> since there's no reason for there to be a teapot in orbit around the sun unless some intelligent being had put it there.

Indeed, no reason. But who's to say that no reason isn't reason enough for a teapot to orbit around the sun, or for life to spontaneously arise?
David Hume took no issue with such: see Part III, Sect III of A Treatise on Human Nature http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/trthn10.txt

A related hypothetical: What reason is there to be a god, unless some intelligent being had concieved of it?

> I'm not suggesting the existance of a god due to something I cannot see, I'm doing it for what we indeed already know for certain, things that you yourself wouldn't deny. You know, scientific shit.

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge." - Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, U.S. National Academy of Sciences