The Cosmic Teapot

DEFENSE

This argument is subject to a number of objections.

First, it was originally proposed by the philosopher Bertrand Russell as an answer to believers who felt atheists have the burden of proof regarding the existence of God (see “Is There a God?” The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, vol. 11).

From this perspective, the teapot argument is unnecessary. As we observe elsewhere (see Day 86), the burden of proof is on whoever tries to convince another person of his position. If a believer tries to convince an atheist God exists, the believer has the burden of proof. If an atheist tries to convince a believer God does not exist, the atheist has it.

Second, the teapot argument doesn’t tell us anything about abstract cases where we have no evidence for or against something’s existence. If we really have no evidence, then the existence of a thing is just as likely as its non-existence, and neither believers nor non-believers can claim an advantage.

The teapot argument masks this by sneaking in evidence, based on our background knowledge, without acknowledging the fact. We already know that a china teapot is an artificial, man-made entity, and since we have not launched any teapots into orbit between Earth and Mars, we do have evidence making such a teapot improbable.

The probability would change dramatically if we proposed that there is a small rock orbiting between Earth and Mars. We already know that the solar system is filled with small rocks—from tiny mete- oroids to large asteroids. In fact, Mars is near the asteroid belt. Therefore, it is highly probable that there is a small rock (in fact, many small rocks) orbiting between Earth and Mars.

Third, if an atheist wishes to argue that the existence of God is as im- probable as Russell’s teapot, he will have to engage God’s existence on the merits of the case and argue why God is improbable. He will also need to provide reasons to reject the arguments for God’s existence.