Russell's Teapot and The Flying Spaghetti Monster | Two Failed Arguments Against God's Existence 

This sort of mischievous sense of humor is a big reason the FSM community has found such popularity. Nobody likes a scold! Other movements could learn a thing or two from the Pastafarians’ “happy warrior” approach.

R'Amen

@@LetsGetLogical I think its bigger than that Sir. Its because we believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of everything.

R'amen!

@@Lexi2019AURORA Yes R'amen!

R'Amen

R'Amen

I like the humor of Pastafarians and genuinely admire the "happy warrior" approach. But at some point, this kind of thing (repeated over and over and over) starts to feel like a dodging of the substantive intellectual questions at play.

R'Amen!

R’Amen

Several commenters have claimed I missed the point. But I can't help but notice they disagree about what exactly the point is. Some have said the point is about _burden of proof_ . You say the point is about _unfalsifiability_ (which is different from burden of proof.) You also say the point is about the uselessness of arguments for God (which is different from unfalsifiability.) In other words, the comment section is doing a wonderful job demonstrating the thesis of the video: these popular cutesy examples are not effective argumentation. It's not enough to gesture at a thought experiment with a wink and a knowing smile, as if that's enough to show belief in God is irrational. The argument must be spelled out clearly and rigorously.

I'm not sure why anyone would claim that God's existence is _unfalsifiable_ . After all, if the divine attributes are contradictory-as many atheists have argued-then the God hypothesis is falsified. For instance, is there a coherent way of understanding omnipotence? Is there a way to reconcile God's goodness with the vast quantities of evil in the world? Is divine simplicity compatible with the notion of God as an agent? Lots of interesting philosophical work has been done to try to show that these are insoluble problems for the theist. In other words, they are good faith attempts to falsify the God hypothesis.

"that any argument that could lead to the existence of God can just be replaced with Teapot/Spaghetti/dragon/pink_unicorn/etc." I mean that's just OBVIOUSLY wrong. Let's take a simplified version of the modal ontological argument for God's existence: P1) Possibly, a necessary omnipotent being exists. C) Therefore, a necessary omnipotent being exists. According to S5, which is accepted by most philosophers, it follows deductively from P1 that the conclusion is true. Maybe P1 is false, but the argument is valid at least. Now let's try the same thing with the teapot: P1) Possibly, a flying teapot exists. C) Therefore, a flying teapot exists. Even a 7 year old would understand that that argument isn't valid! So the claim that any argument for God can be replaced with Russell's teapot is clearly false.

@@dominiks5068 Whats S5?

It's a system of modal logic.

This deserves a longer reply than I can give in the YT comments, SYKOPATHeist, but a quick reply: 1. You are correct about _existence_ being a different sort of question. But the coins and cards were not comparisons but _illustrations_ of how to think about prior probabilities vs. conditional probabilities. Drawing that distinction carefully is central to the theme of the video. 2. You say, "We know that these results are probable due to the cards/coins existence," but is this true? I can imagine an evenly-weighted, 27-sided fruit with different colors on each of its equal-sized sides. This fruit doesn't exist but what are the odds that its red side is lying face up? Easy: 1 in 27. This is due neither to evidence nor existence but just the nature of the thing as described. 3. Lastly, I think it's best to drop the burden-of-proof way of framing interesting philosophical questions. For any substantive philosophical proposition, your first question should _not_ be, "Who is making this claim? Have they met their burden?" but rather, "What are the arguments in favor of this proposition? What are the arguments against?" Worrying about burden of proof is a mug's game; a distraction at best and a crude sort of "point-scoring" at worst. It's not a part of serious intellectual inquiry. That's roughly how I'd start to answer your challenge. Thanks for the push-back and for watching the channel.

Thanks for the comment, Timex30lap. You said the "accepted definition of existence" includes being "in the physical world." But if you _define_ existence as physical, then you have not given an argument against God, you have simply defined God away. And not just God but also propositions, relations, numbers, works of fiction, and lots of other things that many philosophers categorize as non-physical. Now, of course, maybe physical objects are the only objects that exist, and maybe there is no God. But I would think you have to admit it's an interesting, substantive question! And anytime you find that an interesting, substantive question has simply been defined away, it only shows that you need a better definition. Tldr; philosophy makes progress by providing _reasons_ in support of a view, not by _defining_ a view as the correct one. (That's just too easy for all sides. 🙂)

@@LetsGetLogical That is ok that I have not given an argument against god. One cannot provide evidence for a negative (ex. Provide evidence that Santa does not exists, or the tooth fairy does not exists). One who make the claim that their god is real is tasked with providing evidence for their claim. I am quite happy that you would agree that gods (in total) do fit better in the category of fiction, or other abstract ideas. I think you are right that numbers and fictional works only exist in ones mind. To that end I would argue that religion, the tea pot, and the spaghetti monster all belong in the same space, abstract but short of real. I will say however that abstract ideas garner value based on how useful they may be to humans who wield them. Numbers and mathematics, extraordinarily useful, but they are always still sets of abstract ideas that do not have agency outside of moments a mind is working with those ideas. Religion and fiction both may be useful but without a person thinking about the ideas therein the texts have no agency in the world you or I experience.

"One cannot provide evidence for a negative..." Sure! That's easy. For instance, all the arguments that attempt to show the incoherence of God's attributes are an attempt to show that God does *not* exist. (Because a thing with _contradictory_ attributes cannot exist.) Or in a court case, for example, I might try to show that my client can *not* be the murderer because video reveals he was across town at the time of the murder.

@@LetsGetLogical none of those are a negative, that is a negative is a claim which has no evidence that supports it and has no evidence that would be a counter example. The example that would best fit here are ones I have previously given (Can you prove Santa does not exists? You cannot because there is no evidence to examine to make a determination.) In your court example there would be a evidence in the context of the case that one could make an argument out of. As for a god, that god fits in the same space as Santa or the tooth fairy in that since you have made god ‘immaterial’ there is not evidence to examine. As a side note evidence or lack of for gods incoherence is mute because there is no evidence at all positive or negative for god and hence pontifications on his/her makeup is fruitless.

We can try to show a fictional character does not exist but the believer of that character always can ad-hoc thats why it's the believers job to show that this character isn't only in their mind (fictional) but exist outside the mind. A thing can have no contradictions and still not exist. Theres no logical contradictions in conceiving the FSM, yet we both agree it doesn't exist outside our minds till proven otherwise.

To be fair, a zero probability should probably count as _laughably low_ . 🙂

@@LetsGetLogical 0% chance of existing is the same as 100% chance of non-existing. Is 100% laughably high? It doesn't make sense to laugh at one or another, because the fact is that such a thing as "god" doesn't exist and religion is the biggest lie in the entire world.

_"0% chance of existing is the same as 100% chance of non-existing."_ Indeed. Well said. _"Is 100% laughably high?"_ Yes. Believers in three-sided squares have a laughably high chance of being wrong. _"It doesn't make sense to laugh at one or another"_ I only meant "laughable" in the sense of "ridiculous" or "extreme". But you're right that laughing at theses is poor philosophy. Good philosophy is done cooperatively with others and in a spirit of humility. "the fact is that such a thing as "god" doesn't exist" You might be interested in my fact/opinion video. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1KrFVG0Abc8.html "religion is the biggest lie in the entire world" You might be interested in my truth/lies/bullsh*t video. (There is an important difference between a lie and a mere falsehood.) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kv77P3Wu1Cs.html

Uh no, the concept of God is not a "paradox". Certainly not more than the concept of actual sequential infinities or other such requirements for atheism to be true, which why theism/atheism is a proper dichotomy and thus atheists have every obligation to support their position but can't and won't.

@@godfreydebouillon8807 The concept of "god" is a paradox. That's a fact. This video explains it very well in detail: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cG5zzkgmqTs.htmlsi=dxrJEOFfVW-1_T-b . Also, atheism doesn't require anything to be true, other than the fact that there is no such thing as "god". And since it's a paradox and the fact that there is no evidence of a "god", it doesn't exist. In fact, something, no matter what, doesn't exist unless proven otherwise by indisputable evidence.

