Russell's Teapot - (Religious Beliefs & The Burden of Proof)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มิ.ย. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into Russell’s Teapot.
A famous analogical argument, Russell’s Teapot highlights the Burden of Proof Fallacy, and shows how one cannot be expected to prove a negative but rather it is the responsibility of someone to prove the existence or the truth of their claims. This analogy is mainly aimed towards religious believers and debates around the existence of God.
Watch as Russell’s Teapot is explained and challenged.
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Religion Part 2" eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM1J1Q
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QM1J1Q
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...
Paperback:
US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL
eBook:
www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Check out the Philosophy Vibe Teespring Store for some Philosophy themed merch: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:21 - Russell's Teapot Explained
2:12 - Religion and the Burden of Proof Fallacy
3:50 - Criticism of Russell's Teapot Analogy
#russell'steapot #burdenofproof #philosophy #philosophyofreligion
![[LIVE] ย้อนวันวานกับนางเอกยุค 90's #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.42 (8/6/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MslQDdFwULE/mqdefault.jpg)
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Religion Part 2" eBook, available on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM1J1Q
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QM1J1Q
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QM1J1Q
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...
Paperback:
US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL
eBook:
www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2
I am just a Jewish girl who is navigating stressful situations in life and trying to quit smoking and at the end of the day watch Philosophy Vibe almost every night because it's grounding and peaceful instead of immoral and irritating
So glad these videos are helping you. Best of luck navigating through life, we hope these videos will continue to help.
Thanks for making these videos! I have been watching them with my 7 year old son and they keep him engaged even when the subject matter is very abstract and complex. I also love the ebooks and usually review them after watch thing the videos. Keep it up!
Thank you so much, this really helps us out. Glad you and your son like this content!
I cannot imagine someone didn't bring up Jewish space lasers... I mean, its the energy source to heat the teapot.
I had searched for the teapot discussion when it was mentioned in a Substack comment on preparing to discuss/ debate any topic. I appreciate this short, easy-to-follow format as you made it very digestible. Looking forward to hearing more!
Thank you a million. I am bow addicted to your channel
Already self studying philosophy and this channel is helping me a lot.
You're welcome. Very happy this channel is helping :) Best of luck with your studies.
5:28 the atheist doesn’t need to have an explanation for the origin of the universe in order to explain their disbelief. In fact, creation out of nothing, ex nihilo, is what Christians believe.
@ayy lmao Then based on your view it is a matter of believe. Therefore your position is no more valid than the Intelligent Designer.
@ayy lmao
"Consciousness is a process that requires a pre existing mechanical world. -/- it outright requires the pre existing world to exist"
Philosophy of Idealism want to have a word with you.
If the atheist is to be taken seriously they do. Otherwise what they offer is simple contradiction and that is not an argument, it is blind (unsubstantiated) faith. Both theists and atheists are affirming what they believe is true and thus both have the burden of proof. Agnostics do not have a burden of proof but also do not have an authoritative place in the argument because their claim is ignorance not knowledge. It is a common and cowardly trend among atheists to claim a "lack of belief" but no one offering this cop out should be taken seriously as an interlocular, and certainly should never be allowed to participate in debates. They have nothing to offer other that "I am not convinced" and that is useful to no one including them.
Then Who or What made God?
Then Who or What made the Maker of God?
Then Who or What made the Maker of the Maker of God?
This would lead to an infinite loop of complexity of designs.
Very well explained. Thanks a lot!
Welcome :)
Very good video and explanation, it makes think!
Glad you liked it :)
Design demands a designer.
A book demands an author.
A musical score demands a composer.
A painting demands a painter.
No one argues with any of those four statements. It's only when we add #5: "Creation demands a creator" that people slip into "there's not any evidence" mode. We know, but we refuse to accept sometimes.
The problem with “Creation demands a creator” is that there is no reason to believe the Universe is a Creation.
Because it's infinite regresssion
Greetings from your newest subscriber! I like the balance in these videos--both sides are given the chance to make rational arguments, rather than making one or the other sound foolish.
Thank you for the sub, hope you continue to enjoy our content.
I know the catch to the question at the end. Science does not say with 100% certainty that the universe came from nothing, that is just one of the possibilities, also just as possible, the universe has no beginning and has always existed. and no properly educated atheist should ever say that they know the universe came from nothing.
I am very proud of you guys for teaching me philosophy.
Thank you!
