Well for example, Pixies (if real) and Farts are made out of matter, the cause of the universe, by necessity had to be inmaterial
Ow? So when did you examine the fart of an extra-dimensional pixie so that you could determine that its far was made of matter?
Another reason Parsimony:, there is nothing in the universe that would be better explained with pixies, than without them
GREAT!
Now replace "pixies" with "god(s)".
There you go. Congratulations. You nailed it.
Ok, but you do have to explain why the arguments that have been presented don’t have a merit
No. It's upto the one making the argument to demonstrate the merrit.
Only when you do that, can I address that and show why I disagree.
But you haven't done that.
What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
But just to humour you... The god claim has zero explanatory power, makes zero testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, is unverifiable, is not independently testable.
ie: no merrit.
Unfalsifiable ideas have no merrit by definition.
First you state that God is not an option without any justification
I never once said this.
I said that isn't an option BY DEFAULT.
I said that if you wish to put it on the table as an option, you have to actually bring something to show it is a valid option to begin with.
I'm sure you agree that whatever you can imagine, isn't an actual option by default simply by virtue of being able to imagine it, right?
I didn't rule anything out as an option.
I just said that you failed to demonstrate that it IS an option.
Your god is just as much an option as extra-dimensional pixies are.
To not accept something as a
valid option, is not the same as ruling it out.
You seem to be making this "black and white" mistake quite regurarly.
Like in that other thread concerning kca nonsense... You assume there too, that not accepting the claim "something can't come from nothing" as a true-ism, somehow means or implies that the claim "something CAN come from nothing" would be accepted as true.
This is just not the case.
Then you proclaim that atheism wins
This is not about "winning" or "losing". It's about what is most reasonable and rationally justified.
Aja, but any argument or justification for “God” would be rejected because you decided a priory God is not an option.
No. I reject arguments/justifications for "god" (like kca, ft etc) because they are cesspools of unsupported premises, assumed conclusions, arguments from ignorance / incredulity, themselves dependen on statements of faith, etc.
Bring me a valid argument backed by evidence in an independently verifiable manner, and I'll happily accept it.
But if you ever provide an argument for pixies I would be obligated to explain why I reject that argument,
Which I did. I told you why I reject arguments like KCA and FT and the other apologetic nonsense.
Or could I just reject the argument a priory just because it is not an option?
If the arguments are invalid / unsupported, and the pixies are unfalsifiable, then you can reject both the arguments as well as the pixies claim as invalid options, yes.
Which is what you in fact do when it comes to pixies, leprechauns and just about every other unfalsifiable entity.
You whole Pixies dance is based on the assumption that there are no arguments for God,
No. It's based on the FACT that both gods and pixies are unfalsifiable entities with zero explanatory power, zero testable predictions and zero independent verifiability.
but the problems is that arguments have been provided
And subsequently dismantled by exposing the unsupported premises, the assumed conclusions, the arguments from ignorance / incredulity, etc.
, and you can’t simply reject them without any justification.
Ignoring that I did exactly that, won't make it go away.
Arguments for god have been provided; it is your turn to explain why are the arguments, wrong, fallacious, incoherent etc.
Already did.
Granted, if someone presents you an unfalsifiable argument for God, you can reject that argument for that reason.
The existance of god itself is an unfalsifiable claim.
And no "argument" is going to change that. It's also the reason why
any apologetic argument is going to fall short of actually demonstrating anything at all.... because the unfalsifiable can't be falsified OR demonstrated. That's kind of the thing with unfalsifiability... it's completely useless and without merrit.
Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number.