'The Logic Behind Russel's Teapot'

Because history proves that humans invented teapots by using the necessary materials found on earth.

Wrong and wrong.

 

There are/is no false subset of rules pertaining to the word "believe". Because this is a philosophy/religion forum, the word 'believe' can have two separate connotations depending on the context in which it is used. On the one hand it can have the philosophical meaning of 'trust' and on the other hand it can have the religious meaning of 'faith'. Without you specifying which context you were using the term, I had every right to inquire. That is perhaps one of your greater problems,,, you make an uninformed assumption regarding something and then expect others to accept your assumption as being correct. There is a likelihood that 'everyone' knows the meaning(s) of the term 'believe' but only you know the exact context in which you are using the term. Some people have been known to be intellectually dishonest and upon someone making an assumption on how you are using the term, you could then simply deny having used it in the particular context and lean on the other context. No-one would be able to prove otherwise because there was no established context within such a dual sided forum.

So now you stoop to making negative innuendos. As I just explained above, there is no semantics game being played. So try again. BTW: Semantics is also known as a 'science',,,, and "everyone knows" that science is not a game. LOL.

No! That is the reasoning used in the Rules of Debate. I did not write those rules. Without you specifying the context used for the word "believe", the question you asked was ambiguous and not deserving an answer that was meaningful. You refuse to clarify your intent on the use of that word. Evading the issue is what you did.

Your failure to respond to the inquiry regarding your use of the term 'believe' also disqualified your question as the question remained in an ambiguous state of being. Potentially having two different contexts and "everyone knows" that a thing cannot be two different things at the same time.

That does not answer the question regarding whether or not you 'believe'. So, in response to your non-answer: Do you believe it is not good for you?

Your answer does not address the issue of 'belief'. Do you believe what the data says?

Thanks for supplementing your evasion of the question of whether or not you believe chlorine gas is good for you.

 

Who said that there was a death of a God? Are you imagining things now?

 

howmdo you know humans didn't make teapots in the image of the teapot creator God?

logical reality, and fact.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm asking you how you can know the teapot didn't destroy the god you think you worship and take its place?

 

How would I know??? it is your fantasy.. not mine.

 

No evidence exists that that was the case.

Only in your world.

God is the eternal and perfect Creator of the universe. Only daft atheists- who have a penchant for asking daft questions- would think that a teapot could possibly destroy Him.

 

No evidence exists that your "God" or anyone else's was eternal or indeed perfect. As much evidence as for the teapot, in fact.

 

That is simply a rule of debate and the existence of God might not lend itself to those rules. If the person not making the claim has evidence that God does not exist, he should step up and win the argument.

 

I told another member that the Teapot scenario was probably a new title/name given to substitute for the old name 'God'. A likely reason for such an act of name or title change would/could be found in the persons private dislike either for God (as an entity) or even toward the name/title representing that entity. I see the name/title change as an act of spite, rebellion, or even an act of attempting to place oneself above the authority of that entity known as 'God' or "Yahweh". Of course that is just my personal opinion.

 

The fact that God did not come from nothing (which many atheists would like us to believe) proves that He is eternal.

 

I promote nothing, I just call it as I see it. American law is adjudicated by an authority, but in our debate there is no authority that I recognize to pronounce you or I as the winner. Some rules are governed by an authority with associated penalties for violating said rules, while other rules are not backed by any authority and carry little to no consequence.

For me the purpose of debate is for me to learn from the perspectives of others as it is all but impossible to change the mind of another. For me to change the mind of another one has to respect me, see me as an authority on that which I speak of, and most importantly one must have an open mind... it happens, but not all that often. I been here 11 years and I have that I know of changed few if any minds... but my mind has changed much.

Opinions do not need to be proven and the rules of debate are subjective as there isn't any one universally agreed upon standard.

Please post proof of above stated claim. I made no assumption about you, I only told you my view of the word "seem" and in no way shape or form made any assumption as to how you interpret the word.

Oh the irony.

 

How is it nonsense? Let's see you prove how the idea that God created the universe is a logical impossiblity. Since you don't believe in God, surely you can explain to us how the existence of God isn't an idea worth considering.

If you cannot do this, then you (like most atheists) simply don't believe in God (or don't want to believe in Him) for your own personal reasons.

 

Who or what is the Watchmaker's Watchmaker? You introduce a problem of infinite regression. lol

 

No! You just introduced that subject matter.

 

God is eternal, and cannot logically have a creator.

Next.

 

Fantasy? that is a positive claim for which you need to provide evidence to support it.

 

No evidence exists supporting any god, yet here you are claiming once exists.

My world is reality.

I have the identical amount of evidence proving the tea pot killed your god, as you do that your god exists.

 

You have no evidence to support this statement.

- - - Updated - - -

This is special pleading

 

Again, the evidence is the universe itself.

Humorous.

- - - Updated - - -

Simple logic.

Simple logic.

 

Circular logic, and incorrect.

Fact

I already pointed out the fallacy. So your logic is flawed.

Special pleading is a logical fallacy.

 

Simply saying so doesn't make it true. You'll have to prove how it is circular logic and incorrect.

You have done nothing to back any of your arguments. Your say-so is unconvincing.

You have yet to prove how it is special pleading.

 

Guess what fellow, if it is not a fantasy which is what you are implying, then you need to show proof of your claim. So own up... it is either a fantasy else you need to bring forth your proof of claim.

 

What is reality?

 

Does this equally apply to theology or is theology exempt from the scrutiny of logic?

 

Special Pleading? Good job!