@@PhilosophyVibe You're welcome. Philosophy is amazing. (:
@@bettergaming2321 when it's layed out in an easy and fun way like this it's amazing
@@chocolateneko9912 True.
great vid as per usual
Thank you :)
Hi do you have any videos on Fredrick Copleston?
it is still the burden of proof to say the house came into existence out of nothing because we all know that a builder makes a house and have no examples of otherwise other than maybe robots
about coming out of nothing that is definitively a strawman we do not claim that at least a majority of us do not claim that our claim is passive we assume nothing before something and thus assume nothing so we simply say WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED THE UNIVERSE
Spot on.
I agree with you.
If we knew nothing about houses, we might suppose that the house was some kind of strange plant we had never seen before. It's large? There are sequoias that are much larger. It has lights glowing? There are examples of bioluminescence. In this counterfactual scenario, we'd be justified by our experience, but the limitations of our experience mean that our justification can be falsified by gaining new experience.
In real life, we assume there are builders because we have examples in our memory of houses that we know were built by humans. We don't need to refute the teapot argument to assert that this house had a builder, and we'd be surprised if it didn't. That potential of surprise is our justification for asserting the house was built by design.
It's simple Bayesianism. We modify our expectations based on experience. The things we would be least surprised to discover as true, based on our priors modified by our experiences, are the things we place our highest levels of credence in. As a linguistic shortcut, we say we believe such and such, or that such and such is true.
Our recognition that the house had builders is purely heuristic. The hypothetical person who doesn't know about houses has a different heuristic, maybe along the lines that there are rocks that are amorphous and don't have any functional components, while plants and animals that have definite forms along with features that facilitate the plant or animal's living existence. Heuristics are fallible, in other words. We simply can't apply the same heuristics to universes that we apply to houses.
The person who has the more primitive heuristic might study the house and recognize that he/she, too, could build a house by putting stones together in a certain way and make a house, and abandon their old heuristic in favor of the newer one. If I ever figure out how I can build a universe, I'll modify my heuristic accordingly.
You guys make philosophy peaceful and fun, instead of contentious.
well done, subscribed
Thank you!
Did you really argue against Russell's teapot with the watchmaker fallacy??? The reason why we know the house had to be built by humans (or designers) is because we have experience with houses being built and NO natural occurrences of houses. We cannot say the same about the Universe.
Millions of tea pots go around the sun yearly.😊
Hello Philosophy Vibe!
I'm very happy to watch another video from you!
I have a serious question related to this topic.
The idea claims to be necessary to empirically verify and avoid 'unfalsifiable statements'. I understand this.
But what would happen with logical deductions from synthetic a priori propositions?
Take this example:
"In every voluntary exchange between 2 individuals, both exchange parts of the outset of exchange
partners of this exchange expect to benefit from the exchange, otherwise, they would not go through
with the exchange". This statement is grounded in the human action axiom. 'Humans act'.
Similar to 'I think'.
"Humans act using means to achieve ends". Human action is not observable per se (only the means but you can never guess the end). Therefore, these propositions can't be accessed by empirical methods. The same thing happens for statements as 'I think'.
Can you give me your perspective about it? Logical deductions are enough to prove? What Russell would say?
Hi Pedro
Very interesting analysis. Can I ask you to expand on "human action is not observable". I think this can be challenged, action and motivation is observable, outcomes can also be inferred to great accuracy.
I would say logical induction is enough to prove, otherwise we fall into extreme skepticism. Ultimately empirically verifiable claims is just inductive knowledge.
@@PhilosophyVibe
Yeah, because if someones claim the burden of proof against me when I say "I think" it would be impossible to prove empirically. There is no empirical method capable to 'observe' a thought.
About human action axiom,
"This axiom, the proposition that humans act, cannot be denied that this proposition is true, since the denial would have to be categorized as an action - and so the truth of the statement literally cannot be undone and the
axiom is also not derived from observation - there are only bodily movements to be observed but no such things as actions - but stems instead from reflective understanding."
When a human use means to achieve a goal: "It is neither self-evident nor can it be observed that these means must also have value for an actor - a value derived
from that of the goal - because the actor must regard their employment as necessary in order to effectively achieve the goal; and that actions can only be performed sequentially; always involving the making of a choice, i.e., taking up that one course of action which at some given point in time promises the most highly valued result to the actor and excluding at the same time the pursuit of other, less highly valued goals."
"It is not automatically clear or observable that as a consequence of having to choose and give preference to one goal over another of not being able to realize all goals simultaneously - each and every action implies the incurrence of costs. For example, forsaking the value attached to the most highly valued alternative goal that cannot be realized or whose realization must be deferred because the means necessary to effect it are bound up in the production of another, even more highly valued goal."
