The Invisible Pink Unicorn (serious analysis please)

Page 5 of 6 [ 86 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Jan 2009, 2:08 pm

Magnus wrote:

"Center of the universe" is a figure of speech Einstein.

Sand, you are impossible to talk to. How are more intelligent life forms supposed to contact you if I can't even talk to you? Go stick your cell phone up your ass like it's an alien probe. Maybe you'll get beamed up and see the light.

Well, it seems I have aroused you in some manner or other. Unfortunately I am straight and not into libidinous anal entertainments even with a cell phone with extraordinary ring tones but if that's a subtle hint as to how you make contact with extra terrestrial intelligences I imagine you must have right passionate conversations. I'm not sure I could stand anything that ecstatic. But, as we both know, male and female entertainments differ markedly and a sexual tentacle might be rather tempting to someone with the proper intellectual mindset.

Evidently you have no number to pass along with either intelligence or hoarse extra-terrestrial breathing. Too bad.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

24 Jan 2009, 2:09 pm

That's a good analogy. Another one is opening our Wisdom Eye or Third Eye. Expanding the consciousness.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Jan 2009, 2:17 pm

slowmutant wrote:

That's a good analogy. Another one is opening our Wisdom Eye or Third Eye. Expanding the consciousness.

Arachnids and grasshoppers have many more eyes than humans. I wonder if that has any significance as to their consciousnesses.

z0rp
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 747
Location: New York, USA

24 Jan 2009, 2:26 pm

Magnus wrote:

@Zorp,

I think we need to change our consciousness in order to make some sort of contact with God.

And God would make us go through all that trouble just to know he's there? And what type of contact is this? A white light, which in reality doesn't even mildly relate to God, though many tend to just say that because it comforts them.

Magnus wrote:

Humans are not the center of the universe and we are not the most interelligent forms of life in the universe.

And how is it possible to know that? While I don't think we're the only intelligent life forms in the universe I don't actually know it. There's a large chance we'll never see other life in the Universe, let alone intelligent life. (Not saying it doesn't exist as it probably does)

Magnus wrote:

We can change our consciousness through meditation, near death experiences, and psychedelics. That's all I can suggest right now.

All are human invented techniques except of course for near death experiences. Which the reaction for is human. I honestly do not see at all how meditation (having tried it several times) or psychedelics offer anything divine. Perhaps it could feel divine in a sense, but just because you 'think' you've contacted God, does that mean you have? Same goes for near death experiences.

_________________
Ignorance is surely not bliss, because if you are ignorant, you will ignore the bliss around you.

Letum
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

24 Jan 2009, 4:08 pm

Averick wrote:

Letum wrote:

Averick wrote:

This is a serious dissection of Invisible, Pink Unicorns.

If a Unicorn is Invisible, how can it be Pink?

The same way that gravity is red.

If it became visible, it would be pink.
As it is, the pinkness is masked by the invisibility.

Gravity's not red.

Yes it is.
From a physics book:

Quote:

"Like all liquids, electricity is blue. You can't see it in wires because it is
always right in the middle. Lightbulbs work by changing the colour of
electricity.

Like all poisons, radiation is green. It is easy to avoid as it makes a loud
clicking sound. If you can get lots of radiation to make one loud click at the
same time a nuclear explosion happens.

Magnetism is red, as are all magnets. Magnets lead to the north pole because
that is where they are from. They always return there to die. Round magnets
are called "mognets".

Gravity is invisible, but if it wasn't it would also be red. There is no gravity on the
moon. If there was gravity on the moon it would be coved in apples. Gravity
has an extremely powerful effect on apples, but no effect on aeroplanes.
It is impossible to carry apples in aeroplanes. They just won't take off."

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

24 Jan 2009, 4:28 pm

Letum wrote:

That has to be a quote from a Texas science school book?

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

24 Jan 2009, 6:20 pm

Invisible Pink Unicorns do exist.

