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.

[tokutter]

Danmark, look, I mean you no offense, but you simply aren't qualified to have a clue what I'm writing about.

I suggest you respect your own opinion about my posts, do the logical thing, and stop reading my posts. You're wasting your time.

Phil....maybe you should put everybody on ignore...except for the ones who are qualified to interact with your genius.

Just trying to help you not get frustrated with all the people not worthy of your superior intellect.

You may start with me if you like.

Peace.


.

[Jax Agnesson]

So many of you are so sure you know what exists and doesn't exist, and you are so very wrong about this knowing.

How do you know this?

Just reposting this; since it is the most basic of the questions you have been dodging. It's not a difficult question, Phil, and it's not one you have 'answered before'.
Let me make it even clearer:
Are you claiming that every one of the Christian apologists who profess belief in a comprehensible God is just flat-out wrong?

[Philbert]

Phil....maybe you should put everybody on ignore...except for the ones who are qualified to interact with your genius.

The ignore feature does come in handy. It's not really that rational to keep reading posters one has lost interest in.

I encourage anybody bored with my stuff to put me on ignore, no offense will be taken. If a reader feels my posts are crap, crap, crap, crap, the logical thing to do is be loyal to their own opinion and stop reading my posts. That's ok with me.

[Philbert]

Are you claiming that every one of the Christian apologists who profess belief in a comprehensible God is just flat-out wrong?

I have answered this at least a hundred times Jax.

For the 101th, theism and atheism are both fantasy knowings. Nobody knows what the ding dong is going on at that level.

Sound familiar yet?

[Jax Agnesson]

Are you claiming that every one of the Christian apologists who profess belief in a comprehensible God is just flat-out wrong?

I have answered this at least a hundred times Jax.

For the 101th, theism and atheism are both fantasy knowings. Nobody knows what the ding dong is going on at that level.

Sound familiar yet?

Thanks. You proclaim that Aquinas is wrong; Alvin Plantinga is wrong; every Pope in history is wrong; but it isn't possible to know that for sure.
Next question:
If a theist proposes a knowable (rationally arguable) God, and claims to be able to argue rationally for that God's existence, and seeks to impose or propose laws that infringe human rights on the basis of those god-claims, is it or is it not legitimate to challenge the rational, logical arguments that said apologists are presenting?

[Danmark]

Phil....maybe you should put everybody on ignore...except for the ones who are qualified to interact with your genius.

The ignore feature does come in handy. It's not really that rational to keep reading posters one has lost interest in.

I encourage anybody bored with my stuff to put me on ignore, no offense will be taken. If a reader feels my posts are crap, crap, crap, crap, the logical thing to do is be loyal to their own opinion and stop reading my posts.

Wrong. Bad logic Filbert. One might think your posts 'crap, crap, crap, crap,' but still want to have fun exposing your errors, particularly when you have declared yourself a genius. Or, they may just want to help you out of the difficulties you are having.

[Philbert]

Thanks. You proclaim that Aquinas is wrong; Alvin Plantinga is wrong; every Pope in history is wrong; but it isn't possible to know that for sure.

Yes. Aquinas, Plantinga, every Pope, and Dawkins and Hitchens too, don't forget about them.

Watch how easy this is....

You guys don't believe in god, because you don't see sufficient evidence for god. Very simple!

I don't believe in all these claims of knowings, because I don't see sufficient evidence for such abilities. Very simple too!

Very simple, but....

800+ posts, and you guys still don't get it....

If a theist proposes a knowable (rationally arguable) God, and claims to be able to argue rationally for that God's existence, and seeks to impose or propose laws that infringe human rights on the basis of those god-claims, is it or is it not legitimate to challenge the rational, logical arguments that said apologists are presenting?

It's not rational coming from this forum, because if the topic were to also include explicitly atheist regimes killing millions of their own citizens, then the song and dance rationalizations begin and all interest in challenging ends.

Your formulation above reveals how you are doing ideology, and not reason.

Here's reason. I'm against murderous fascists, and I don't care if they are theists or atheists.