"And last, it is not plainly evident or observable that at
its starting point every goal of action must be considered worth more to the actor than its cost and capable of yielding
a profit, i.e., a result whose value is ranked higher than that of the foregone opportunities. And yet, every action is also invariably threatened by the possibility of a loss if an actor finds, in retrospect, that the result actually achieved contrary to previous expectations has a lower value than the relinquished alternative would have had."
"All of these categories-values, ends, means, choice,
preference, cost, profit and loss, as well as time and causality- are implied in the axiom of action. Yet, that one is able to interpret observations in such categories requires that one already knows what it means to act. No one who is not an actor could ever understand them. They are not "given," ready to be observed, but observational experience is cast in these terms as it is construed by an actor. Nor is their reflective reconstruction a simple, psychologically self-evident intellectual task, as proved by a long line of abortive attempts along the way to the just outlined insights into the nature of action."
"It took painstaking intellectual effort to recognize explicitly what, once made explicit, everybody recognizes
immediately as true and can understand as true synthetic a
priori statements, i.e., propositions that can be validated independently of observations and thus cannot possibly be falsified by any observation whatsoever."
...
"And the very possession of such knowledge then can
never be disputed, and the validity of these concepts can never be falsified by any contingent experience, for disputing
or falsifying anything would already have presupposed their very existence. As a matter of fact, a situation in which these categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed, for making an observation, too, is an action."
@@PhilosophyVibe Sorry for the big text.
I took these passages from the book: "1995 - Economic Science and the Austrian Method - Hoppe". He is explaining the human action axiom as a self-evident axiom that falls into 'synthetic a priori propositions" described by Kant. I have the impression that Kant 'touched" this axiom in his book but Ludwig von Mises used it to derivate things and create a methodology of study (praxiology) based in Karl Menger ideas (something like "aprioristic science" for economics).
In this text, Hoppe is using the 'marginal utility law' made by Karl Menger to exemplify how the human action axiom is important for economics and how it explains many things. However, Mises and Hoppe believed, it could not be observable, just the means that you use to achieve the ends. This has strong implications in economics because if we can't observe the actions but only means, we can't predict the market.
When you say "outcomes can also be inferred to great accuracy." I would argue this would fall into the 'problem of induction' as you explained in one of your videos about skepticism! You would check how people act in certain circumstances and make predictions of it but these predictions would have nothing related to invariant cause-effect. As some Philosophers would argue, the course of an action depends on many things such as knowledge or information you have. New information can change the course of your action. Therefore, is impossible to achieve great accuracy altought empirically I believe you can make correlations. However, I see a limitation in this point. I would feel that I can use this information but is not true at all.
I think in this video Hoppe explains better than me ><
th-cam.com/video/aTXxvWa11Lg/w-d-xo.html
I'm not a philosopher haha. Not an economist. I'm a biomedical scientist haha. So what I'm saying can be completely wrong. But you can judge by yourself. But since I started to read books about epistemology, I accept synthetic a priori propositions and I also believe human action axiom fits this category.
As you always say:
Let me know your thoughts =D.
And I love all your videos! You have no idea how this channel helped me to understand things when I finish reading those books.
Hello Pedro, you have raised some fascinating problems here. I must admit I am not too familiar with the works of Hoppe and there is certainly a lot to unpack here.
At first glance this does raise a lot of problems with the criteria of verifiability. The 'I think' point in particular brings up the problem of solipsism and other minds, of which the use of behaviour and language is often used as a means of escape, however I would say the problem is still present.
As for action, I am starting to see the problems with empirically proving this. The problem of skepticism (and solipsism for that matter) will always be present. So I guess it will come down to what we consider to be empirical proof, what we consider to synthetics truths, this in itself would be a lengthy debate.
I will have to look into this further, but excellent problems you have raised for the empirical method.
@@PhilosophyVibe
"Truly fascinating". I love the character's voice haha.
Let me know if you get more information about it =D
Please also explain neutral monism
I think the burden of proof is on theists when they are trying to convert others. I think the burden of proof is on atheists if they are trying to make believers lose their faith. The weight of your burden is correlated to your level of certainty.
"..if they are trying to make believers lose their faith" I am an atheist and I would never try to do this. Also no good atheist will do such a thing. Have fun and engaging debates yes that makes the theists think and gives the atheist an insight into the theist mind. The theist will make up their own mind after much thought, debates, reading and personal reasoning. I for one hate militant atheism, it just promotes intolerance and tension.
Hypothesizing that a teapot is floating between two planets in the solar system is very different than proposing a creative force with volition or intentionality as the reason for the universe and life, possibly outside of space and time.
have you guys made a video refuting the watchmaker analogy? if so, i'd suggest linking it to this one because that would be the next step in the dialogue.
