Bertrand Russell had a thought experiment. He asked us to imagine he claimed there was a teapot orbiting the sun, somewhere between Earth and Mars.

Too small for telescopes to detect. But definitely there.

If Russell made this claim, who would need to prove what? Would you need to prove the teapot doesn’t exist? Or would Russell need to prove it does?

Obviously, Russell would need to provide evidence. The burden of proof falls on whoever makes the positive claim. You can’t just assert something exists and then demand others disprove it.

This seems clear with teapots. But people flip it around with God.

“You can’t prove God doesn’t exist,” they say. True. I can’t prove Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist either. That’s not the point.

The point is: extraordinary claims require evidence. If you claim something exists—a teapot, a deity, invisible dragons—you need to show why we should believe it.

I don’t need to disprove every possible thing that might exist. That’s impossible and unfair. If someone claims something is real, they need to make their case.

The absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence. But it’s a perfectly good reason not to believe.

Russell wasn’t trying to mock religious belief. He was pointing out a basic rule of rational discussion: whoever makes the claim carries the burden.

Otherwise, we’d have to believe in every teapot anyone ever imagined.

Related reading: