No Robots

Au contraire, I will not believe in miracles.

Clouseau

Ah, but I don't, because I have made no categoric claim regarding the supernatural.

Clouseau

There is no pressing need for Apollo. There could be other civilisations from other planets who use teapots who have lost one in space.

No Robots

And I think I'll stick with Einstein on this one:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

Emphasis added.

Clouseau

Another classic false argument.

VoxRat

Another exercise in point-missing:

You said Russell's argument was an "argument from ridicule". I said it was more aptly described as reductio ad absurdum. Now, if you want to split hairs about the difference between "impossible" and "absurd to the point it's foolish to waste time on it", split away! But you're not getting any closer to dismissing it as mere ridicule. It's ironic that you do so while ridiculing your challengers with vapid insults.

Yep. You're right. There is that formal possibility. Like I said: if you want to claim that the "supernatural" is as likely as the (pre-Apollo) Celestial Teapot, you won't get any argument from me.

No Robots

Ultimately, every human wants to have a special relationship with the Absolute, even if they profess not to believe in the Absolute! This is the reason why people hold on to the possibility of miracles. It is a way of saying, "Maybe something can save me from the world with its events and sorrows."

Clouseau

But now you know better. Be pleased you've learned something today.

So teapots in space are not worth discussing? Why did you bring them up, then?

VoxRat

it was an admittedly long-shot attempt to get you to recognize a point.
It failed.
Life will go on.
Bye bye.

Clouseau

So you're leaving IIDB because discussing the supernatural is as absurd as discussing teapots in space. Oh well, the rest of us will have to carry on acting like the clowns we must be.