Let me ask you this. Do you support the NATO mission to fight the Taliban? Do you support us staying and continuing the fight to help protect the Afghan people from these murderous thugs until it is completely proven that the Afghan forces can handle the fight on their own?

No tap dancing around please. We're gonna stay, or we're gonna go. Which is it?

I will await your personal reply, and make no judgment on it until I hear it. But I will tell you this...

I've had this very conversation an endless number of times on atheist type forums, and almost inevitably the atheist who is all UPSET about the horrors of religious crimes wants to cut and run from Afghanistan and leave the Afghan people at the mercy of the Taliban. I've heard this again and again and again.

It's a bunch of stupid crap, and it makes me mad at myself for wasting time in such places, which I can blame on nobody but my stupid self. Apparently I fit right in....

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]
I think that the question should be that, even if I do indeed accept that both things cannot be proven or disproven, and you and I find one to be unlikely and the other we disagree on it's likeliness, then so what? What actual conclusions, based on this, can we come to that would matter to either you or me?

RIGHT!!! YES!!!! If both can't be verified or proved, then how does anyone conclude that pixies can fly at 45 mph, and God is both the creator of the Universe and our Judge?

It makes all conclusions on Pixies or God completely worthless.

Just like how you can come up with a ridiculous comparison, we could also come up with a rather normal one to show a different type of point. People in the past might have considered a television to be an absolutely ridiculous idea out of a fairy tale. Before one was created, belief in the possibility of television was absolutely absurd to some. Then it was created and, if you had chosen to believe, you would've been right. In fact, it would be the belief of the inventor (in something that could not be proven or disproven at the time) that brought it around in the first place. Either way, this has no implications on the existence or non-existence of God either.

Sure it does. People 'back then' didn't here of the TV. They couldn't have. You'd have to warp Time itself for your hypothetical work.

The point is that the people didn't know about it because it didn't exist. There would be no way you could have them comment on it.

Yet, if you could, they would give you all kinds of attributes of what a TV might be, and one cult would fight against another - each arrogant and violent and the religious war on TV begins. All based on guess about something they can't know about.

However, the TV is not the same thing. God, if it doesn't exist, doesn't exist in the future, either.

You are creating a fantasy to explain your fantasy.

The problem is in the assumption that non-belief should be EXPECTED in the absence of verifiable proof.

That's a very sensible and reasonable assumption. It's more than an assumption. It's an educated guess.

If you cannot prove something, you cannot expect someone else to accept your belief. I, therefor do not expect you to believe in God. And if you cannot prove his non-existence, then there is no reason I should accept that either.

I have no idea, from this statement, why you feel justified believing something you, or no one else you know, can prove.

Science needs an assumption of non-belief in the absence of verifiable proof to function, but life and individuals do not. It's like I've said before, a great deal of our societal and scientific progress was actually based on people believing in something that seemed impossible at the time until it was proven to indeed be a reality. The rule of non-belief was created for a specific scientific purpose and function, but it isn't some rule that everyone has to live their lives by and isn't always the best policy in life anyways.

Science has nothing to do with this.

So again, I believe God exists and you don't. We both believe that pixies don't exist. So what? Is there a point? (I have to admit that I didn't read the whole thread because of time constraint, so sorry if this was already covered.) If your only point is that no one can expect you to believe in God any more than you can expect them to believe in pixies, well then I agree with you. That's a personal choice. But is that the only point you are trying to make?

The point:

1. If there is something that really doesn't exist, it's a fact that we do not have the logical skills or other ability to prove that thing does not exist.

2. God cannot be proven to exist, nor disproved. Just like all things that don't exist.

3. The reasonable basic belief, the initial assumption, should be that if you can't prove something exists, your belief in it should be extremely tentative. Certainly, there is no justification for Apologetics (since Apologetics are based on making many absolute conclusions about God's character and reasoning).

[neptune1bond]

RIGHT!!! YES!!!! If both can't be verified or proved, then how does anyone conclude that pixies can fly at 45 mph, and God is both the creator of the Universe and our Judge?

It makes all conclusions on Pixies or God completely worthless.

Wow, that post I made was at least a few months back, I almost didn't remember it. I was wondering what prompted you to respond to it now?

But either way, it's fine with me if you don't want to believe in God, but my beliefs have had great worth in my life and helped me in many important ways, so why should I care if they are worthless to you?

Sure it does. People 'back then' didn't here of the TV. They couldn't have. You'd have to warp Time itself for your hypothetical work.

The point is that the people didn't know about it because it didn't exist. There would be no way you could have them comment on it.

Yet, if you could, they would give you all kinds of attributes of what a TV might be, and one cult would fight against another - each arrogant and violent and the religious war on TV begins. All based on guess about something they can't know about.

However, the TV is not the same thing. God, if it doesn't exist, doesn't exist in the future, either.

You are creating a fantasy to explain your fantasy.

Actually, no, I'm using reality to explain how it has been very useful for people to believe in something that there was no proof or evidence for. People actually did know about many inventions before they existed because someone made a hypothesis and/or made many attempts to bring it into reality. There are many instances of inventors stating their intentions publicly, many times through widespread media outlets like newspapers and radio programs or putting out academic articles on their theories. Many inventors and even great scientists were ridiculed for their "crackpot" theories and inventions long before and up until they were able to prove that such things were reality. People knew about many inventions and theories before they were actually invented or proven. The point is that people believed that many things throughout history were so impossible that they couldn't ever exist and ridiculed certain inventors and scientists for even believing that those things were possible. But nonetheless, if they hadn't stuck with their beliefs, where would we be today? Almost all societal and scientific progress came about because of believing in things that where not yet proven and there was little or no evidence for. Dwelling in what we already know does very little good for mankind. It's always those who believe in possibilities and those who can see beyond what we know that have actually benefited society the most and created progress.

That's a very sensible and reasonable assumption. It's more than an assumption. It's an educated guess.

Actually, no, it's just an assumption. The whole point is that you have no substance (evidence or proof) to educate you on the subject, therefor you just assume that God doesn't exist. The truth is that you have no more knowledge on the existence of God than anyone else, so you couldn't possibly call your guess "educated". You can educate yourself on the Bible or the Qur'an, you can educate yourself on every religious philosophy that exists, you can educate yourself on people's claims and experiences, but on the actual subject of God's existence you have no better clue than any theist no matter how much you would like to believe, so your guess is definitely not "educated". Your guess is really no better than mine and therefor has no more value, so why should I agree with you? That is why we come to our own conclusions. I don't expect you to believe and you really have no reason to expect me not to believe. It's to be expected that people are going to assume that their position is "the better one" in some way or other, but that doesn't always make it so.

I have no idea, from this statement, why you feel justified believing something you, or no one else you know, can prove.

For the same reason that anyone believes absolutely anything, because it makes more sense to me than the alternative(s). What i don't understand is how you can actually hold an expectation that I go against what makes sense to me for no reason other than because it makes less sense to you.

The truth is, the reason why you cannot automatically assume the negative in the absence of proof or evidence is because it's not very practical in real life. We take people's testimonies in court as evidence because in many cases that is all we have and the consequences of letting a killer or other criminal go free could be devastating to those that they victimize in the future. Also, morality only exists in the minds of living beings and there is no way to measure, calculate, or prove what is moral or the level of morality in any given action, and yet we all come to our own conclusions about what is moral and what is not. Can you imagine the consequences if people all had to wait for science to prove morality and measure it before we could come to any conclusions on our own? In fact, almost every governmental system is run on people's opinions, whether those people be rulers or the public. We take the evidence and proof into account when it is available, but the entire country can't wait for science to finally catch up and tell them how to think, so we come to conclusions and make decisions based on what we think is best and wait to see what the outcome is. That's why we take votes in the first place, because there is no way to prove the best method of governance so we kinda have to figure it out as we go. If we needed proof and evidence to come to any conclusions or form any opinions and if we always assumed the negative in the absence of current evidence or proof, then society as a whole would simply cease to function. The funny thing about the anti-theist stance is that all people come to conclusions and make decisions all day every day on things that they have no evidence or proof of (or at least that they are not aware of) because it is an absolute necessity of life and no one questions it, but the instance someone comes to their own conclusions about God and/or spirituality an atheist somewhere screams in pain as though some part of them has died inside. When science has proven everything to be proven and discovered all the answers, then maybe I'll consider not forming my own opinions on all differing subjects, but until then I'll just have to go on coming to my own conclusions as I see is best.