That's a good thought but it doesn't work. Nothing about the example depends on coins and cards actually existing. It's all about the _nature_ of the thing being described. Imagine a deck of cards made out of gold with all the spades having been taken out. A golden, spade-less deck does not exist. But I can still know things about the deck just based on its properties. For example, I can know it's atomic structure and I can know the probabilities of drawing certain cards. Similarly with God. Maybe God exists and maybe God doesn't-but we can think about the properties of this alleged being and what that might entail. For example, many have argued that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent God would not allow gratuitous evil. That's an inference based on God's properties.

@@LetsGetLogical Alright, your golden spade-less card deck example does make sense, however that's because decks of cards of many types and design exist. God (at least anything worthy of being called god) is supernatural in nature, a supernatural being or intelligence. There is still no evidence of anything at all supernatural existing, ghosts, demons, vampires, fairies, etc. Also on to when you talked about things like the flying spaghetti monster and of course the teapot. Of course a ball of spaghetti or a teapot does not have the properties needed to achieve flight, however in space if they exist there then they could well be floating in orbit, or they could be imagined to have supernatural abilities. In my conception of the flying spaghetti monster, I think of it as having supernatural abilities and I think the vast majority would imagine it that way as well. If he created us with his noodley appendages, then he must have supernatural abilities. So as for the prior probably of god existing, because of god being supernatural and there not being any evidence of anything supernatural it is laughably low, compared to say, the prior probably of the existence of extraterrestrials, which is much higher.

Almost as laughable as the claims of non theists which is even more laughable

@@davidmedellin7074 what are the claims of non theists?

Hi J.H., thanks for engaging in the comments. I don't speak for David-and I hope you don't mind me jumping in!- but I would say the claims of non-theists tend to be things like this: that non-theism is more simple than theism, that non-theism has more explanatory power than theism, that non-theism is more epistemically favorable than theism, and so on. I don't find those claims remotely laughable. On the contrary, I think naturalistic atheism (or non-theism, if you prefer) is a powerful and coherent worldview. But you can see how someone like David might think that each of those kinds of claims is flawed.

Non-theism is not a “world view”. For me it means withholding belief in things unless there is evidence for it. That includes things like Gods, Dracula, and the Tooth Fairy. Is non- tooth fairyism also a world view ?

@@chanerianwell let’s just turn that back on yourself your a believer that no living things can become living that species turn into other species that me and you are here by way of the zoo because lighting struck the goo so please spare the mockery your just as a fool to believe. Please provide your personal data that you yourself conducted not some highly politicized data that was paid for to tamper with results that only fit the current narrative in the scientific community today. And if you deny that you’re just as naive as the one believing in the magic book and sky daddy.

Watched your video. If someone wants to use Russell's teapot to make the elementary point that you should have rational justification for your beliefs, then they'll get no objection from me. That's a fine point (just not a very interesting one). If you're curious where I got my framing of the argument in terms of probability, check out the literature listed in video description. There you'll find an attempt to make Russell's Teapot more philosophically substantive than just, "Don't dogmatically believe things without basis". Thanks for dropping in and engaging in the comments.

Thanks for your long, thoughtful comment, Phil. There is much here I can agree with. And plenty, of course, where I think you've got things wrong. We'd have to have a long coffee together to sort things out. In any case, if you're interested in understanding more where I was coming from, please see the Further Reading section in the video description. I doubt you'll be convinced of anything, but you might get a deeper understanding of some of the points I was trying to raise here. Appreciate your dropping in to the channel.

@@LetsGetLogical A deeper understanding of what points you were trying to raise? You started by intentionally mischaracterizing one argument which has nothing to do with disproving God, it actually relies on our inability to know to (successfully) demonstrate why religious ideas about creation should not be taught in schools receiving public tax money. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendage was strategic there as it is a deeply held belief by Pastafarians that most folks including yourself find so farfetched it would be ludicrous to force a school to teach it. However, to a Pastafarian, an atheist, or any other religious tradition the idea of a Judeo-Christian creation is equally provable as FSM and thus is equally problematic for teaching in schools. As I said before, the misuse of priors based on your belief that there is evidence of an all powerful creator in that we ourselves have created things and by analogy something must have created us does not hold water. A teapot literally is designed to hold water and yet it too is equally unprovable as a FSM or God, therefore we must start with the Teapot and God and the FSM as if they are all equally likely initialky, and if nothing shows up that can knowably says that God did it not the FSM, then the updated posterior probability will remain equal proportions. You are saying more or less, there are a cat, a dog, and a bird living in a house. I have seen a ;dhx--]&ç⁸

Jiu-jitsu > gymnastics.

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, Andrew, but keep in mind that the conservation principle you cite is on the assumption of a closed system. But if God were to interact with the world in any way, then it would no longer be a closed system. The universe _does_ appear to unfold naturalistically according to the laws of nature. I've never experienced a miracle! But we can't assume that God cannot communicate with us or have causal powers-that would beg the question.

By definition? I've never heard anyone build _undetectability_ into the definition of God. In fact, most believers in God have in mind a God with whom we can interact. (See Alston's influential _Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience_ . )

@@LetsGetLogical Can we o.O? How exactly is the Christian god detectable?

The short answer is religious experience. Not that I'm defending religious experience as a way of detecting God! Only showing you that God is not undetectable _by definition_ . Whether God is detectable or not is an open philosophical question. You can get a feel for how the arguments go-both for and against-at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Religious Experience: plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/

@@LetsGetLogical That didn't make much sense; you are not defining religious experience as a way of detecting god, but at the same time you told me you can detect god via religious experience :S In any case that is not key to my argument anyway, I don't see why the Christian god and the FSM god have different probabilities of existence!

So you claim that FSM believers does not have any religious experiences?

🤣

Hans, it sounds like you want people to be intellectually honest and for theists to stop taking unfair pot shots at the atheist community. I'm 100% with you. My own view is that atheism and agnosticism are respectable intellectual positions. But one thing the atheist community can do to help its reputation in the meantime is refrain from personal attacks and guessing at motivations. Is there a flaw in the argument? Then point it out. Personal attacks are ineffective in winning people over, and the motivations behind an argument are entirely irrelevant to the quality of the reasoning (as I'm sure you know). One way to demonstrate a commitment to honest, open inquiry is to ask questions. For instance, one might wonder: if probability is not central to what Russell's teapot and the FSM are all about, is it just _coincidence_ that these popular examples happen to be wildly improbable? Or what about the invisible unicorn on the dark side of the moon? That's another favorite example that also _just happens_ to be wildly improbable. A curious mind might start to think that perhaps probability _is_ relevant in some way. One might even ask, "How _exactly_ is probability involved (if at all) and what work is it doing in the argument?" For those truly committed to being informed on these matters, they could even read up on the relevant philosophical literature. Links to such works are provided in the video description. In any case, thanks for viewing and engaging in the comment section.

@@LetsGetLogical Again you start with a construct to be able to make a false statement. You assume I want something and then act as if I represent the atheist community. I don't, twice. An I absolutely don't worry about unfair pot shot, you really overestimate yourself. I just pointed out where your logic goes wrong and it does so horribly. But thanks for your reply, it is a demonstration of what my objection is with your "logic"

I'm sorry we weren't able to find any common ground, but at least we're both going away content that the other has perfectly demonstrated what we are against. Win-win!

@@LetsGetLogical Against a channel's name calling for being logical and then doing the opposite,,,, yes I am against that for sure.

Heh!

0:58

Only a physical thing could fly. Only a physical thing could be spaghetti. Otherwise the words "flying" and "spaghetti" are being used equivocally. But there is nothing in the nature of being all-powerful, all-good, or all-knowing that logically entails being physical.

@@LetsGetLogical Why could only something physical fly? Why is supernatural flight not possible?

​@@LetsGetLogicalmay his noodly appendages reach upon us all

If they're simply to make a point about burden of proof, don't you find it odd, Bradley, that both FSM and Teapot are laughably low in probability? Why not just use an example such as, "The President of the U.S. is wearing blue socks today?" There's a reasonable probably of that... but I sure don't _believe_ it because I have no evidence one way or the other. So why not say belief in God is like the President wearing blue socks, if the point is just the not-very-interesting observation that one should not believe without evidence? Can you see how the silliness of FSM and Teapot smuggles in some rhetorical punch that is unwarranted? You're correct that Russell's Teapot and FSM are _not_ commonly used as arguments against God in academic philosophy. That's because they're lousy arguments. But is it common on the internet? Absolutely. Surely you've heard the refrain, "I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Russell's Teapot or the FSM." But this video carefully dissects the confusion underlying that claim. It's not the lack of evidence that makes one not believe in FSM or Teapot. It's the low prior probability. We'll ultimately disagree, I'm sure, but I hope this helps clarify. Thanks for your comment.

@@LetsGetLogical Both Russell’s Teapot are highlighting the burden of proof as regarding unfalsifiable claims. Russel’s Teapot very explicitly so. While I agree that the claim “the president is wearing blue socks” makes the point regarding burden of proof, the president’s socks is hardly an extraordinary claim and it is certainly falsifiable.

I think we're close to agreement. You're right that FSM and Russell's Teapot are _extraordinary_ claims, as opposed to, say, the color of the President's socks. But that's what the video is about. On what basis are they extraordinary? Answer: based on our background knowledge of the nature of spaghetti, and flight, and teapots, and orbits. We know enough about these things on background knowledge-even _before_ considering any evidence-that their probability is extraordinarily low. But God's existence is not relevantly similar. What do we know on background knowledge about the nature of a non-physical, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent world-creator that-even before considering any evidence-would make the probability of such a being extraordinarily low? Not much. That is why we should get down to the business of giving rigorous arguments against God's existence (a la Sobel, Tooley, Oppy and lots of other solid non-theist philosophers) instead of defaulting to cutesy examples like FSM and Russell's Teapot. After all, it's not like we're lacking powerful arguments against theism, are we?

@@LetsGetLogical It’s about unfalsifiability not “low probability”. Unfalsifiable claims do not require refutation. Claims made without evidence do not require refutation. The claims of spaghetti monsters and teapots are extraordinary because they are unfalsifiable, not because of our background knowledge. It’s not up to you to refute any unfalsifiable entity I can dream up; it’s up to me to provide evidence for my claim.

@@LetsGetLogical In a nutshell “you can’t prove Entity X doesn’t exist” is in no way shape or form an argument for the existence of Entity X. It’s a bad argument. You must give at least some semblance of a reason to believe in the existence of Entity X for it to even be put on the table for consideration. “It could exist” doesn’t pass muster. I can propose any number of unfalsifiable entities that “could exist”. Even from a pragmatic standpoint we would be in a quagmire of “exploring together” the existence of every proposed entity given without evidence. Also, I’m not saying that arguments against certain types of Gods can’t be made, such as logically inconsistent multi-omni Gods. It’s a hearty philosophical exercise. But as to the question of any God’s actual existence, you need to put your money where your mouth is. Pony up.

@christasimon9716, I get this kind of comment a lot. But I wonder if maybe 'burden of proof' is not as straightforward as you take it to be. Which kind of propositions carry a burden of proof and which don't? Is burden of proof an epistemic concept having to do with truth and justification? Or a rhetorical/dialectical concept having to do with standards of debate? Setting debate aside, what about someone sitting in a study by themselves thinking about the existence of God? How does Russell's teapot help that person think carefully about the philosophical question of God'd existence? Any thoughts on this?

@@LetsGetLogical "Which kind of propositions carry a burden of proof and which don't?" A _proposition_ (defined as an assertion which expresses an opinion) by itself doesn't. It's a person making a _positive claim_ (generally more substantial than a mere assertion about an opinion) who has a burden of proof. A proposition, to be regarded as "true", does require the ability to be falsified. A proposition (or assertion) that has no criteria for it to be falsified is another logical fallacy. "what about someone sitting in a study by themselves thinking about the existence of God?" Be my guest - think to yourself whatever you want. But that's a far cry from putting forward a positive claim without evidence and then shifting the burden of proof, or even worse, trying to set public policy around an opinion or a set of held beliefs that can't even be falsified. "How does Russell's teapot help that person think carefully about the philosophical question of God'[s] existence?" Russel's teapot does only one thing regarding the concept of god: It's reminds us of who has the burden of proof in the positive claim of God's existence. Or Odin Allfather. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And again, it has nothing to do with odds or probability. Interesting that in your video, you apply physical standards to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (overlooking His caloric value per serving), yet you grant numerous non-corporeal (and non-falsifiable) properties to God. How did you arrive at those conclusions? And why is the Flying Spaghetti Monster _not_ also beyond space and time, etc., the same way God is?

@christasimon9716 Appreciate your thoughtful comments. I hope you understand I can't reply at length to everything, but here are some thoughts on a few of the things you said: You have an idiosyncratic understanding of propositions. When a statement is capable of being true or false, it expresses a proposition. You might say a proposition is the _content_ of a declarative statement. Examples: "What time is it?" This is not a declarative sentence. It is not capable of being true or false. So it does not express a proposition. "On the morning before his assassination, Abraham Lincoln briefly considered skipping breakfast." This is a declarative sentence. It is capable of being true or false. So it expresses a proposition. "En la mañana antes de su asesinato, Abraham Lincoln consideró brevemente no tomar el desayuno." This is different from the declarative sentence above. But it expresses the _same_ proposition. This nicely illustrates how propositions are different from statements. Two different statements can express the same proposition. I hope this helps show how propositions don't really have anything to do with opinion, or substance, or positive vs. negative claims. They're simply the content of any and every declarative sentence you can think of. Next, you say "to be regarded as true... require[s] the ability to be falsified." But this is a bad bit of epistemology. If you think about, you'll see that there are _all kinds_ of beliefs you can take to be true, even if they can't be falsified. For example, I believe that I had coffee last Tuesday morning. But that can't be falsified. (There were no witnesses, there are no recording devices in my kitchen, and any evidence one way or the other has long been washed up and put away, etc.) Not only do I believe it's true that I had coffee last Tuesday morning, but it's eminently _reasonable_ for me to believe this. After all, I _remember_ it. 🙂 Here's another quick example. Imagine we are in fact living in a simulation. Imagine further that the simulators have walked away from the simulation, letting it run its course. Well, in that case, it would be _true_ that we are in a simulation but it would be in principle impossible to falsify. (Because of course all our testing would take place _within_ the simulation). Nevertheless, it would be _true_ that we are in a simulation. One last thing. Is it true that to be regarded as true... require[s] the ability to be falsified? Well, then it would have to be falsifiable! In other words, the epistemic principle you put forward is self-defeating. It doesn't pass its own test. The falsifiability requirement is not falsifiable. Lastly, I'll end on a positive note of possible agreement. I suspect you and I both agree that there's a difference between the methods and standards of _philosophy_ -using rational inquiry in an attempt to grasp truth-and the methods and standards of public debate and politics. As this is a philosophy channel, I'm interested in philosophical questions such as, "Does God exist?", "Can one be justified in believing in God?", "What is the evidence for and against God's existence?" and less interested in high school debate team questions such as, "Who has the burden of proof?" But I acknowledge that burden of proof questions can be important in some cases, such as a court of law, or a policy-making board room.

