*falls on knees* i've been trying to explain this for so long
@Luo Nan, I KNOOOOOOW. OOOOOOO I can't wait for Christmas dinner with my hippy dippy brother and just mud stomp his ass with this!
@Luo Nan, look up "burden of proof" rules.
It's like the teapot around Jupiter theory.
You've gotta have "faith" in the teapot
@WinternetIsComing, it's not abou having "faith" in the teapot. Russell made the analogy to prove that without scientifically unfalsifiable claims, the burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. The point of the teapot is that one shouldn't make a claim (the teapot) and expect people to believe it because it can't be proven wrong.
@Kikashe Hatake , Russell's teapot has three main problems, IMHO. First off, we know that the idea was generated by a person who didn't believe it to be true, and who doesn't honestly claim to to have any experience of it (kind of like the FSM). Second, there is no claim to its necessity, and it has no explanatory power at all for anything. Third, our concept of a teapot is something that is not naturally occurring, but rather is manmade. So absent a reason for it to be out in space, it seems exceedingly unlikely to be there by its own nature.
@Toad, that's why it's a fantastical claim. The idea is that it is nigh impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Yes Bertram's Teapot is a kind of ridiculous example but it's just meant to illustrate the idea.
@Toad, Good points.
@TenorTwoPointO, I agree with Russell that his teapot almost certainly does not exist. But I disagree with his application of his thought experiment beyond the teapot itself. He uses it as a strawman.
@Toad, he only uses the teapot as something to illustrate the idea. There's no strawmanning happening. It's just a simple idea to explain how a facet of logic works. The idea existed long before Bertram Russell had his idea. It's always been on the shoulders of the person making the claim to prove it. It's just how things work.
@TenorTwoPointO, wow this was a wonderfully intelligent thread. I love it, guys.
@WinternetIsComing, why thank you. Feel free to insert your own ideas and join.
Right, that's why there's "prove the x" and "failed to prove the x" in statistics instead of "disproving the x."
Or something like that.
I like being an art major.
This applies to every theory of origin ever. Creation, evolution or the great spaghetti monster. All have the same burden of proof and ultimately cannot be proven, since you cannot observe and reproduce your own origin.
Hey look it's every religion ever
There's a cock in your ass
@Michael Fassbender, How'd you know?
@Michael Fassbender, I wish
Donald trump does not obey this law.
This is why I'd label myself an agnostic instead of an atheist. Though I'm 99.9999% sure there isn't a creator out there, I can't prove that there isn't one. It's logic.
@JakobJeanCiccone, you might look into intelligent design then, as agnosticism is still a belief I a creator. And then you can base mathematical formulas as high probability of such occurrence.
@Deep Web Digger, there's a great video that talks about intelligent design and it's flaws.
Basically a whale has some sort of left over appendage. If it was designed to be a whale, why does this still exist thousands of years later?
@big freedom, intelligent design is not based on replacement of mutations, or Darwinism (change or adaption over time and our conditions changing). It does what Darwinism fails to do, explain origin. All other explanations are not mathematically probable. Which is why it should fit an agnostic view.
@Deep Web Digger, right it explains origin, but fails after that.