Hello, we cover the watchmaker analogy within the Teleological Argument video... th-cam.com/video/s06w4pXvUyk/w-d-xo.html
I have use the teapot analogy many times, except I add that the teapot is essentially your god. 👀😎
The burden if proof lies with he who makes a claim. Atheism is not a claim of the negative. It is rather a lack of believe. I disagree with the last part of the video. The Atheist does not claim that no one built the house. Rather, he does not believe the proposition that someone built the house. Therefore the burden of proof still goes back to the person hding the position that someone built the house.
@North Korea Is Best Korea What is it then?
@North Korea Is Best Korea Just needed a clarification.
Who ever say that the universe is created out of nothingness?
Christians
To establish the existence of the creator require intelligence, logic and reason which all examples fail at. You see the example of a teapot is only tenable because we have prior knowledge and experience of a teapot which already exists! The fly spaghetti monster, unicorns etc are all thought of because there based on previous experience so are redundant examples. The question I would ask is can you think of something that cannot be thought of or alternatively think of something that does not exist without using previous information....
Because we,ve seen millions of houses being built??
I think Atheist doesn"t claim it came out of nothing, they only say " I don't know untill there is proof".
I'm a teapot agnostic.
😂😂
I mean people say that they can empirically verify Gods existence and what about like logical deduction like Thomas Aquinas’s and the argument from actualization or the existence and essences distinction
Nobody in any scientific field says this. Only apologists that love their gaps fallacies.
@@frosted1030 I mean we can know things without science and I mean empiricism through like mystical branches or like trans-rational thought like Plotinus and viewing the One or Self contemplationlike Heraclitus
@@nottelling4876 "I mean we can know things without science" You mean you can guess things? How many guesses does it take to make a transistor?
" I mean empiricism through like mystical branches" What you mean is non-science (also called nonsense) where people "feel" rather than test? Sounds dodgy. When you break your arms, will you go to one of these pseudo-scientific lazy idiot factories or a hospital where people actually practice medicine? Let's find out.. LOL
@@frosted1030 so basically your saying we can only know things through science
Well how do you know that?
Through science?...
I think I know what circular logic is
And if you say common sense or something else then you refuted the whole idea we can only know things through science
@@nottelling4876 "so basically your saying we can only know things through science" No, what is said is science is the most reliable methodology to discover the truth, that we have so far. The strong avoidance of this methodology shows the laziness of those asserting the deity concept.
"Well how do you know that?" Consistent measured results.
"I think I know what circular logic is" Do you have a methodology that yields qualitatively better results? No? Ok then.
"And if you say common sense or something else then you refuted the whole idea we can only know things through science" Science isn't common sense. It's work. We know science works because you have measured results that validate the methodology. How do you validate your methodology again?
both sides well expressed indeed, maybe they are both right and both wrong?
To counter the brick house example from the Theist, I would argue that a brick house would imply intelligent design behind it because a house is not a naturally formed object, it's a summation of parts based on architectural design from humans. The evidence is that we created the idea of a house therefore someone must've built it.
Whereas with the creation of the universe, basic matter, & elemental forces, etc. We currently have no evidence that there is some form of intelligent design behind it, we cannot create dirt, water, gravity, life, etc. We can build a house though.
Russell's teapot idea is an endless cycle of un accepted truth. The truth cannot be calculated until discovery.
For example: you guys were talking about how "not being able to disprove something is not evidence of its existence." That's true, but you can later on say. "Not having evidence for the floating teapot does not mean it does not exist, because it has not been disproven."
We have sent several rockers to Mars and we have china tea pots available to those people who built and launched the rockets. There is a higher probability that someone , knowing the Russell's teapot premise, put a teapot on one of the rockets bound for Mars and let it fall out between earth and Mars therefore fulfilling the premise, than there is for the existence of a creator god.
I fully expected L. Ron Musk, troll that he is, to put a teapot on the Tesla he launched into space. I think it was confirmed that he did not; can't be sure I remember correctly.
The criticism part was fallacious. Is quantum fluctuation nothing? So unless atheists agree to say that there was a magical deity that created everything, quantum fluctuation is still considered nothing?
This is some screwed up equivocation. The TERM "nothing" in quantum physics refers specifically to the lowest possible energy state of a give quantum system. It does not qualify as null or 0.
