5 ms·
I don't understand how Russell's Teapot rules out the possibility of a supernatural entity. It seems to mean that the fact that something's existence cannot be
by alphapapa 10y ago
I don't understand how Russell's Teapot rules out the possibility of a supernatural entity. It seems to mean that the fact that something's existence cannot be disproven does not prove its existence. It does not mean that only things which are proven to exist actually exist.
Now Russell may have advocated belief in only things which may be scientifically proven, but that argument itself bears a burden of proof. What if there exist things which cannot be proven scientifically? Science is a process invented and carried out by humans, who are finite and fallible--therefore science is as well. By one definition of "god," believing only in science effectively makes science one's god.
> Unconstrained by laws of nature
I agree with that definition.
> God -- as understood in the vast majority of cases -- is omnipotent. This requires no constraint by the laws of nature. That humans now understand how things work that they previously thought were supernatural doesn't help at all with any discussion of something that's by definition supernatural.
I mostly agree with you. My thought is this: phenomena exist which humans used to think were inexplicable, but later were discovered to have logical, reasonable explanations. Today a person might consider the concept of God and think, "That's supernatural and inexplicable, therefore it must not exist." But what if the logical, reasonable explanation is that it is supernatural: that it exists outside of our universe and is therefore unbound by its laws?
In other words, we're back to the fundamental question: why do you rule out the possibility of a supernatural entity? If your answer is because of the lack of scientific proof, then why do you only believe in that which may be scientifically proven? According to whom is science the sole determination of what exists?
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
- peteretep 10y ago> Russell's Teapot [doesn't] rule > out the possibility of a > supernatural entity You're right, it doesn't. Why don't we say that what it says is -- to paraphrase the Wikipedia article I sent you -- that "without [proof] he could not expect anyone to believe". I don't rule out the possibility of a supernatural entity. But I don't have any proof for one or even anything that suggests to me that one is likely, and therefore the simplest explanation is that there are no Gods. > What if there exist things which > cannot be proven scientifically? Then for the most part, they're supernatural. I assume it's possible to come up with philosophical outliers or things that are (for now) considered to be impractical to measure. > Science is a process invented and > carried out by humans, who are > finite and fallible--therefore science > is as well. Is arithmetic fallible, too? > But what if the logical, reasonable > explanation is that it is supernatural: > that it exists outside of our universe > and is therefore unbound by its laws? This is rephrasing my original comment starting with "If you're a scientist", so I agree! > why do you rule out the possibility of > a supernatural entity I don't. As per a previous comment: "I simply do not believe in God, and I do not feel I have any reason to believe in God"
- alphapapa 10y agoOk, thanks for your responses, I appreciate it. Final question I suppose: since there is no answer for the question of the origin of the universe, why do you not consider that possible evidence for a supernatural entity?
- peteretep 10y agoIronically this loops back to an earlier question of yours: virtually everything humans have ascribed to supernatural causes when there was no better answer has turned out to have natural causes. It's simpler to assume this will be the same.