Can someone explain this floating teacup in outer space theory or the flying spaghetti monster?

Question

Dawkins says if there's no proof of a teacup orbiting earth or a flying spaghetti monster then you must believe there is no possibility of them existing. That's a fair argument but the Christian god is not the same as the concept of god. He says if there is no proof of a higher conscious you can only logically be atheist, but he doesn't really address the limitations of the human mind. I mean, a higher power could be extraterrestrial. If there is no proof of aliens existing why wouldn't atheists rule the possibility of them existing? Because some atheists say they do not know if aliens exist. So what's the difference between that and saying a higher power does not exist?

Answer 1

More from Russell about his teacup:

"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 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."

Answer 2

The teapot theory was used originally to show that the burden of proof, when it comes to religion, lies on the believers and not the skeptics. Here's a quote from Bertrand Russell:
"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."
Basically, he states that it would be his place to prove the existence of this teapot ... not the place of the disbelievers to prove that the teapot doesn't exist.

Atheists in general don't feel that anything is being the limits of the human mind ... if we were to accept that there were things that existed that were beyond proof and understanding, we wouldn't atheists, would we?
I believe in the idea of extraterrestrial life, only because I feel that if life was able to develop and thrive here on earth, there must be other planets out there that have undergone similar changes. Also, there is proof from meteors that there are micro-organisms present in the universe that don't exist on earth. Atheists usually believe in evolution, and the idea of evolution in itself supports the concept that there might be life in other parts of the universe.

Now, I don't believe in little green men that come and abduct us into their spaceship while we sleep ...

Answer 3

Ok, the thing about the speedboat and brain answers is that you can see its effects without ever seeing the actual thing. Like a wake in a lake or someone breathing. God on the other hand has no direct effect so the evidence is nil, thats what the spaghetti monster is about, its picking on the god argument becasue you cannot see its effect. So does it exist, logic would say no, but people still think god exist. the monster will now always exist, but just as a creation of humans, just like god.

Answer 4

The "orbiting teapot" argument was originally posited by Bertrand Russel. Dawkins is just riffing on that.

The argument goes that since we CAN'T prove the teapot doesn't exist, we are all obliged to be "teapot agnostics" to say that we "don't know" if the teapot exists or not. BUT, in reality, we really are all teapot atheists, because when push comes to shove, none of us have anything more than the inability to disprove as a cause for our agnosticism.

This is the same thing when it comes to a belief in God, particularly the Judeo-Christian guy who floats around on a cloud and occasionally intervenes in the Super Bowl.

Answer 5

He is using basic geometry. If theres no proof - then- it doesn't exist. the problem is that it doesn't work that way. If theres no proof for or against it -then- you haven't found any yet. thats the way it should have been stated. Mr dawkins is in a box where everything must have proof, and since everything to him could change instantly, as soon as you can't see something it could have turned into a meatball for all he knows.

Answer 6

Its the old strawman trick.

Everyone has known someone, possibly themselves, who refused to investigate a claim that was in opposition to their own belief, possibly prejudice. Most people can deny truth quite easily.

There is evidence for the existence of God. It comes in many forms and varieties. My personal favorite is the history of religion as taught by a long time mentor and the Great Pyramid of Giza, book in stone, that gives the dates for the advents of all the Messengers of God in the last 6000 years.

My mentor fulfilled prophecy for the return of Jesus by name, date, address and mission in the bible and by date in the Great Pyramid and was speaking on authority from God.

The limitations of the human mind are a problem mentioned in the bible. "They will be given strong delusion that they will believe a lie." "God will choose their delusions for them." It seems that the only people who are able to approach truth at all are the ones who are not prejudiced already, who really don't care what the truth will turn out to be but know that they must have the truth. They alone appear to be able to navigate the investigative process that leads to the understanding of the truth. If one has his/her mind made up about what the truth is in advance of an investigation and knows already that he or she will not let go of the prejudice then the investigation is for naught.

Answer 7

Atheists don't rule out the possibility of aliens. I, for one, think there is a high probbility of aliens existing. But not aliens visiting us.

But then again, we know how aliens could come into being - we know how we got here, and it's probably something similar for them. But we don't know that gods can exist. So the probability of aliens existing is far greater than that of a god.

And that later part had nothing to do with your original question - you might want to ask that again and clearly state your problem with the teapot/FSM hypothesis.

Answer 8

This Dawkins fellow is just wrong. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If I've never seen a speedboat, it doesn't mean that speedboats don't exist. That said, if there is no logical reason for a speedboat to exist, ie there is no chance of me ever observing one and no chance of one ever interacting with me, I should act as if there is no speedboat, because as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one.

Answer 9

In 2011, the yank Spectator affirming learn printed interior the international Bulletin of Missionary learn stated that atheism is on the decline as an entire in terms of adherents.[37] the yank Spectator declared: “ The report estimates approximately 80,000 new Christians every day, seventy 9,000 new Muslims every day, and 3 hundred fewer atheists every day. those atheists are possibly disproportionately represented interior the West, mutually as faith is prospering interior the international South, the place charismatic Christianity is exploding."[38] A dropping combat. Evil shall no longer be triumphant. John Calvert, a criminal expert and clever layout proponent declared: “ The seventh Judicial Circuit of the courtroom of Appeals of u.s. held that atheism is a faith. for this reason, it is going to no longer be able to be promoted via a public college. at present, public colleges are oftentimes unwittingly merchandising atheism via a dogmatic and uncritical coaching of materialistic theories of origins.[24] ” A proponent of the question evolution! marketing campaign declared that "Evolution is the air grant of atheism. ..to truly be triumphant against atheism, slicing off the air grant of atheism is needed."[25] Biblical Christianity vs. evangelical atheism A proponent of the anti-evolution question evolution! marketing campaign via creation Ministries international wrote: “ Atheism is a faith. And atheists, time and time returned, get rid of the religious liberty of Christians with a view to sell their fake faith. Evolution is the air grant of atheism. at as quickly as confronting atheism could be useful. yet, the main suitable way for Christianity to be triumphant against secularism is thru preventative drugs. achieving toddlers with the gospel and discipling them is a known step. yet to truly be triumphant against atheism, slicing off the air grant of atheism is needed.

Answer 10

if it can't be seen it does not exist, therefore, because I cannot see your brain, it does not exist. Now how stupid is that