The Invisible Pink Unicorn (serious analysis please)

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, it is just speculation as is also point number 1.
An obvious exception to point 3 would be closed loops which could also be considered infinite. There are rather strange things at the quantum level where cause and effect do not behave as common sense would have us believe. I seem to remember there are even some effects which precede the cause.

Human common sense goes out of the window when looking at the real word at anything other than everyday human scales of time, distances and velocities. This is the realm where science is fascinating and physics and mathematics are the only languages. The logic of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers is totally out of its depth in these matters.

I don't know that it's appropriate to say particles created by vacuum fluctuation are causeless per se.

There is a good deal of theory as yet unsubstantiated that this is not the only universe and all sorts of effects may have causes outside our perceived universe. To come up with tha ancient and primitive idea that anything we do not know is therefore absolutely the province of a god is rather naive, to say the least.

When anything would effect our perceived universe than it would be in our perception and therefore part of our perceived universe, even if we would not know the exact mechanism behind this perception.

well, I suppose that would be a fallacy, but, in what circumstances that would be a fallacy and in what it wouldn't, if that's possible, and which? also, I think an atheist could disprove a belief to some degree, at least providing some evidence pointing out affirmations that contradict a belief system, but not exactly about the existence of a deity, but enough to question the belief of the nature of such deity, at least.


Yes, that answer would not be satisfying for them, mostly the argument would be that emotional experiences are unreliable, however, I believe that as human beings we cannot escape from being influenced by emotional responses and experiences, when it comes to our perceptions of our environment and reality, no one is completely that logical and that rational without falling into some of that, wether it is about religion, philosophy or any ideology to follow, and stating otherwise would be like deceiving ourselves.

He's God. Why doesn't he just send a message to us through our minds? Or do something else to make it truly obvious he exists. Really, if God exists he doesn't want us to know he does.


Well for one I certainly do not trust the Bible as a source of history, not denying that some of the stories, notably those taken from other previous religions or cultures might actually offer some historical truth. Just not that of which is literately written, but in general as I'm sure you'd agree (Or not) most of the bible is intended to be taken symbolically anyway.


Yes, that's precisely what it's saying.


Yes.. And you cannot prove or disprove God or The Flying Spaghetti monster. Which is what the argument is about, you lack the ability to prove or disprove their existences. However, based on that alone it's foolish to believe in them based on the fact that it's out of our range to know or not. I'm assuming you do not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is it in your ability to know whether it exists or not? Are you going to remain Agnostic to whether it exists or not? Of course not. After reading the bible many Atheists tend to associate the incredibly petty human-like God to the levels of ridiculous of perhaps The Flying Spaghetti Monster.


It's not a strawman because they're attacking those who think the inability to disprove something is a good argument. They're not straying off to anything else. The point of the argument though is to show that the inability to disprove something is not a good way to prove or perhaps add validity to whatever it is.

well, the problem I see with this is that the term "ridiculous" is subjective, and sometimes very subjective, and it varies according to different points of view, and therefore I assume that the validity would not be substantial and I find it reasonable to take them as questionable approach, and if FSM and IPU are mockery for something perceived as "ridiculous" then there lies one of the problems.

Another problem I see with them is that they were orginally a reaction to Intelligent Design, right? I see those concepts problematic in this sense as well, because the issue of Evolution vs ID seems to be somehow irrelevant when it comes to the existence of God, and stating that Evolution denies God, I find that assertion to be flawed. From the original use of those terms I mean, however, for the sake of I.D. to be against being considered as Science, and the issue about this seeming to be against the notion of separation of religion and state, I can understand that.


well, here lies another question, can the Invisible Pink Unicorn be used to make a case against the existence of aliens as well? if not, then what is the difference? I mean, one opposition group could create a similar alegory to make a case against it or for mockery, wether is a Unicorn or another creature, so why not use this against the belief in aliens and even UFOs as well?

well, I tend to think that the terms don't seem to hold much value when analyzing the question about the existence, the concept and the nature of God under metaphysical, epistemological and theological grounds, in fact, they don't seem to hold any value at all, because they don't seem to provide much substance in a philosophical level, at least that is what I get from a roughly view on the issue, but as I am not certain, I ask, and I ask if these can be actually considered valid axioms.

