In The Beginning: God Done It? No, Pixies Done It!

In any text that mentions “God”, just substitute the word “Pixie” or “Pixies” for God and the text will still make perfect rational sense. It’s just substituting the name of one imaginary entity for another. I could go through the entire Bible and substitute for various key characters Father Pixie, Son of Pixie, and Ghost of Pixie. The texts would still make the exact same amount of sense as before-the-fact – which is to say very little.

For example: In the beginning Pixies created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of the Pixies moved upon the face of the waters. And the Pixies said, “Let there be light” and there was light. And the Pixies saw the light, that it was good: and the Pixies divided the light from the darkness. And the Pixies called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Easy!

1) Cosmology:

The Traditional Theist Kalam Cosmological Argument: Everything that beings to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore the Universe has a [First] Cause. Therefore God done it. Of course the ultimate conclusion doesn’t of necessity follow from the premises, but that little logical fallacy hasn’t ever stopped theists from jumping on the God done it bandwagon.

My Polytheistic Variation on the Traditional Kalam Cosmological Argument: Everything that beings to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore the Universe has a [First] Cause. Therefore a family of magical Pixies must be responsible. It equally makes perfect theological sense.

If one deduces that our world is most likely to exist given a family of magical Pixies who wanted to make it, then it is most rational to believe in such a family of magical Pixies. If theists can make wild assertions – without evidence – about the existence of their preferred deity (God), His motives and His characteristics then I too can make wild assertions about Pixies and their motives and their characteristics. What’s good for the God-goose is good for the Pixie-gander.

Disclaimer: Just saying that God created life, the Universe and everything doesn’t make it so any more than my saying that Pixies done it makes it so. God (or Pixies) is just something we make up to answer something we don’t yet know the definitive answer to.

One objection by theists is that a family of Pixies advocates polytheism, and further would multiply explanatory entities beyond necessity thus going against the grain of Occam’s Razor. However, the family of Pixies mirrors the theist’s family of deities. In my case, the Pixie family consists of Father Pixie, Son of Pixie and Ghost of Pixie! And by the way, Occam’s Razor is just a logical guide to establishing which of various competing hypothesis is more likely as not the correct hypothesis. However, it is not infallible. It is not the be-all-and-end-all pathway to truth.

A second objection is that the “Son of Pixie” is not something that follows or can be deduced from the traditional Kalam cosmological argument given above, any more than Jesus follows as a necessary being from arguing the theist’s version of the creation of the Universe – the First Cause requirement.

However, I’m not claiming that it is the case. I’m giving my cosmological argument which is Father Pixie, Son of Pixie and Ghost of Pixie who collectively shared the workload in the creation of the Universe! Are First Cause theists an expert on Pixies? I mean if you build a house, if you cause a house to be built, there tends to be a division of labour. So I’ll stick by my theological hypothesis that a family of magical Pixies did the deed done dirt cheap. In fact I’m establishing a new (and improved) religion called “Pixie-ism or Pixie-ianity”, consisting of Father Pixie, Son of Pixie and Ghost of Pixie. Now theists need to prove my polytheistic Pixie religion wrong since my evidence is equal to that of any theist.

2) Futurology:

It is often claimed that any supreme deity who set into motion the laws, principles and relationships that govern their creation would have to know the future since those laws, principles and relationships are absolute and therefore deterministic. But what happens when you throw free will into the mix?

An omniscient Father Pixie would know the entire “flowchart”. That Father Pixie would know exactly what would happen if said Father Pixie created the Universe in any of the ways a Father Pixie could, and a Father Pixie would know everything that would follow until free creatures who weren’t Pixies began to exist. The only things our Father Pixie doesn’t know are the future free willed actions of non-Pixies, but the Father Pixie does know every possible free willed action and every consequence of each of those. There is no possible outcome this Father Pixie isn’t aware of.

