> 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 -- t

> 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"