Argument against the existence of Pixies

[Ooberman]

Out of curiosity, could someone please provide an argument AGAINST the existence of Pixies?

I don't think they exist, but I'm having trouble finding a good argument against their existence.

I appeal to theists, since they'd have the most interest in disproving them.

[Danmark]

....I have no evidence to support the Bible claims. Therefore, you can rest assured that every claim I make a claim on this site about God and religion and the Bible, it is likely a personal opinion, based on my own personal beliefs. Take it or leave it.

So now I'd like to see your evidence that there is no God.

No, of course you don't have any evidence and your personal opinions do not constitute argument.

No one has a duty to prove a negative, much less to try to prove a non falsifiable belief. The burden of proof is on he who alleges. I make no allegation there is no god. Like you, I simply see no evidence of a god.

I'm not sure where this silly idea comes from, that anyone should be supposed to prove any fanciful notion that arises from the imagination is not so. This is why I don't like the term 'atheist.' It gives one silly non falsifiable idea preeminence over other silly ideas. We don't dignify the belief in Pixies by using the term 'apixieist.' Neither do we credit astrology by referring to 'anastrologists.'

[Ooberman]

It all depends on the kind of "pixie" we are talking about.

If we are talking about an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal "pixie" I'd simply argue that such a set of attributes are logically incomparable, due to various logical paradoxes. I especially find "omniscient" and "personal" to be unpairable.

If we are talking about "magical, tiny, human-like creatures with wings", I would ask what "magical" means. What distinguishes "magical" from "not-understood non-magical"?

Finally, if we were to drop the pointless "magical" adjective, then we could move onto what this OP is really about: Absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Could I formulate an argument against something entirely out of not experiencing it?

Well, kind of. It certainly can't be absolute, but I can reference what we know about the world to formulate a case that the chance of them existing is very very small. But the more room we let the pixies hide in (because they are so small, or so rare, or because the universe is so big etc.) the more difficult it becomes. On the other hand, the more things that are claimed about the pixies' attributes and relationships with humans, the easier it is to argue against them.

In everyday conversation I would simply say pixies don't exist. If pressed, I would claim that I don't know for 100% certainty, but that the likelihood of their existence is negligible.

Actually, the OP was mine and I remember my astonishment that we were talking about evidence of absence, burden of proof, etc., and I couldn't think of one valid and sound argument against things we all, almost universally, believe to be unreal.


Isn't it odd that there isn't an argument against pixies that simply stop the conversation? The Santa one ends on it's own. After all while, you can see that the amount of evidence against Santa (the time, the distance, lack of belief in magic being used for that, that every parent knows exactly where each present came from, no video footage of presents suddenly appearing over night in all time zones, no eyewitnesses, etc..

So, it occurred to me that arguing to disprove God is impossible. Literally impossible, since there are infinite "outs" one can take. "God doesn't work that way", "You can't prove God doesn't guide evolution", etc.



Considering that, and how easy it is for people to be theists, it appears to me that even if theism is true, each version of theism is most likely untrue.

It could be reasoned that if God can only be defined as infinite, then we'd never run out of wrong answers about God's qualities. Everyone would be wrong about something.

And, since there are infinite things to be wrong about, that means there are infinite ways God can be both not-contradictory and contradictory.

Of course, if god is non-contradictory a little, it's all the way. Since, One can't be perfect and not-perfect. Have perfect judgement and not perfect judgement - that would mean "not perfect judgement".

All qualities would default to the lesser quality, undermining the perfection of God.

It's like the Ontological argument, in that each pairing of positive and negative qualities would mean the positive quality can't be true:

Nice vs. Not Nice. Since it's both, It can't automatically be the best outcome (Nice is perfect and Godly, Not Nice isn't, therefore, since God is both he is not perfectly nice/Godly). This can be done with an infinite number of qualities, since God is infinite.

And so on....


Or, someone can decide God is limited, and then the burden is on them to say how they know.

Likewise with pixies.

[Danmark]

Actually, the OP was mine and I remember my astonishment that we were talking about evidence of absence, burden of proof, etc., and I couldn't think of one valid and sound argument against things we all, almost universally, believe to be unreal.
....
Isn't it odd that there isn't an argument against pixies that simply stop the conversation?
Or, someone can decide God is limited, and then the burden is on them to say how they know.

Likewise with pixies.

Exactly! I still can't believe the amount of time this thread has gone on without some 'getting it;' that belief in Pixies involves the same problems and arguments that belief in God does; that belief in Pixies is really the same thing as belief in God. The only difference is that the latter has more tradition behind it.

[otseng]

I believe you are being very dishonest in your approach with me. But you are of course free to be as deceitful as you choose to be.

Moderator Warning


Do not accuse another of being dishonest or deceitful.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Philbert]

that belief in Pixies is really the same thing as belief in God.

Your belief in your ability to know whether there is a god or not is the same thing as a belief in pixies or god.

You're doing the very thing you are arguing against.

[Danmark]

that belief in Pixies is really the same thing as belief in God.

Your belief in your ability to know whether there is a god or not is the same thing as a belief in pixies or god.

You're doing the very thing you are arguing against.

How is that? How am I "doing the very thing" I am arguing against?

Perhaps it is useful to use the entire passage I wrote:
... that belief in Pixies involves the same problems and arguments that belief in God does; that belief in Pixies is really the same thing as belief in God. The only difference is that the latter has more tradition behind it.

Belief in Pixies involves the same problems and arguments in that both involve delving into the area of non sense. We cannot observe god or pixies. We cannot even define them. Neither exists in the natural world. If they exist they are in the world of the supernatural. In a way, "Pixie" is just another word for "God."

[Philbert]

How is that? How am I "doing the very thing" I am arguing against?

You're clinging tightly to the fantasy that you know whether there is a god or not, even though there is absolutely no evidence that you possess such an incredible ability. No matter what anybody says you will continue to cling to this fantasy because it's become essential to a flattering self identity you've created for yourself.

This is the very same thing as clinging tightly to a belief in god or pixies without evidence of such things, because it makes one feel special, holy, superior etc.

[Danmark]

How is that? How am I "doing the very thing" I am arguing against?

You're clinging tightly to the fantasy that you know whether there is a god or not, even though there is absolutely no evidence that you possess such an incredible ability. No matter what anybody says you will continue to cling to this fantasy because it's become essential to a flattering self identity you've created for yourself.

This is the very same thing as clinging tightly to a belief in god or pixies without evidence of such things, because it makes one feel special, holy, superior etc.

Your premise is false. I've never said I know 'whether there is a god or not.' Please withdraw your false claim or show where I said it. 2d, there is no reason to project emotion into the argument by your inapt choice of words, "clinging tightly to the fantasy."

Simply not believing in gods or pixies is not a fantasy, it is the opposite of a fantasy.
"Not believing in" is different from claiming one "knows" the absolute non existence of something. Would call not believing in the element Philbertanium a 'fantasy.'

[Philbert]

Thank you for sharing your fantasy.

[Clownboat]

Thank you for sharing your fantasy.

Your premise is still false. Is this suppose to count as a retraction, or are you in the process of trying to obtaining evidence to show that your premise is not false?