[Excerpt from IS JESUS “GOD”? Copyright © 2017 Edward K. Watson. All rights reserved. Section 7.2.]
An honest and ethical intellectual recognizes the futility of using scientific and moral arguments against the existence of God since whatever objection one makes is purely subjective—and will most likely be wrong scientifically and morally a century from now when our descendants “know” more.
Since it is easy just to assume the scientific “experts” know what they’re talking about when they make dogmatic assertions about the non-existence of God; one can then become intellectually lazy and not take the time to validate the information on their own. The problem is these “experts” are usually just parroting what another “expert” or publication said, so the viewpoint gets circulated and becomes dogma despite its underlying premise or conclusion cannot withstand scrutiny.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant, not just when one is claiming a positive (such as God exists)—but also when one is claiming the negative of a falsifiable claim:
How do you know God exists? How do you know Jesus is God?
How do you know God doesn’t exist? How can you be so sure that there isn’t a God?
The argument of Russell’s teapot doesn’t work because there is evidence that demands a cause, namely, life, modern humans, and the fine-tuned universe. In other words, there are falsifiable claims that can be explained by the existence of God, and, as shown above, have a greater probability of being created by God than any alternate theory. Again:
- How did man come into existence?
- How did the universe come into existence?
- How did life come into existence?
Teapots in space notwithstanding, these three empirical problems mean belief in a God that created life, modern man, and the universe is not an unfalsifiable claim—there is no comparison between believing in the existence of God and making incredible assertions about anything while not providing evidence for support. According to all the evidence currently available to us, life exists; we exist; the universe exists. These are empirical issues, not theoretical. They don’t prove one religion’s conception of God is true while all others are false; they just provide probable confirmation that the supposition of intentional creation of life, man, and the universe is likely.
Regardless, this recognition doesn’t mean there really is a God, or Jesus is God, or the Bible’s true; it simply points out that one cannot dismiss their reality out of hand if one only has impotent and poorly conceived arguments.
 The old, “My professor said it so it must be true” logic that drives parents crazy when their kid comes home from school during the holidays.
 I am actually surprised at how durable Russell’s teapot has been in academia since it is blatantly a straw man argument.