What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2014, 10:55 AM
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?

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-Christopher Hitchens


So yeah, go fuck yourself dumbass. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-12-2014, 12:13 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 08:34 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Personally, I thought it was a nice twist and well thought through.

I was happy to see another poster got to about the same place.

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

Ok, explain "equivocation" please. I sincerely don't understand the point and would like to.

And, have you seen a better "proof" of the IPU's existence? If yes, show us please. If not, um, whatcha complaining about? :-)

Quote:Material substance or material foundation?

I'm not sure what "material foundation" means. Help please?

By material substance I meant data (image of the IPU) is stored in the brain somehow, and that storage involves chemo-electrical elements of some kind, just like all other stuff we label as "existing". I don't claim to know the exact method of storage, not being a brain scientist guy.

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

I'm proposing that both data (the application) and the data storage devices are both made of "stuff" that gives them existence in the real world.

If they aren't part of the real world, if they don't "exist", what are they then, supernatural?

A larger point you may wish to comment on is that while my IPU theory is hardly important, nor do I claim it is an official "proof", I hope it illustrates how what appears blatantly impossible at first glance might from some perspectives seem at least plausible.

I'm not attempting to sell baby Jesus or the IPU, I'm attempting to inspire a bit more creative thinking, and a more open flexible mind.

I see a lot of folks on both atheist and theist forums who seem to have lost all interest in the actual inquiry, obsessed as they are with defending some little conceptual foxhole. Hoping to lure a few readers out of the foxhole, and back in to a real inquiry. Perhaps you might agree the foxholes get quite boring after awhile?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 12:44 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Quote:The use of the word "exist" requires further elaboration.

Ok cool, let's do it.

Quote: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.

As far as existence goes, what's the difference between data stored in the brain, and data stored in the DNA of our cells? It seems both are the seed form of what is to come, and both exist in the normal meaning of that word.

Quote:Does the IPU exist as a separate physical entity independent of the existence of humans and able to interact with other physical things? No.

At the moment, the IPU is like a baby in the womb. A baby is not a separate physical entity independent of the existence of the mother and able to interact with other physical things, but we still say it exists.

Quote: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.

Ok, fair enough. Some readers will see this as trickery, while others will see it as creative thinking.

In my mind, it's been demonstrated that a seed, even if it is invisible to us, exists just as much as the thing it eventually becomes.

Quote:It's an intellectually dishonest trick that theists often use.

I hope you're not calling me a theist, or you'll get a spanking. :-)

Quote:As your thread demonstrates, it's not actually particularly useful for determining the nature of reality.

I think we've shown that one aspect of the nature of reality is that data is real, it exists in material substance, just like a tennis ball or concrete block.

You seem to be making a common but proposed inaccurate distinction between the seed form of something and it's mature state, claiming one is real and the other is not. To me, both have material substance, thus both are real, both exist.

Quote: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.

I propose that all these things exist just as the IPU does, and all have the potential to develop in to the mature form we have as an image in our mind. That is, I'm proposing that anything humans can imagine, they will likely sooner or later be able to develop beyond the "seed form" in to the "mature form".

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

Thank you for your contributions, sincerely, but that comment is just a characterization, not an argument. You still face the challenge of explaining to us why ideas don't "exist".

Where you see slight of hand, I see some stubborn thinkers attempting to hold on to the past, when the IPU was a glorious symbol of absurdity. Oops, no more, all gone, bye bye now....

Where is that devil emoticon anyway??? :-)

Thanks for playing, truly. Keep it coming if it interests you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 03:07 PM (This post was last modified: 23-12-2014 03:19 PM by tear151.)
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
"An atheist liberal pacifist democrat evolutionist muslim feminist socialist gay jew communist catholic unionist abortionist professor (and a member of the ACLU and NAACP) was bitching at a college class and she told the class that she was a strong independent menstruating womyn and she was going to prove that there is no IPU. She screamed, “OH GREAT AND MIGHT UNICORN", if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I’ll give you 15 human minutes, and I’m glad all those people died on 9/11! Also all men are rapists and I have abortions for fun.” Ten earthling minutes went by. She kept taunting the unicorn, saying, “Here I am Dave the unicorn, if that is your real name. I’m still waiting.”

She got down to the last couple of minutes and a brave, patriotic, pro-life marine just returned from the War of Independence and honorably discharged and newly registered in every class backflipped up to the professor, hit her full force in the face with a spinning flying drop kick (with metal as fuck jet-boots on), and sent her flying from her platform through two panes of glass, two twin towers, a pile of cans, a young mother pushing a baby carriage, a nun and a pile of boxes. The professor struggled up, obviously shaken, with three broken legs, 4 broken arms, 3 broken jaw, 2 broken skull, 12 broken ribs, internal bleeding and a missing spine. She bitched, “What’s the matter with you? Why did you do that? Are you afraid of a strong beautiful negro womyn? You stupid Jew, I only worship my vagina!” That marine replied, “THE GREAT UNICORN" was busy watching over MY buddies engaged in combat in the coke wars (Never forget). So… he… sent… ME!”

The professor cried a single tear and said “I was wrong to want equal rights for homosexuals, women and minorities. Barry Hussain Osama is a Muslim socialist atheist and he hates America. I am now pro-life, pro-guns, and pro-capital punishment”. The professor then burnt her copy of Origin of the Species, shaved her legs, put her bra back on, and started to make the marine a sandwich. “If Trayvon Martin didn’t want to die he should not have been wearing a hoodie!” “Welcome to the Republican Party” Said the Marine. The students applauded and all registered with the Republican party that day and accepted the unicorn as their lord and savior.

An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag (where it shed a single tear). That professor was Justin Beiber. That college class was The Beatles. That young mother was Sarah Palin. That nun was Nicki Minaj. That eagle was Ron Paul. That marine’s name? Albert Einstein."

I would read that out exactly and question the juries patriotism if they use any of that logic crap.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like tear151's post
23-12-2014, 05:27 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
Bozo: Fun idea for a thread. Taking a crack at it after making one point:
(22-12-2014 08:50 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(22-12-2014 08:17 AM)photon9 Wrote:  The problem with your dumb little game is that the court system does not and cannot have trials for the existence of things. These are not matters of majority opinion and require actual evidence. Buh bye.

Thank you for demonstrating the awesome power of Hyper-Laziness! Next contestant please! :-)

(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?

(22-12-2014 06:01 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  
(22-12-2014 09:46 AM)pablo Wrote:  You keep teasing us with your upcoming argument, just get to it.

There's a price tag for my upcoming argument, as I've already explained above. If you prefer not to pay the price, of course that's fine, your call. There are many other threads on the forum you may prefer.

You're being a dick.

OK. So.

[Image: 811700462_1823811.gif]
Diagnostic traits of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
It cannot be seen by human eyes. Despite that; it is pink.
It shares large chunks of it's morphology with that of a horse. (Clydesdale to Pony gives us a lot of leeway here in the specifics.) Despite that; it is not a horse. No known horse or horse relative has a horn like that.
It has a horn.
We have no evidence for it's existence.

Possible explanations for these traits.

It cannot be seen by human eyes. Despite that; it is pink:
1. It has psychic powers that wipes the minds of humans that see it.
2. It interacts with light in such a way that the light is bent around it.
3. It does not reflect light.
4. It has simply never been seen. (And so is an "Invisible" Pink Unicorn.)

1. Explains invisibility and colour. Brings in an unknown factor.
2. Explains invisibility and colour but we have no evidence for any mechanism through which it may be achieved.
3. Explains invisibility and not colour but we have an example of a mechanism through which this could be achieved. (Dark Matter does not interact with any form of electro-magnetism.)
4. Doesn't explain invisibility and does explain colour. We also know how this could have been achieved.

As "Magic" is not a suitable explanation we must default to the fourth answer. (Not the third except as a possible explanation for why it's never been seen. "Dark Chemistry" exists is a big step.)

It shares it's external morphology with that of a horse. Despite that it is not a horse:
1. It is a horse subspecies.
2. It has evolved to fill the same niche and so required the same advantages. Specializing in the same way.
3. It was artificially created at some point in order to be a Unicorn. (Movie special effects or genetic engineering. Doesn't matter what interfered with it.)

1. Unlikely due to it's horn.
2. Possible. We have many examples of convergent evolution. Especially in quite generalized shapes like that of a horse. This possibility is also given a boost due to our lack of rigid definition as to what exact type of horse it is.
3. Entirely true but unhelpful to our argument and impossible due to other traits.

The horn is not used in the same way as other horns we have examples of: It is not set in a reinforced location so it's not used for combat.
The simplest explanation is that it's sexually selected but sexual selection is most often done through apparent advantages so it probably serves at least one other purpose: Therefore the horn serves some purpose that I cannot define.

Combine all our most likely explanations together and we have:
A non-horse life-form that evolved under a very similar set of selective pressures as Earth horses while being different enough to induce the growth of a horn. We have never seen it because it is "invisible" and possibly intangible (if it is infact made from dark matter) and so have no evidence for it's existence.

So we reduce the existence of the "Invisible" Pink Unicorn to a simple probability game. Roll enough dice and that particular animal, or one very much like it will evolve somewhere in the universe.
Making belief in the IPU reasonable. (Sorry Free.)

Rather than saying that my argument is horseshit and violates the null hypothesis, I'd appreciate if it was referred to as either "unicornshit" or fewmits.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
23-12-2014, 08:42 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
I loved the reveal Bozo, god existing... as an idea! It's the same kind of thinking that I was sarcastically spouting back in grade 8.

Unfortunately, I'm a bit concerned that you think it's clever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
23-12-2014, 09:13 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(22-12-2014 08:03 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Um, this is like a game, an intellectual type game.