I think there's a problem with the house analogy. We can only make conclusions based on the evidence we have. When asked "where did the universe come from? How did it start?" The correct answer is I don't know. We have SEEN people build a house. We know that it is, in fact, built. But the universe isn't a house. We have no proof anybody built and designed the sky, or water or trees. The "if there is a design there must be a designer" is a fallacy in itself. The "designer" is micro biology and natural selection, and chemical reactions.
The discoveries in astronomy all point to the fact that the universe hasn't always existed, but rather has a beginning. Since the universe has a beginning, there must be a reason that led to its existence. If you argue that the rules of cause and effect don't apply to the universe itself, you need to provide a reason why the universe can be exempt from this and not just arbitrarily exclude the universe without reason.
@@clay806 we don't have evidence and don't know what was before the universe. Attributing it to a god is a god of the gaps fallacy.
@@gleidhold Attributing it to nothingness is the gap fallacy of nothingness.
@@clay806who are you to say that is the only option?
Why "magical nothingness"? Atheists can call it "mystery" or "mere chance".
Using argument from design as if it were a valid response to the burden of evidence.
I think that atheist and religious people believe the same thing about creation, but the atheist has accepted the inevitable conclusion that existence is accidental. At least accidental in how humans conceptualize creation.
If there is a Devine designer, who / what designed the designer? How did the architect of the architect come to be? That rabbit hole has to chase down to nothing. At some point, whatever conceptualized consciousness just came into being.
Why does the universe need to be created? why can't it have just always existed? like Christians claim God has
Many of what you said can be dissmssed via argument from ignorance
I think most religious people believe in God through faith and not through the fact the it's existence cannot be disproven or proven. But anyway great video.
Evidence becomes proof when it is believed. It is the same thing about God.
If you disbelieve the notion then you cannot achieve nirvikalpa samadhi, also mentioned Gen32-30, Luke 11-34, Matt 6-22 and other weaves.
The atheist considers ejusdem generis. The enlightened has unrestrictedly comprehensive consideration.
es absurdo lo que plantean..
It strikes me that Russell may be presenting two ideas as though they were inseparabley related when they may not be.
If I were to claim that, further out than we can see--much further out than our best telescopes can penetrate--far, far out there in deep space are (wait for it...) more stars (I know, it's a shocking possibility!). Anyway, if I made that claim , it would be, I think, _as unfalsifiable as Russell's teapot in space_.
What's different about my example and his is not the degree of unfalsifiability but the degree of unlnikelyhood.
Bertrand Russell's scenerio is "unfalsifiable" and dramatically unlikely.
My scenario is equally "unfalsifiable" and seemingly probable (if unverifiable).
I would say that the popularity of his argument, in part, is due to _his alignment of what is unfalsifiable with what is hilariously unlikely_. In the abstract, though, apart from any contrived example, unfalsifiability and unliklihood aren't always related.
What we can prove is necessarily certain.
What we can't prove isn't necessarily unlikely.
First of all why would you make the claim? There are many things going on in space that we can not see but you can see objects like planets, stars, games and light. Observing the things you can see interacting with things you can not see would give you the idea of that the unobservable objects exist. So you make your claim accordingly and point out your observation. Others will observe what you saw and back up your claim. Even more people will make observations and come up with new ways to observe the interactions and continue providing more and more evidence for the initial claim or that your obsevations were valid but your conclusion is wrong. Now if you are looking at the sky and decide that an object exists because you just like the idea of it existing and you claim that it is there but you can not provide a reason for your claim that others can observe for themselves then all you have is an opinion and not a fact. Others may like your idea and may adopt your idea but that will never make it fact.
@@elizabethhalloran4626 I left a long reply but reread your comment.
The only claim I’m really trying to make is that some unproven things are less likely than other unproven things. An easy example might be fishing in the ocean. My line bends. There’s a fish on.
It’s more likely that it’s a previously discovered species than that it is an undiscovered species. It’s extremely unlikely that I’ve caught a bird.
We don’t know yet what’s on my line but we can probably agree that there are better (more likely) and worse (less likely) guesses as to what it might be. Science reels it in to see and someone really committed to believing on evidence waits til the evidence is in but the smart money (at 30 meters deep isn’t a bird-it’s a previously discovered species).
You can take this one step further by applying the law of non-contradiction.
Let's say we claim that the teapot is made out of both 100% China and 100% steel then we can prove that it doesn't exist because it possesses both traits at the same time which is all together impossible and violates the law of non-contradiction. (the observation that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time
ie "A is B" and "A is NOT B" are both mutually exclusive. )
Now when we think about the Christian God, without assigning any traits, we cannot disprove his existence but then without any traits, there would be no reason to worship him. Once we assign conflicting attributes however, his existence becomes impossible. Meaning that god cannot be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time proving his existence impossible due to the law of non-contradiction.
"Is god willing to prevent evil but not able to? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where did evil come from? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"
~Epicurus
This epicurean paradox isn’t a good argument
And no contemporary atheist philosopher will use that as an argument
@@hushgaming9880Exactly why is this argument a bad one? It points out that the Christian god is apparently omnipotent and all good yet also allows evil to exist. Thus god cannot exist because he contradicts himself. You assert that this argument is bad but give no reason why.
Simple answer: The Atheists came after the Thiest, therefore the burden of proof still lies on the thiest.
thats not how debate works. The order of claims/belief does not matter for burdens of proof. Anyone who makes a claim has a burden of proof. If a theist says to an atheist "God is real" then only the theist has a burden of proof. However, the moment the atheist says "no there isn't" now the atheist has a burden of proof as well.
@@Hi-tz7nr That's a good point. I choose to stay agnostic. I don't pretend to know things.
i believe the second part is a faulty analogy. to assume a human built a brickhouse even found in the middle of no-where is reasonable as humans are known to build brick houses, there are millions throughout the world, yes it is strange to assume that it just came into being out of nothing.. but that is BECAUSE we have the previous experiance and knowledge of humans building houses. Compare this to a god building a universe and you will see that we dont exactly have ideas of previous gods building previous universes if any due to our limited knowledge of the world.
the end of the video makes a strawman fallacy about the atheist claim...
Oof. A poor explanation, confused by your strawman of the atheist position. I expect better. The point of the burden of proof is that it rests on the claimant. Atheism is a lack of beliefs, makes no claims, and therefore does not have any burden of proof. The skeptic is not claiming that the house came from nothing, rather they are saying they don't know where the house came from. The theist claiming that they know exactly who built the house and how, and therefore the burden rests on them. The atheist is saying that they don't know where the house came from. The burden clearly rests on the theist.
Your explanation is particularly concerning since abductive arguments like the watchmaker argument are the very arguments that fail because of the burden of proof fallacy. Being the best explanation you can think of is not sufficient proof of a claim. (th-cam.com/video/7TeM7rBhRmw/w-d-xo.html)
This!!
"Atheism is a lack of beliefs" Nope... It is a claim that a God does not exist.
"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief" - William L. Rowe
“in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” In other words, it is “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God” - J. L. Schellenberg
The nothing thing is a potential red herring
The problem is that atheists say they don't have the burden of proof, that they're not making any claims. but when the theist offers evidence and reasons for God, atheists say they're not good evidence, and when you ask them to show why they're not good evidence, they usually use science to say why those arguments don't work, which means they have the burden of proof.
The last argument is highly flawed. No one is saying this (scientists). There are plausible explanations for the existence of our universe. For example, if you have an area completely without bosons & leptons, quarks appear out of nothing.
Start with “A Universe from Nothing” by Krause then move on to Wilczek.
Who said the universe came from nothing?
You're agnostic scientist
Lawrence krauss
@@muhammadfawad1879 He never said the universe came from nothing, he has a book called 'A universe from nothing', but the book never states the universe came out of nowhere. Who's the ''agnostic'' now?. Now, let's say he said so, what now? does that automatically mean is true? Does what Laurence Krauss have to say supersede truth?
@@antondejesus2307 are you an atheist or agnostic
@@muhammadfawad1879 I don't like labels but for practical terms i'm an Atheist.
@@antondejesus2307how much are you sure that there is no god
I still believe Zeus is residing in cloud and still commanding.
Can you disprove?
wheres your proof? if there isnt then your stupid
I personally feel that the argument against athiest is wrong. Firslt, not all athiest believe that necessarily the universe came out of nothing. They just don't theorize on something they don't and cannot know about. Seocndly, even if you believe that universe came out of nothing, you are placed better that a believer because he will always have to prove that god came out of nothing.
I think this is a poor argument
there is really only two option an eternal universe (which doesn't work )or a finite one (which would require a God )
pick your poison
second God would be an eternal being possessing no beginning and is that first cause
making it a way better choice than believe nothing could ever produce something
@@darcevader4146 yeah this is a black white fallacy 😂 the answer could be completely different to options you have provided. The fact you tried to rule one out as impossible is telling
@@novacaine_ there are certain thing that are black and white if there is a third option please inform me you won't though because all you've got is mocking with no arguments to back it up.
I never tried to rule out an eternal universe
I just made a claim and waited to see if it would go unchallenged
I'll ask you this because you so smart
if the universe began one week ago
how long would you have to wait to get to today ? answer 1 week
same if it began 1 month ago or 1 year
so here's my question how long would you have to wait in an eternal universe for it to reach today ?
