That last statement could have said:

Russell’s argument runs as follows:
“God is unobservable just as a CT is unobservable so it appears that the idea of their existence is not falsifiable, however the very idea that there is a God is absurd, just as the idea of a CT is absurd.
The refutation of their existence is therefore self-evident.
As the concept of God’s existence has been refuted the idea is absurd.”

Is this argument not circular?

Peace

Unobservable hypotheses cannot be falsified, nevertheless ‘Russell’s Celestial Teapot (CT)’ argument concludes that certain hypotheses, such as that of the existence of God, does not have to be falsified because the ideas themselves are ridiculous.

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.”

It is obvious that a firm refutation of the CT assertion does not require a great act of faith because Russell has chosen a ludicrous concept in the first place.

However, we can replace in the argument the CT concept with a plausible alternative such as the proposal of a planet Vulcan interior to Mercury, suggested in the 19th Century to explain Mercury’s anomalous orbital precession:

“If I were to suggest that interior to Mercury there is planet Vulcan revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the planet is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes because it is lost in the Sun’s brilliance.”

Now, the question of the object’s existence or non-existence is not a trivial matter but one that had to be answered by careful observation and finally by General Relativity’s resolution of the anomaly.

In one case the question is absurd in the other it is reasonable. Therefore, whether faith is required or not to disbelieve in the existence of God depends on whether the concept itself is considered reasonable or absurd in the first place. Is the argument not circular?

Garth Barber: You assert, after a lengthy discussion, that the teapot argument is circular. Your time might have been better spent if you could demonstrate that the teapot argument is circular. All you have accomplished so far is to point out the gaps on which you base your gap theology, which is not enough to convince anybody reasonable. Meanwhile, Neil B. would claim that your evidence is irrelevant – oops, no he wouldn’t, since he is on your side. He only claims that my evidence is irrelevant, when he is not busy presenting his own evidence.

Since you are unable to make and defend a coherent argument for your side, and since Neil B. has severe problems with intellectual integrity, I’ll leave now. Have a nice day.

The de Broglie wavelength, which tells you the uncertainty in where the particle is and is inversely proportional to its momentum, does indeed grow in an expanding universe. That’s just because the momentum does redshift away.

But the Compton wavelength, which gives a fundamental uncertainty below which you can’t localize the particle (and can thus be thought of as measuring “how big” it is, in some loose quantum-mechanical sense) is inversely proportional to the mass, and does not change as the universe expands.

So the size of a neutrino (or an atom) doesn’t grow, but your uncertainty about where it is does (until you measure it).

You shutdown the Cosmology FAQ thread so maybe you don’t want any more questions. But if you have room for one more here it is:

The expansion of the universe stretched the photon wavelength of the CMB. Does the expansion of the universe stretch the de broglie wavelength of massive particles, say like the neutrinos that may be part of the neutrino background? (Assuming they have mass)

Garth

Firstly, my definition of ‘God’ is not some arbitrary definition I have just dreamt up but one that goes all the way back in the development of science (cf: Johann Kepler: “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”) to the Hebraic belief in a creator described by the story of Moses and the burning bush. In Hebrew the holy name for God “I AM that I AM” is dynamic, not static, in meaning, viz: “I am bringing into existence that which exists”.

Secondly: [quote]If you have evidence that the “laws of science” have an “author and originator,” go ahead: get your hands dirty and present it. Garth Barber has certainly failed to do so.[/quote]
Absolutely correct, I do not claim [em]evidence[/em] that the “laws of science” have an “author and originator,” it is a statement of faith, my whole point is that to claim otherwise [em]is also a statement of faith[/em]. It is just that those making that statement, such as yourself, are blinded by the circular ‘teapot’ argument to recognise the fact.

Garth

Yes, it matters a great deal whether you are using a standard definition of “God,” by which most people indeed mean a person, or whether you are making up a new definition. To say I believe in X, but I will define X later; or I will define X to be something that no one else means when they use the word X is poor substitute for intelligent argumentation. If I said ” I believe in God, which I define to be the snot I wipe on my sleeve when I don’t have a handkerchief,” it might be true, but it would not add much to the discourse.

First, talk of evidence is a red herring regardless of which side you’re on, because this is an interpretative philosophical question with no direct evidence one way or the other. Second, you can’t say “there’s no evidence” in what is by nature a philosophical argument without actually getting your hands dirty arguing about it, not just making such empty pronouncements.

Scientific evidence can be quite meaningful to philosophical questions. Look at the argument from design; any competent philosopher of the 20th or 21st century would tell you that Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection, and the evidence which supports it, eviscerates the biological argument from design. If you have evidence that the “laws of science” have an “author and originator,” go ahead: get your hands dirty and present it. Garth Barber has certainly failed to do so. All he has presented is his personal choice of gaps for his gap theology.

Yeah, sure, just imagine that the constants are local, with absolutely no basis or no evidence at all.

Wow, and just a minute ago you were saying that evidence didn’t matter. Garth Barber has put forth pretty much the same thing when he offered that there is no reason why the universe need make sense, why don’t you get in his face about that?

We don’t even know what laws of physics really are or what they come from.

Thank you for admitting that. Now, not knowing where TLOP come from, does it make sense to presume that they come from a person? What does Occam’s razor do to that? What is the appropriate null hypothesis?

Complaining falsely that an opponent can’t rightly utilize insights from some other subject or type of example, to make a point by abstract general comparison, is a pitiful attempt to disarm valid avenues that just make you look bad.

You mean like two minutes ago, when you tried to tell me that evidence had no bearing on a question of philosophical interpretation?

since we don’t’ have an agreed upon debate program… Finally, the argument is not about affirming the consequent.

We haven’t agreed on a debate program, but you know what it is? My, but you are full of yourself. I will remind you: the disagreement started when Garth Barber said that disbelieving in God was a faith position. After that, he stated his definition of God as “author and guarantor of the laws of science” without establishing that these laws have an author and guarantor. This takes us back to your statement that we have no idea where the laws of physics come from, so that the existence of laws of physics cannot be used as evidence that these laws have an author.

I don’t know what you meant by that, but that is not the argument of the Paul Davies sort.

Paul Davies ins’t here, unless he’s using a pseudonym. We are talking about an argument of the Garth Barber sort.

Indeed, the better debaters have to redefine and reframe bungled framings of issues all the time, as I did here many times.

So full of yourself that it’s coming out your ears. You don’t like the way I “framed” issues, so you refer to my “framing” as “bungled.” It’s such a great thing that you are here to straighten us all out with your invented definitions. Well now I need to go “worship my God” by which I really mean “brush my teeth and go to bed.”