Contra-Theism Argument: 'Crackpot' Analogy?

Yes, Virginia, there is a teapot . . .

. . . sighted somewhere over Utah.

(Orbiting Teapot Image from Wikipedia)

A long-time commentor here who goes by the cybername "Sonagi" posted an interesting remark on my recent "Fundamentalism" blog entry, and I'll post my response to one of her points concerning Richard Dawkins, which I first quote:

"Dawkins addresses the argument that we cannot know for sure that God does not exist through an analogy. Suppose someone told you that there was a teapot orbiting the Sun. There is no way to disprove this since even the strongest telescopes could not detect such a small object. However, there is no evidence to support the existence of a teapot, either. Likewise, he asserts that there is no evidence of the existence of God, apart from compilations of ancient texts written by numerous authors."

Now for my brief response:

Dawkins's argument here (which I believe he's borrowed from Bertrand Russell) seems rather weak to me. God wouldn't be just another object in the universe; he's supposed to be the ground of all existence, the noncontingent guarantor of all contingent things. How would one find evidence of the sort that Dawkins demands, for the analogy presupposes a scientific kind of empiricism?

Please note that I'm limiting myself to this one point and stating that I don't find this teapot analogy especially helpful. It might have some force against belief in a god who supposedly lives on Mount Olympus, for one could go there and look, and one might express skepticism to then be told that this god is invisible and therefore escapes empirical verification by the eyes. Since such a god supposedly lives in this world, and specifically upon Mount Olympus, then one is justified in expecting some positive empirical evidence for that 'fact'.

But God as the noncontingent guarantor of all contingent things . . . hardly comparable to a teapot in my opinion.

A coffee pot, on the other hand, might present sufficient grounds for argument.