I think that this is actually valid for at least critically examining a trinitarian concept of God, as most understandings of the trinity do not involve logic, and some defenses of God require a statement of his ability to be above logic. This mockery is just a mockery, but the problem it is mocking is validly a problem. It is not as if they are analytically powerful, but creative at pointing something out, and sometimes creativity is more important than analysis.

The combined axioms, can be argued as theoretically possible, if we are given an ability to ignore logic, but usually logic is more important than theoretic possibility.

I believe that could be considered non sequitur, I mean, the reasons why many cultures could share similarities in their religious belief, have to be a lot more substantial than the reason your provided, unless it was a joke.

Here's basically what the cosmological argument says:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Common rebuttal for this: Under current human knowledge, the assertion that the universe began to exist is a baseless and emergent claim. There is no evidence that all of objective existence is temporal, and plenty of evidence to suggest that the temporal properties of the observable universe are not universal.

Put in simpler terms, time is not a constant. Advocates of this argument would argue the problem of an infinite regression, but again, this does not suffice. Running into a logical roadblock is to be expected when trying to rationalize an emergent claim. Human logic is intrinsically sequential, and thus, comprehending non-sequential properties is either currently or absolutely impossible.

Example, in music theory, there are an infinite number of notes or frequencies, though only so many of them are discernible to the human ear, and thus only so many notes are pragmatically applicable in music. There is only one scale or series of notes in music. It is then broken down into smaller keys, scales, and modes, for the sake of practicality, to be applied to the discipline of song construction. The cosmological argument essentially argues as follows: "It is impossible for there to be an infinite scale of notes, simply because a human being can only discern a certain amount of them." This is a deification of human perspective. This is naive.

And if you are to back into an emergent crutch, such as, "God's ways are beyond the comprehension of Man, because He's God," you are now contradicting yourself. Science currently knows no empirical limit to size or scale, though there are limits to human perception and size and scale. Claiming that perceived limits implies absolute limits is oxymoronic.


How about we use Zeus then? That's not mockery now is it? Zeus was once believed to be real by thousands, if not millions.


Actually, The Flying Spaghetti monster originally came about when a school district in the United States was going to teach Intelligent Design in schools. That's when this guy (I forget his name so let's just call him that) wrote a letter to the school district demanding they also teach about The Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation myth since it offers equivalent evidence and scientific value.


Well it depends on the case against aliens. We were able to come about on this planet, which is arguably a sign that maybe it's possible for the same to happen on the billions of other planets in our universe. Does that really seem that unlikely? But if you say aliens exist on Pluto, which it's fairly clear is unlikely, however it may be possible you may be able to compare it to that of The Invisible Pink Unicorn or God.

Total energy equals the sum of the components. There has been estimated that there are 10^80 atoms in the universe. That would be about 10^80/10^23= 10^57 moles. Pretending they were all hydrogen, which is about 1 amu, then you'd have about 10^57 grams or 10^54 kilograms. E=mc^2, so TE (neglecting the flucuations that contribute practically nothing to this) equals (10^54 kilograms)*(3.0*10^8 m/sec)^2 = 9*10^70 (kg*m^2)/(sec^2) or Joules.

For these wave fluctuations to be comparable to the mass/TE of the universe,
there would have to be a negative-mass to cancel it or something to that effect.

Not really: The same kind of brains were confronted with the same kind of similar and unexplainable phenomena; so the result must be quite the same - therefore a;; religions have something in common.

If put the similar grab into similar analytical machines you must have similar output.

If you analyze things based on what humans can understand then all you are left with is what we can perceive through the senses. Do you see how absurd it is to try to prove the existence of a creator by our animal faculties?

Then how is it that you can believe in the creator if there is no way in which you can find the answer through the senses or other sources other than fellow humans telling it exists? Or is this another case of 'personal experience' or something to that effect?

But that doesn't really explain the cause with accuracy, the statement is very reduced to a point that it becomes very questionable and problematic, you are reducing this to merely biology, ignoring other factors that may play the must part to the cause of a given phenoema, such as social, cultural, political, environmental and historical factors.

I mean, biological factors can be the basis for anything, but such correlation seems a big stretch as the same argument could be related to anything, and that demands for corroboration from other factors to provide validity and credibility.

Last edited by greenblue on 23 Jan 2009, 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.