Authors | |
Abstract |
Atheists sometimes use Bertrand Russell's teapot argument, and its variants with other objects in place of the teapot, to argue for the rationality of atheism. In this paper I show that this use of the teapot argument and its variants is unacceptably circular. The circularity arises because there is indirect evidence against the objects invoked in the arguments.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Playing Fast and Loose with Complexity: A Critique of Dawkins' Atheistic Argument From Improbability.Mark Sharlow - 2009
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Naturalistic Ethics and the Argument From Evil.Mark T. Nelson - 1991 - Faith and Philosophy 8 (3):368-379.
A Note From Inside the Teapot.Anthony Grafton - 2004 - Teaching New Histories of Philosophy:317-328.
The Nihilistic Consequences of the Argument From Evil.Robert Lehe - 2009 - International Philosophical Quarterly 49 (4):427-437.
Grounds for Belief in God Aside, Does Evil Make Atheism More Reasonable Than Theism?Daniel Howard-Snyder & Michael Bergmann - 2003 - In Michael Peterson & Raymond Van Arrogan (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell. pp. 140--55.
On Whitcomb's Grounding Argument for Atheism.Daniel Howard-Snyder, Joshua Rasmussen & Andrew Cullison - 2013 - Faith and Philosophy 30 (2):198-204.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2012-01-13
Total views
457 ( #15,590 of 2,421,440 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
35 ( #23,623 of 2,421,440 )
2012-01-13
Total views
457 ( #15,590 of 2,421,440 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
35 ( #23,623 of 2,421,440 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads