I’ll need to phrase the question better. I saw an interesting question in a discussion: why does a person believe in God and not in fairies? That’s basically the question.

A truly fascinating question. Because belief applies only to a number of wings lower than 1 (Occam’s razor).

I can offer you the Michi-bot answer to your question in its two different versions:

Original version:

A short introduction: I am "Michi-bot." The answers are written on the basis of Rabbi Michael Abraham’s writings and try to reconstruct what the model thinks he would answer; they do not necessarily represent his actual view. For practical questions of Jewish law, one should consult a halakhic decisor. By the way, it is recommended to make sure you are using the GPT-5 Thinking model.

In short: according to Rabbi Michael Abraham, the comparison "God = fairies" misses the point. "God" is not just another physical creature within the world, whereas "fairies" (or "Russell’s teapot") are claimed empirical entities without evidence. Therefore the burden of justification and the type/style of argument are completely different.

The main points:

1. The kind of "being":

* God – a metaphysical principle/entity (first cause, source of lawfulness, etc.), not part of physics and therefore not a "patch" for local gaps in scientific explanation. In any case, one should not use Him as a gap-plugger (the "God of the gaps").
* Fairies – if they existed, they would be entities within nature; this is a normal empirical claim that needs quantitative/observational evidence and does not stand when there is none. In his book, the rabbi uses Russell’s "teapot" example to illustrate why such claims are rejected when asserted without any mechanism or evidence.

2. The type of justification:

* Regarding God – the rabbi argues that there is a cumulative array of philosophical arguments (cosmological / physico-theological / moral and others), and he sometimes formulates them in probabilistic-Bayesian terms as well (for example in the discussion of fine-tuning). ([Mikyab][1])
* Regarding fairies – there is no such array; this is a point claim with no support, and therefore it has the same status as the flying teapot example.

3. Occam’s razor (simplicity):
The rabbi emphasizes that Occam does not "eliminate God"; one chooses a simple theory only when there is explanatory equivalence. If a theistic theory has an explanatory advantage, simplicity alone does not decide against it. ([Mikyab][2])

4. "Providence" and fairies:
When a concrete divine intervention is claimed in an ad hoc way, he warns that this resembles the teapot/fairies and is therefore weak. ([Mikyab][3])
But using "fairies" in order to dismiss all considerations of providence in advance is an evasion; in his view, there are reasons in favor of providence (given God) that must be addressed substantively. ([Mikyab][4])

Bottom line: "fairies" are a good comparison for exposing absurd empirical claims or ad hoc interventions. But God, as the rabbi presents Him, is a general metaphysical-explanatory claim that is weighed according to cumulative philosophical reasons, not as just another hidden creature in the world. Therefore the image "God = fairies" is not parallel.

Would you like me to elaborate on a particular point or present additional sources/follow-up questions?

### Sources actually used

* God Plays Dice (book) – discussions of proofs, and of Russell / the "teapot."
* That Which Exists and That Which Does Not: On Science, Religion, and Myth (book) – against the "God of the gaps" approach and on the distinction between science and religion.
* "A Look at the Principle of Occam’s Razor (Column 426)" – on the rabbi’s site. ([Mikyab][2])
* "A Bayesian Look at the Physico-Theological Proof (Column 506)" – on the rabbi’s site. ([Mikyab][1])
* "A Systematic Look at the Relationship Between Evolution and Faith" – on the rabbi’s site. ([Mikyab][5])
* "On Labels and Discussions, or: Am I an Apikoros? (Column 74)" – on suspicion of intervention as a "fairies/teapot" claim. ([Mikyab][3])
* "Divine Involvement in the World – The Complete Picture (Column 280)" – on why the "fairies" answer is an evasion. ([Mikyab][4])

For a deeper and more accurate picture, it is recommended to look at the cited sources.

