Tigress posted some genius comments there; I would like to second them and add my own thoughts re: Invisible Pink Unicorns.
Why
is it more logical to believe in an entity termed "God" than Invisible Pink Unicorns (IPUs)? It is true, by definition, that IPUs are illogical (how can they be invisible
and pink?) but those who believe in them say they are beyond logic.
If something is beyond logic, how can it be logically refuted?
I think the main reasons why God is seen as "more plausible" (or "more logical") than an IPU are these:
- People have believed in God for many, many years, and tradition usually counts as truth for some people.
- Many, many people believe in God, which makes the idea more convincing.
- IPUs were invented specifically as a parody of faith-based religions.
However;
- People believed the earth was flat for many, many years, this does not make it true.
- The peoples of the world all hold conflicting beliefs. They can't logically all be true, so some of them must be wrong. Therefore, just because many people believe in it, that does not make it true.
-
The parody is trying to make the point of implausibility.
Logically, there must be some sort of difference between the natures of God and the IPU which makes God more "plausible" or "rational." Personally, I do not know what this may be.
I am waiting, as I'm sure are many others, for NetDoc's explanation of this.
NetDoc said:
That you don't see how incedibly insulting and condescending this is, is truly amazing.
If it is "incredibly insulting and condescending" to bring a
logical argument against one's beliefs, then it begs the question: Why are you on religiousforums.com?