What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 07:17 AM)pablo Wrote:  I don't get a free ride, but you get to make wild assertions without any specific details? Seems about right.Define existence. Leave out all the if's and maybe's.

More empty content emotion posting. No detailed rebuttal of any specific points. More lazy reply button slapping, posing as reason. More thread clogging nothingness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 07:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In other words, you don't get to circumvent the null hypothesis by fiat.

More trying to play the self satisfying role of The Great Debunker, without doing any actual work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 07:53 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2014 09:37 AM by DLJ.)
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 07:47 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(23-12-2014 07:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There is a distinct difference between 'possible' and 'plausible'. I suggest you look up their definitions, as you clearly don't know the difference between the two. Drinking Beverage

More empty content emotion posting. No detailed thoughtful intelligent rebuttal of any of my specific points. Typing the fewest possible words needed to get the "I am superior" ego buzz.

Is this all you guys got?

I think you might like to consider the idea that most of us have been over this kinda thing countless times and it gets boring.

Drinking Beverage

Mathilda pointed out the equivocation already. Is there any reason why you didn't address that?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
23-12-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
I called you on this bullshit argument several pages ago.
It's a typical trick believers use to try to prove god exists, by trying to get us to argue your side for you.
It's sneaky and dishonest.
Is that all you got?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 08:05 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 07:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I think you might like to consider the idea that most of us have been over this kinda thing countless times and it gets boring.

Ok, fair enough, surely no one is obligated to be interested in any of this. So you could perhaps explain why you clicked in to this thread and repeatedly participated, given how boring it is and all?

Could you please link us to all the other many threads you've read which offered evidence of the IPU's actual existence in the real world? I'd like to read them, they might help me raise my game here.

Quote:Matilda pointed out the equivocation already. Is there any reason why you didn't address that?

Ok, please elaborate on what you mean by equivocation. What I see is that ideas have material substance, and thus can be said to exist in the normal usage of that word.

What do you see?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 07:54 AM)pablo Wrote:  I called you on this bullshit argument several pages ago.

Ok, I've made my point about empty emotion posting, and from here out will make a good faith effort to ignore such nothingness.

If you wish to receive further replies from here, please explain exactly and specifically and in some thoughtful rational detail why some particular point is a bullshit argument.

Otherwise, see ya around, have a good time!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 08:21 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 08:08 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(23-12-2014 07:54 AM)pablo Wrote:  I called you on this bullshit argument several pages ago.

Ok, I've made my point about empty emotion posting, and from here out will make a good faith effort to ignore such nothingness.

If you wish to receive further replies from here, please explain exactly and specifically and in some thoughtful rational detail why some particular point is a bullshit argument.

Otherwise, see ya around, have a good time!

I see you've put your deflector sheids up.
Why do you insist I didn't make myself clear?
If you want more, you too must back your assertions.
All you have done is claim that if we can imagine something then it is plausible that it exists. This is lame at best and you know it.
Speaking of non-answers, where's the definition I asked for?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 08:34 AM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2014 08:42 AM by DLJ.)
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
I didn't say that I was bored with it. I'm just pointing out why others might not be engaging at your level.

Personally, I thought it was a nice twist and well thought through.

But I was disappointed by the 'reveal'. I was hoping for something more challenging than an equivocation.

Drinking Beverage

(23-12-2014 08:05 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  ...
What I see is that ideas have material substance, and thus can be said to exist in the normal usage of that word.

What do you see?

Material substance or material foundation?

Which has material substance, the application you are using or the laptop and media it sits on?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
23-12-2014, 09:46 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 08:05 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
Quote:Matilda pointed out the equivocation already. Is there any reason why you didn't address that?

Ok, please elaborate on what you mean by equivocation. What I see is that ideas have material substance, and thus can be said to exist in the normal usage of that word.

What do you see?

The use of the word "exist" requires further elaboration. Does the IPU exist solely as a concept with the only physical presence being a particular pattern of neuronal firing or pictures on the internet? Yes. Does the IPU exist as a separate physical entity independent of the existence of humans and able to interact with other physical things? No.

The equivocation happens because the word "exist" is used in the former sense but the argument is expressed in a way to give the impression that it is also being used in the latter sense.

It's an intellectually dishonest trick that theists often use. As your thread demonstrates, it's not actually particularly useful for determining the nature of reality. Because in the same way that they argue that God exists, you can also argue that an invisible pink unicorn exists, or a celestial teapot, or magical leprechauns, or anything that you want to argue for.

The only use for such equivocation is to fool people using intellectual sleight of hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mathilda's post
23-12-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 09:46 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(23-12-2014 08:05 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Ok, please elaborate on what you mean by equivocation. What I see is that ideas have material substance, and thus can be said to exist in the normal usage of that word.

What do you see?

The use of the word "exist" requires further elaboration. Does the IPU exist solely as a concept with the only physical presence being a particular pattern of neuronal firing or pictures on the internet? Yes. Does the IPU exist as a separate physical entity independent of the existence of humans and able to interact with other physical things? No.

The equivocation happens because the word "exist" is used in the former sense but the argument is expressed in a way to give the impression that it is also being used in the latter sense.

It's an intellectually dishonest trick that theists often use. As your thread demonstrates, it's not actually particularly useful for determining the nature of reality. Because in the same way that they argue that God exists, you can also argue that an invisible pink unicorn exists, or a celestial teapot, or magical leprechauns, or anything that you want to argue for.

The only use for such equivocation is to fool people using intellectual sleight of hand.

Thank you! Hug
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: