As long as you now know the universe we live in looks designed, I have no further need to educate you. Just remember that the next time you say there is no evidence of design. (something you were saying for years).
There's not much to retort because comparing the existence of an orbiting teapot to the existence of God as if they're equally plausible is bogus... something that asinine would never be "affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth" and "instilled into the minds of children at school." Obviously humans can, and sometimes do, give more weight to something that's passed down than is logically warranted. But just because something's passed down, it's not necessarily wrong because of that, either.
I find it interesting that someone would compare a teapot to a Creator after a physicist who sat in Issac Newtons chair as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University in England just explained how incredibly designed our universe appears. Does that not penetrate through the skulls of those who are atheists? Do you realize that the best minds in science are telling you are universe appears designed.... how does that happen?
Are you aware that I didn't? Try reading my post carefully first. You just confirmed that you're stupid (again).
How does that happen? You missed part of what they are actually saying, so I fixed it for you. See if you can fix the other mistake yourself.
A magic sky fairy is not equally plausible as a celestial teapot? You sure? At least teapots do exist. ..well, something that asinine has indeed been affirmed and instilled. Instead of calling that something, the Celestial Teapot ,or the Magic Sky Fairy, calling it God instead. The understatement of two millennium ....nor sensible, rational ,reasonable or correct either.
Yes I am sure because there's absolutely no reason to believe there should be a teapot in space but there is reason to believe we were created, so Russell's premise is flawed. Russell does make a good point about indoctrination, though, so let's look at that. Humans have also been indoctrinated about scientists to the point that many give more weight to what they say than is logically warranted. Especially scientific "gods" like Stephen Hawking. Do you believe this is true because Stephen Hawking said so? Which is more likely... this, or that Stephen is hawking his book? âbecause there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing..." I'd argue that this is no more plausible than the existence of God. And because people have been indoctrinated about scientists, many will give it more credence than it deserves. First, if there truly was "nothing" then there would be no "law such as gravity" from which the universe would spontaneously create itself. Second, humans don't understand the nature and structure of the universe anywhere near well enough to proclaim something like this. The fact that 96% of the universe is currently thought to be "dark energy" and "dark matter" (in an attempt to reconcile differences between theory and observation) clearly makes the point that we're far from figuring everything out.
The teapot metaphor is no good anymore. NASA engineers, as an inside joke, secreted one aboard a Mars probe. It was "accidentally" ejected during a stage separation or panel extension, I can't remember which.
Stu, you must realize that Trader666 is fighting for his immortal life here in these arguments. If there is no God, then that greatly reduces the chances of there being a heaven or a hereafter. Meanwhile, Trader666 has plans. Big plans. Long term plans.