The rules of the game are, pretend you are say, a lawyer in a courtroom and you have to convince the jury that the IPU (invisible pink unicorn) actually exists right now, or your client goes to jail, and you don't get paid.

And if you don't get paid, you can't buy your lover a nice dinner on the town, and so you don't get _____ either. :-)

Or think of it however you want, but MAKE THE CASE somehow or another.

Thank you for playing!

Unfortunately it's a moronic game.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 10:40 PM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 06:37 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Sure, our niche is wider than other creatures, but that does not equal it being infinite. The evidence strongly suggests our range of comprehension is limited to a slice of reality too.

As example, consider the microscopic realm. It's been there all along of course, but until recently we had no clue about it at all.

How many other realms of existence are there that are just as real and just as close to us as the microscopic realm, but we simply don't have the capacity to observe and understand them?

Thus, a "spiritual realm" could be nothing more than a normal part of nature that is far enough beyond our ability to grasp that it seems supernatural to us.

Every so often a rare somebody with extraordinary talent way out on the end of the spiritual bell curve comes along, and they catch a glimpse of this spiritual realm. But then they try to explain it to us, and both we and they lack the understanding and vocabulary to make sense of it.

So we wildly mis-translate whatever they are trying to say, and it turns quickly in to a bizarre circus. As example, try explaining something sophisticated and adult to a five year old, and then ask them to explain it to another five year old. The resulting explanation is likely to be hilariously wrong.

So the "supernatural" could exist as a normal part of nature that is so far beyond our ability to understand that it bears no resemblance to what we think of as the laws of nature.

I asked the IPU, and she said this is completely totally right, and she gave me yet another beer (BURP!) as a reward.

There were probably more concise ways to state that human intellect is limited.

What you are postulating here is referred to as the perinormal. No, I haven't misspelled that. It refers to a phenomenon of the natural world that we just haven't discovered yet. It is near to (peri-) what we think of as normal. The Amazing Randi has stated that he would consider it a bargain to fork over the million dollar reward in exchange for such a discovery.

Your problem is that while we may be of limited intellect we are clever little buggers. When one of us figures out that there is something else out there yet again we don't just wander back to our mundane humdrum lives. We poke and we prod and we bombard it with exotic particles at relativistic velocities until we crack the fool thing open and peer inside. From subatomic microcosms to galactic cluster macrocosms and from Galilean moons to dark matter we find more new "niches" to explore. The ones that we couldn't see we built machines to see for us and the ones that resisted direct observation we inferred. When we needed conditions that could only be produced by the collision of two galaxies we went out and found two that were colliding and watched to see what would happen. This is what science is.

And yet, for all that we have had religion since the beginning, every time that we poke or prod it we find... Nothing. We have cracked that nut and found it empty.

Now let's get something straight before you play the "Ineffable God" card. Yet again. I don't need to eff your God. I do not need to comprehend the totality of God's overarching infinity in order to understand the simple fact that it exists. The amoeba does not need to understand the intricacies of elephant physiology in order to comprehend the very simple fact that it has just been trod upon by something large and heavy. For that matter, every theology and religion ever conceived has been packed to the gunwales with miracles, souls and a whole host (literally) of phenomena that should be entirely effable but not one effing one of which has ever been effed. And you effing-well know what that means.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
24-12-2014, 05:14 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Unfortunately it's a moronic game.

It felt like an end of year school test to demonstrate what we have learnt. In this case, all the fallacious arguments that theists use.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: What If The Invisible Pink Unicorn Is Real?
(23-12-2014 08:42 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  I loved the reveal Bozo, god existing... as an idea!

Um, I said nothing about any gods, unless you are referring to my joking reference of the IPU as the atheist deity.

Quote:It's the same kind of thinking that I was sarcastically spouting back in grade 8. Unfortunately, I'm a bit concerned that you think it's clever.

Are you still in 8th grade? I ask, because like so many of the posters above, you seem incapable of adding anything to the thread other than one of those sarcastic quipy little blurby thingies that so often pass as intelligent conversation on atheist forums.

See the forum title please:

THINKINGatheist.com

and not....

Facebook.com

If my idea is foolish as you seem to be claiming, and perhaps it is, it should be easy to rip it to shreds with intelligent reasoning.

So why not do that, instead of the lazy little quipy thingy, which seems a way to pose oneself as being somehow superior, without doing any actual work? In other words, nothing more than.... an emotional ego outburst.

1) Challenge me. YES!

2) Insult me. Ok, no problem!

3) Be funny. Sure, go for it.

4) Drop a clever one liner. Yea, let's hear it, so we can steal it. :-)

BUT ONLY.....

If you can also add something relevant and intelligent along with the snarky insults and jokes.

I'm ok with snarky, I'm snarky too. Maybe I'm the King Of Snarky, not sure. :-)

But include meat on the bones too please, meat on the bones. None of us are really that interested in a white bread and mayonaise sandwich with no meat inside.

Sister Bozo will now put away her meanie nun's ruler and get back to business. Sorry for the outburst.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: