#26463
If I can neither prove nor disprove a supernatural concept, establishing reality seems an impossible goal.
Surely the more pertinent question is what reasons are there (arguments, evidence) to take the idea seriously? As Russell pointed out, if I were to claim that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars, you could neither prove nor disprove it - but why would you entertain the idea at all?
From that article:
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
What unfalsifiable claims are being made?
Who is making them?
Who is shifting the burden of disproof on to others?
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Is anyone here making claims with the premise that they are right because their claim cannot be disproved?
As Russell pointed out, if I were to claim that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars, you could neither prove nor disprove it - but why would you entertain the idea at all?
If you were to claim this, what would be the basis of your claim? What was it that led you to that claim.
I would want to find out why someone is making the claim. Whether they are right or wrong to do so is another matter.