@@darcevader4146 my intent was not mockery but your argument isn't great as a third option could be a finite universe which does not require a God. You cant just chunk God in there and presuppose the answer. The fact currently is that no currently knows exactly and It's okay to say I don't know.
I say it's telling because a finite universe does not imply God did it that is why its black and white.
@@novacaine_ my apologies I've been in a bad mood recently and I should be nicer to you
I see now your not one of these mockers.
it seem you agree with me in that it is either infinite or finite, but there is disagreement on whether this lead to God
well if time space and matter had a beginning then what ever created the universe can't be made of time space or matter (this would mean that materialism is false) what you would need for this universe to work is an unmoved mover or what Aristotle defined as being God
and yes I would agree this wouldn't lead to necessarily a personal God we would need to make further argument to this point and the nature of this God would be still up for discussion but perhaps when I say God it is a different thing then when you say God and this is the source of our disagreement
The discussion at the end is the foolishness that theist think is a good argument. In my 78 years of living in a rapidly growing state, I've seen tens of thousands of homes being build. So if I'm wandering around and find an isolated house, I don't question how it got there. Your argument that I can't prove it was built by builders, is a perfect example of the lunacy and desperation of theist. When my oldest was 4 she believed in Santa, Easter bunny, tooth fairy. The sincerity of her beliefs didn't make them real.
Dark matter anyone? Anyone?
The evidence for dark matter lies in the rotational speeds of different parts of galaxies, anomalies in the movements of the galaxies themselves, and measurements of anisotropy in the CMB. There are alternative hypotheses that have traction, such as modified Newtonian gravity, but many physicists maintain that dark matter explains the observations better.
@@rsm3t Let me know when you have a cup.
@@trextraining7116
Yes, and dark energy.
Plus "Life Soup".
the video didn't answer the end question about an atheist burden of proof about the universe coming from nothing. Weird. Of course, there is no burden of proof for atheist regarding the universe. It's science that can answer these universe question. Science may not know what came before the big bang expanse...but we do know what came after. We don't need to know how that universe came to be to know it exist. Same goes for all "LIFE". We exist. But our existence is not proof a God created us. The video fell short just at the end.
The Necessary Existence cannot be equated with the Tea pot
Yes it can, this video just did it
it can idiot
It is flawed obviously like many of the examples. You see the tea pot example is only tenable because we have prior knowledge and experience of a teapot which already exists!
Athiest say i don't know only
Both positions fail to prove their assertions, atheism only kind of edging out with Occam's Razor.
no I believe the criticism is misinterpreting the position of the atheist we do not claim the universe come ex nihilo we claim it comes from we dont know what it comes from
thus we still claim nothing that requires a burden of proof because all atheism needs is atheist non assertion of a god existing and thus ex nihilo isnt a requirement
We have been sending rockets to Mars for decades. There is a small probability that someone stashed a small teapot on one of them that was then released on the way.
Thos provides more probability to the existence of the teapot than there is to prove the existence of god
Lmao the counter argument was straight garbage
Responding to that final argument, that analogy with the house in the countryside is a poor analogy. Most atheists don't believe that the universe came from literally "nothing." Most of us agree that our universe had a cause. We just don't think that that cause was any sort of intelligent being that could be called a god.
okay but you would probably then have to reject materialism as you would need something outside of the universe to create the universe
@@darcevader4146
Why? Who's to say that there aren't several universes beyond our own, with new ones forming every now and then? It could be that a number of those universes are capable of creating other universes. There are innumerable possibilities that can include materialism.
@@sims3man1 the problem I see with that is an infinity regress, if the universe began a week ago you would have to wait 7 day to get to today, 1 month ago you have to wait 1 month,1 year then 1 years and so forth
but if time began in infinities past how long would you have to wait before you get to today ? infinity by definition is never ending so the fact that we are here today is proof that time can not be eternal
@@darcevader4146
I'm not sure how that argument works. Even if reality itself is eternal, there's no reason why we wouldn't eventually get to where we are today. Whether or not time and existence has an absolute beginning, it still flows forward, at least in our universe.
Besides, while an infinite regress is unintuitive, our intuitions aren't perfect by any means. It's very easy to trick us. Just because some possible state of affairs doesn't fit our intuitions, I don't think that's a good reason to dismiss it.
Personally, I think the best course of action would be to admit what we don't know, and wait until we're able to find the real answers to these sort of questions.
