Invisible Pink Unicorn?

[Odin]

what arguements can be used against the existance of the invisible pink unicorn while also claiming the existance of God(s)? (to make one more likely than the other?)

 

[Donks]

what arguements can be used against the existance of the invisible pink unicorn while also claiming the existance of God(s)? (to make one more likely than the other?)

From the perspective of the believer, there is evidence of past actions of God (i.e. the Bible), which they accept as infalible. I won't go into the circular logic of the whole matter, though.

 

[Wudang]

The ones I've heard that say the comparison doesn't equate which is related to what you ask:

millions of people believe in god (the million flies argument)

historical tradition - people have believed in god(s) for millenia (the let's stay in caves argument)

just believe and you'll "know" (the Oh I wish, I wish argument aka the "if you convince yourself he exists then you'll believe he exists" argument)

More related to the OP - how can something be invisible and pink at the same time?
Silly question because the answer is that the IPU allows it!

 

[CFLarsen]

"Nobody has ever really believed in invisible pink unicorns."

Which, of course, misses the point entirely. Intentionally or not.

The point is not whether people actually believe in invisible pink unicorns or not - or firebreathing dragons in the garage, the example that Sagan used. The point is: How do we distinguish between this, and a proclaimed paranormal phenomenon?

The harsh reality is: We can't.

The string of excuses are well known:

===========================================

A: Show me this fire-breathing dragon in your garage.

B: Oh, I forgot to tell you: The dragon is invisible.

A: Let's spread flour on the floor to capture the footprints.

B: This dragon floats in the air.

A: Let's use an infrared sensor to detect it.

B: The invisible fire is heatless.

A: Let's spray-paint the dragon.

B: The dragon is incorporal. The paint won't stick.

===========================================

And so on. The point is that every test is met with a special explanation why the test won't work.

 

[c4ts]

I still hate the example of the "invisible pink unicorn" just because it implies that the unicorn is pink in the same sense that it is invisible. Even though it's not the case in the example, it looks like you're trying to pull off an all too obvious fallacy which is smaller than what you are trying to demonstrate. Say "invisible magic unicorn" or "invisible flying unicorn" or use some other attribute unrelated to sight.

 

[MRC_Hans]

[MODE=KUMAR]GOD is mass existing knowledge since long, so must be true. Pink Unicorn is not.[/MODE]


Hans

 

[arthwollipot]

http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/

 

[Wudang]

I still hate the example of the "invisible pink unicorn" just because it implies that the unicorn is pink in the same sense that it is invisible. Even though it's not the case in the example, it looks like you're trying to pull off an all too obvious fallacy which is smaller than what you are trying to demonstrate. Say "invisible magic unicorn" or "invisible flying unicorn" or use some other attribute unrelated to sight.

She made herself invisible and pink as a test of our faith. These seeming inconsistencies are reconciled in faith. Open your mind and your heart and all shall be made clear.

 

[jmercer]

Slow down, guys...

You can't use one argument for the other because God is considered a strictly spiritual being, while an invisible pink unicorn would be a material (albeit magical) entity.

Supposedly, God's capable of influencing our reality without being physically present in it. (Which is why God is miraculous/paranormal.)

If you take the bible literally (which I don't), God Himself has never manifested in a visible way on Earth (except as Jesus). The burning bush, etc, are all manifestations of God's power and were not the actual image of God. This, of course, implied God's presence - but it's not like He appeared with choirs of angels, a brilliant glow of light, yadda yadda yadda...

So, if you want to refute God by using invisible pink unicorns as an analogy, you're going to have to apply your arguments to Jesus as the only material avatar of God available to you. Sorry, guys - I don't mean to burst your bubbles, but I think this is why you're struggling with the analogy.

 

[Wudang]

Re: Slow down, guys...

You can't use one argument for the other because God is considered a strictly spiritual being, while an invisible pink unicorn would be a material (albeit magical) entity.

No. Perhaps an invisible pink unicorn but this is The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Supposedly, God's capable of influencing our reality without being physically present in it. (Which is why God is miraculous/paranormal.)

If you take the bible literally (which I don't), God Himself has never manifested in a visible way on Earth (except as Jesus).

