Slashdot Mirror

Your are quite correct!
In many Caucasian cases, it is "invisible pink"....

Anyone who says otherwise may be guilty of blasphemy http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu/home.html

HNY!

As the aardvark is invisible, it does not reflect light in the correct wavelength in order to appear pink. Thus there is not an invisible pink aardvark.

How about setting up an Invisible Pink Unicorn petting zoo next door? Blessed be her holy hooves!

Don't be silly, unicorns have hooves, not hands.

Heretic! The form of DNA is a pious homage to the bespirallated horn of Her

Fear not God. Fear the IPU

[...]invisible pink elephants[...]

Please show me how religion is illogical. Just because it isn't science doesn't make it invalid. I challenge you try to explain how something not described by science can't exist.

Let existence be divided into two distinct non overlapping sets M and E. Let M be the material/(scientifically explainable) realm set. Let E be the ethereal(scientifically unexplainable) realm set. By definition the intersection of M and E is a null set.

Everything in out universe lies within set M. God, if such a being exists, does not by definition lie within M. Therefore God must be an element, or elements, of E.

If elements in M are to be influenced by elements in E then some physical particle, force or other effect must in some way originate or be connected with an element in E. This implies that at some time or place, there exists an element which is both a member of M and E.

But by definition, the intersection of M and E is the null set. Thus, elements in E cannot effect elements in M directly.

One can postulate the set E', whose intersection with M and E is not a null set. Then element in E can influence elements in M, via influence of elements in E'.

It falls then to define the set E', which contains elements both in the material set and the ethereal set. Also, this set must contain at least one element wich does not lie with in either M or E, otherwise it is simply a subset of M union E.

So we have at least one element in existence with is neither explainable or unexplainable by science. This is a clear contridiction. We have reached a logical contridiction, thus one of our assumptions was false.

The only unjustified assumption we made was the existence of this one element. Thus E' less (E union M) is a null set. Therefore E' is a subset of E union M and so elements in E cannot influence elements in M.

Therefore, the existence of God in set E is the equivalent to the existence of any element in set M, as neither element can affect the other. We may inverse the sets M and E and any set of elements in M with the God set in E and the argument still holds. Religion holds that the existence of God is greater than the existence of any element in set M. Clearly this is not the case, therefore religion is illogical.

I think you will find the argument is really quite solid.

I would refer you to http://www.venganza.org/ and http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ for further insight into this topic.

> I'm agnostic (fallen away Catholic), and therefore no "fundi", but IMHO the notion that
> deities CAN'T exist is just as foolish and arrogant as asserting they NECESSARILY exist.
> Ultimately, neither position is likely to ever be proved or disproved.

a god (or gods) that can't be proved or disproved is the same as a god that is irrelevant. if you can't positively assign any action or attributes to a given god then it may as well not exist.

so, why worship something that is irrelevant? that takes no action? that has no influence or effect on the world?

a god that does nothing is just a theological convenience - to explain why someone's oh-so-powerful deity doesn't strike down unbelievers and support believers.

btw, i'm curious - do american superstitious types believe that the current hurricane disasters are God's punishment for human-caused climate change - God's way of saying "stop using so much oil and gasoline. or else."

> Do you, the reader, know? Not just have a few purported clues and decided
> that Professor Plum created the universe with a chainsaw, but actually
> KNOW whether God exists?

well, that's probably impossible to know with 100% certainty.....but since there's no actual evidence for the existence of any god or gods, it's a pretty safe bet (99.99999999999....% certainty) that there are none.

that's close enough that, for all intents and purposes, you may as well act as if you were 100% certain.

(the Invisible Pink Unicorn[1], however, is another matter. we have irrefutable proof that She is invisible because we can't see Her :)

[1] http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/

Unicorn Theory can also be framed in such a way that it is not in conflict with the known facts, ...

Indeed, and the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn are following the ID story with a great deal of interest. If the ID people succeed at getting their "theory" imposed on schence teachers is some US states, we will see a followup demand that IPU theory also be included in science classes.

There are a number of other such competing theories waiting in the wings ...