Science has nothing to do with this.

Science has everything to do with this. It was with the development of science that the whole idea came about where one was to assume the negative in the absence of evidence or proof because science needed this principal to function at all. Before there were scientists there were philosophers, and before the scientific method came about most knowledge was arrived at through philosophical means. People thought about things that could not be observed and came to the most logical conclusion that they were able. Even the most advanced levels of certain fields in academia today must resort to philosophical thought in certain instances in order to come to conclusions when there is no evidence or proof. In fact, some entire academic subjects are even mostly philosophical in nature, like ethics for example. They don't just throw their hands up and say,"oh well, we can't prove this so we'll just assume that it doesn't exist." That would be silly. Instead they consider what is the most logical answer and go from there. Some things, like theories on black holes, worm holes, etc. were arrived at logically and although some level of certain things have been observed, it might be a long time before there is actual physical proof or evidence that we can observe on other parts of these and other certain subjects. Besides, almost every proven fact started out as a hypothesis.

The problem with your expectation that everyone should automatically assume the negative in the absence of evidence is that you cannot prove in any way that it is actually the best or most logical approach under every circumstance, especially when there are so many instances in life when it was better or even necessary to come to conclusions based on little or no evidence or proof. You just kind of assume that it is the best approach and then expect theists to go along with it and abandon their own conclusions. Then if they disagree you might call them unreasonable, but then again, you can't really prove that your assumption is the most reasonable one either. So you also resort to comparing it to fairy tales, but all that that actually shows is your personal views and opinions on the belief and isn't really proof or evidence of anything. Just because you make the comparison, it doesn't mean that it has any merit. The ironic thing about it is, you believe that assuming the negative in the absence of evidence is the best approach, and yet believing that is an assumption made on no proof or evidence, and then you expect me to just agree with you on nothing except your opinion that you consider it to be the most obvious and logical approach. And after all of this you still have no insight into God's existence that I don't have. At least, out of the two of us, I don't have any expectation that you agree with me because I recognize that I can't place that expectation with an absence of proof.

The point:

1. If there is something that really doesn't exist, it's a fact that we do not have the logical skills or other ability to prove that thing does not exist.

2. God cannot be proven to exist, nor disproved. Just like all things that don't exist.

3. The reasonable basic belief, the initial assumption, should be that if you can't prove something exists, your belief in it should be extremely tentative. Certainly, there is no justification for Apologetics (since Apologetics are based on making many absolute conclusions about God's character and reasoning).

I feel I've covered this sufficiently in my statements above.

[Ooberman]

RIGHT!!! YES!!!! If both can't be verified or proved, then how does anyone conclude that pixies can fly at 45 mph, and God is both the creator of the Universe and our Judge?

It makes all conclusions on Pixies or God completely worthless.

Wow, that post I made was at least a few months back, I almost didn't remember it. I was wondering what prompted you to respond to it now?

But either way, it's fine with me if you don't want to believe in God, but my beliefs have had great worth in my life and helped me in many important ways, so why should I care if they are worthless to you?

I look at these debates in one way. 1. I have my set of beliefs and the things I will believe. 2. You have yours. 3. There is a conversation that doesn't rely on either of our prejudices and we try to explain WHY we should believe one thing or another.

I prefer #3. If we agree, then great. If not, then it's going to be personal and I will leave. (I am not accusing you. I am responding to your assertion that your beliefs are valuable.

The question: WHY do you believe what you do? (not: why are they valuable to you? I've seen too many people do things that are valuable to them, that are horrible for everyone else, or not even based in reality in the first place).

Sure it does. People 'back then' didn't here of the TV. They couldn't have. You'd have to warp Time itself for your hypothetical work.

