On Russell’s Teapot
One of the most famous arguments against the existence of God is Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot. It goes like this: if I were to say that there is a china teapot revolving at an orbit between Earth and Mars around the sun, then the burden of proof is with me to prove that such a teapot exists. Thus, when a person claims the existence of God, the burden of proof should lie on him, not to the people who claim that there isn’t. It is simply absurd for anyone to expect people to believe in a claim on the basis that the claim cannot be disproved.
Since there is no scientific, empirical evidence that could support the hypothesis that God exists, there is no God.
However, the Russell’s Teapot argument has a glaring problem: it is also an absurdity for anyone to simply not believe in something just because it cannot be proven by science nor empirical data.
We also have to consider the reasons for believing in God. People believe in a God for a lot of reasons: God may be a person’s source of strength, morality, belief system, community, etc. We believe in God not necessarily because it’s factual, but because it brings us a transcendental purpose that cannot be seen under a microscope. Conversely, a china teapot in space has no effect on how we choose to live our lives.
If we were to reject the existence of God in the basis that it cannot be proven, then let’s be consistent and also eschew other transcendental beliefs that have no empirical evidence. An example? Universal Human Rights.
The notion that we, homo sapiens, have innate rights by virtue of being human has virtually zero evidence apart from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948 after World War II. And yet we fight for it because of the purpose it brings us: liberty, dignity, and freedom from fear.
On the other side, does the absurdity of Russell’s teapot outright prove the existence of God? Not at all. Whether there is a God or not can only be answered by God himself.