What bible you read? Who did Jacob wrestle with?
And what part of invisible don't you get?

The burning bush, etc, are all manifestations of God's power and were not the actual image of God. This, of course, implied God's presence - but it's not like He appeared with choirs of angels, a brilliant glow of light, yadda yadda yadda...

So, if you want to refute God by using invisible pink unicorns as an analogy, you're going to have to apply your arguments to Jesus as the only material avatar of God available to you. Sorry, guys - I don't mean to burst your bubbles, but I think this is why you're struggling with the analogy.

Read the bible and try again.

 

[Iacchus]

what arguements can be used against the existance of the invisible pink unicorn while also claiming the existance of God(s)? (to make one more likely than the other?)

I haven't seen any pink unicorns, but I've seen the Pegasus. Either way you look at it though, it can all be classified as a mythological event.

 

[RandFan]

I still hate the example of the "invisible pink unicorn" just because it implies that the unicorn is pink in the same sense that it is invisible.

That is frosting on the cake as far as I am concerned. It is illogical but then so is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god. I like the IPU example.

That being said I do think that the fact that so many people believe in god and that people have "spiritual" feeling that indicate to them that god is real is a reason for investigation. NOT proof. There is no such indications for IPUs.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Slow down, guys...

What bible you read? Who did Jacob wrestle with?
And what part of invisible don't you get?

Read the bible and try again.

Why the hostility? It's not like I'm attacking anything, I'm just pointing out that trying to compare a hypothetical material, magical animal with a hypothetical spiritual being is like comparing apples and clouds. Sorry if it bugs you that I'm pointing out a flaw in the argument.

In Genesis chapter thirty-two Moses writes:
"That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, 'Let me go, for it is daybreak.' But Jacob replied, 'I will not let you go unless you bless me.' The man asked him, 'What is your name?' 'Jacob,' he answered. Then the man said, 'Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.' Jacob said, 'Please tell me your name.' But he replied, 'Why do you ask my name?' Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, 'It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.' The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob's hip was touched near the tendon."

First off, it's Moses relating an anecdote - so it's second-hand info, even for the bible. Secondly, the man never said "I am God", he said "...you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

The entire passage is open to multiple interpretations, and can (and is often read) as the 'man' being an angel or other representative of God. If you really want to get squirrely about it, the "man" could have been referring to himself with the comment about "with God and with men" - but as a man, not as God. It's Jacob (a known scoundrel) that chooses to cite the man he encountered and beat was actually God Himself. (Personally, I think he slipped, hurt his hip, and made up the whole story to bolster his standing with everyone else. Always assuming, of course, that Moses didn't make up the story about Jacob to make a point.)

Now, if the man had claimed to be God in front of other witnesses... but we only have Jacob's word for it. Well, actually, we only have Mose's word that Jacob said it.

Regarding invisiblity - there's a difference between invisibility and not being physically present. If I stand next to you and you can't see me, I'm invisible. If I watch you on a camera over a closed-circuit TV - and if I have a mike and there's also a speaker in your room - I'm not invisible, but I can see you and interact with you. If I walk into the room, then I manifest myself in your presence, etc.

In the case of God, he'd be interacting with you from outside of our reality. He's not invisible - He's simply not there in the room with you, although he can observe and interact - and even enter the room - if He so chooses.

Does that help make my point a bit more clear?

 

[Wudang]

Sorry about the tone, I took your tone as patronising. Let's start again shall we?

9 Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. 11 But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank (Exodus 24:9-11).

17 So the LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing that you have spoken; for you have found grace in My sight, and I know you by name.” 18 And he said, “Please, show me Your glory.” 19 Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” 21 And the LORD said, “Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. 22 “So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. 23 “Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:17-23)

I accept by the way that it's not a good analogy for your personal concept of God (if I can put it that way).

However I'm not sure that we ever claimed that the IPU was material or an animal. Is the IPU not also a spiritual being?
And it was you who raised the issue of visibility.
Actually one of the uses of the IPU in discussion is that you can pretty much play fast and loose with its attributes as some theists do with the attributes of their deity.

