Would it be any harder... Part 2

Ryokan

Insert something funny here
Ryokan
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,862
Location
Norway
Would it be any harder to believe in invisible unicorns if :

1) It evolved just like all other living beings on the planet. It, like anything else, didn't exist until it evolved naturally.

2) It's not only invisible, but it's soundless as well.

3) The claim that it's pink is dropped, you can't have a color and be invisible at the same time.

4) It's existance is just as provable as always -- we can't ever seem to know for sure.

Well ???
 
Ryokan said:
Would it be any harder to believe in invisible unicorns if :

1) It evolved just like all other living beings on the planet. It, like anything else, didn't exist until it evolved naturally.

2) It's not only invisible, but it's soundless as well.

3) The claim that it's pink is dropped, you can't have a color and be invisible at the same time.

4) It's existance is just as provable as always -- we can't ever seem to know for sure.

Well ???
Click to expand...

First off, I realized only too late that my title should have been "Would it be any easier ..." -- not harder. But I guess that slipped by everyone else, too.

Anyway, my question was to try and give a little more reasonableness to deities, and see if that would help people believing. It was nothing more than an exercise of curiosity -- not to be taken too seriously.
 
Ryokan said:
Would it be any harder to believe in invisible unicorns if :

1) It evolved just like all other living beings on the planet. It, like anything else, didn't exist until it evolved naturally.

2) It's not only invisible, but it's soundless as well.

3) The claim that it's pink is dropped, you can't have a color and be invisible at the same time.

4) It's existance is just as provable as always -- we can't ever seem to know for sure.

Well ???
Click to expand...

'Invisible' is shorthand for 'unobservable'. That a creature exists that cannot be seen by the naked eye does not make it unobservable, the latter only would place it outside the realm of science. And something which evolved must be able to interact with the environment--and therefore be observable.
 
Nick Bogaerts said:
'Invisible' is shorthand for 'unobservable'. That a creature exists that cannot be seen by the naked eye does not make it unobservable, the latter only would place it outside the realm of science. And something which evolved must be able to interact with the environment--and therefore be observable.
Click to expand...

Actually, I argued in another thread that "pink" was a poor translation. If you read the original unicornese the word "lively" fits better.
 
I wonder if it would be any easier (or harder?) to believe in the economy if...

1. It evolved just like all other ideologies on the planet. It, like anything else, didn't exist until it evolved naturally.

2. It's not only invisible, but it's soundless as well.

3. The claim that it's demonstrated via the bank or grocery store is dropped, since we also have churches, mosques, and temples.

4. It's existance is just as provable as always -- we can't ever seem to know for sure.

Just curious...

Flick
 
Ryokan: Yes. It would be easier for me to believe that invisible unicorns evolved than it would be for me to believe, for example, that they were created by elves. Furthermore, since an invisible pink unicorn is clearly self-contradictory, whereas a merely invisible unicorn is not, dropping the "pink" part would indeed make the whole thing more believable. Do, um, where are you going with this?
 
Are you talking to me? I didn't say I would believe it, just that it would be more believable.
 
No, I just know where I've heard Ryokan's argument before....or one very similar.
:D

.....The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom