flowerthief00 wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 6:31 am
Winston wrote: ↑November 16th, 2020, 3:37 am
But teapots orbiting the sun do not have 7 logical strong arguments for it. God does. Did you see the William Lane Craig video above? If not, watch it please and get educated. You are using the invisible pink unicorn argument which I debunked in the year 2000. See below.
https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm
Have you been living in a cave? You are way behind on everything. Even philosophers 2000 years ago debunked such bad arguments and fallacies.
I can't gonna conceal my disappointment that you thought this article was worth linking to. It could be the single worst thing I've read online all year. The author has misframed the argument utterly.
"The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized."
No. That is NOT the premise of the argument, and there is no excuse for you to not know this after I linked to the Wikipedia article yesterday, good grief. The first paragraph in Wikipedia explains what the argument actually is: "Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."
In other words, because "prove this negative" is a literally impossible task to be giving to anyone, burden of proof must lie with the side making the claim. If it were otherwise we would be obligated to entertain an infinite number of claims that cannot be disproven, some which are brazenly absurd. Yes, often used as examples are claims that are deliberately made up or fictional, such as orbiting teapots, pink unicorns, Puff the Magic Dragon, etc, although the argument doesn't require them to be fictional.
The reason skeptics like to use claims that are deliberately made up or fictional is to make the argument easy to understand.
I mean, that should be obvious. If skeptics were to use Chupacabras as an example, there might be some people out there who believe that somewhere out there in the world real Chupacabras exist and would then say "But wait, this claim IS true", and the point of the argument would be lost on them.
It's a low ploy the author of this "debunking skeptics" article has used to frame fictional examples that were intended to make the argument easy to understand as if comparison between them and phenomena that people believe in (god/ufos/the paranormal) were the argument itself, so as to discredit it.
Even worse, the author then accuses the other side of constructing a straw man--
the very thing he has just done himself.
From there he goes on to use his false framing of the argument to pretend like there are 5 different reasons against it, but actually rewording the same reason over and over. Imho the author of this article is not simply misguided but is a willful dishonest actor. Russel's teapot is not that difficult a concept to grasp. The very least I expected was to see it addressed honestly.
Please do not waste my time on a bad faith link like this again.
You see what I mean? You have BAD reading comprehension. Didn't you see above where I said that I wrote that in the year 2000? And you also fail to recognize my writing style too? LOL. If you read it properly you would see that the author of that article is not a third person.
You missed the point of the article. You can't compare something like God that millions or billions of people throughout history experience in their heart, in visions, in NDE's, in psychedelic experiences, etc. with something YOU randomly make up for fun or satire or ridicule. I gave five reasons why. See below.
1) First, the main problem with this argument is that what people actually experience is NOT the same thing as what a skeptic deliberately makes up for the sake of argument! To put the two in the same category is both illogical and underhanded. Since the skeptic using this argument hasn’t really experienced invisible pink unicorns himself, everyone knows that he is deliberately making up something fictitious to put down something he doesn’t believe in while the paranormal experiencer or claimant is not. Regardless of whether what the claimant experienced was real or not, it is certainly NOT in the same category as what a skeptic makes up out of thin air. Comparing them would be like comparing my real life experience of visiting a foreign country to any fictitious story you can find such as Peter Pan or The Wizard of Oz. That simply makes no sense, even if misperception was involved on my part in my experience. Not only that, but it would be shady and underhanded as well.
For the skeptic to claim that both are the same because they are unprovable would be like claiming that red cars and red apples are the same thing because they’re both red. Though even skeptics know that this is not true, as mentioned, they prefer their beliefs and word games over common sense reality. Alas, if these pseudoskeptics really lived according to their beliefs, then they could not function in society. For example, if they got lost and had to ask for directions, they would not believe any directions given to them, not even from the most credible and well-meaning long-time residents of the area they are lost in. They know this too, and thus this is all a word game to them, not a way to live in reality. So let’s just hope for their sake that they don’t carry their silly little theories over to real life …
2) Second, likewise what someone sincerely believes is NOT the same as what someone knowingly makes up. Since the skeptic who uses this argument don’t believe in invisible pink unicorns himself, it is pointless as well as inconsiderate to compare that to what people genuinely believe and experience, such as God, spirits, or ESP. Of course, just because someone genuinely believes something doesn’t make it true, but to compare an honest person to a deliberate fraud is not a valid comparison.
3) Third, if there were millions of credible intelligent adults out there claiming to have seen or experienced invisible pink unicorns, the Tooth Fairy entering homes through bay windows, or Santa Claus flying in the air, then this comparison would have merit. But there aren’t, so this comparison is without merit.
4) Fourth, another significant difference between experiencing God, the divine, or the mystical, and the fictional example of invisible pink unicorns is that throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with the former which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said for invisible pink unicorns.
5) Fifth, just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can’t prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I can’t prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesn’t mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.
You did NOT address any of those points. All you did was repeat something that was already debunked and refuted.
Are you saying that something you make up like Santa Claus and the obvious objective proof of intelligent design and the prime mover argument, are all on the same level? LOL. If so, then you are hopelessly lost. Even I can't help you. Because that's dumber than dumb. Negative IQ below zero.
Look dude. If your reading comprehension is this bad, then this is a waste of time. All you're gonna do is ignore all the above and repeat the same mistakes again, which is STUPID. No offense, but it's stupid. Then you will force me to repeat all the above again. What a waste of time. Are you doing this on purpose? Are people THAT DUMB nowadays? Man you sure have devolved a long way from Adam and Eve, who were probably geniuses compared to you. LOL. Modern humans are soooooooooooooo dumb and degenerate, as
@fschmidt said. No joke.
