Invisible Pink Unicorn?

[H3LL]

Finally got it....Duh!

Have pity on the graphically challenged.

Any comments about the time difference between my two posts will be ignored...Probably

 

[CFLarsen]

Finally got it....Duh!

Have pity on the graphically challenged.

No, it's not a case of being graphically challenged. It is a poorly designed logo, because it wants to convey an iconified image but fails to do so.

You could call it "over-iconified".

 

[Wudang]

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?

Again though I think you're left with the same monist/dualist arguments that apply to any deity. If you take a materialist monist viewpoint then neither exist obviously. An idealist monist and everything's all spirit anyway. A dualist viewpoint and you get into the whole "where is the point of contact between the extended and unextended" that gave Cartesian dualism so many headaches all of which apply to any deity..
Here is the secret doctrine of the IPU as I see it

"So does the IPU".

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I personally prefer Bertrand Russell's china teapot.

 

[Beth]

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?)

There are intelligent, rational humans who believe in god, who talk to him with prayer and feel that he responds to their prayers. I don't think you'll be able to produce any intelligent rational humans who believe in IPU's, talk to them, and believe that IPU's hear them, understand them and respond.

Not necessarily a convincing argument for the existance of anything, but if you accept other people's experiences as valid and providing evidence, God beats IPU's on that measure.

 

[gnome]

I especially like the IPU because it's reported to be both invisible and pink.

To me that compares to the idea that god is this unknowable mystery--and yet people keep trying to tell you about it, as if they know.

It brings up the important argument: if the unicorn is invisible, how does anyone know that it's pink? How can it be said to be pink in any way?

Similar arguments can be made about much theology.

 

[Beleth]

what arguements can be used against the existance of the invisible pink unicorn while also claiming the existance of God(s)?

What do you mean when you use the word "God"?

Each of the words "invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" has a pretty narrow meaning, whereas the word "God" has quite a few different meanings.

Are you talking about a Creator God? An "infinite" God? An "omnipotent" / "omniscient" / "omnibenevolent" God? A being that sits on Mount Olympus, throws down lightning at the earth, and boinks just about everything he sees? Or are you talking about something else?

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

What do you mean when you use the word "God"?

Each of the words "invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" has a pretty narrow meaning, whereas the word "God" has quite a few different meanings.

Are you talking about a Creator God? An "infinite" God? An "omnipotent" / "omniscient" / "omnibenevolent" God? A being that sits on Mount Olympus, throws down lightning at the earth, and boinks just about everything he sees? Or are you talking about something else?

That's always a tricky one... some people, if you admit you don't know everything about the universe, package up everything you don't know and call it "God", then later say you acknowledged Jehovah.

 

[arthwollipot]

Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

A being that sits on Mount Olympus, throws down lightning at the earth, and boinks just about everything he sees?

For some reason that sentence made me laugh loudly.

 

[Odin]

Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

What do you mean when you use the word "God"?

Each of the words "invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" has a pretty narrow meaning, whereas the word "God" has quite a few different meanings.

Are you talking about a Creator God? An "infinite" God? An "omnipotent" / "omniscient" / "omnibenevolent" God? A being that sits on Mount Olympus, throws down lightning at the earth, and boinks just about everything he sees? Or are you talking about something else?

Any God(s) the more omni- the better. I wanted to know how valid this argument was and if it had any problems.

 

[Wudang]

Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

There are intelligent, rational humans who believe in god, who talk to him with prayer and feel that he responds to their prayers. I don't think you'll be able to produce any intelligent rational humans who believe in IPU's, talk to them, and believe that IPU's hear them, understand them and respond.

Not necessarily a convincing argument for the existance of anything, but if you accept other people's experiences as valid and providing evidence, God beats IPU's on that measure.

Not really, because they only think they're talking to god and are actually talking to the IPU.

 

[alfaniner]

Does the IPU have an IP address?


[SIZE=-2]Sorry...[/SIZE]

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Any God(s) the more omni- the better. I wanted to know how valid this argument was and if it had any problems.

Okay then. Here it is, very high level.

There are at least three reasons to believe something exists:
1) You have sensed it firsthand.
2) Someone else has told you about it.
3) You can't imagine it not existing.
(There may be more that aren't springing to mind at the moment.)

I believe my computer exists because I can see it from where I'm sitting. I believe Sri Lanka exists, not because I've been there, but because people have told me it exists and have shown me pictures of a place they say is Sri Lanka. I believe I have kidneys not because I've seen them or because people have shown me pictures of them, but because I believe that other people have them and that kidneys are necessary for human life.

For one reason or another, people believe that God exists. Some believe that they have personally sensed God. Some believe because they have been told (via the Bible or another oral tradition) that He exists. Some believe because they can't imagine Him not existing.

However, no one believes that IPUs exist for any of those reasons. No one has seen one; no one has been told that they exist; everyone can imagine existence without them.

At the "any god" level of discussion, God and IPUs are different because there are reasons to believe God exists and there are no reasons to believe IPUs exist. Whether those reasons are valid can't be done at this level; you need to better define "God" before we can go into specific reasons and examine their validity.

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

For one reason or another, people believe that God exists. Some believe that they have personally sensed God. Some believe because they have been told (via the Bible or another oral tradition) that He exists. Some believe because they can't imagine Him not existing.

However, no one believes that IPUs exist for any of those reasons. No one has seen one; no one has been told that they exist; everyone can imagine existence without them.

At the "any god" level of discussion, God and IPUs are different because there are reasons to believe God exists and there are no reasons to believe IPUs exist. Whether those reasons are valid can't be done at this level; you need to better define "God" before we can go into specific reasons and examine their validity.

I don't think you can establish a difference without leaning on an argument from popularity. The reasons must be examined for you to make a distinction. Thus... is there any REASON that does not apply to both?

In fact, I'll give you ONE at this point: Lots of other people believe. Are there any more?

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

I don't think you can establish a difference without leaning on an argument from popularity. The reasons must be examined for you to make a distinction. Thus... is there any REASON that does not apply to both?

There's nothing wrong with an argument from popularity, depending upon the question. For many questions, it's the only kind of answer that can be provided.

For example, "does pizza taste better than bicycle chains?" If, for whatever reason, I've never tasted either one, I can't answer that question myself. But I can look at how many pizza restaurants there are in the city, and how many bicycle chain restaurants there are, and I have a meaningful and rational answer.

I can also use a modified argument from popularity and ask one person whose taste in food I trust. Often we call these restaurant reviews.

The problem with the IPU is that there is no one on earth who seriously believes in the IPU, who honestly claims to have have had personal experience with the IPU, or who genuinely attempts to live her life according to the IPU's dicta. Throwing out any popularity-based information has an uncomfortably high baby-to-bathwater ratio.

 

[Wudang]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

The problem with the IPU is that there is no one on earth who seriously believes in the IPU, who honestly claims to have have had personal experience with the IPU, or who genuinely attempts to live her life according to the IPU's dicta. Throwing out any popularity-based information has an uncomfortably high baby-to-bathwater ratio.

How many people talk about centripetal force and how many about centrifugal force? The IPU is centripetal to god's cetrifugal.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

How many people talk about centripetal force and how many about centrifugal force? The IPU is centripetal to god's cetrifugal.

You know, if this were relevant, or even coherent, it would be,... well, relevant or coherent.

Was this supposed to illustrate anything other than the absence of a spelling checker on the JREF?

 

[Wudang]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Invisible Pink Unicorn?

You know, if this were relevant, or even coherent, it would be,... well, relevant or coherent.

Was this supposed to illustrate anything other than the absence of a spelling checker on the JREF?

On my IPU, I mispled centrifugal.

Okay - I'll spell it out. And type slowly.

People talk about centrifugal force because that is what they think they experience.
There is no such thing as centrifugal force, only centripetal force.
So if there is one thing that people tend to talk about (i.e centrifugal force) even though it doesn't exist, but the idea seems to fit better to what we think we actually experience then perhaps even though people think they experience god they are actually experiencing something else?
Any clearer?

 

[Z]

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.

Ah, but I have my own apologetic there - The unicorn is pink by virtue of the fact that its fur reflects the pink wavelengths of light; however, it is invisible by virtue of its mystical properties which causes your brain to fail to observe it or acknowledge it. Thus, pink AND invisible.

 

[Wudang]

Ah, but I have my own apologetic there - The unicorn is pink by virtue of the fact that its fur reflects the pink wavelengths of light; however, it is invisible by virtue of its mystical properties which causes your brain to fail to observe it or acknowledge it. Thus, pink AND invisible.

No we're talking about the invisible pink unicorn, not its cousin the invisible pink fnord unicorn.