On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:48:25 -0700, "Richard
Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Invisible pink unicorns?
Can we determine the existence/non-existence of
invisible pink unicorns?
Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be
pink if they reflected pink
electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However,
in order to be invisible,
the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic
radiation. Therefore, the term
"invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory.
Therefore, we know
absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know
who invented the term
"invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously
deficient in their
physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change
the term and drop the "pink"
part. Is it possible to determine whether or not
invisible unicorns exist
somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would
be very unlikely that any
organism would be invisible. The only reasonable
chemical basis for living
organisms in this universe is carbon-based life.
This would ensure that
unicorns would always be visible. Although
possible that unicorns might be
invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such
existence would be
problematic, since their interaction with ordinary
matter would result in
their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could
unicorns be made of
exotic matter? While possible, there is no
evidence from physics that any
creatures could be made of exotic matter. At
present, it is possible to
detect exotic matter only indirectly through
particle physics and through
its ability to bend light (only detectable through
gravitational lensing of
distant galaxies). At this point, we would be
unable to detect a unicorn
made of exotic matter. So, although we can be
fairly certain that invisible
unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could
not take the strong
aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist
somewhere in the universe? As
of today, we don't know if life exists outside of
our Solar System. No rocky
planets have been discovered outside of our Solar
System, although the
ability to easily detect such planets will not be
available until later this
decade. Some scientists believe that life is
common throughout the universe,
while others think that all life or only advanced
life is rare in the
universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means
seems extremely
improbable. In addition, the earth seems to
exhibit unusual design, since
the existence of tectonic activity on such a small
planet for such a long
period of time is probably the result of an
extremely unlikely collision
early in its history. Without tectonic activity,
the earth would be a
waterworld, since continents would not form.
Advanced life (beyond fish)
cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic
origin of life) is at
least possible, if not likely, and that habitable
planets are common
throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true,
would make it likely that
pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe.
Therefore, an atheist
would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist
stance. The unicorn
argument as an argument against the existence of
God fails logically, since
it is not possible to definitively show that
unicorns do not exist somewhere
in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus
Is the existence of God comparable to the
existence of Santa Claus or
unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a
man who lives at the
North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and
satellite images have failed to
detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we
can be fairly certain that
he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is
likely to melt within the next
100 years, we will have further evidence that
nobody actually lives at the
North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been
discussed above. The
existence of such creatures has been hypothesized
to occur within our
universe. However, the God of the Bible is
transcendent to the universe,
since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible
says that no one can see
God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God
is a non-physical being.12
In addition, God created the entire universe,13
including time itself,14
which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both
Santa Claus and unicorns
are contingent beings, whereas God is non
contingent. Therefore, to make an
analogy between God and either Santa Claus or
invisible pink unicorns is
logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?
Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or
evidence that any kind of
God actually exists. However, such claims
represent mere hand waving to
avoid critically examining the evidence. I was
raised as an agnostic, but
became a deist in a secular college (University of
Southern California) as a
result of my training in biological sciences. It
was obvious to this honors
student that the "scientific" explanation for the
origin of life was
completely unreasonable. Since those days (the
early 1970's) the evidence
contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has
become much stronger. Even
more compelling than the evidence against
abiogenesis is the evidence for
the design of the universe. The scientific
evidence shows irrefutably that
the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism
would predict that the
universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief
was prevalent among atheists
until the evidence against the steady state theory
became overwhelming last
century. Although it is possible that the universe
could arise by itself,
the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to
this hypothesis. In fact,
the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in
10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in
our own species. We are
the only species of mammal that exhibits
consciousness, the ability to
appreciate art, and the ability to make moral
judgments.

Conclusion
The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe
our fears makes no sense,
since we reject the existence of other made-up
figures that might, likewise,
make us feel better. A comparison between the
existence of God (a
non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa
Claus or invisible pink
unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels,
not the least of which is
that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs.
physical) are vastly
different. The idea that there is no evidence to
support the existence of
God is clearly false. The evidence was clear
enough for me to convert from
agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by
theists. Anthony Flew, a
lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a
deist on the basis of
evidence for design. In subsequent interviews,
Flew stated that he "had to
go where the evidence leads." Philosophical
arguments like invisible pink
unicorns are great ways to avoid examining
evidence, but such an approach is
ultimately dishonest.


All those words and you didn't offer up one proof.
Just a bit of bragging, a little comparison
between apples and oranges and some shaky
assertions at best.

Where's the beef?

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:48:25 -0700, "Richard
Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> wrote:

