Russell's Teapot

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions.

Discuss...

 

prove it.

 

I am sorry but it matters not how many times something is proved or disproved by either party involved. There will always be people who believe the opposite of the facts laid out before them because they choose to remain blind to the facts. If something can neither be proved or disproved then in my opinion it can not and does not exist. Their has to be evidence pointing towards one side or the other. Just because you are taught all your life that something is true does not necessarily make it so. Look at history books and classes. It all depends on what country you live in as to who the good or bad guys are written as or if the history of something is even written in or taught at all.

 

Russell's Teapot = Flying Spaghetti Monster

(He is real, BTW)

 

True dat. I think ate his cousin last night for supper.

 

For me, both sides have to present evidence to back up their claims -- not just the one I "want to win". Then again, when I researched spirituality for myself, I was more interested in truth and fact than acceptance.

 

"This is my body. This is my blood."

 

When two or more options exist for something that can't be validated 100%, one must choose to accept what is most logical to the observer. The creation of the universe, for example. If one assumes it exists, then it's origin is a natural extension of that beliefe. There are many theories of universal origin....even though none can be proven.

 

Tasted like rigatoni with a hint of Tabasco sauce.

 

I guess since you say I have to choose I would choose to believe none of it until someone can show me substantial evidence that shows their theory being legit and not just a crackpot,cockamamie,jumbled, concoction of an idea! Show me the 100% proof and then I might believe you. Untill then I rule it out as being an option to choose from. And now I am right back to my original post...... however if facts point to both sides being true than I would take in to consideration that by combining all true and proven facts into one idea would be the way to go. In this case there would still be no side to choose from. Only the truth and proven facts to back the theory up. Either way it all relies on proven facts and proof. Without either you have nothing!