Interesting! You seem to be saying that Russell’s Teapot and FSM are an objection to arguments in favor of God. Yet, many people seem to take them to be arguments against God. (See the difference?) I think this illustrates my point that there is a lot of confusion about what *exactly* these illustrations are meant to show and further confusion about *how* exactly they rationally show what they are purported to show. 🙂 If you’re right that the main point is that “you can’t prove God exists using probabilities”, then there are a lot of atheists who are missing the main point! (Because they take the main point to be that you can show the low probability of God, which is a different thing altogether.) Appreciate your push back. 👊🏻

That's a good question. Here's another: if we _can_ , then how would one go about trying to assign a prior probability for such an entity?

@@LetsGetLogicalYou're right, it's a good question, and I can't think of a category adapted to such non-physical infinite entity. So, I don't have an answer to your question. I just wonder, if I were to think of a category, what would happen to faith? Probability doesn't seem to require faith. Thanks for your work.

Babel fish, FSM, Teapot... there's lots of cutesy examples out there. And that's fine: I'm all for a sense of humor! But the problem is that at the popular level-especially among young people-these examples are taken to be serious refutations. In other words, mocking humor has taken the place of rational argumentation. I think that's a bad trend no matter where it shows up, whether in philosophy, politics, or religion.

@@LetsGetLogical agreed sir. The actual good arguments have been made by wiser men such as Christopher Hitchens(RIP) and Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and so on. I did see one brilliant guy argue the existence of God very convincingly though, think his name was Daniel Craig or something like that. I’m agnostic and after I die I’ll either be a believer or I’ll be nothing. God bless…maybe…

@@LetsGetLogical was William Lane Craig btw, sorry I think I mixed him up with 007

Heh!

@@lethalwolf7455 Bill L (low bar) Craig would believe anything if it made him feel good. His belief requires zero standards. Admittedly, he is getting a bit old now, and people should ignore his recent and absurd rationalisation for children's deaths.

"Some theists claim that God exists because an atheist can't prove that God doesn't exist." This is indeed a terrible argument. So bad, in fact, that I've never heard an informed, serious thinker put it forward as an argument for belief in God.

@@LetsGetLogical please, do you engage with your family atheists, those who so bad at philosophy but are so confident in their proclamations? Now just reverse it and think about what atheists encounter at home or in social media like Facebook or some RU-vid comment sections. Of course a well informed theist, supposedly you, can't use this argument. Some theists tend to say that since you can't "PROVE" conclusively that God doesn't exist, therefore God exists. Of course as an atheist, I take a more Bayesian approach in philosophy. But this is immediately dismissed by my interloculator as not "PROOF" that God doesn't exist. Not every interloculator knows Bayes theorem, or comparison of hypotheses or that stuff. This goes for when I'm told to provide "PROOF" for Big bang cosmology or the evolutionary biology. That is the entire point of the flying spaghetti monster parody. It's meant to point out flaws in some arguments made by some theists

@simply_oat755 You say, "If they were both also described as non physical personal beings your current argument would collapse..." This is a mistake because a non-physical teapot is clearly incoherent. A non-physical flying spaghetti monster is clearly incoherent. But a non-physical consciousness that is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing is not clearly incoherent. Of course, there are interesting arguments attempting to show that God's properties are inconsistent. (Maybe they even succeed.) But that requires argument. It's not obvious. A non-physical teapot, on the other hand, is obvious nonsense.

Whether any non-physical things exist is an open philosophical question. There’s room for disagreement! But even many non-theistic philosophers have concluded that non-physical beings exist. (Numbers and propositions are two common examples of things that are _real_ but do not exist materially in space-time.) But even if you think the definition of existence is something like, “that which is instantiated physically in space-time”, it wouldn’t give you a _reason_ to reject God. Because that would just be defining God out of existence, which is too easy, as opposed to the hard work of making the rational case against God’s existence. In any case, thanks for dropping by and engaging in the comments. 👍🏻

@@LetsGetLogical Good words for thought. I agree that I am indeed defining god out of existence with my stance - at least I have a working definition of God that doesn't contradict itself. That's the god I do not believe exists (because it is a contradiction). If someone believes in some other God, that's up to them to describe what it is. Immaterial (no mass/energy) things doing actions that require energy (miracles) through "mysterious" ways are contradictions. I simply acknowledge the fact that it is impossible for me to DO the "hard work" of making a rational case against something that isn't defined rationally. Some theists even say god is not describable or consider it blasphemy to do so.

@@LetsGetLogical Just like God was defined into existence by primitive humans. If there was any hint of a god out there we'd seen it by now, our telescopes are good enough.

@@mauricioquintero2420 you might have just made the most illogical argument ever to someone whose focus is on logic. God is still being defined by non-primative humans today, who ever said you could see God with a telescope, "by now", why would "we" have seen it, some claim to have seen it, etc

@@cdiers26 What would you use to see god if not a telescope then? And thanks for proving my point. God is a Human construct.

Thanks, Mr. Stuff. I knew the Rod-ists would come out out of the woodwork as soon as I published this. 😄 Your point is well-taken. I think we’re best served by exploring Rodism fully, marshaling any evidence/argument we can think of, for and against. In other words, forget burden of proof. Instead, let’s cooperate in a joint, honest pursuit of the truth about Rodism. Even so, we’ll still have to face the complication of prior probability. But that’s a general problem, isn’t it? EDIT: I think our investigation into Rodism will be brief. Isnt' it the specifics you built in that make it so laughable? The name "Rod", outside _your_ window, participating in a specific activity (i.e. watching you sleep).

I think the question should be, would you expect others to believe in "Rod"s existence? Would believing in "Rod"'s existence be rational and justified?

@@LetsGetLogical And so do God-ists. There is no difference between Rod and God, it is all fantasy, one shared by a lot of people, one not, but that does not change what it is. Mass-hysteria is still hysteria

"why believe in something without any evidence?" Many philosophers think that all justified beliefs ultimately ground out in foundational beliefs that in turn are not justified by anything else. (That's why they're foundational.) These are sometimes called _properly basic_ beliefs. And some have even argued that belief in God is properly basic. But I agree with you, in general and for the most part, that proportioning our belief to the evidence is good epistemological policy.

@@LetsGetLogical Yeah, you are right. I was just saying that sphagetti monster among others is an example to show that something shouldn't be considered true just because it can't be disproven.

C’mon, LGL community-let’s make it happen! 😄

Russell’s Tea pot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus etc are perfect examples of intellectually bankrupt rhetoric that convinces way too many people that aren’t actually critically thinking. It’s also a product of scientism.

@Fellipe Dasilva say that you don't know the formal argument by saying that you don't know the formal argument. Anyways, look up IEP Atheism and scroll down to the Sata Claus argument, it is just a name and never mentions Santa Claus in the argument.

@@OzienTalksthe Santa Claus argument is silly and misunderstands what God actually Is

@@kevinpulliam3661 cool, why don't you tell me what the argument is then? The formal argument, not the stupid internet meme version. You know, the one written by Martin (1990), but you already knew that apparently.

My view: burden of proof is for high school debate teams, not real philosophy. Real philosophy is about getting at the truth of things the best you can. Real philosophy is about weighing evidence-not worrying about who needs to give the evidence. Real philosophy is about examining whatever arguments there might be-not insisting that this side or that side must do the arguing. Real philosophy is about considering objections and counterexamples-not sitting back with arms folded refusing to engage until the other makes a case. The real philosophical question is "Does God exist?" or alternatively "Is it reasonable to believe God exists?" Not, "Who has the burden of proof?" Burden of proof is a debater's trick-or to be more charitable- a convention for guiding conversation. But it really has no place in real philosophy in my view.

Not sure my video editing skills are up to the challenge! 😄 Thanks for watching, G3tsi AK. Appreciate the suggestion.

Thought provoking...

I guess we run in different circles, Rosver! As someone who has worked in universities and colleges for the last decade or so, it's quite common to hear things roughly like, "I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Russell's Teapot" or "I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in the FSM" and so on. Similarly, there are any number of significant disagreements people can have but I have never heard Russell's Teapot or FSM invoked _except_ for religious disagreement. If you can point me to prominent cases where the teapot or FSM are invoked to make a point about moral disagreement or political disagreement or any other contested issue, I'd be happy for the reference. Thanks for viewing.

