An analogy that doesn't match the topic is of no use - you could use the teapot one if you wanted to engage a stoic using your line of argument, for example.
You’re right, an analogy that doesn’t match the topic is of no use. But analogies don’t have to match the topic in every respect for them to work. Indeed, it’s impossible for them to do so; no two things are alike. All an analogy has to do is show a point of comparison between two things.
The analogy between the teapot and God is that at the time you are being told about them, both of them are undetectable.
It doesn’t matter that you could, in theory, find a teapot with a telescope, but not God. It doesn’t matter that a teapot exists physically and God doesn’t. The point is, you are confronted by an assertion that you are unable – at that point in time – to disprove. And you are then told that because you are unable to disprove it, you must believe it.
So: if I tell you that there is a teapot out in space are you therefore obliged to believe my claim because you cannot disprove it?
Is Zeus material, yes, so can Zeus at least theoretically be detected in some material way, yes, as with your teapot idea.
But at the time you are told about Zeus, you can’t detect him, can you? Not at that time. And your response would not be “Well, I can’t prove that Zeus does not exist, so I must believe that he does.” No, your response would be, “I will believe in Zeus if I see Him. Let’s climb Mount Olympus and see if he’s there.”
the fact that the teapot is small has no relevance to the idea, a teapot is a teapot, things can be established about it using the same principles.
The fact that a teapot is small is a key part of the problem. Because it is so small, you cannot see it. You are unable to verify that it is there. And so, because you are unable to disprove its existence, does that mean that you are obliged to believe in it?
The idea that 'you can't see it because it is small' is the same as 'you can't see Zeus right now because he is on mt Olympus'.
Yes. And in neither case would you say "because I can't examine your claim at present to prove it incorrect, I will assume that you are correct." You would say "let us examine the evidence to see if you are correct."
Now you may say "But that's not fair - God can't be examined physically." To which I'd say, "Okay. But if you can't prove your claim, that's not my problem."
A teapot is a physical thing - do you understand? It's a thing, it has physical presence. If there were one orbiting the sun, it would be there, orbiting the sun - do you understand? Someone would have put it there - it's a teapot.
Do I understand that a teapot is a physical thing? Thank you, Tom, I believe I do. I had a teapot once, so I have a certain amount of insight into these things.
However, whether or not something has a physical presence is irrelevant to this analogy. The point is, can it be detected at the time the claim of itse existence is being made? Whether it’s a teapot in space or the Christians God, the answer is no, it can’t.
You are not, I assume, undetectable, as a 'magic' teapot might be. Russel's analogy is not however about a magic or immaterial teapot.
Russell’s analogy is about whether or not you can see the teapot. Which you can't, because it's too small. You are therefore faced with a choice:
A: not believe the teapot is there until you have been provided with evidence that it is there.
B: believe the teapot is there because you are unable to prove that it is not.
You've refused to answer this question several times, probably because you see how this undermines your argument about God. But you have now shown that you would indeed go with option A. Well done.
Or, you can re-think your idea that the example of a material object - something about which various things can be said, how the teapot got there, from where, and so on - and the idea of a spiritual/supernatural being, which requires a different set of starting criteria, are the same thing.
Of course they're not the same thing. Whoever said they were?
But just because they're not the same thing, that doesn't mean they don't have things in common. The relevant point, for our purposes, is that neither or them is, at the time of the claim about their existence being made, detectable.
To even begin a debate you have to have some criteria. You have only one set of criteria. You appear to have difficulty understanding that your criteria are not universally applicable to anything and everything.
Not at all, Tom. I don't know where you got this strange idea from. My criteria are perfectly sensible: any reasonable evidence for God will be considered. I don't mind what form this evidence takes. As shown in the OP, it could take several different forms. There may be many other forms out there.
My only criteria is that the evidence be reliable. I can see that this is a problem for you, of course, because you have an extremely weak case. You're saying "It's not fair! Your criteria don't include weak or illogical evidence. But that's all I have! How can you expect me to convince you if you set an unfair criteria of only accepting reasonable evidence?"
