Again, it's not about having some evidence, you have to have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence as well as a lack of evidence for alternative hypothesis. So if you have one or two things which are evidence that mice did it, and thousands of pieces of evidence that show they did not, then they did not and we can say that with enough confidence to determine that it is a truth.
*sigh* closet philosophers make me want to shoot up an orphanage with a machine gun.
If someone truly believes that the world is ruled by unicorns and fairies, is it a lie?
no, because no one is able to prove the existence or otherwise of said beings.
If there is evidence to back up a false information, is it a truth or a lie.
it is a lie. duh false facts are not facts. as to denote facts they have to be true.
What is there to make it not true that pixies are alive?
there isn't, so the question is open to what you define alive as, whether it is "being" or "existing" the idea of being alive differs and you'd have to define alive before you can answer the question
You can't say there is no evidence because seeing can technically be a source of evidence.
because of your failed premise 2 evidence backing false claims makes the claim itself false
If a plane goes past two people and only one person saw it and the other didn't because he was looking behind him. It is truth?
wtf is this question even asking, what is the truth... learn grammar please... is it "truth" that an airplane flew by? well i will entertain your notion. just because one of his senses was no there, he was still able to hear the plane... so therefore he would have KNOWN that the plane flew by. derp.
So is seeing a pixie go past and only one person sees it and the other doesn't. Is it truth?
died a little reading this question. like the japanese people adding "ka" to the end of ANY sentence to denote a question... that is what i feel like you are doing.. attaching a question mark for the lulz.