Are you an atheist?

[dan-cat]

Now to return to god. I feel the same way about god that I feel about the teapot. I don't need "belief" not to believe in god.

I hate to edit your post down to one line as it was a well balanced argument.

You take on the burden of belief by accepting the teapot as a possibility. If it becomes possible to you, by your own volition, then you must apply a belief to it regarding its existance. The teapot as a thing is abstract in nature but you have made it so by accepting the possibility of it's existance.

It is the price you pay for wanting your cake and eating it. In my opinion of course.

 

[Alisa]

a. I don't think you had to have it orbiting the universe to make your point, you could have made it simply orbiting the earth.

b. If an object is orbiting the universe, technically it is not 'flying'.

c. The best thing to do if someone does say there is a flying teapot is to duck real fast, as there is probably a real mad british female about because an american dame would probably throw a coffe pot.

Ha ha
Actually I didn't make this example up, and I am probably not saying it exactly right. Maybe in the original example it was just flying through the universe rather than orbiting . . .

 

[Alisa]

You take on the burden of belief by accepting the teapot as a possibility. If it becomes possible to you, by your own volition, then you must apply a belief to it regarding its existance.

I need belief to not think that god exists the same way you need belief to NOT be afraid of floating up into the sky when you step outside.

A "believer" (one who believes in god) needs belief to think that there is a god the same way you would need belief to BE afraid of floating up into the sky when you step outside.

If you want to call my kind of belief "belief" that is fine, but it can't be compared to the other kind of belief.

 

[dan-cat]

Just as a side-note.

I always find the analogies of 'flying spaghetti monsters' and 'flying teapots' as inadequate. They attempt to portray God as how atheists want theists to see it. That is to say, a tangible natural thing conforming to the laws of science and somewhat absurd in nature.

The analogies are inadequate because the theist God is supernatural by definition. It cannot be contained in a form that the human mind can perceive because by definition it transcends that perception. They are false analogies, IMO.

 

[KenHigg]

I don't remember a thread about 'nothing' go on so long -

Probably the same reason (what ever it is ?) religion has cause more wars than anything else...

Anyway... Here we sit in our cubes and offices with our bellies full, typing on the computer without a worry in the world while this is going on on the other side of the world:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/myanmar.cyclone/index.html

 

[dan-cat]

I need belief to not think that god exists the same way you need belief to NOT be afraid of floating up into the sky when you step outside.

A "believer" (one who believes in god) needs belief to think that there is a god the same way you would need belief to BE afraid of floating up into the sky when you step outside.

If you want to call my kind of belief "belief" that is fine, but it can't be compared to the other kind of belief.

Just take the latitude

 

[Alisa]

I don't remember a thread about 'nothing' go on so long -

Probably the same reason (what ever it is ?) religion has cause more wars than anything else...

Anyway... Here we sit in our cubes and offices with our bellies full, typing on the computer without a worry in the world while this is going on on the other side of the world:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/myanmar.cyclone/index.html

Not to disregard the magnitude of this tragedy at all, but I think you have just provided the most convincing evidence that god doesn't exist of anyone on this thread.

 

[Rabbie]

Ha ha
Actually I didn't make this example up, and I am probably not saying it exactly right. Maybe in the original example it was just flying through the universe rather than orbiting . . .

I believe (that word again) the flying teapot was first used by Bertrand Russell (Mathematician and Philosopher) to illustrate the point that it would be impossible to prove/disprove the existance of a small dark teapot orbiting the sun opposite from the earth.

 

[KenHigg]

Not to disregard the magnitude of this tragedy at all, but I think you have just provided the most convincing evidence that god doesn't exist of anyone on this thread.

At least not in the form that world define him -

 

[Alisa]

Just as a side-note.

I always find the analogies of 'flying spaghetti monsters' and 'flying teapots' as inadequate. They attempt to portray God as how atheists want theists to see it. That is to say, a tangible natural thing conforming to the laws of science and somewhat absurd in nature.

The analogies are inadequate because the theist God is supernatural by definition. It cannot be contained in a form that the human mind can perceive because by definition it transcends that perception. They are false analogies, IMO.

I think at it's heart, the analogy is valid. Whatever thing you choose to be flying around the universe, whether it be pasta or tea, the important attributes are:
1. Science is incapable of detecting its existence (just like god).
2. Nobody has ever seen it (just like god).
3. It does not appear to affect events on earth (just like god).

Do you disagree with these three points?

 

[KenHigg]

I believe (that word again) the flying teapot was first used by Bertrand Russell (Mathematician and Philosopher) to illustrate the point that it would be impossible to prove/disprove the existance of a small dark teapot orbiting the sun opposite from the earth.

Of course not a dark one, heck I would have trouble finding one of those in the back of the kitchen cabinets. Did he leave latitude for a brightly colored, say yellow one? It may be easier to spot.

 

[Rabbie]

Of course not a dark one, heck I would have trouble finding one of those in the back of the kitchen cabinets. Did he leave latitude for a brightly colored, say yellow one? It may be easier to spot.

I think that was the point, Ken, that it would be impossible to spot. If you could spot it you could prove its existence.

 

[Rabbie]

I think at it's heart, the analogy is valid. Whatever thing you choose to be flying around the universe, whether it be pasta or tea, the important attributes are:
1. Science is incapable of detecting its existence (just like god).
2. Nobody has ever seen it (just like god).
3. It does not appear to affect events on earth (just like god).

Do you disagree with these three points?

I am not sure our religious friends would agree that God doesn't affect events on earth.

Pauldohert has claimed several times in this thread to seen god so that might invalidate point 2

 

[KenHigg]

If it was that close to the sun the water would probably boil off rather quicky as well.

 

[dan-cat]

Do you disagree with these three points?

No but you are missing a crucial qualifier. That it is supernatural by definition. You knew that was the fundamental point I was making but attempted to side step it with some arbitary qualifiers of your own.

Like I said, you are attempting to hammer in my concept of God into a form that you can knock down. A strawman argument, no less.

 

[Alisa]

If it was that close to the sun the water would probably boil off rather quicky as well.

I thought that was a british thing - to never drink tea unless you can completely scald your mouth by doing so?

 

[Pauldohert]

Pauldohert has claimed several times in this thread to seen god so that might invalidate point 2

And I have never seen this teapot thingy - so they are no analogous at all!

 

[Alisa]

No but you are missing a crucial qualifier. That it is supernatural by definition. You knew that was the fundamental point I was making but attempted to side step it with some arbitary qualifiers of your own.

Like I said, you are attempting to hammer in my perception of God into a form that you can knock down. A strawman argument, no less.

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.

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.

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.

 

[KenHigg]

Like I said, you are attempting to hammer in my concept of God into a form that you can knock down.

Well put -

 

[Mike375]

Alisa

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

Hawking and the other leaders in this field have given you the time line where all physics is finished, the Big Bang. Hawking has even said you can't theorise about before Big Bang because the physics has run out.

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.

Since Hawking and Co can't theoriese about pre Big Bang then which branch of science are you using to eliminate a supernatural from the pre Big Bang equation.