I don't know the circumstances, but I think it probably had more to do with the relatively greater unacceptability of atheism at that time. Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot or Cosmic Teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872â1970), intended to refute the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel's_teapot But please do go on and continue to put all of the world's noted thinkers in their place. As I noted in another thread:
As most of your outburst is just brainless ranting and abuse, the little which you seem to be trying to defend is some kind of argument that centers around your understanding of what dark matter and dark energy is.... But I have said FOUR times now , you don't have to accept or understand what physicists say ( about dark matter or dark energy) to understand what you are saying ("...the laws of physics are no more plausible than the existence of God") is not itself only implausible, but absurd. Because not everything is known about the universe, although clearly a lot is, you think that is some sort of reason to assume some other thing like an imaginary God is plausible.? How illogical of you. No, not wrong, go back and read again what I actually said. Not what you imagine I said. I said , Teapot's are falsifiable. God is not. Russell's analogy shows how claims for a God are as unfalsifiable as claims for a celestial Teapot. Both philosophically equally invalid as the other. Claims for God cannot even overcome claims for a Teapot. But at least teapots do indubitably exist., whereas God does not do that.
Then why was it commissioned? And as I said... Russell's teapot is not necessarily unfalsifiable unless it DOES exist. Still, you think that had nothing to do with it? Or don't you comprehend that? Of course, we're only speculating why it was not published and will probably never know for sure. Please do go on yourself and continue to misrepresent what others' say and hide behind the apron strings of your expert "gods" as I pointed out in that thread.
And did you not comprehend the fact that Russell set the conditions of his teapot analogy in such a way that it would be specifically unfalsifiable, just as religions are? Did you not catch that rather salient parallel, which was the entire point of the exercise? Not very sharp, are you, for someone who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
Not only are you STUpid, you're a hypocrite. You're in no position say anything like that when you've spewed venom like this: Why not re-assess the plausibility of your claim by standing in front of a speeding truck contemplating how Issac Newton got it all wrong. Oh please... you've been totally discredited here. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2952513#post2952513 You don't know your ass from your elbow and misrepresenting my position can't change that. Yes, wrong. How about re-reading what I actually wrote? Let me take a different approach. Can you or anyone PROVE there is no God?
Can you or anyone PROVE there is no Celestial Teapot? How about unicorns? How about flying spaghetti monsters? You make it so easy that you are quickly losing your entertainment value.
Who cares about a teapot when top physicists say our universe appears incredibly designed? Get it, there appears to have be a design dictated by _______. If you wish to counter that conclusion according to top scientific minds you must speculate there are 10 with 500 zeros after it other universes. Russells teapot is a quaint old analogy from a period where science had less understanding of the the universal constants.
And that's when you stopped listening, isn't it? At the word "appears," and not in the full context of the commentary that followed such observations, which essentially went on to say that appearances can be deceiving, along with the reasons why. You're not a very astute lawyer, are you? Russell's teapot analogy is as relevant today as it ever was. His argument had to do with fundamental logic. Are the rules of fundamental logic different today?
Your logic is weak, in fact it fails you, as the analogy is no longer relevant. 1. there is no reason to suspect a teapot (specifically) is in orbit. 2. but science now tells us there is reason ( I did not say proof of ) to suspect a designer. If you do not think that is true... try using science to explain why.
I'll be more than happy to take this on but humor me first and answer a question so I know exactly where you're coming from. Would you agree with STUpid who said that because God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a celestial teapot, the two are equally implausible?