Smart thinking

The very first requisite of intelligent thinking is that the thinker is specifically occupied in his mind with what he is thinking about.

So, when the target of his thinking is already described in people’s words, he must present the definition in words on what is the target of his thinking: otherwise he is not doing intelligent thinking at all.

Let us read the article and see for ourselves whether Russell ever gave his definition of God.

What article?

I think the OP was a bit hasty, he means Russells unpublished article “Is There a God?” and makes a very significant point about what we today call “straw men”.

To cut to the chase, he answer is no. Russell did not disprove anything but that which is already self-evidently untrue. As these silly anglo logicians did all the time.

It is not for nothing that no such a teapot is actually affirmed in ancient books.

Never read that article or the excerpt from it above, but I do know (after reading it) that you missed the point entirely and mischaracterized Russell’s position.

The point in the excerpt is about the burden of proof, and check this out… you can substitute ‘god’ for ‘teapot’ there.

Regarding ‘disproving things that are already self-evidently untrue’, two points: things aren’t true or not true, only statements are true or untrue. That being the case, even if ‘god’ did exist (and it doesn’t), not only would this ‘god’ not be self-evidently true (whatever that means), but neither would statements about this ‘god’ be self-evidently true… unless these are tautologies, which explain and define nothing.

But being that this ‘god’ supposedly cannot be empirically verified by experience or observation (remember he added that the teapot was too small, etc.? this is what he meant), only statements about this ‘god’ can be verified by experience and observation to be true, false, or nonsense. Nothing here is self-evidently true or untrue yet, and you’d not ‘just know’ teapots are orbiting a sun somewhere. You can’t know that, and Russell knew you can’t know that. That’s why he wasn’t really trying to amaze you by disproving the existence of said teapot. Rather he was demonstrating how dogmatists claim things exist which by definition can’t be proven to exist.

“It is not for nothing that no such a teapot is actually affirmed in ancient books.”

Kay remember he didn’t really mean a teapot. Replace the teapot with ‘god’ and then the ‘ancient books’ comment makes more sense? There are many ‘gods’ mentioned in ancient books. Ah. Now u got it!

“As these silly anglo logicians did all the time.”

So since this particular logician meant no such thing as you suggest, are u at liberty to retract this allegation?

Wait I’m not sayin just take my word for it and retract the statement. Take your time and read the post so u understand y ur retracting the statement.

The heat of the sun is an example of a self evident truth.
It means sensing it is relatively easy.
You can feel the heat of the sun.
The heat came from somewhere,
and it was evident that the sun produced the heat.

Next, we find diversity, compatability, complexity, and harmony,
in nature and natural phenomenon.
Ancients considered these caused or created things.
To them, reality was the heat,
and the source of the heat was their gods or God.

It was an honest effort.
It was not perfect, but design seemed self evident.

There is probably over a billion possible arrangements
for physics and force in general. But we have a specific
system of matter and energy, which is coherent.
A is compatible with B, and makes C possible.
This could be an accident,
but probably not.

In theory,
we can only know God indirectly.
That is to say, by creation.
The more deeply we understand reality and physics,
the more deeply we can derive knowledge of the source of physics and reality,
which some people call God.

“The heat of the sun is an example of a self evident truth.”

Wait r u saying that the heat is the heat?

Well goddamn I can’t argue with that.

A leads to B. Naturally.
So heat leads to sun light, as a concept moves from one idea to the next.
Clear thinking people don’t have a problem with A leading to B.
But some self-proclaimed-enlightened people
think that they have this great idea that truth is impossible
and everyone is crazy / delusional / subjective.
And for them, heat from the sun is not self evident.
Evidence in general, for these people, is faulty.
They are not clear thinking,
or “smart thinking”.

“Clear thinking people don’t have a problem with A leading to B.”

People who believe such horrible things are clearly inhumean dude.