Changes

{{cquote|If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.<ref>[http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html Is There A God?]</ref>}}

{{cquote|If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.<ref>[http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html Is There A God?]</ref>}}

The 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.

Some state that there is 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]].

The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a [[circular argument]]; 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.

That is, the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists.

Though seemingly logical, the rebuttal is irrelevant, because the validity of the ancient books cannot be established, as the argument is intended to refute religion by analogy. The argument is intended to emulate religion as closely as possible. The rebuttal relies on the premise that if the trustworthiness could be established, then the teapot would be reasonable. That is true, but the idea of an established book renders the analogy useless, because all premises must come from existing religion; if the religious cannot be completely affirmed, then Russell's teapot is a valid argument without the addition of a reliable source.

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.

==References==

==References==