'The Logic Behind Russel's Teapot'

I'm not totally sure this is in the right section (Mods, please move it if it isn't) but I thought this was an interesting concept - does anyone else?

 

Russel's Teapot, those who make a claim to the affirmative carry the burden of proof. Meaning that people who assert that a god exists carry the burden of proof and the "well, prove god doesn't exist!" is nonsense.

 

The rules of debate are that the person making a claim is the one that has to provide the proof of their claims, no one else has to prove a claim is false. Burden of Proof lies with the Accuser.

 

This is the right section as Russel's Teapot is philosophy. My answer to the teapot question is that the inability to prove the negative is not proof of the positive... meaning that my inability to prove the teapot does not exsist is not proof of it's existence.

 

Now imagine that the teapot is at the center of a series of traditions that predate writing and almost every great person in history claims to have been inspired, saved or led by the direct intervention of THE TEAPOT. Which, admittedly, is not always a Chinese teapot but you see what I mean. You might pretend you don't but we all know you do.

I'm starting to think that you guys are just mad that you can't, for whatever reasons, feel authentic passion.

 

One should also be careful in his/her forming of a negative assertion. The Rules of Debate located here: http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm indicate simply this:
"
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]5.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired."[/FONT]


The one who makes the affirmation that "there is no teapot" (as described by Russell), has in fact made a positive assertion. But moving away from the 'teapot' issue, it goes much further... the one who claims that someone is a moron or an idiot or whatever other type of negative adjective they care to use, has the burden of proof.

 

So, if I am playing the role of the accuser, and I accuse you of being an intelligent person, then it is my burden to prove that you are in fact an intelligent person. Is that about correct?

 

Only if you want other people to believe your accusation. Otherwise it's meaningless.

 

Then you are suggesting that along with the accusation, I would have to show proof of my intent? Does that supposed rule also apply to others who might be playing the role of 'accuser'?

 

Again, only if they want others to believe(see) it as they do.

 

I disagree as it is the one who first introduces the idea that the tea pot exists that takes the positive position as there was no opinion on the matter previous to the positive statement. The one who says that no there is no tea pot is taking the negative position.

Indeed as the one who made the initial claim bears the burden of proof aka the positive position. One can make an affirmative claim of a negative which as the initial claim is the positive claim and bears the burden of proof. I can positively say some politicians are morons... this is a positive claim of a negative and as it would be I who made the initial claim then the burden of proof is upon me.

 

It would be, were there no more substantive basis for theism than such testimonies as Russell refers to. <Mod Edit>

 

You are reading more into what the rule says than what is actually stated. There is nothing in the rule regarding "...the one who first introduces the idea...", however it does mention the one who makes an 'assertion'. Now whether that assertion is 'positive' or 'negative' is irrelevant. It is still an assertion. Someone would be asserting something.

Good analogy and precisely to my point. Now,,, here is the big question and one that is not addressed in the rules of debate: Suppose I am accused of 'asserting' something when I have plainly stated that it is my belief and that my belief is based upon my intuition. At the same time, I have not expressed any concern as to whether or not someone 'believes' what I have stated. Is there still a burden of proof based upon my belief which is based upon my intuition? Please provide proof of your assertion that might be given as a response.

 

I am not changing anything. Seeing is a term of believing.
As someone could respond, I can see how that could happen. Same as I believe that could happen.

And I did answer your question. You only need to supply proof if you want to convince others of your accusation.

 

There is no one universally agreed upon interpretation of the rule. Look up the rule and you will find a wide variety of interpretations from many different sources. You have your interpretation while I have my own.

Proof in not required when stating an opinion. IMO there is a God but as this is just my opinion and I make no claim that my opinion is fact then I bear no burden of proof as I have not stated a fact. If I claim it is a fact that God does exsist then the burden of proof is upon me to back my claim with facts. On the flip side if I create a thread titled "Science proves that God does not exsist" then the burden of proof is upon me to back the claim. Lastly if I create a thread titled "God absolutely exsists, prove me wrong!" Then I am committing a logical fallacy in which I can make any claim I like while shifting the burden proof or the lack thereof to the deniers.

 

<Trolling>

And if I don't care is others believe me? Then what? What happens then to the so-called requirement of 'proof'? If I have deemed something to be sufficient 'proof' to my mind, then that is all that is required for my continued 'belief' in that something. OH... you could go on and assert that I am delusional in holding such a belief, but then the onus of proof is on you to prove that I am delusional by showing proof that the belief is a false belief. Good luck on that one.

 

If you don't care, accuse all day long. Become a troll. Become one other's care not to deal with.

 

Then you are suggesting that it all boils right down to 'personal perception' (opinion, viewpoint, bias, prejudice). Got it. In other words now you are saying that the rules of debate are so ambiguous that they mean nothing?

Do you believe that your opinion is true? If not, then why would you want to be presenting falsehoods. Remember, fact can equal something believed to be true or real.

If you make that claim as a 'fact', then in your mind, you have already presented the fact. You believe it to be true.

No argument on the above statement.

That would be an interesting thread with all the mental wrestling that would ensue. Personally I don't know of any Christian that has made such a claim, either within a single statement or a thread title. It would seem that you are attempting to create a straw argument based on some probability that such a condition might occur.

 

You made the claim, your burden.

 

What claim did I make?

 

You asked a question, I answered

 

since when is asking a question the equivalent of making a claim? Please provide proof of that equivalency.

 

No, I am saying that rules of debate are specifically relative to the interpretation of each individual where they have great meaning internally but are subjective externally. Why would your interpretation be any more or less relevant than my own? Do you see Bertrand Russell as an authority on Philosophy? I see him as a wise man with many views but not an authority that sets standards for us all to bow to. Philosophy is progressive rather than rooted in never changing static views. I see philosophy like open source software where one is free to take it, edit it, and redistribute it in an ongoing advancement of human consciences.

Yes, but they are subject to change in light of new evidence.

"Seem" implies assumption and assumption is not synonymous with fact. In my 11 years here on the forums I have on a number of occasions seen professed Christians ask naysayers to "prove that God does not exist" after making the claim that God does exist.

 

I guess that would explain why those Rules of Debate really are meaningless. There is no judges present to resolve such ambiguity that might arise due to personal interpretation. But that sounds really familiar with the way some of the members interpret things and think that their interpretation is mandated upon everyone else to adhere to those interpretations. So, if the rules of debate are so ambiguous then I suppose the laws, rules, regulations, statutes of the various states of the United States and of other countries are also ambiguous and is up to the individual persons to give interpretation. Talking about a system that would be full of chaos, confusion, mayhem, disputations, etc... that is what you are promoting.

And you think that is not true of the purpose of debates and the rules that are written for debate. The whole purpose of debate is for one person or team of people to convince another person of group of people that there is a need for one side or the other to change their perspective. How is such a thing accomplished... by the submission of evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Or as stated in Rule 5 of the Rules of Debate (Rule 5 and the primary definition of 'proof' [as I have previously presented] have essentially the same meaning).

Actually the word 'seem' has several different definitions: see here:
"
[h=2]seem[/h] (s&#275;m)intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems 1. To give the impression of being in a certain way; appear to be: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned. The house seems to be in good condition.
2. Used to call attention to one's impression or understanding about something, especially in weakening the force of a following infinitive: I can't seem to get the story straight.

3. To appear to be probable or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain."



Perhaps you applied a definition that was not intended by this writer. Instead you picked a definition that suits your agenda. The only assumption that was made was the one you made in thinking you knew what definition I was intending. You cannot know the intent of the mind of another without first making inquiry regarding that intent. Oh but.. so many on this forum object to having their intent questioned.... Yeppir there are skeptics on this forum, but there are also a lot of people who are suspicious of the activities and intent of many more. All in all, the skepticism and the suspicion causes a lot of people to make assumptions... that is why I inquire as to a persons intent or intended meaning of a term or phrase that they have used....

 

Unlike God, the teapot in question that is orbiting the universe is not a logical alternative to the causation of the universe. It's just that- an orbiting teapot. Why atheists think this is a suitable analogy for God is beyond me.