If Father Pixie cannot know what alleged free-willed non-Pixies will do in Father Pixie’s future, then said non-Pixies could easily upset Father Pixie’s knowing-the-future apple-cart. Father Pixie might guess or assign probabilities to what free-willed non-Pixies) or any specific non-Pixie, might do or not do, and cover all of the bases, but Father Pixie doesn’t absolutely know and neither does anyone else. That’s why non-Pixie people assign probabilities to what will happen in their future, some with 99.999% certainty (like the Sun rising in the morning) and some with very low certainty (like winning the lottery tomorrow or being eaten by a fire-breathing dragon). A complete rundown of all of those possibilities for any one happening or non-happening will add up to 100%. But that still doesn’t mean that non-Pixie people absolutely know their future before-the-fact. So, there is no possible outcome Father Pixie isn’t aware of, but Father Pixie doesn’t know before-the-fact what that outcome will actually be. But Father Pixie does know the entire future flowchart so nothing catches Father Pixie by complete surprise.

On the other hand, if causality is absolute like I suspect it is, then Father Pixie can know or predict the future absolutely with 100% certainty, but then so can anyone else in theory. Of course absolute causality (pure determinism) wipes out free will.

3) Other Theological Topics Featuring Pixies:

The God (of the Gaps) Hypothesis has no explanatory power. It’s just a lazy answer – a cop-out answer. No one would actually get off their duff and investigate anything since it is far easier to recline back in your armchair and just say the magic word – “God” (or “Satan” if it was something more in his domain). One in fact might as well say that Pixies did it.

Even if your prayer is answered, that doesn’t mean of necessity that God answered it. Perhaps it was a magical divine Pixie – how could you tell?

Premise: If Pixies do not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore Pixies exist.
P.S. This makes perfectly reasonable theological sense to me!

If theists can believe in and discuss God (and the ancient polytheistic Greeks Zeus), I can believe in and discuss my alternative – Pixies. The amount of actual evidence for the God Hypothesis – the God of the theists is exactly the same as the evidence for my Pixie Hypothesis – zero. Still, who are theists to rubbish my Pixie religion? I’m insulted.

4) Pixie Society:

Now most Pixies live in Pixie-Heaven which is located in one of those extra and hidden dimensions that String Theorists like to postulate and go on and on and on about – the mathematics justifies this apparently. Pixies are immortal UNLESS they breed, and they are a very randy bunch and usually can’t help themselves. So when they breed a new Pixie (like Son of Pixie) then they have to die and become a Ghost Pixie. You can get a lot more Ghost Pixies on the head of a pin than you can regular Father or Son Pixies. Still, ultimately they run out of extra dimensional room; they have a Pixie population problem. To solve this therefore they have to create a brand new universe for themselves (with more extra hidden dimensions) just like you might add on an extension to your house. Therefore Pixies created our Universe to cater for their ever expanding population and have become known to us humans and are worshipped as our creators. Some theist naysayers just say that Pixies are mythological, but non-Pixie persons who are Pixie polytheists don’t buy into that fairy-tale.

What about female Pixies? Well they are to be kept barefoot and pregnant and alternate their duties between the kitchen, the nursery and the bedroom. I’m taking my cue here from Ephesians 5: 22-23 22 (“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” and 1 Timothy 2: 11-12 (“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”).

Oh, by the way, I should have the sacred / holy book of all things Pixie available within a few hundred years. I’ve been granted all this extra time by my very own personal Guardian Pixie. It will be an anthology of many books written by dozens of authors yet to be born who will be all expert in the folklore of Pixie-ism or Pixie-ianity, and no, I won’t tell you what their names or backgrounds will be. Futurology is for the divine Pixies.

In conclusion, I think a Pixie theology is way more interesting than any theist’s God Hypothesis!

Acknowledgement: It was a throwaway line by Matt Dillahunty on the TV show “The Atheist Experience” that set me off on this tangent.

Comments are closed.