Btw - I am at home with a stinking cold so if my tone seems hostile again please excuse me.

 

[jmercer]

Sorry about the tone, I took your tone as patronising. Let's start again shall we?

9 Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. 11 But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank (Exodus 24:9-11).

17 So the LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing that you have spoken; for you have found grace in My sight, and I know you by name.” 18 And he said, “Please, show me Your glory.” 19 Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” 21 And the LORD said, “Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. 22 “So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. 23 “Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.” (Exodus 33:17-23)

I accept by the way that it's not a good analogy for your personal concept of God (if I can put it that way).

However I'm not sure that we ever claimed that the IPU was material or an animal. Is the IPU not also a spiritual being?
And it was you who raised the issue of visibility.
Actually one of the uses of the IPU in discussion is that you can pretty much play fast and loose with its attributes as some theists do with the attributes of their deity.

Btw - I am at home with a stinking cold so if my tone seems hostile again please excuse me.

No problem, it's hard to put tone into writing, although the smilies help.

Good exerpts... damn, I don't remember those at all. Then again, it's been years since I really went over the Old Testament. Is this the King James version? Some of them have excised some text, wish I knew which... but the etymology of bibles isn't something I've spent all that much time on. Interesting passages...

(By the way, do you happen to know of any quotes where God claims omnipotence? I'm trying to separate supposed claims by God and stuff written by the godly. )

Your point about the IPU being spiritual helps put this in better prespective, and now I understand the validity of the example - thanks. Hmm... I have to think about this some more, now. I'm thinking that there's a voluntary interaction (or non-interaction) element that would be very helpful to get rid of. The ability to say the IPU simply doesn't want anything to do with us unfortunately answers a lot of objections.

Could be I'm chasing my tail on this one, but I'll put some thought into it.

(Feel better, btw.)

 

[Wudang]

The quotes are from http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=14&qa_id=293 if it helps. Good old Google.

 

[jmercer]

Thanks for the link. I use a metasearch engine for my stuff - I usually get most of what I want with that. I do have to google more often, though.

So, I was thinking about this. How about if the problem is attacked from a different approach? The problem with the IPU (and God) is that they have control over their actions. The IPU can choose to manifest itself or not. And since it's a spiritual being, the flour on the floor challenge doesn't work, etc... We also don't have issues with food, water, excretion, and so forth. It's a spirit equine, after all.

However... the IPU has to exist somewhere when it's not materializing in our world. So.... Where is it when it's not here? If it exists in our reality, then it must be detectable by some means. And if it doesn't exist in our reality, there are a host of arguments that can be raised about it's existence, how it interacts with our world, etc.

Think there's any value to that approach?

 

[T'ai Chi]

A: Show me this fire-breathing dragon in your garage.

B: Oh, I forgot to tell you: The dragon is invisible.

A: Let's spread flour on the floor to capture the footprints.

B: This dragon floats in the air.

A: Let's use an infrared sensor to detect it.

B: The invisible fire is heatless.

A: Let's spray-paint the dragon.

B: The dragon is incorporal. The paint won't stick.
And so on. The point is that every test is met with a special explanation why the test won't work.

Sounds like your EXACT response method to people's solutions to your Billy and Joe and water scenario... Rubbish.

 

[Bruce]

I keep mine in my pants. Try doing that with YOUR god.

 

[H3LL]

Does anyone know what the IPU logo is meant to represent.

To me it is just random stokes and shows nothing; but I fail Rorschach tests.

They claim:

As a product, the Invisible Pink Unicorn logo is an informed and subtle symbol for Atheists and Atheism. Its intended for active Atheists or otherwise informed people to recognize each other. It has been specifically designed not to directly offend people that has theistic beliefs.

Erm! Agreed? As it is hard to see it as anything how can it be otherwise. I guess a logo showing blowing up a bible would be a bit obvious.

So, for graphically-challenged people like me that are not informed and can't see subtle, does it represent something or is it just random strokes that atheists should identify with because we're told to?

If so, that's OK by me and I'll use it. At least the Xian symbol is recognisable as a fish...sort of....

Here it is:

<center>

</center>

I see exploding thong...Must get help.