This is the only good counterargument you have--the others are just misunderstandings of the point.

(Point two--it's a thought experiment! Put the teapot in the Andromeda galaxy if you need to!)

(Point three--the teapot argument is EXACTLY supposed to be dismissed by Occam's Razor, but in so doing you are also supposed to discard God! You have merely stated exactly what Russel wanted you to think when given the example! That is the whole point of the parallel!)

The problem with the good counterargument is that it is only a logically valid argument. It isn't sound, because the premises are wrong. If God was a very good explanation for those three phenomena, giving us lots of insight into these things, then it would indeed have much going for it. We don't, for instance, directly perceive neutrons, but they play a key explanatory role in the world.

Unfortunately, God as envisioned by any historical human religion is an absolute disaster when it comes to explaining the natural world, including its existence, the existence of life, or anything about human physiology including our mental capacities. It's so bad with Christianity that you have to make up a whole new category of phenomena, "miracles", to cope with the clearly impossible stuff that's written down. But that's not enough! You also have to either deny a whole host of extremely well-verified fields of study, or declare that the passages that best describe the natural world are all allegorical and aren't mean to be taken seriously. (The order of appearance of life on Earth is a great example--it's scrambled in Genesis compared to the actual order. Kind of like you'd expect from fables told by clever and attentive shepherds.)

So, if God explained these things well, then you're right--it would be unlike the teapot.

But God doesn't, and so the argument fails. (This, unlike the others, is admittedly a nontrivial conclusion. We humans have figured out a lot of nontrivial stuff at this point, though.)