In my opinion, it is fallacious to draw an analogy between god, celestial teapots and spaghetti monsters and I suspect that it was not Russel's intention to equate god with such but rather make a point on the burden of proof. I.e the burden of proof is on the claimant.
As it stands, the possibility of a pre natural entity that had something to do with the universe is far more plausible, in my eyes, than a celestial teapot.
__________________
I am free, at last. |