​@@LetsGetLogical ["I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Russell's Teapot" or "I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in the FSM"] NOTE! They use it as a reason not to believe! As Burden of Proof Argument! Not as arguments against God's existence. Look at your video's title! "Two Failed Arguments Against God's existence." Can you see it? You yourself admit with this very comment, that you never really encounter it used as an argument against God's existence, but reason for disbelief. It is used for withholding belief until proper evidence is provided. As Burden of Proof Arguments. Just as what these arguments are for! So we run in exactly the same circles! You are just fussing about nothing. This video is pointless and a total waste of time.

Nice point. It's a subtle one, too, so let's lay it out clearly for anyone else who might be browsing the comments. In philosophy, it's helpful to distinguish between an _epistemological_ conclusion and a _metaphysical_ conclusion. Epistemology deals with knowledge and justified belief whereas metaphysics deals with reality and the true nature of things. Our American court system is a good example. The jury is supposed to reach an epistemological conclusion about the _evidence_ and the degree of _reasonableness_ in believing the defendant guilty. That's an epistemological question. As opposed to reaching a conclusion about the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant. That's a metaphysical question. It's a subtle distinction and one that we often blur with our language. For instance, somebody who has studied various cultures might say, "Forced marriage is wrong in the U.S but it is not wrong in various other cultures." If taken literally, this is a metaphysical claim about the nature of the morality of forced marriage. But it could just be a casual, shorthand way of saying, "Forced marriage is (believed to be) wrong in the U.S. but it is not (believed to be) wrong in various other cultures." In other words, sometimes the speaker's meaning is not obvious on a surface reading. That's why I appreciate your pushback. You are 100% correct that Russell's Teapot and FSM are not arguments against God's existence-i.e. not metaphysical. They are arguments against (believing in) God's existence-i.e. epistemological. To use the language made popular by Plantinga, they are _de jure_ objections, not _de facto_ objections. So you are not only correct but _importantly_ correct. These distinctions matter! But just as a juror might say "He's guilty" as simple shorthand for "(The evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that) he's guilty," in the same way the title of this video should be understand as shorthand for "Two Failed Arguments Against (Belief In) God's Existence." Still, if you watch the video, you'll see that I always carefully refer to _belief_ in God. (The script is written with precision. The title is written with the algorithm in mind. 🙂) And that's why I misunderstood your first reply. I thought you were saying, " I never really encountered these being used as arguments against (belief in) god's existence." Which of course I found puzzling! In any case, I'm happy to concede the point and clarify here in the comments. The relevant issue here is _belief_ in God's existence, not God's existence per se. To summarize the video, although there are good arguments for not believing in God's existence, Russell's Teapot and FSM are not among them. As a great philosopher once said, "Burden of proof arguments are for losers."

​@@LetsGetLogical [You are 100% correct that Russell's Teapot and FSM are not arguments against God's existence-i.e. not metaphysical. They are arguments against (believing in) God's existence-i.e. epistemological.] Dude, in your video, you did present them as arguments against the existence of God. You bury it in some wordy mumbo jumbo but it is there. You present them as argument that shows God's existence, like the teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster by analogy, is laughably low. The belief part only comes after establishing the very low probability of God. It is ridiculous to believe in God's existence because the probability is very low. You inserted an argument against God's existence into it. It is this that's I'm pointing out. [And that's why I misunderstood your first reply. I thought you were saying, " I never really encountered these being used as arguments against (belief in) god's existence." Which of course I found puzzling!] There is the second sentence in that paragraph which you omitted: "I never really encountered anywhere where these are used and put in anyway you did." You wouldn't have been puzzled if you have read that. And again, I never really encountered these arguments used this way, as arguments against God's existence. As an analogy of the probability of God's existence. Never. Now back to the video and why it is useless nonsense. You think that: these "Burden of Proof arguments" are attempting to show that the odds of God's existence is laughably low even before the evidence are weighted... That is not how burden of proof works! It has nothing to do with probability at all. And I don't understand. Earlier in your video, you just demonstrate how burden of proof works and you say its "basic critical thinking skills," but only for you to throw all that understanding away later when you started explaining burden of proof and even calling it "shifty." You are the one being shifty here. Of course, there is this, you: "Just get down to the business of making your rational case against God." You are guilty of shifting the burden of proof. No wonder you have issue with these arguments. Bright people probably have brought up these arguments to you every time you say that! [As a great philosopher once said, "Burden of proof arguments are for losers."] Who is the "great philosopher" you speak of? And of course you won't care for burden of proof. The fact that you demand us to "Just get down to the business of making your rational case against God" clearly shows this. Let me return what you said earlier in this video: "It's up to you to give persuasive reasons. Not my job to prove you wrong. That's just how argumentation works." So much for "All this is good stuff. The sort of thing you might learn in a basic critical thinking course" huh?

Once again, you raise some good challenges here. You've got an excellent eye for detail. I would have enjoyed answering some of the issues you raise and continuing the discussion. But you've repeatedly shown nothing but contempt. Surely you don't expect people to try to engage in good faith discussion with you when your _modus operandi_ is so dismissive?

Thanks for dropping in to the channel, Ryan. I read your comment several times and I _think_ we mostly agree, if I understand you correctly. You seem to be acknowledging the difficulty of priors as well as the fact that FSM and the teapot are not analogous to God. So I'm left a little unsure about what you disagree about in the video. No evidence in favor of God was presented. Indeed, the video is not a defense of God at all. It's a critique of an atheistic argument. In any case, appreciate the engagement.

I'm not confident that I _have_ . I'm not confident that I _haven't_ . But it really has no bearing on this argument. This was a critique of a bad argument against theism, not an argument _for_ theism.

@@LetsGetLogical I can say the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You’ve no arguments that are exclusive to the Christian god

The coin toss was not an analogy that had anything to do with time or the cosmos or the laws of physics or anything having to do with cosmology. It was just an example meant to illustrate a simple case of prior probability. So yes, it was "silly", in the sense that there was nothing deep or philosophical about it. Just an intro-level clarification about how probability works.

And the rest of the video was about that, this teaches me to not finish the video before commenting

But I heavily disagree on the conclusion. If a god exists AND it has provided the universe (or humanity) with free will, then the existence of evil is not a proof (or even an argument) against its existence. At the same time, even assuming the Christian God, it doesn't work because "God works in mysterious ways". Who are you to think that this present evil wasn't part of God's plan for a better future? Plenty of atrocities have given us a better future either because of their results or because of the measures we took to avoid such things in the future. On the other hand, what's good and what's evil? The definitions of both has changed drastically over time and across cultures, so who is/was right? What if our current understanding of "good" is not actually the "true good" that an assumed existing "good god" uses? In my opinion, it's literally impossible to argue for the inexistence of a god (if they're almighty and all knowing, they might just decide to make the universe and the mind behave in such a way that proof of their existence in any form can't be found or produced) and unless one god itslef comes down and tells us, there's also no possible logical proof for its existence. The logical arguments in favor or against the existence of god are pointless, you should just arbitrarily decide what you believe in and stick to it and respect other people's beliefs (as long as they respect yours and don't violate anyone else's). Logically speaking, I think the best approach is given by Occam's razor as I've seen you mention in other comments. Act as if any god is there and just behave according to your own moral code. Don't try to logically justify your beliefs, because it doesn't work. All the people I've seen try and do that, have either used wrong math stuff or defined the thing into existence and circular proofed it.

