The Invisible Pink Unicorn (serious analysis please)

Post Reply New Topic

This, as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is an argument used by atheists to make their case against Theism, and even, Agnosticism. The issue is that, as those were initially mockery, I personally, doubt very much that could sustain a logical value regarding metaphysical arguments, and more like a fallacy when used, but I'd like other opinions about it.

I'd like to read some views from the more intellectual posters here, about their views on the the issue, being as impartial as possible would be appreciated, and argue wether that approach is logically inconsistent or not, and if so, why would that be problematic, in a more critical and perhaps academic-type level, if you will.

Well the point of the argument is to say there are tons of things that you cannot prove or disprove yet we immediately dismiss as ridiculous. Is it a good argument? Well to someone who thinks the fact that you cannot technically disprove God, therefore that increases God's chance of existence, absolutely.

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 24 Jan 2009, 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The usual theist response is that the god they talk about has special properties that make it different from these imaginary beings like omnipotence, omniscience, infallibility, timelessness, etc. That these highly abstract concepts best fit the modern Judeo-Christian conception of "God" but rather poorly fit the idea of a god in a polytheistic sense casts doubt on this theist rebuttal to me. I really find it odd that most discussions on theism vs. atheism center around a very specific, culturally bound conceptionalization. These Christian theists would no doubt claim that pagan gods are false idols and do have more in common with the pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster than their one true god. Myself, I think it's all religio-cultural arrogance.

I was raised Episcopalian. Always saw paradoxes and contradictions but always talked myself out of asking the big questions out loud, I suppose out of fear of alienating myself from family and society (just what an Aspie needs - more alienation). Even became a Lay Minister to try and force my square self into the round hole of Christianity.

What ultimately did me in was "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." In other words; what kind of a Christian (or for that matter, moral human being with an ounce of integrity) am I if I don't follow that creed: "Scrutinize my own beliefs as closely as I would scrutinize someone else's?"

So I did. "Why Christianity and not, say, the Greek Pantheon? The Hindu gods? Aztec gods? Why any god at all?" Applying that golden rule of Christianity, it would seem no one religion had any more or less claim to authenticity than another, and none offered any proof of a divine being other than "Because I say so." Or reading between the lines, "Because I'm unwilling/afraid/unable to accept the idea that things evolve without creator-involvement. Because I'm unwilling/afraid to accept the answer of we-don't-know."

Satirical concepts such as The Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Invisible Pink Unicorn offer, for me, a far more entertaining analogy through which to illustrate these points than simply trying to point out logical concepts to people. I've found that yes-it-is-no-it-isn't exchanges with people are often pointless. I can tell you all day long that your machine won't fly and you can tell me all day long, "yes it will," and so on through infinity. However, if I ask people, "Ok, please turn your machine on and fly it." That's where they get flustered and at the very least concede to stop arguing.

Likewise, I can say, "Ok, prove that God is your God and not an Invisible Pink Unicorn." It either stops the argument quickly, or else it's a whole lot of fun to watch them attempt to come up with an 'evidence' that doesn't work both ways.

By the way, I especially like that the IPU is in an of itself a contradiction; both invisible and yet with color. Brilliant!


- Jo

It is not a bad criticism of notions such as inconsistencies in the nature of a deity, so I do not see it as terrible.... well, except that it is already a meme. If you want to criticize an idea, come up with new ways, criticize your own way!

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.

It can't be pink and invisible to me.

Maybe he has synaestesia and sees gravity as being red?

The people who have the ability to see colors as a form of synaestesia may not be able to prove to us that they actually see any thing other than how we see it. In fact, many animals perceive the world differently and who's to say who sees reality as it really is. Atheists compare their opinions on God to see if it can be proven through the human senses.

What I don't understand is that if all these people are having delusions of life altering experiences with God, then why aren't we studying these mass hallucinations that have been occuring world wide for ages? It deserves serious scientific inquiry.

At termination, the argument has some merit. God can't be found by logic alone, as logic merely is the rules of propositions so as to determine whether an argument is strong or not, which depends on the truth of the premises. "How can you know?" is not a strong argument and not one I think I have ever used, but the FSM and all that spiel seem to attack such an argument...

I think that for the existence of God to be known, that He would have to reveal Himself. How? Is He going to visit six billion people's residences bodily? No. Rather, He reveals Himself through written history and archaeology.

Now, the next, and often mimicked rapport of the atheist is that, in essence anyway, written history cannot be trusted -- especially if it lends credence to prophecies being fulfilled. Also, there are games of categorization and definition which are employed to label texts, such as the Bible, to an effect similar on other atheists as the Index was to Catholics at one time. Though bearing no punishment, other than, perhaps, humiliation for reading such-and-such type of material, this labeling of "sacred history" (and other euphemisms for "not worth my time") serves to prevent the reading of such texts.

But back to the main part, though FSM and IPU are, seemingly to me at least, going after an unsaid argument - or at least unsaid by the opponents - , they're right to say that the non-ability to dis-prove something is not a good way to prove something...

But there are more options out there:

Ability to prove something is a good way to prove something.
Ability to dis-prove something is not a good way to prove something.
Non-ability to prove something is not a good way to prove something.
Non-ability to dis-prove something is not a good way to prove something.

More than the above actual, since there are three negatives that can be switched, but anyway: why would attacking the non-argument of,

Non-ability to dis-prove something is a good way to prove something

with,

non-ability to dis-prove something is not a good way to prove something

be anything more than a verbal negation? And a negation of what I think is a strawman at that.

The issue it raises is one of probability, just because you cannot prove nor disprove something does not mean that this is probable. In the case of the FSM we all know that its existence cannot be proven either way but we all agree that its existence is highly improbable. The same can be said for god or gods, whilst we cannot and will never be able to prove its non existence, this however does put the probability of god at 50%. Going by the evidence gods have the same probability as the FSM

We do not need the FSM as an example, arguably the oldest surviving culture on earth, the Aboriginals of Australia have the Rainbow Serpent as the creator, no one really takes this seriously any more even though the hypothsesis is some 40'000 years old, the Rainbow Serpent has as much evidence as gods so why do we still take gods seriously.

The Aboriginals also have flood legends, as do some native American tribes...

Your point is?

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.

The point in that observation is that elements of religious belief that are universal across several diverse cultures are likely to have some sort of common basis, and this lends credence to the idea that they are actually true (though it implies that at least several of these religions have lost and/or corrupted the original revelation).