Eliezers, not mine. And they may not "Pay Rent" but they do, evidently, stand between you and the murdering of your siblings. They also constitute a strictly simpler model for reality than the one you advocate.

Stop begging the question / appealing to emotion. Also, if you're bringing up Eliezers arguments, then defend them yourself. Don't hide behind his authority and pretend that you're not responsible for the words you speak.

This model requires me to waste cognitive space on things that are the same whether or not they're true. I don't understand why you believe that it is any simpler to assert that things beyond the Cosmological Horizon exist than it is to assert that they do not. I think the best answer is to say that the concept of existence itself is only worthwhile in some cases; my approach is more pragmatic than yours.

Why should I care whether or not my daughter is dead or alive if I can't experience her either way? She is just as abstract either way. I don't understand why you keep thinking that this sort of argument is a knock-down argument.

Again, not my attempt, it was multiple other people who were all patiently trying to explain the concepts in a way you might understand.

I understand the concepts, but I disagree with them. People should stop bringing them up unless they present sold epistemic arguments for their belief. Examples about the daughter just make things more confusing. And you've clearly been saying that my intuitions are wrong, don't try to back out of that now.

The arguments were real. They are what you rejected in the previous sentence. This may or may not mean you actually read them.

Thought experiments are not arguments. They beg the question and muddle the issue with unjustified intuitions.

I wasn't, and I included careful disclaimers to that effect in both comments. I was merely making an incidental technical correction regarding misuse of the word 'evidence'. You made a point of separating your "intuitive judgement" from your abstract far-mode ideals. When people do this it isn't always the case that the abstract idealized reasoning is the correct part. I often find that people's intuitions have better judgement---and that is what I see occurring here. Your intuitions were correct and also happen to be the side of you that is safer to be around without risk of being murdered.

In other words, 1. you nitpicked instead of making a substantive point 2. you asserted that my intuitions were incorrect.

Fortunately, current engineering technology is such that your particular brand existence-denial does not pose an imminent threat. As has been mentioned, if we reached the stage where we were capable of significant interstellar travel this kind of thing does start to matter. If there were still people who believed that things magically disappeared once they were sufficiently far enough away from that person then such individuals would need to be restrained by force or otherwise prevented from taking actions that they sincerely believe would not be murder---in the same way that any other murder attempt is prevented if possible.

This matters in the same way that the possible existence of an invisible afterlife matters.