• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      From your Wikipedia article itself:

      Another philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, states that a falsehood lies at the heart of Russell’s argument. Russell’s argument assumes that there is no evidence against the teapot, but Plantinga disagrees:

      Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          I will note that you are the one making claims without evidence about what Russell wrote and by your own logic, the burden of proof is on you.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                And you expect me to what, spend money on an ebook and start pasting from it to prove that an author you clearly haven’t read addressed your point?