Religions > Atheism > What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does! A Humorous trip into the world of ontology
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
04 Jun 2004 11:36:39 AM |
| Object: |
What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does! A Humorous trip into the world of ontology |
I notice a lot of people call to witness the IPU, the invisible pink
unicorn. If a theist asks "can you prove God does not exist?", an IPU
enthusiast will counter with "can you prove the IPU does not exist?"
Are we presupposing that it is impossible to prove that something does
not exist? How would one explain mathematicians who demonstrate that
it is impossible to have a number whose square is negative one? What
about logicians who agree that that which does not exist are
contradicitions?
We can demonstrate the non-existence of certain conceptions of God, as
well as the IPU, by showing that the notion is contradictory (some
have tried to do this, for example, with the notion of a being who is
both omnipotent and omniscient). For the IPU, if it is invisible, it
does not reflect light, which would mean it has no color, and thus is
not pink. If it is pink, it reflects light, and thus is not invisible.
The IPU is a contradiction, and does not exist.
That being conceded, a regular pink unicorn would have to exist. Here
is a simple ontological argument for the existence of the PU (the Pink
Unicorn) which employs a basic modus tollens:
(1) If the PU did not exist, it would not be pink.
(2) The PU, by definition, is pink.
(3) Therefore, the PU exists.
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does!AHumorous trip into the world of ontology |
04 Jun 2004 03:14:47 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
I notice a lot of people call to witness the IPU, the invisible pink
unicorn. If a theist asks "can you prove God does not exist?", an IPU
enthusiast will counter with "can you prove the IPU does not exist?"
Are we presupposing that it is impossible to prove that something does
not exist? How would one explain mathematicians who demonstrate that
it is impossible to have a number whose square is negative one? What
No real number has as its square -1. There are two complex numbers
having that property.
Problem is, they are completely imaginary.
--
Gregory Gadow for Washington State House
Independent, District 43
http://www.gregory-gadow.info
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does! A Humorous trip into the world of ontology |
04 Jun 2004 02:14:16 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 09:36:39 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
I notice a lot of people call to witness the IPU, the invisible pink
unicorn. If a theist asks "can you prove God does not exist?", an IPU
enthusiast will counter with "can you prove the IPU does not exist?"
Are we presupposing that it is impossible to prove that something does
not exist? How would one explain mathematicians who demonstrate that
it is impossible to have a number whose square is negative one?
Put a number in a box, and bring it to us.
Numbers are merely names, or definitions, which we give to quantities.
They are things of convenience, and are totally abstract.
What
about logicians who agree that that which does not exist are
contradicitions?
We can demonstrate the non-existence of certain conceptions of God, as
well as the IPU, by showing that the notion is contradictory (some
have tried to do this, for example, with the notion of a being who is
both omnipotent and omniscient). For the IPU, if it is invisible, it
does not reflect light, which would mean it has no color, and thus is
not pink. If it is pink, it reflects light, and thus is not invisible.
The IPU is a contradiction, and does not exist.
Again, you are talking about concepts.
Concepts are abstract.
That being conceded, a regular pink unicorn would have to exist.
Why?
Are you suggesting that man is incapable of imagination?
Here
is a simple ontological argument for the existence of the PU (the Pink
Unicorn) which employs a basic modus tollens:
(1) If the PU did not exist, it would not be pink.
(2) The PU, by definition, is pink.
(3) Therefore, the PU exists.
I seem to recall a boolian equation along those lines, which showed
that ham, *or* eggs, was the same as ham, *and* eggs.
Would you accept that as a explanation for not having the ham, that
you will be expected to pay for, with your eggs?
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does! A Humorous trip into the world of ontology |
04 Jun 2004 04:36:48 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 09:36:39 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
That being conceded, a regular pink unicorn would have to exist. Here
is a simple ontological argument for the existence of the PU (the Pink
Unicorn) which employs a basic modus tollens:
(1) If the PU did not exist, it would not be pink.
(2) The PU, by definition, is pink.
(3) Therefore, the PU exists.
Amusing--though devotees of Anselm might not find it so.
K.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does! A Humorous trip into the world of ontology |
04 Jun 2004 07:03:02 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 09:36:39 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
We can demonstrate the non-existence of certain conceptions of God, as
well as the IPU, by showing that the notion is contradictory (some
have tried to do this, for example, with the notion of a being who is
both omnipotent and omniscient). For the IPU, if it is invisible, it
does not reflect light, which would mean it has no color, and thus is
not pink. If it is pink, it reflects light, and thus is not invisible.
The IPU is a contradiction, and does not exist.
It was the great prophetess Natalie Ramsey who observed that, like
other religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon
both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't see her.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Khendon" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does! A Humorous trip into the world of ontology |
04 Jun 2004 10:53:56 PM |
|
|
"Andrew Lias" <anrwlias@gmail.com.spamkill> wrote in message
news:v832c09qo4bv154ij8ntff5krkqmsnd2u9@4ax.com...
On 4 Jun 2004 09:36:39 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
We can demonstrate the non-existence of certain conceptions of God, as
well as the IPU, by showing that the notion is contradictory (some
have tried to do this, for example, with the notion of a being who is
both omnipotent and omniscient). For the IPU, if it is invisible, it
does not reflect light, which would mean it has no color, and thus is
not pink. If it is pink, it reflects light, and thus is not invisible.
The IPU is a contradiction, and does not exist.
It was the great prophetess Natalie Ramsey who observed that, like
other religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon
both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't see her.
--
What the heretics also fail to realize is - Her Holiness the IPU is not just
*any* shade of pink - but is a beautiful shade of *Invisible Pink*
It's a completely different color than just "plain old pink".
Shows how much they know about her... [BBHHH]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: What is it with this IPU stuff? IPU does not exist, but PU does! A Humorous trip into the world of ontology |
08 Jun 2004 01:45:41 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun 2004 09:36:39 -0700, Nico Demusopelous wrote:
I notice a lot of people call to witness the IPU, the invisible pink
unicorn. If a theist asks "can you prove God does not exist?", an IPU
enthusiast will counter with "can you prove the IPU does not exist?"
Are we presupposing that it is impossible to prove that something does
not exist? How would one explain mathematicians who demonstrate that
it is impossible to have a number whose square is negative one? What
about logicians who agree that that which does not exist are
contradicitions?
We can demonstrate the non-existence of certain conceptions of God, as
well as the IPU, by showing that the notion is contradictory (some
have tried to do this, for example, with the notion of a being who is
both omnipotent and omniscient). For the IPU, if it is invisible, it
does not reflect light, which would mean it has no color, and thus is
not pink. If it is pink, it reflects light, and thus is not invisible.
The IPU is a contradiction, and does not exist.
That being conceded, a regular pink unicorn would have to exist. Here
is a simple ontological argument for the existence of the PU (the Pink
Unicorn) which employs a basic modus tollens:
(1) If the PU did not exist, it would not be pink.
(2) The PU, by definition, is pink.
(3) Therefore, the PU exists.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Simple sentential logic can't symbolize your argument.
In predicate logic (make E the existential quantifier, and > the
conditional), it looks like this:
1. ~(Ex)(Ux & Px) > (x)((Ux & Px) > ~Px)
2. (x)((Ux & Px) > Px)
C. (Ex)(Ux & Px)
No Modus Tollens to be found there.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