[1]: https://mikyab.net/posts/78068/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A Bayesian Look at the Physico-Theological Proof (Column 506)"
[2]: https://mikyab.net/posts/74050/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A Look at the Principle of Occam’s Razor (Column 426)"
[3]: https://mikyab.net/posts/3719/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "On Labels and Discussions, or: Am I an Apikoros? (Column 74)"
[4]: https://mikyab.net/posts/65533/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Divine Involvement in the World – The Complete Picture (Column 280)"
[5]: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "A Systematic Look at the Relationship Between Evolution and Faith"

And a second version:

Hi! A quick disclosure at the outset: the answers are given by a model that uses Rabbi Michael Abraham’s sources and tries to reconstruct what he would answer—not necessarily his actual opinion. For practical questions of Jewish law, one should consult a halakhic decisor. In addition, the Michi-bot is intended for use with the GPT-5 Thinking model—it is worth making sure that this is the model you are using.

As for the question itself: the parallel "God = fairies" sounds sharp, but according to Rabbi Michael Abraham’s line of argument it is mistaken for three main reasons:

1. Genuine explanatory value versus an ad hoc entity
Belief in God is proposed as an explanatory hypothesis for features of reality: the origin of lawfulness and existence ex nihilo, the end point of causal regress, and the fine-tuning of the universe. These are points for which a positive argument for theism is presented (for example, a metaphysical causal argument for the existence of a "first" that stops the regress, and a fine-tuning argument against an inflated, uneconomical multiverse). Fairies, by contrast, are an entity that adds no explanation to any concrete phenomenon, and therefore there is no good reason to posit their existence.

2. A different ontological category
"God" is a basic metaphysical explanation, a status of cause or foundation for reality and its laws. "Fairies" are supposedly creatures within nature; if they existed we would expect empirical biological or physical evidence for them. The absence of such evidence greatly weakens the "fairies" hypothesis, whereas the question about the foundation of reality is philosophical and explanatory rather than purely empirical. Therefore one should not compare theism to a "flying teapot" or to fairies, because here there are reasons and there are none there. See: [https://mikyab.net/posts/65533/?utm\_source=chatgpt.com](https://mikyab.net/posts/65533/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

3. Rules of rationality: Occam’s razor, coherence, and scope
One adds entities only when they do superior explanatory work in a way that is simple and economical. In the theistic picture, God explains difficult phenomena sharply and with relative simplicity; a multiverse or fairies do not fare well by these criteria. Therefore Occam tends to favor a theistic explanation over inflated alternatives, and not "fairies."

A note on "you can’t prove non-existence": usually people do not prove that "there are no fairies," but that does not create symmetry. Where there is no positive evidence there is no reason to believe; by contrast, regarding God there is a series of positive reasons (cosmology, fine-tuning, rationality and morality, free will and soul that are not easily absorbed within a materialist framework). See: [https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%97-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D/?utm\_source=chatgpt.com](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%97-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

And finally, on providence versus "fairies": when the rabbi discusses divine intervention or providence, he writes that there are reasons to believe in it, and the "fairies" claim is an evasion. In other words, one does not compare a claim with grounding to an imaginary claim with no grounding. See also: [https://mikyab.net/posts/3719/?utm\_source=chatgpt.com](https://mikyab.net/posts/3719/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Bottom line: people believe in God and not in fairies not because of a desire for mysticism, but because God serves as a serious explanatory solution to deep problems in one’s picture of the world; fairies have no such explanatory role, and there is no empirical or theoretical evidence that justifies adopting them.

Sources:

* Divine Involvement in the World – The Complete Picture (Column 280): [https://mikyab.net/posts/65533/?utm\_source=chatgpt.com](https://mikyab.net/posts/65533/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* On Labels and Discussions, or: Am I an Apikoros? (Column 74): [https://mikyab.net/posts/3719/?utm\_source=chatgpt.com](https://mikyab.net/posts/3719/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* Can One Prove That Something Does Not Exist (responsa): [https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%97-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D/?utm\_source=chatgpt.com](https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%97-%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Great, thanks.