Take 1 rhinoceros (the origin of the legend of the unicorn - they look kind of like fat horses, and they do have a horn), then dump a bucket of pink paint on it. You now have a pink unicorn. Take your pink unicorn and place it behind a wall, so you can't see it. "Invisible" means not visible, so you have now turned your pink unicorn into an invisible pink unicorn.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

z0rp
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 747
Location: New York, USA

24 Jan 2009, 6:43 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

Can this method be used to create an invisible pink rhinoceros as well?

_________________
Ignorance is surely not bliss, because if you are ignorant, you will ignore the bliss around you.

DNForrest
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,198
Location: Oregon

24 Jan 2009, 7:45 pm

slowmutant wrote:

DNForrest wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

Quote:

Just as a person of science would default the "First cause" to be something that's defined by science

As defined by science, what is the First Cause?"

There are many theories to this, the most prominent generally involving the Big Bang, where interdimensional fiddlings spew out the bastard child that is our universe. My apologies for not being more specific, I fell out of my Astrophysics studies when I started my degree in Chemical Engineering and decided I wanted to have somewhat of a social life as well (damn me).

Since you seemed to fail to see the point of my posts, let me ask you this: How exactly did God make the universe?

He spoke it into existence.

So if that's a satisfactory explanation of how God made the universe to you, then a scientist saying "The Big Bang exploded it into existence" should be, too.

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded."
- Terry Pratchett.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

24 Jan 2009, 7:51 pm

z0rp wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

Can this method be used to create an invisible pink rhinoceros as well?

Of course, if you are willing to deceive yourself that a rhino is a horse and putting it behind a wall makes it invisible it is easier to work with more easily available materials. Many pigs are already pink and upending a strawberry flavored ice cream cone on a pig's nose makes the pink unicorn and by closing your eyes it becomes invisible. Easier yet, ifyou close both your eyes and your mind you can not imagine a pink unicorn making it both invisible and inconceivable. This works with God as well and is most satisfactory.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

25 Jan 2009, 4:30 pm

DNForrest wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

He spoke it into existence.

Sure. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know. A lot of people see a fair amount of resemblance to the big bang in "let there be light -- and there was light". (And, yes, I know about how it was opaque for the first 100 million years or so, so it wasn't literally bright right away.)

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

25 Jan 2009, 4:34 pm

z0rp wrote:

Can this method be used to create an invisible pink rhinoceros as well?

Yes.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work to make other paradoxes, like a square circle, or an immovable object being pushed around by an unstoppable force...

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

29 Jan 2009, 4:58 am

Oxhorn rules!

_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.

Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

30 Jan 2009, 3:16 am

http://www.wegame.com/watch/The_Invisible_Pink_Unicorn/

_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.

BookReader
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 2 Feb 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 31
Location: England

05 Feb 2009, 1:35 pm

I would say that the IPU and FSM would more support agnosticism than atheism. You can't prove they exist, but you can't disprove that they exist either as they are supernatural concepts. The same applies to God or any other gods. The atheist point of view basically seems to me to say, 'It's impossible to prove that God exists, so God definitely doesn't exist.'

_________________
~Always reading books.~

Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

05 Feb 2009, 7:24 pm

Orwell wrote:

DentArthurDent, you have previously asked for evidence of a God and I have described the cosmological argument to you, which maintains that a supernatural force is logically necessary for the natural world to exist. If I recall, that argument was rejected on the grounds of "I dunno" which, to me, is basically the atheist equivalent to "Goddidit." Instead of saying "Goddidit," atheists say "I don't have a better answer than you do, but your answer doesn't fit into a strictly materialist worldview and so I'm just going to say 'dunno' to avoid having to come up with an effective rebuttal."

The cosmological argument, among other things, provides evidence that there was some supernatural force involved in the creation of the Universe. The questions which then remain to be settled are whether it was one entity or many, whether or not it is a personal God, and what the nature of that God is. Is it the invisible pink unicorn? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The Judeo-Christian God? Allah? Ahuramazda? This is comparative theology, and gets messier than simply the debate over whether a God exists. They should be regarded as separate debates.

Well if a supernatural force created the universe, then what created the supernatural force? Was it always there? If so, then why couldn't it be that the universe was just always here?

Page 5 of 6 [ 86 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (serious analysis please) Post Reply New Topic

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (serious analysis please)