Author Topic: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism  (Read 34920 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« on: March 12, 2012, 04:06:16 PM »
I've noticed it is becoming increasingly more common for atheists to assert that their position is 'neutral', and that atheism does not make any truth claim. This idea was first made known to me by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion where he refers to the analogy of the outer space teapot. Here is a description from an article by Russell:
Quote
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. 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 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.

But to me it is obvious that the statement "God does not exist" really is a judgment call. If you say "God does not exist," you are making an assertion.

If there is no evidence for God, you really aren't justified in believing there is no God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not affirming the alternate - absence of evidence is not evidence of presence either.But if there is no evidence for the nonexistence of God, you are, at best, left with agnosticism. An agnostic is someone that withholds judgment, that cannot comment on the issue.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:26:27 PM by Ħ »
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2012, 04:08:10 PM »
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2012, 04:13:24 PM »
Well yeah, that's pretty much the definition of agnostic. 

The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2012, 04:13:44 PM »
Same here, that's why I refer to myself as "strong agnostic". It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2012, 04:16:10 PM »
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2012, 04:24:56 PM »
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.


And for what reasons do you think it is unlikely?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2012, 04:31:28 PM »
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.

Why?  God is unprovable.  Therefore theists don't depend on proof.  They depend on faith.  The God argument has no merit without the use of faith.  God holds no power if there is no faith.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2012, 04:34:20 PM »
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.

But agnosticism isn't a stance.  It's the measure of surety of a stance.

I don't believe in gods.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 15237
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2012, 04:37:29 PM »
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.

Why?  God is unprovable.  Therefore theists don't depend on proof.  They depend on faith.  The God argument has no merit without the use of faith.  God holds no power if there is no faith.

Here we go again....but I'm gonna say it anyway.

In the *ABSOLUTE* sense....*neither* side is provable and so BOTH operate on *SOME* measure of faith.   Because unless you were there as a personal eyewitness to the genesis of life in the universe...you CANNOT know.   You can only piece together existing evidence.

But here's where it comes down to the two sides.   One side follows one line of evidence, the other side follows another line of evidence.     Both sides have "evidence"...every person has to make their own *educated* decision into which side of the argument (which line of evidence) makes the stronger case.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - https://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2012, 04:39:48 PM »
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.

Why?  God is unprovable.  Therefore theists don't depend on proof.  They depend on faith.  The God argument has no merit without the use of faith.  God holds no power if there is no faith.
I will not deny that faith without logical or empirical proof as a response to being touched by God is one of the main reasons of belief in God. In that case, it is experiential evidence, and belief in God becomes a properly basic belief.

But just because many are satisfied with simply having a properly basic belief doesn't mean that there aren't other arguments available. Throughout the centuries, many arguments for the existence of God have been presented. Whether or not these arguments are good, the very fact that so much energy and time have been exhausted shows that there are actually people interested in proof for God.

Not all theists care about proof. But there are evidently those who are. Your statement "theists don't bother with proof" is simply false.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline 7StringedBeast

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2804
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2012, 04:40:12 PM »
You don't need faith at all to not believe in something haha.  So really I'm not sure where you are going with that.  You literally need 0% faith to think that there is no God.  I don't have faith there is a god, and I don't have faith that there isn't one.
If anyone in this thread judge him; heyy James WTF? about you in Awake In Japan? Then I will say; WTF about you silly?

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2012, 04:42:46 PM »
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.

Thing is, no offense, you're doing a somewhat covert "switch and bait". I really have no problem with people asserting the necessity for a prime mover. A prime mover is not a God. A prime mover that instantiated a universe can be anything really; a infinitely-dimensional property, a zero-dimensional point in space, a post-burrito fart. Or maybe, nothing. It might take nothing after all to instantiate a universe.
Theists often jump from the conclusion that there might be a prime mover, to the conclusion that there must be a god then. Far from it.
And that's what I mean by unlikely. The existing concepts of God, be they Jehova, Krishna or whatever, are with 99.999999% certainty wrong. We know pretty certain how they came about, by accumulation of human extrapolation.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2012, 04:49:28 PM »
Thing is, no offense, you're doing a somewhat covert "switch and bait". I really have no problem with people asserting the necessity for a prime mover. A prime mover is not a God. A prime mover that instantiated a universe can be anything really; a infinitely-dimensional property, a zero-dimensional point in space, a post-burrito fart.
Theists often jump from the conclusion that there might be a prime mover, to the conclusion that there must be a god then. Far from it.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument shows that there must (not 'might') be a cause to the universe, and that this cause must be non-temporal (therefore changeless), non-spatial (therefore immaterial), unimaginably powerful, and personal. Whether you want to call that 'God', the 'Prime Mover', a 'supercomputer', or a 'post-burrito fart', that is up to you.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2012, 05:03:21 PM »
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:

- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. You want it to be big and powerful, that's all. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.

rumborak
 
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 05:09:09 PM by rumborak »
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2012, 05:10:21 PM »
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:

- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.

rumborak

I don't know what is so hard to comprehend about this. If the universe began to exist, it follows that whatever the cause of the universe is must be transcendent, beyond of, space, time, energy and matter because energy, matter, space and time began to exist. And please, stating that our universe was caused to come into existence "by nothing" is patent poppycock.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2012, 05:10:58 PM »
Aaaaand, I'm out.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2012, 05:12:13 PM »
Something about a tail and two legs, I suppose.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2012, 05:14:17 PM »
The thing is with "proof", theists don't bother with proof.  They just have faith and that is the only argument they can stand on is that they have faith.

