UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 5 to Meditation 299
This latest approach is still irrational

by JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

NaLina claims that the point of the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument "is to get people to realize that claims about the supernatural are equally absurd."

Here's the problem with that approach. It does not work. Given the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument, the believer will recognize immediately that the IPU is absurd, but will also conclude that it has no relevance whatsoever towards his or her own religious belief. The IPU has no power to change a believer's mind.

NaLina wants to remedy the shortcomings of the IPU by "attributing to "unicorn" the 4 attributes of god that the author has listed, while "unicorn" still refers to a magical horse-like creature with a horn." What does this amount to? Nothing more than a claim that "I have a unicorn god which is so absurd that I don't believe in it, but the fact I can imagine it proves your god is absurd." This point was already addressed in essence in footnote 2 to the original article.

No matter how you play with it, the Invisible Pink Unicorn remains an illogical approach which reflects poorly on those who promote this particular argument against a deity while at the same time claiming disbelief is based upon reason.