I'll frame my reply as an _agreement_ , Paul. You're certainly right that the more details we pack into the God hypothesis, the more difficult it will be to rationally support that hypothesis. That's nothing special to do with God, just a fundamental point about the nature of reasoning. It's much more likely that the Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl than it is that the Green Bay Packers will win the Super Bowl by interception on the 30-yard line in the last 43 seconds of the game. Making the rational case for the first scenario is much, much easier than making the case for the second!) Same Goes for God. If the Christian wants to convince you of the _entire Christian story_ that's a much bigger lift than simply making a case for God in the pure, philosophical sense (i.e. The greatest conceivable being: all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing.) But just as the Christian should acknowledge the heavier burden of trying to show rational support for the whole Christian story, the non-believer such as yourself should acknowledge that one can defend the existence of God _without_ all the religious baggage. In fact, as a philosopher, when I discuss God and raise questions about God, I _never_ mean, "The Being who created Eve from Adam's rib," or anything like that. I mean the philosophically robust concept of _theism_ . Thanks for your thoughtful, measured comment.

There are many reasons to be suspicious of 50/50 odds in this context, but I don't think this is one of them. Whether the odds are 90/10, 80/20, 70/30, or any other combination, the odds are expressing the probability of _either_ existing _or_ not. In other words, a disjunction. There is no third possibility being overlooked: existing or not existing exhausts the possibilities. (If I've understood your comment properly.)

@Wow-hr1gl It's not comparing God with coins or cards. It's just an illustration of how probability theory works and the difference between a probability on background knowledge alone vs probability on background knowledge + a piece of evidence. What is flawed about the teapot and FSM-or if not flawed, at least worthy of careful scrutiny-is the idea that teapot and FSM _on background knowledge alone_ are helpfully similar to God on background knowledge alone.

Agreed. Foot is not a viable option on our background knowledge of fair, standard coins. Nor is a purple king on our background knowledge of fair, standard decks. But that doesn't mean I would need _evidence_ if you told me you flipped foot or drew a purple king. Instead, I would know _even without evidence_ that you are either(a) lying or (b) not using a fair, standard coin or deck of cards.

@@LetsGetLogical you would only know I am lying or not using a standard deck of cards because you know what a standard deck is, every card of it. You have perfect knowledge of a deck of cards. You have imperfect knowledge of the universe (especially one in motion).

I find nothing here to disagree with you about.

@andosoup98 Here's two ways to disprove God's existence: 1. Show that God's purported attributes are logically inconsistent. 2. Show that God's purported attributes are logically incompatible with some observed feature of our world. Both strategies have long, respectable history, including the paradox of omnipotence and the argument from evil. I think many in the atheist camp might be surprised to hear that God's existence cannot be disproved. The idea that "Not disproven does not equal true!" is fine as far as it goes, I suppose, but I must say in over a decade of teaching philosophy, I've never heard any student who believes in God make that mistake. And in over 40 years of living around people who are religious, I've literally never heard any of them claim that God has not be disproven, therefore God's existence is proven (or therefore God's existence is true). Still, I'm glad you seem to fully appreciate that Russell's teapot in no way demonstrates that evidence for God is lacking. We agree on that at least!

​@@LetsGetLogical [I think many in the atheist camp might be surprised to hear that God's existence cannot be disproved.] And so does the Theist side. [but I must say in over a decade of teaching philosophy, I've never heard any student who believes in God make that mistake. And in over 40 years of living around people who are religious, I've literally never heard any of them claim that God has not be disproven, therefore God's existence is proven (or therefore God's existence is true).] Just because you didn't hear it, doesn't mean they don't make it. The discussion is also about Theist, all Theist, not just your students or religious people around you. [Still, I'm glad you seem to fully appreciate that Russell's teapot in no way demonstrates that evidence for God is lacking.] Seriously, what is with you and your word games. You still keep skirting about what people are telling you. Your video is just wrong about these "arguments." It is not about the low probability of God, or questioning its existence or even about God in general (though it is first used specifically in religious context), it is about the Burden of Proof. I know you know what the Burden of Proof is. You describe it in this video itself ("It's up to you to give persuasive reasons. Not my job to prove you wrong. That's just how argumentation works."). There are many videos and articles explaining these... then how do you keep missing the point?

@rosverlegaspo6752 I think of philosophy as a _cooperative_ activity, each interlocutor helping the other get closer to truth or gain more understanding with each new objection or reply. But I have no interest in adversarial philosophy. Especially with strangers on the internet. So in this case, it's not that your comments are way off base, or that I don't see what you're saying; for example, of course you're right that my own anecdotal experience is not definitive and of course you're right that burden of proof is importantly related to all this. It's just that I'm looking at things a little differently, and if you were a cooperative interlocutor, charitably looking to understand exactly where and how we're seeing things differently, then it might be worth the effort to continue in order that we both possibly see something we hadn't seen before. But you're not, so I won't.

​@@LetsGetLogical Cooperative? You are the one here who keep avoiding the points people make. You never address what we said. It is always like this with you. You always make excuses not to address anything, especially when doing so force you to admit you are wrong. You are not trying to get closer to the truth. You just want to keep believing in your religion. And you will lie and manipulate with your word games to do so. And with that, you still never correct your video or your understanding of the two "arguments," the Russell's teapot and TFSM. You still keep going as if you made valid points here despite many telling and showing you that you got it wrong. No! You got nothing in this video but a giant Strawman and all your replies to everyone challenging your points are you just dancing around trying to avoid acknowledging how flimsy your side is. And that is why I'm frustrated with you. You are a philosophy teacher but you used what you learned to play word games, both in you videos and your replies/arguments. You use your knowledge in philosophy to manipulate and bamboozle others. As a philosophy teacher, you should know how falacious your arguments are. But you aren't really seeking the truth, are you? What kind of philosophy teacher are you? Why are you using your knowledge in such a slimy way?

_"Oh my sweet sweet summer child"_ 😂

@@LetsGetLogical Sorry, I mean no offence Skål

@@martinkrog5943 I took it in good humor. 🙂 Peace. 👊🏻

@@LetsGetLogical Ok Did you understand the rest of the comment though?

Yes. If you scroll through the comment section, you'll see my previous answers to this kind of objection. Thanks for dropping into the channel and engaging in the comments.

A few honest questions: Do you _really_ think I've never read the Wikipedia article and am unaware of the issues discussed there? Is it really your best judgment that I am unaware of burden of proof? And finally, is it really your considered judgment that the prior probability of all gods is zero? These are remarkable conclusions to arrive at.

I admire both Draper’s and Smith’s work, so it bugs me to have to admit I’m not familiar with their arguments on priors. (Or more likely I _did_ read their arguments years ago and have since forgotten…which is worse!) Got any specific recommendations from them? If not, no worries. I’ll certainly try to track down the relevant articles. It’s something I’d like to have a deeper understanding of.

@@LetsGetLogical Always great to see Theists looking into the best of Atheism. I hope both Theists and Atheists can follow your example and start to engage in the best of the opposing view. As for Paul Draper, he discusses the intrinsic probability of Atheism/Naturalism in his 2017 SEP article _Atheism and Agnosisticm_ and his 2017 paper _God, Evil, and the Nature of Light_ Quentin Smith discusses the argument in his 1998 paper _Swinburne's Explanation of the Universe_ Michael Tooley discusses the argument in his debate with Peter Kreeft and in his recent 2019 book _The Problem of Evil_ J.H. Sobel also discusses the argument in _Logic and Theism_ and builds mostly on what Hume and Mackie have to say on the issue. Hope that helps!

This is great! Look forward to diving in. Always meant to read Sobel’s book but never got around to it. Time to place an Amazon order. I should add it’s a pleasure to have Real Atheology commenting on my channel. I’m familiar with your work and commitment to fair-mindedness. Appreciate the kind word!

​@@LetsGetLogical Logic and Theism is informally regarded as the final boss of Atheism and is widely considered one of the best defenses of Atheism ever assembled. We'd highly recommend it (we do have a PDF that we'd be happy to share as well) And we're glad to see we're recognized into intelligent circles. Thank you for the excellent video and kind words as well. Don't hesitate to reach out to us by email or twitter if you'd ever want to discuss/dialouge more.