Wha?

Are you ignorant of the past 2500 years of philosophical and theological thought? In fact, if anyone is in lack of arguments to support their worldview, it would be atheists. That "Problem of Evil" argument hasn't exactly worked wonders, has it?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2012, 05:15:53 PM »
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:

- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.

rumborak

I don't know what is so hard to comprehend about this. If the universe began to exist, it follows that whatever the cause of the universe is must be transcendent, beyond of, space, time, energy and matter because energy, matter, space and time began to exist. And please, stating that our universe was caused to come into existence "by nothing" is patent poppycock.

As I posted in the last thread to no reply,

But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.

*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 805
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2012, 05:21:55 PM »
But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.

*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.

To begin with, there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse, plane, etc. And secondly, an absolute beginning of existence cannot be avoided. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 36093
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2012, 05:22:29 PM »
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.

But agnosticism isn't a stance.  It's the measure of surety of a stance.

I don't believe in gods.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.

The stance is that we cannot know. It's a stance. It's just not a claim as to whether or not there is a god, but that isn't required to be a stance.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2012, 05:28:52 PM »
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.

Which are?

Regardless, as I've said in the past, our understanding of the universe is so small as to be considered non-existent.  There's no telling how far off we could be in how we think the universe works.  It's certainly not something I'd want to use as the basis for discussing whether or not God exists.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2012, 05:30:22 PM »
But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.

*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.

To begin with, there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse, plane, etc. And secondly, an absolute beginning of existence cannot be avoided. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.

Wait what? You say that whatever caused the universe had to be transcendent of time, energy, matter, etc. Some other system outside of the universe is, by definition, all of those things. How is God exempt from your objections but a multiverse (or any other non-deity solution) not?

And as I've said before, you're talking about something that exists (or whatever you want to call it) outside of our universe. It's flat-out silly to try to make any real claims on it.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2012, 05:43:52 PM »
No offense again, but the attributes you use don't even make sense. In order:

- "Changeless": Doesn't make sense to use that term outside of spacetime.
- "Powerful": Why? Total extrapolation of lack of knowledge on our side, something theists have done for millennia. The Big Bang started infinitesimally small, and we know matter (and thus energy) can spontaneously appear. In all likelihood, the creation of a universe has nothing to do with power, and in fact might require none at all.
- "Personal": WTF? Human arrogance at its best. You're not the center of the universe.

rumborak
 
I'll answer that, but that is not the issue of our present discussion. You said God is defined in such a way that he is unprovable. I listed the Kalam Cosmological Argument's definition of God, and I don't think it's unreasonable, ungraspable, or too abstract.

Space and time began with the universe. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be 1) non-temporal and 2) non-spatial.

Change depends on time, so if something is not dependent on a time, it is changeless. Therefore, the cause of the universe is 3) changeless.

Immateriality depends on space, so if something is not dependent on space, it is immaterial. Therefore, the cause of the universe is 4) immaterial.

The cause of the universe must have been powerful enough to cause the universe. We know that the universe came from literally nothing - not even an energy gradient (an energy gradient a requirement for spontaneously appearing matter). I think there is a difference to be recognized here between the nothingness of space, which is affected by energy gradients, and true nothingness. It might take very little to create matter in the nothingness of space, but I think it's intuitive that it would be quite different for a situation where something emerges out of true nothingness. So I don't think it's a far cry to say the cause of the universe is 5) unimaginably powerful. Note that here I really do mean unimaginable, in where we can't even grasp what it really takes to form something out of true nothingness, or what the cause of the universe is really capable of elsewhere.

And when I say the cause of the universe must have been 'personal', I think you're taking that to mean that I am saying the universe was meant to be human-oriented, or that the cause of the universe desires to interact with the universe. That is not what I'm saying.

a) The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects. Abstract objects don't stand in causal relationships. So the cause of the universe must be a mind.

b) This is a little wordy, so instead of butchering it, I'll post a quote by WLC:

Quote
. . . only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an impersonal, mechanically operating cause, then the cause could never exist without its effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. To illustrate: Let's say the cause of water's freezing is sub-zero temperatures. If the temperature were eternally below zero degrees Centigrade, then any water around would be eternally frozen. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze a finite time ago. But this implies that if the cause of the universe existed eternally, the universe would also have existed eternally.

The only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its Personal Creator.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2012, 05:47:43 PM »
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.

Which are?