Invisible pink unicorns?
Can we determine the existence/non-existence of
invisible pink unicorns?
Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be
pink if they reflected pink
electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However,
in order to be invisible,
the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic
radiation. Therefore, the term
"invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory.
Therefore, we know
absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know
who invented the term
"invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously
deficient in their
physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change
the term and drop the "pink"
part. Is it possible to determine whether or not
invisible unicorns exist
somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would
be very unlikely that any
organism would be invisible. The only reasonable
chemical basis for living
organisms in this universe is carbon-based life.
This would ensure that
unicorns would always be visible. Although
possible that unicorns might be
invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such
existence would be
problematic, since their interaction with ordinary
matter would result in
their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could
unicorns be made of
exotic matter? While possible, there is no
evidence from physics that any
creatures could be made of exotic matter. At
present, it is possible to
detect exotic matter only indirectly through
particle physics and through
its ability to bend light (only detectable through
gravitational lensing of
distant galaxies). At this point, we would be
unable to detect a unicorn
made of exotic matter. So, although we can be
fairly certain that invisible
unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could
not take the strong
aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist
somewhere in the universe? As
of today, we don't know if life exists outside of
our Solar System. No rocky
planets have been discovered outside of our Solar
System, although the
ability to easily detect such planets will not be
available until later this
decade. Some scientists believe that life is
common throughout the universe,
while others think that all life or only advanced
life is rare in the
universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means
seems extremely
improbable. In addition, the earth seems to
exhibit unusual design, since
the existence of tectonic activity on such a small
planet for such a long
period of time is probably the result of an
extremely unlikely collision
early in its history. Without tectonic activity,
the earth would be a
waterworld, since continents would not form.
Advanced life (beyond fish)
cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic
origin of life) is at
least possible, if not likely, and that habitable
planets are common
throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true,
would make it likely that
pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe.
Therefore, an atheist
would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist
stance. The unicorn
argument as an argument against the existence of
God fails logically, since
it is not possible to definitively show that
unicorns do not exist somewhere
in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus
Is the existence of God comparable to the
existence of Santa Claus or
unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a
man who lives at the
North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and
satellite images have failed to
detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we
can be fairly certain that
he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is
likely to melt within the next
100 years, we will have further evidence that
nobody actually lives at the
North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been
discussed above. The
existence of such creatures has been hypothesized
to occur within our
universe. However, the God of the Bible is
transcendent to the universe,
since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible
says that no one can see
God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God
is a non-physical being.12
In addition, God created the entire universe,13
including time itself,14
which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both
Santa Claus and unicorns
are contingent beings, whereas God is non
contingent. Therefore, to make an
analogy between God and either Santa Claus or
invisible pink unicorns is
logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?
Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or
evidence that any kind of
God actually exists. However, such claims
represent mere hand waving to
avoid critically examining the evidence. I was
raised as an agnostic, but
became a deist in a secular college (University of
Southern California) as a
result of my training in biological sciences. It
was obvious to this honors
student that the "scientific" explanation for the
origin of life was
completely unreasonable. Since those days (the
early 1970's) the evidence
contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has
become much stronger. Even
more compelling than the evidence against
abiogenesis is the evidence for
the design of the universe. The scientific
evidence shows irrefutably that
the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism
would predict that the
universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief
was prevalent among atheists
until the evidence against the steady state theory
became overwhelming last
century. Although it is possible that the universe
could arise by itself,
the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to
this hypothesis. In fact,
the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in
10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in
our own species. We are
the only species of mammal that exhibits
consciousness, the ability to
appreciate art, and the ability to make moral
judgments.

Conclusion
The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe
our fears makes no sense,
since we reject the existence of other made-up
figures that might, likewise,
make us feel better. A comparison between the
existence of God (a
non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa
Claus or invisible pink
unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels,
not the least of which is
that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs.
physical) are vastly
different. The idea that there is no evidence to
support the existence of
God is clearly false. The evidence was clear
enough for me to convert from
agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by
theists. Anthony Flew, a
lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a
deist on the basis of
evidence for design. In subsequent interviews,
Flew stated that he "had to
go where the evidence leads." Philosophical
arguments like invisible pink
unicorns are great ways to avoid examining
evidence, but such an approach is
ultimately dishonest.

All those words and you didn't offer up one proof.
Just a bit of bragging, a little comparison
between apples and oranges and some shaky
assertions at best.

Where's the beef?

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:48:25 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> doing his best to make Christians
look dishonest wrote in <TVQhf.94$fO3.9626@news.uswest.net>:

Well, he didn't actually write any of this. He copied it from
<http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html> and failed to
credit the source.

What a fool. Christians must be very proud to have someone like him
claim to be a Christian.

Invisible pink unicorns?
Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns?
Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected
pink
electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be
invisible,
the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the
term
"invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know
absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term
"invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their
physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the
"pink"
part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist
somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any
organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living
organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that
unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be
invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be
problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in
their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of
exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any
creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to
detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through
its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing
of
distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn
made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that
invisible
unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong
aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe?
As
of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No
rocky
planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the
ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later
this
decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the
universe,
while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the
universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely
improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since
the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long
period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision
early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a
waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish)
cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at
least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common
throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely
that
pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist
would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn
argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically,
since
it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist
somewhere
in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus
Is the existence of God comparable to the existence of Santa Claus or
unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the
North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to
detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that
he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is likely to melt within the
next
100 years, we will have further evidence that nobody actually lives at the
North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been discussed above. The
existence of such creatures has been hypothesized to occur within our
universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe,
since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible says that no one can see
God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God is a non-physical
being.12
In addition, God created the entire universe,13 including time itself,14
which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both Santa Claus and
unicorns
are contingent beings, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make
an
analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns is
logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?
Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or evidence that any kind of
God actually exists. However, such claims represent mere hand waving to
avoid critically examining the evidence. I was raised as an agnostic, but
became a deist in a secular college (University of Southern California) as
a
result of my training in biological sciences. It was obvious to this
honors
student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was
completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence
contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even
more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for
the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that
the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the
universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among
atheists
until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming
last
century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself,
the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In
fact,
the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in our own species. We are
the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to
appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.

Conclusion
The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense,
since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might,
likewise,
make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a
non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink
unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which
is
that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly
different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of
God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from
agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a
lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of
evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to
go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink
unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach
is
ultimately dishonest.