Changes

It might be thought that a fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there.

It might be thought that a fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there.

The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a [[circular argument]]. That is, the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists. But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false.

The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a [[circular argument]]. That is, the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists. But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false.

This objection does not point out a fallacy in the argument, however, and tacitly assumes what Russell's argument tries to show: namely, that mere absence of a proof against the teapot is insufficient to justify belief in it, and what we need instead is positive evidence that the "ancient books" are in fact written by reliable authors. The argument neither assumes nor concludes that the teapot (or other unseen entity) does not exist, rather it concludes that positive evidence for such claims is required.

This objection does not point out a fallacy in the argument, however, and tacitly assumes what Russell's argument tries to show: namely, that mere absence of a proof against the teapot is insufficient to justify belief in it, and what we need instead is positive evidence that the "ancient books" are in fact written by reliable authors. The argument neither assumes nor concludes that the teapot (or other unseen entity) does not exist, rather it concludes that positive evidence for such claims is required.