Another philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, states that a falsehood lies at the heart of Russell's argument. Russell's argument assumes that there is no evidence against the teapot, but Plantinga disagrees:
Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven't. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism.
Cool. You read the Wikipedia article. Let me know when you actually read Russell.
I will note that you are the one making claims without evidence about what Russell wrote and by your own logic, the burden of proof is on you.
What claims do you imagine I’m making?
You're claiming that Russell addressed the claim that there is in fact strong evidence against the teapot.
And you expect me to what, spend money on an ebook and start pasting from it to prove that an author you clearly haven’t read addressed your point?
From your Wikipedia article itself:
Cool. You read the Wikipedia article. Let me know when you actually read Russell.
I will note that you are the one making claims without evidence about what Russell wrote and by your own logic, the burden of proof is on you.
What claims do you imagine I’m making?
You're claiming that Russell addressed the claim that there is in fact strong evidence against the teapot.
And you expect me to what, spend money on an ebook and start pasting from it to prove that an author you clearly haven’t read addressed your point?