Regardless, as I've said in the past, our understanding of the universe is so small as to be considered non-existent.  There's no telling how far off we could be in how we think the universe works.  It's certainly not something I'd want to use as the basis for discussing whether or not God exists.
The impossibility of an infinite series of past events? That's a philosophical conclusion and not a scientific one. We don't need any information about the universe to realize that.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2012, 05:49:26 PM »
But why does it have to be god? The simple fact is we have no idea what lies beyond our universe. Could it be some eternal entity that created it? Sure. It's also equally concievable that it's some other eternal plane/universe/multiverse that by it's nature spawns universe(s), independent of any conscious design.* The simple fact is we simply don't know, and there's no reason to believe it's God over anything else.

*And the 'well then where did that universe come from?' argument isn't applicable. There's no reason to believe that anything outside our universe would follow our universe's laws of physics.

To begin with, there is no evidence for any sort of multiverse, plane, etc. And secondly, an absolute beginning of existence cannot be avoided. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.

Wait what? You say that whatever caused the universe had to be transcendent of time, energy, matter, etc. Some other system outside of the universe is, by definition, all of those things. How is God exempt from your objections but a multiverse (or any other non-deity solution) not?

And as I've said before, you're talking about something that exists (or whatever you want to call it) outside of our universe. It's flat-out silly to try to make any real claims on it.
Sigz, it sounds to me like you're basically describing God as we're defining him with those six attributes, although it might not be personal, so my first post in this string of multiposts might serve you, too.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 30572
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2012, 05:55:20 PM »
It can not be known for sure because God these days is almost defined to be non-provable. But goodness gracious is it unlikely.
I sort of agree with where you're coming from. I find it really hard to construct a Godless universe. Perhaps one that expands and retracts in a never-ending cycle. Maybe even a multiverse. But even then, you run into problems such as the impossibility of an infinite series of past events. To be honest with you, the only real situation I can imagine where God does not exist is nonexistence of the universe - as we've seen in our discussion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the very existence of anything at all can be regarded as powerful evidence for God.

Which are?

Regardless, as I've said in the past, our understanding of the universe is so small as to be considered non-existent.  There's no telling how far off we could be in how we think the universe works.  It's certainly not something I'd want to use as the basis for discussing whether or not God exists.
The impossibility of an infinite series of past events? That's a philosophical conclusion and not a scientific one. We don't need any information about the universe to realize that.
I was making two separate points.  One is that I see no reason to eliminate the possibility of infinite regress (other than wishful thinking).  The only argument I can find is predicated on the fact that absolute infinity cannot exist, and I don't buy into that.  The second point is that none of this really matters since, as Sigz pointed out, trying to use something we know pretty much nothing about to prove the existence of something else we know nothing about is just silly. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #27 on: March 12, 2012, 05:59:00 PM »
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.

Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2012, 06:03:27 PM »
I completely agree with you brotha. I hold that agnosticism is the neutral stance, with atheism and theism on either side.

But agnosticism isn't a stance.  It's the measure of surety of a stance.

I don't believe in gods.  I'm an atheist.  I'm not sure there isn't a god, but that doesn't not make me an atheist.

The stance is that we cannot know. It's a stance. It's just not a claim as to whether or not there is a god, but that isn't required to be a stance.

It's not a theological stance.

Of course we cannot know.  To claim otherwise is foolish.  But given that you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist.  Whether you believe you can know or not doesn't matter.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2012, 06:09:01 PM »
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.

Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2012, 06:14:59 PM »
In response to the OP: Russell's teapot doesn't define atheism in any way, as you suggest. It doesn't say anything about atheism or what atheists believe or should believe. All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.

If you've found that people claim that atheism is neutral and doesn't take a stance one way the other on whether God exists, that's wrong, and it doesn't have anything to do with Dawkins or Russell. It just means that they're semantically confused. Agnosticism is probably what they want.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2012, 06:17:50 PM »
All it's saying is that were a god to exist, the burden of proof lies in the believers, not the disbelievers, which is a pretty agreeable statement.
The burden of proof lies in both the theists and the atheists. The agnostics are the only ones that don't have to prove anything. That's why the teapot analogy is wrong.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2012, 06:18:42 PM »
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.

Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?

Unembodied minds? What is this, Star Trek? :lol
The only minds we know of don't even survive a bullet to the head, let alone absence of time and space

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2012, 06:21:24 PM »
The only things that can be timeless and immaterial are minds and abstract objects.

Sweet jesus this is a weak premise. One could very easily say that abstract objects only exist inside a mind, and that a mind requires a material existence to function. In fact, I don't see what basis there is for either of those statements.
Can you think of anything other than an unembodied mind and abstract objects that can exist outside of time and space?

Unembodied minds? What is this, Star Trek? :lol
The only minds we know of don't even survive a bullet to the head, let alone absence of time and space

rumborak
If we say that unembodied minds are impossible, then the only things that could exist outside time and space are abstract objects. That would mean that the cause of the universe must be an abstract object, as it is the only thing outside of time and space. But abstract objects don't exist in causal relationships. So you have a contradiction.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism
« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2012, 06:23:56 PM »
We can hardly even imagine existence outside of time and space, let alone what can/could/does exist there. You have absolutely no basis on which to try to narrow it down to only two things that can.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.