Russell's Teapot
Peter van Inwagen has written a response to Bertrand Russell's teapot argument (H/T ex-apologist ) in which he assures us that there are people who accept the following two propositions: (1) There is no reason to believe that God exists. (2) Any one who accepts (1) should conclude that the probability of the existence of God is essentially 0. He offers Russell's teapot argument as an example. However, while Russell clearly accepts (1), there's no discernible evidence that Russell ever endorsed anything like (2). In the essay which van Inwagen cites ( "Is There A God? ", Russell, 1952), Russell argues that a divine purpose is improbable (on the scientific evidence) and thus that there is no reason to believe in a God. He deduces the latter from the former, not the former from the latter. Furthermore, his teapot argument is offered to a different purpose altogether. Here is what Russell writes, and what van Inwa...