'The Logic Behind Russel's Teapot'

Nope! My "footwork for others" key on the keyboard quit working.

 

Yes you have. The light coming from your monitor are photons. The monitor itself is made up of quarks which make up neutrons and protons. The electricity that powers it is made up of electrons, etc...

 

You must not have read what I wrote. I said that " I have yet to see a single, solitary, electron, photon, quark, boson, neutron, etc..." I have seen the effects created by many billions of photons and electrons... but not a single, solitary electron or photon.

 

And with that I accept your concession.

 

You calling it a "concession" does not make it a "concession". Where is your PROOF of claim that I have made a concession?

 

You're welcome.

 

Now what is supposed to be so special about the image that you posted above, other than it being a violation of the rules and guidelines of this forum? (you posted the graphic without posting any personal comment stating anything about its relevance to the topic of discussion). I am sincerely hoping that you are not planning on saying that it is a picture of a single, solitary photon or electron or quark or boson or some other silly scientific name?

 

Of course it does. You lost by default because you are unable to provide any evidence for,the positive claim you made.
.

see above

 

The evidence is found at the bottom of the page at this link http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=423631&p=1065361213#post1065361213
The evidence is that at least one person 'liked' the posting of mine, which would amount to that person seeing some value to what I wrote. Only that person can say what the particular value was in his perception.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone or to break any rules. This is a photograph of the tracks of subatomic particles like quarks, mesons etc. Each track is a single, solitary subatomic particle from a collision of larger particles in a particle accelerator. A physicist could tell you what each particle is, but I'm not a particle physicist so I couldn't tell you exactly which particle is which. Now I hope you don't complain that this has multiple particles. I could have just cropped the picture down to just one track, but without the reference of the other particles, it would be useless and just look like a white streak.

I have a feeling though, that this will not satisfy you. The problem of course being that subatomic particles are smaller than the wavelength of visible light so it is impossible to take an actual "photographs" of them or "see" them as individuals, but we can see them in the matter around us, we can see results of their passage, and the effects they have on our world. As for photons, our eyes are not sensitive enough to see a single photon, but he have machines that can. Of course even the most basic science course would have taught you that.

 

Bad examples. Each of what you are calling 'tracks' are nothing more than the effect of something that is leaving the track. Where are the particles? Where is the single, solitary "particle"? There is a huge difference between an effect and the item which causes the effect.

Well at least you now are showing an understanding that it is impossible to 'see' (visually) a single electron, photon or any of the others mentioned. Therefore, all that is available to scientists are varying effects caused by something that they cannot see (visually). So, it could also be said that the effects are being caused by God or even the devil. After all, nobody can either the electron or photon or God or the angels. Even the effects of God and the ministering angels can be seen. Why else would the non-theists be complaining about legislation being impacted by religious teachings?

 

That is a link to my previous post. You need to,provide evidence for the positive claim you made.

Not evidence proving your positive claim, nor did you even link to the correct post.

One final chance to rescind your loss.

 

By all means, please show proof of a phenomena that is caused by God and/or the ministering of angels.

 

The coins you carry around with you (here in the US) that have stamped on them "in God we trust".

Legislation being passed on the believed existence of God.

The US Constitution and its content with regard to "Freedom of Religion".

Do you really think any of that would be existing if this world was under the control of Atheists or other non-theists. Quite a list of phenomena which have the consent and approval of God.

 

I would have to answer your question with a resounding no, but I don't see how this even begins to show proof of a phenomena that is caused by God and/or the ministering of angels.

 

Oh my goodness. Now you can't tell the difference between whose post is whose. That post was my post and it contained a quote of your post. But that is all irrelevant and does not address the issue of the 'evidence' which appears at the bottom of that page: To with: "
robini123 liked this post "

No loss and therefore nothing to rescind.

 

Probably because of your spiritual blindness. Those who have their spiritual eyes opened, have no problem seeing the phenomena taking place. Further evidence is portrayed in the insurance policies of many insurance companies. "the act of God clause". In some instances, insurance companies will declare the cause of an event/phenomena to be an act of God. I think that is sufficient legal proof that some secular companies believe in the existence of God.

 

What you call blindness I call skepticism. I have seen no proof of the existence of the Christian God anymore than I have seen proof Zeus, Thor or a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. Now, I have no doubt that people believe in God, but that is not what this thread is about. It is about proof of existence of a god or gods.

 

Actually this thread is about "The Logic Behind Russel's Teapot. "
While such logic has actually nothing to do with whether or not there is a God or gods. It (logic) has to do with 'logic".

 

Bertrand Russell come up with the teapot idea to show the illogic of most religious arguments (which is why this is in the Religion & Philosophy section). A modern variation is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

Seems a little longwinded to me. Why go through all the rigamarole about a tiny teapot in space? There may have been a time when religious people thought that evidence of god was irrefutable, but not in my lifetime.

If they do feel that way, why all the stuff about faith? Who needs faith to accept an obvious truth? I have always assumed that religious belief took an acceptance of not really knowing for sure, but believing anyway.

I'm not saying its smart to believe in a god, but it is completely different from believing in a spacefaring teapot.

 

That ideology is akin to the manner in which scientists view 'objective reality'. They assume it exists so that they can justify the scientific method. So according to that ideology that you have expressed, science is a religion because it has as its foundation a set of presumptions regarding the existence of objective reality.

 

Except the fundamental flaw of his Teapot is that he puts it in the same physical plane as humans. The premise of most religions generally is that there exists another universe--heaven--in which a god of gods reside which is separate and apart from this universe. Not all religions have a heaven or a deity, but for the purpose of the teapot analogy, those that do believe in heaven and deities would be the religions at issue

 

It is still about the logic behind Russells Teapot... not about the "illogic" of other belief systems. Stay focused.

 

That's what i said. A link back to my post, you quoted. Which is the wrong post you need to show evidence for. "

you lost because you have been challenged 3 times now to provide evidence for your positive claim. You have refused to do so, which means you lose by default. If you wish to rescind that, you must provide evidence for your positive claim.