you'll have to carry the torch, er... I mean teapot -

 

[Darth Vodka]

No. I was referring to this teapot.

"ok, say it is a supernatural teapot, that is flying around the universe, that we can not and never will be able to detect."

But my argument of a false analogy applies to Dawkins comment featured in that article.

how dare someone stray from teapot orthodoxy

DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!

 

[Darth Vodka]

So you have two choices:

1) Do what Hawking and others do and ignore pre Big Bang

2) Contemplate what was there pre Big Bang.

3) accept that time is a property of the universe and was created at the big bang and that asking what was before the big bang is no more valid than asking "what is north of the north pole?"