The point is that the people didn't know about it because it didn't exist. There would be no way you could have them comment on it.

Yet, if you could, they would give you all kinds of attributes of what a TV might be, and one cult would fight against another - each arrogant and violent and the religious war on TV begins. All based on guess about something they can't know about.

However, the TV is not the same thing. God, if it doesn't exist, doesn't exist in the future, either.

You are creating a fantasy to explain your fantasy.

Actually, no, I'm using reality to explain how it has been very useful for people to believe in something that there was no proof or evidence for. People actually did know about many inventions before they existed because someone made a hypothesis and/or made many attempts to bring it into reality. There are many instances of inventors stating their intentions publicly, many times through widespread media outlets like newspapers and radio programs or putting out academic articles on their theories. Many inventors and even great scientists were ridiculed for their "crackpot" theories and inventions long before and up until they were able to prove that such things were reality. People knew about many inventions and theories before they were actually invented or proven. The point is that people believed that many things throughout history were so impossible that they couldn't ever exist and ridiculed certain inventors and scientists for even believing that those things were possible. But nonetheless, if they hadn't stuck with their beliefs, where would we be today? Almost all societal and scientific progress came about because of believing in things that where not yet proven and there was little or no evidence for. Dwelling in what we already know does very little good for mankind. It's always those who believe in possibilities and those who can see beyond what we know that have actually benefited society the most and created progress.[/quote]
God is not something we conceptualize, then endeavor to create over generations.
I understand your analogy. I think it's not useful.

After all, if you met someone who believed in pixies, would you say "ah, yes, like the TV and God! They could exist!"

Your analogy is taking something that we KNOW exists and comparing it to something we DON'T KNOW exists.
Why does your analogy work for God and not pixies?

Or does it? If it works for God and pixies, aliens and magic, what value does it have?

That's a very sensible and reasonable assumption. It's more than an assumption. It's an educated guess.

Actually, no, it's just an assumption. The whole point is that you have no substance (evidence or proof) to educate you on the subject, therefor you just assume that God doesn't exist.[/quote]
Sure I have evidence of God's non-existence! I don't see, hear, taste, feel or smell God. That's a first line of evidence.
Second, I know that Gods are created and destroyed all the time in the minds of Believers. I can make an educated guess that your God, or anyone else's is the same thing.

The truth is that you have no more knowledge on the existence of God than anyone else, so you couldn't possibly call your guess "educated".

I think I just did.

You can educate yourself on the Bible or the Qur'an, you can educate yourself on every religious philosophy that exists, you can educate yourself on people's claims and experiences, but on the actual subject of God's existence you have no better clue than any theist no matter how much you would like to believe, so your guess is definitely not "educated". Your guess is really no better than mine and therefor has no more value, so why should I agree with you? That is why we come to our own conclusions. I don't expect you to believe and you really have no reason to expect me not to believe. It's to be expected that people are going to assume that their position is "the better one" in some way or other, but that doesn't always make it so.

INterestingly, this doesn't strengthen your position. Don't you claim there is a God? What education/evidence do you have to make that statement.

Because you are right, I don't know anything about God. There is nothing to know about God. Just like pixies.

I have no idea, from this statement, why you feel justified believing something you, or no one else you know, can prove.

For the same reason that anyone believes absolutely anything, because it makes more sense to me than the alternative(s). What i don't understand is how you can actually hold an expectation that I go against what makes sense to me for no reason other than because it makes less sense to you.

Well, let's discuss WHY we believe what we do:

1. I claim I have no experience, whatsoever, of God.
2. You claim to believe in God - WHY?

The truth is, the reason why you cannot automatically assume the negative in the absence of proof or evidence is because it's not very practical in real life.

Sure it is. I assume there is no sniper trying to take me out when I go the the store. Otherwise, I wouldn't go the the store.

Plus, we both assume there aren't pixies. But, if there were, wouldn't it be important to know? Especially if we could harness their magic?