@@sims3man1 you say "there no reason why we wouldn't eventually get to where we are today" this is only true in a finite universe infinite mean never ending
you can't say we are at the end of infinity
and also there is nothing greater than infinity but when tomorrow happens you would add I more day and infinity can not get any bigger, hence tomorrow is proof of a finite universe
this isn''t intuition it is math and logic
much like we can know 1+1=2 we can also know this
I don't think we should sit endlessly in doubt all you would be doing is say you don't want to believe at all cost, why not pick the best explanation for reality now, and change you mind if you see evidence that your in error ?
Speaking of something from nothing. Where did "God" come from?
Science is open to anything for which there is evidence and readily admits there is not enough evidence that it all came from nothing. That's why it's called a "theory".
Religions answer to that is that God must have created it all then and the evidence lies in some ancient scriptures and in faith.
Which brings up the next question. Which "God" created it all??
Nice try, theist.
Russell is god
You can't prove anything. There's always a base assumption behind everything. Proving something as mysterious as the origin of the universe is especially ridiculous. The burden doesn't lie on the atheist or the theist to prove something, the burden simply lies on them both to try to figure out what makes the most sense and hope reason can get them somewhat close to the truth.
can you prove this ?
@@darcevader4146 No, it stems from base assumptions as well. That doesn't make it an invalid argument (though it is an argument, not a definite fact). The very foundation of mathematics, for instance, is built off of fundamental axioms that can't be proven and have to be assumed. That doesn't make it invalid, it's actually quite useful. But every proof in math is only true under the assumption that the fundamental axioms are true, meaning the proofs aren't fully provable.
The difference between making assumptions to build off of for math and the making assumptions about the universe is that math is grounded in our understanding of reality, it works with our brains. The origin of the universe doesn't, no matter what view you take on it. So while nothing, including the very claim I'm making, can be proven for sure, I argue that the origin of the universe is more difficult to make assertions and form assumptions for. Thus, we must attempt to understand by what makes the MOST sense (for me, that's a creator outside of reality) even if it can't be fully comprehended or demonstrated.
@@dppool456 I agree with most of what your saying but to say "nothing can be known with absolute certainty or without doubt " seems self-defeating
to me because to make such a claim is to be absolutely certain or without doubt that it is true so I guess I'm arguing for
I think therefore I am
@@darcevader4146 there are assumptions behind "I think therefore I am".
I think your argument for the argument for my argument being self-defeating is piggybacking off the idea that "there's no such thing as absolute truth" is self-defeating. Let me draw the distinction between the two. That there is no absolute truth is a claim that must be true or false regardless of if we can identify it. So the claim argues based off of what it refutes, and so it is contradictory. The assertion that nothing can be proven is not a simple true/false independent of us. It's about our perception of reality, not reality itself.
Furthermore, I make no claim that my assertion is provable. That's not the point. It's reasonable, but not provable. When something can't be proven, we must try and follow reason to the best of our abilities.
@@dppool456 i think I might agree with you if we can agree that we can know our perception of reality is true. rather than reality in and of itself be true
The argument that atheists believe the universe was created ex nihilo is asinine. First, though atheists believe many things atheism itself is not a belief. Atheism addresses one and only one proposition and that is are you convinced that some god or gods exist. If your answer to that question is anything other than yes, then like it or not you are an atheist. How the universe came into existence is a scientific question and no scientist worthy of the title believes the universe came from absolutely nothing which is what theists mean when they say nothing. Not even Lawrence Krauss in his book 'Something from Nothing" describes nothing as absolute. Creation ex nihilo is a religious belief, you theists think your god spoke the universe into existence out of nothing, so you need to stop putting that ignorant lie on to atheists and keep it as part of your superstitious beliefs where it belongs.
Counterargument to Russells teapot is total bullshit
Atheist checkmate.
....A PRAYER OF THE HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD …. O ALLAH! PLACE LIGHT IN MY HEART, AND IN MY SPEECH LIGHT, AND IN MY EARS LIGHT AND IN MY SIGHT LIGHT, AND ABOVE ME LIGHT, AND BELOW ME LIGHT, AND TO MY RIGHT LIGHT, AND TO MY LEFT LIGHT AND BEFORE ME LIGHT AND BEHIND ME LIGHT …. PLACE IN MY SOUL LIGHT & MAGNIFY AROUND ME LIGHT AND AMPLIFY FOR ME THE LIGHT. O ALLAH …MAKE FOR ME LIGHT AND O ALLAH…MAKE ME A LIGHT!
Classical philosophy IMO.. no value except for elitist talking points.. asks quetions but doesnt answer them...