Right. Things get difficult when we try to assess what counts as evidence as opposed to to what counts as background knowledge. I stand by everything in the video but there are parts I wish I had expressed differently. 👊🏼

Shawn, you say there is no good evidence for God or the teapot. But that was the _starting point_ of the video. The question was this: If there is no good evidence for God, then... what exactly? What exactly is the conclusion supposed to be and how does the teapot help us reach that conclusion? What do _you_ think the conclusion of the teapot argument is supposed to be? And how does the example of the teapot logically get us there?

@@LetsGetLogical You started by saying the evidence for god is laughably low. That's not an argument an atheist would make. The conclusion should be withholding belief until sufficient evidence is presented.

@@shawncudjoe9584 Fair enough, but here's something to think about: there are millions of instances every single day of people believing on insufficient evidence. Think of political beliefs, for example. Many (most?) are held on insufficient evidence. And yet I've never heard the teapot cited in a political discussion. Or consider philosophical beliefs: again, many (most?) are held on insufficient evidence. But I've never heard the teapot mentioned in a discussion of free will or mind-body dualism. Even empirical beliefs are regularly believed on an inadequate basis e.g. think how many people believed Trump did X for no other reason than that Rachel Maddow _said so_ .And yet, again, I've never heard the teapot mentioned in discussion of empirical matters. If the teapot is a general argument providing an important insight about the nature of belief and evidence, why is it only ever aimed at belief in God? I find that curious.

@@LetsGetLogical Bertrand Russell created the teapot argument as a counter argument for god. Empirical evidence is scientific evidence. I try to believe as many true things as possible. if other people believe things without good reasons or evidence, then that's on them. It seems you are willing to believe anything for any reason. I hope that is not the case.

@@shawncudjoe9584 If you try to believe as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many false things as possible and suspend judgment on things about which the evidence is unclear or under-determined, then we're on the same page. 👊🏼

The probability calculus is usually expressed in terms of "prior probability" and "background knowledge" and "evidence". These are treated independently. Perhaps you meant to say that one's background knowledge itself depends on previous evidence?

@simply_oat755 You say, "Good try." What do you think I was trying to do? We agree it's a mistake in reasoning.

Thanks for watching, Deja Voo. To be fair, I also want theists to get down to the business of making a rational case _for_ God. In other words, I want atheists, agnostics, and theists alike to be concerned about believing on a good basis. So for any particular philosophical question-whether it's God, free will, or the nature of consciousness- let's get to it and may the best arguments win. None of this business about _burden of proof_ is relevant or helpful because we all have the same intellectual burden: to make sure our beliefs are justified.

@@LetsGetLogical rational case for God?. Okay, we have trillions of complex different species on our planet. It's a fact. Either they came out for existence from some random stardust ages ago or something made them. You would have to be a complete lunatic to really believe that dust created from itself somehow magically trillions of DIFFERENT species such as humans, birds, fishes, giraffes, wales etc etc without no reason whatsoever 😂. And thus the logic would be, no creator ie 'God' needed. This can't be proven but it is said that pride is the root for all sin. Man becomes ignorant and a fool when he let's his pride distort his logic and thinking.

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who enter theological disputes only to "win". But all the serious philosophers of religion I read do nothing like you're suggesting. They argue their case. They present their reasons in a systematic way. And of course, like any area of philosophy, their case can be disputed by questioning an assumption here or a premise there. But I think it's more interesting to _engage_ their arguments rather than just accusing them of arguing in bad faith.

@@LetsGetLogicalIt’s fairly easy to trace the evolution of their God from an iron age chieftain to the bloodless, omni-abstraction of today. Bad faith/good faith: these attributes were not discoveries, but rather expediences.

"It’s fairly easy to trace the evolution of their God from an iron age chieftain to the bloodless, omni-abstraction of today." Indeed. Many theists would agree with you. Nothing about that fact _per se_ amounts to an objection.

Hmm. What do you think the odds are that there's a teapot floating in space? Not super low?

Let's say you're _right_ that if God is almighty then he isn't good and if he is good, then he isn't almighty. Well, then you just proved God does not exist. Because the God we are discussing is the tri-omni God of Western theism: all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing. If you can show that those divine attributes are _logically incompatible_ , then you've proven God does not exist.

@-TheUnkownUser Thanks for this! I disagree, of course, that I'm committing fallacies or being uncharitable, but there's no doubt I could have been more clear and I can see why you see things your way. The extent to which the video struck you as not fair-minded is the extent to which I failed. When I find the time, I'll go through the time stamps and consider your points. I've been thinking of making a follow up video.

Fair enough but keep in mind there is a big difference between these two propositions: 1. God exists. 2. Every doctrine of Christianity is true. One can defend 1 without defending 2. And the rational case in favor of 1 will be very different from the rational case in favor of 2.

I'd encourage everybody to read about Bayes. For a popular-level entry on related themes, I really liked Julia Galef's _The Scout Mindset._

What system?

@@LetsGetLogical my apologies: Upon rereading this, I was the one being obtuse. (My poor excuse was that I was, um, having a bad day.) Anyway, my (much less toxic) answer is that the argument that physical items are unlikely to be found in unreasonable places is sound. However, to define deity as unphysical is gaming the system.

Given that tea pots exist and so does pasta, what's the probability there's a teapot orbiting the sun in space? Answer: _laughably low_ . Now you fill in the argument: Given that ______, what's the probability God exists? Answer: _____ What exactly is the argument you're putting forward?

Given that this is a video on FSM and Russell's Teapot, not the nature evidence, I was relying on the viewer's pre-theoretical understanding of evidence. Something like: that which gives one a _reason_ to think some proposition is true. It's careless to say there is no evidence for God's existence and typically you'll only find that kind of language in pop-level interlocutors. Trained philosophers would be more likely to say, "There is no _outweighing_ evidence for God's existence," or "There is no _undefeated_ evidence for God's existence" or "The _total_ evidence does not favor God's existence," or some other properly nuanced expression.

I'm glad to hear you say so! Many of the critical comments here accuse me of misunderstanding the argument. So it's good to see confirmation that many welcome the comparison of God and teapot as equally laughable.

@@LetsGetLogical >"...God and teapot as equally laughable"< .The laughable part is any claim to their existence. Perhaps you misunderstand. Russel's Teapot speaks to the burden of proof, not the existence of gods. It remains true.

@ponyboygarfunkel1675 I've never heard Russell's Teapot invoked in any discussion _other_ than belief in God. Have you? After all, the concept of burden of proof is relevant in legal cases, political disputes, and lots of other everyday discussions. You'd think Russell's Teapot might be mentioned more often if it were only a basic point about burden of proof. And yet nobody ever mentions it except when it comes to religion and God. How curious.

@@LetsGetLogical I believe it is well known that it was designed to address burden of proof. Google will confirm this, from multiple sources.

To show that an argument for X fails is not the same thing as disproving X.

Clever.

​@@LetsGetLogical You really must have some gold patience with these people who didn't understand the point of this video. I cringe at some of the answers presented. It seems like many people got so absorbed in that argument that, instead of the Abrahamic God, they chose the spaghetti monster as their new dogma without realizing it, hence falling over the trap of religious blind belief.

I agree with your framing but it doesn't yield the conclusion you think it does. Yes. Spaghetti exists. _Given_ the existence of spaghetti + background knowledge, what's the probability of the FSM? (Answer: laughably low.) Yes. Red teapots exist. _Given_ the existence of spaghetti + background knowledge, what's the probability that there's a red teapot in space? (Answer: laughably low.) _Given_ our background knowledge, what's the probability that God exists? (Answer: ???)

@@LetsGetLogical William Lane Craig has a clip video (~1.5 minutes in length) of his debate with Lewis Wolpert titled, "Isn't God no Better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster? or a 'Special Computer'?" I'd add to what WLC said there, what he seems to be implying, "A rose by any other name is still a rose." Since I may have your attention, I'll ask you a couple of other things that I may also ask in a new comment so as to begin a new thread on that specific topic. 1) You use the word " evidence " more than 20 times in this video without defining it. I've heard people present what they claim as evidence for God's existence while having the immediate rejoinder that there is no evidence for God's existence. Both can not be correct without equivocating on the term "evidence." Care to offer a useful definition as to the meaning you are attaching to the term? 2) It is much more pedantic, but nevertheless, it seems to warrant consideration. Does it even make sense to phrase the question "What are the chances that 'x' exists? It doesn't seem to make sense to ask what the chance of something existing is, that does, in fact, exist. It might be similar to "What are the chances that I drove my car yesterday?" Well, seems to me, 100%. Anyway, the first of these two questions would seem more fundamental.

@@samdg1234 I'm not a WLC fan but yes-he and I seem to be arguing along the same lines here. Thanks for drawing my attention to his clip. I had not seen it before. I'm confused about your claim that people claim to present evidence for God and then immediately say there is no evidence for God. I'm with you: that's incoherent. But I've never heard people do that. As for evidence, no, I can't offer you a definition. You're right, of course, that the nature of evidence will come into play here. But pinning down the nature of evidence is a philosophical task nearly as big and as difficult as the original question of God. This happens a lot in philosophy. Some big question will turn on some other big question. Sometimes you just have to run with a pre-theoretical understanding of a concept (like evidence) in order to proceed with the conversation at all. Otherwise, philosophical discourse would constantly grind to a halt before it ever got started. (For example, you might say: "Everything contingent thing has a cause" and I say, "Wait: what is causation?" The proper response would be: "Great question! It's controversial in philosophy and far from settled but for this argument let's just go with our pre-theoretic understanding of 'cause'.) If you want an introduction to question of evidence, I recommend Thomas Kelly's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/ Lastly, I think you're right to ask: "Does it even make sense to phrase the question "What are the chances that 'x' exists?" I agree with you that's a good place to push back a little. What are the chances this pencil exists? Well, _given_ that I'm looking at it, the chances are 100%. So maybe you're asking: "When exploring the probability of existence, what are we taking as _given_ ?" Again, I say that's a very good question. What are the chances a pencil existing, _given_ that no humans exist? Ah! That will yield a different result. In sum, if I were to remake this video, I would pay more careful attention to what exactly we're counting as background knowledge as opposed to evidence and be more clear about the difference between _prior_ probability and _intrinsic_ probability, all of which is in the neighborhood of the challenge you're raising in your last question. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

@@LetsGetLogical Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm disappointed that you included, *"I'm not a WLC fan but yes-he ..."* I'm inclined to get sidetracked over it. I'll resist. You say, *"I'm confused about your claim that people claim to present evidence for God and then immediately say there is no evidence for God."* I'm glad you find that confusing. I would too. Let's put it down to my poor writing abilities. I did talk of a 'rejoinder' (wouldn't that normally come from another person, and "Both can not be correct..." meaning both of the two debaters, but I'll happily concede that I was unclear. Sorry about that. I was thinking of the debate between WLC and Christopher Hitchens. In their debate at Biola, Craig gave presented what he'd call evidences, 3 of 5 which include, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. And then, in my last comment I was recalling Hitchen's response, "It's just, I have to say, I think that those who do believe these things have never been able to make a plausible or intelligible case for doing so. That's not agnosticism because it seems to me that if *you don't think that there is any evidence* you're wrong to take refuge in saying you're neutral." Now, I was surprised to find that Hitch hadn't stated this a tad more emphatic in this instance. I was confident that he had elsewhere. Thanks to RU-vid having transcripts now, I was able to find a few more instances in debate with other theists. Against, Frank Turek he said, he was "very relieved to find there's no evidence for it at all." In the same debate, "I'm very glad that the evidence for it is very scanty." In a different debate with Frank he said, "how glad we should be that the evidence for this ghastly entity is nil." Against Dinesh D'Souza "it can only be argued there's no evidence for it." In the same debate, "if I say I don't believe it because there's no evidence for it" And to John Lennox, "There's all the difference in the world between those two worldviews. And the big difference is one of them has evidence for it and the other doesn't" Now I love(d) Hitch. He *could* be so self-effacing at times. It could be refreshing. He could and was genuine friends to some Christians. But to use his own words from his memoir, In the preface on page xiii A continuous theme in Hitch-22 is the requirement, exacted by a life of repeated contradictions, to keep two sets of books. On page 7 Janus was the name given by the Romans to the tutelary deity who guarded the doorway and who thus had to face both ways. The doors of his temples were kept open in time of war, the time in which the ideas of contradiction and conflict are most naturally regnant. The most intense wars are civil wars, just as the most vivid and rending personal conflicts are in internal ones, and what I hope to do now is give some idea of what it is like to fight on two fronts at once, to try and keep opposing ideas alive in the same mind, even occasionally to show two faces at the same time. Page 52 In fact, as you have perhaps guessed, I was getting an early training in the idea that life meant keeping two separate and distinct sets of books. Page 87 I was slowly being inducted into a revolution within the revolution, or to a Left that was in and yet not of the “Left” as it was generally understood. This perfectly suited my already acquired and protective habit of keeping two sets of books. and there are many more similar. And just from my RU-vid perusals, I've heard him staunchly declare about the fine-tuning argument, that he "fails *completely* to see the force of this argument.", and on another occasion, admits that the fine-tuning argument is one that will give one at least pause, because it has force and need to be worked at to defeat it. From no force to "it has force" You say, *"As for evidence, no, I can't offer you a definition"* Fair(ish). But not really. I'm not asking for a definition that all will agree with. I'm asking for your meaning. I'm reminded of the person challenged to define pornography, saying something like, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." While one can sympathise with that to an extent, I'd want to caution him against using a word that he doesn't know what meaning he is attaching. As said above, "A rose by any other name is still a rose." So if I call a rose a tulip, I haven't changed the essence of the actual flower, but if I have a tulip in mind when I refer to the mental image as a rose, if you are unaware of it one can't be surprised that our attempt at communication will fail. So, if yours and Hitchens's use of the word 'evidence' is a mystery to you, it certainly is to me as well. Jonathan McLatchie has said, "A proof makes a conclusion inescapable. An evidence merely raises the probability of a proposition being true relative to what it would have been otherwise." And WLC's (sorry) attempt to define, at least his use of the word can be found at ~0;20 in the video titled, "Evidence for God: William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss (2 of 6) - Opening Remarks" Anyway, let me say thank you for this Russell's Teapot and The Flying Spaghetti Monster video. It is helpful. Regards, Sam

@@samdg1234 As for the nature of evidence, I think all the complications you raise can be avoided by simply agreeing with your interlocutor: a) That evidence is something like: anything that increases the probability of something being true, b) evidence can be _defeated_ or _undercut_ or _outweighed_ by other evidence, c) it is the _total_ evidence that counts, d) evidence can be evidence even when someone doesn't recognize it to be evidence, e) something can fail to be evidence even when one mistakenly _thinks_ it is evidence, f) there is such a thing as _misleading_ evidence. Of course, none of this settles the difficult question of the nature of evidence and there are a thousand wrinkles embedded in all this. But my view is that none of them need to be ironed out before proceeding to discuss God, FSM, or Russell's Teapot. You sound like you're interested in developing your understanding of these questions, so I'd encourage you to move on from pop figures like Hitchens, D'Souza, Turek, and Krause. They're fine for entry-level discussion but none of them are trained philosophers and they generate more heat than light. For a more rigorous understanding of the issues that interest you, I suggest looking into the work of Oppy, Rowe, Draper, van Inwagen, Plantinga, Swinburne, and other contemporary philosophers of religion. Thanks for dropping in to the channel. Best of luck in your philosophical investigations.

Whoah. That's a _long_ way!

There is no argument for God presented in this video.

"Let's Get Dim-Witted" just doesn't have the same ring to it.