We take people's testimonies in court as evidence because in many cases that is all we have and the consequences of letting a killer or other criminal go free could be devastating to those that they victimize in the future. Also, morality only exists in the minds of living beings and there is no way to measure, calculate, or prove what is moral or the level of morality in any given action, and yet we all come to our own conclusions about what is moral and what is not. Can you imagine the consequences if people all had to wait for science to prove morality and measure it before we could come to any conclusions on our own? In fact, almost every governmental system is run on people's opinions, whether those people be rulers or the public. We take the evidence and proof into account when it is available, but the entire country can't wait for science to finally catch up and tell them how to think, so we come to conclusions and make decisions based on what we think is best and wait to see what the outcome is. That's why we take votes in the first place, because there is no way to prove the best method of governance so we kinda have to figure it out as we go. If we needed proof and evidence to come to any conclusions or form any opinions and if we always assumed the negative in the absence of current evidence or proof, then society as a whole would simply cease to function.

I have no idea why this supports your position.

The funny thing about the anti-theist stance is that all people come to conclusions and make decisions all day every day on things that they have no evidence or proof of (or at least that they are not aware of) because it is an absolute necessity of life and no one questions it, but the instance someone comes to their own conclusions about God and/or spirituality an atheist somewhere screams in pain as though some part of them has died inside. When science has proven everything to be proven and discovered all the answers, then maybe I'll consider not forming my own opinions on all differing subjects, but until then I'll just have to go on coming to my own conclusions as I see is best.

Science has nothing to do with this.

Science has everything to do with this. It was with the development of science that the whole idea came about where one was to assume the negative in the absence of evidence or proof because science needed this principal to function at all. Before there were scientists there were philosophers, and before the scientific method came about most knowledge was arrived at through philosophical means. People thought about things that could not be observed and came to the most logical conclusion that they were able. Even the most advanced levels of certain fields in academia today must resort to philosophical thought in certain instances in order to come to conclusions when there is no evidence or proof. In fact, some entire academic subjects are even mostly philosophical in nature, like ethics for example. They don't just throw their hands up and say,"oh well, we can't prove this so we'll just assume that it doesn't exist." That would be silly. Instead they consider what is the most logical answer and go from there. Some things, like theories on black holes, worm holes, etc. were arrived at logically and although some level of certain things have been observed, it might be a long time before there is actual physical proof or evidence that we can observe on other parts of these and other certain subjects. Besides, almost every proven fact started out as a hypothesis.

The problem with your expectation that everyone should automatically assume the negative in the absence of evidence is that you cannot prove in any way that it is actually the best or most logical approach under every circumstance, especially when there are so many instances in life when it was better or even necessary to come to conclusions based on little or no evidence or proof. You just kind of assume that it is the best approach and then expect theists to go along with it and abandon their own conclusions. Then if they disagree you might call them unreasonable, but then again, you can't really prove that your assumption is the most reasonable one either. So you also resort to comparing it to fairy tales, but all that that actually shows is your personal views and opinions on the belief and isn't really proof or evidence of anything. Just because you make the comparison, it doesn't mean that it has any merit. The ironic thing about it is, you believe that assuming the negative in the absence of evidence is the best approach, and yet believing that is an assumption made on no proof or evidence, and then you expect me to just agree with you on nothing except your opinion that you consider it to be the most obvious and logical approach. And after all of this you still have no insight into God's existence that I don't have. At least, out of the two of us, I don't have any expectation that you agree with me because I recognize that I can't place that expectation with an absence of proof.

The point:

1. If there is something that really doesn't exist, it's a fact that we do not have the logical skills or other ability to prove that thing does not exist.

2. God cannot be proven to exist, nor disproved. Just like all things that don't exist.

3. The reasonable basic belief, the initial assumption, should be that if you can't prove something exists, your belief in it should be extremely tentative. Certainly, there is no justification for Apologetics (since Apologetics are based on making many absolute conclusions about God's character and reasoning).

I feel I've covered this sufficiently in my statements above.

Just because we assume things in daily life doesn't mean God exists. Your entire appeal here is an extended fallacy.

Please read what you wrote and instead of God, insert "pixies", then you will see how strange your argument is.