GeoTheo

Here is the problem with the IPU:
The only thing it has in common with people's conception God is that both are invisible and otherwise indetectable through empirical means. The problem is not that one must believe an a pantheon of invisible indetectable beings as soon as they are posited. You can neither affirm or deny them, and so they are inconsequential. So it misses the intended target. God is not thought of as being inconsequential. God is thought of as being immanent and as interacting with mankind.
There is no reason to disprove the existence of an inconsequential entity.

Biff the unclean

The point of the IPU is not that it needs to be disproved. The IPU is a known falsehood. We know it is false because we are the ones who made it up.

The point is criteria.

Believers in a God defend this belief by posing certain criteria that the God fills. This criteria is supposed to demonstrate that God is a fact. However the IPU fills the same criteria equally as well as God does. Since we know that the IPU is a falsehood then that demonstrates that the criteria used to prove the existence of God is flawed.

GeoTheo

The only part you are making up is it's appearance.

Koyaanisqatsi

That "only thing" (actually "things" to be pedantic) is enough to effectively destroy the concept. At least to a rationally minded individual.

How so? The exact same thing applies to the god concept. One can neither affirm nor deny something that has never been demonstrated to exist and it is therefore equally inconsequential, to use your terms, to posit such a concept absent that demonstration.

The IPU is not thought of as being inconsequential.

The IPU is thought of as being "immanent and as interacting with mankind."

See how this works?

I couldn't have said it better .

To reiterate Biff's point, the purpose of the IPU analogy is to demonstrate the flawed thinking of the theist and how none of their beliefs differ in any significant manner from a belief in the IPU. What people "think" about such things has little to no bearing on what people can "prove" (aka, establish as true) about such things, yes?

Otherwise, belief in a god is identical to belief in an invisible pink unicorn.

GeoTheo

No. It is still a bad analogy. affirmation of the IPU is disengenuous. How people respond to God is the main point in Theism. It misses the main point. We are talking about people's actions. Since there is an IPU, I....
You can't fill that in because it would be meaningless.
But it is not meaningless, If you say for example:
Since I believe in God, I ....
because that is the actual motivation. You are affirming an all powerfgull being not an invisible entity.

Cthulhu

The IPU can have any properties we choose to give it, hence your entire argument is meaningless.

Biff the unclean

affirmation of the IPU is disengenuous.
That is the very point of the IPU. It isn't real, it doesn't exist, we made the whole thing up.
How people respond to God is the main point in Theism.
The point that the IPU addresses is the existence of God, not the emotions or actions of believers.
It misses the main point. We are talking about people's actions.
We are talking about existential claims when we are talking about the IPU.
Since there is an IPU, I....
You can't fill that in because it would be meaningless.
But it is not meaningless, If you say for example:
Since I believe in God, I ....
because that is the actual motivation.
It is completely meaningless when you say it about God. Because in one case you say "Since there is" when there is not. The IPU can effect nothing as it doesn't exist. In the next case you say "Since I believe" What you believe has no bearing on reality of something existing, but may affect your actions. YOUR actions, not the Gods actions, the God takes no action. Your existence is not in question.

theIPU

I use the IPU analogy quite often (see my username ) and it is effective in demonstrating how ridiculous theism is in many aspects. For example-

Theist argument- The bible proves God exists

IPU argument- The IPU scripture proves the IPU exists

Theist argument- YOU CAN'T DISPROVE GOD SO HE CAN EXIST!!!

IPU argument- YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THE IPU SO HE CAN EXIST!!!

basically, if you're gullible enough to believe in a god you are gullible enough to believe in the IPU.

seebs

I don't think this is quite true. I have never met anyone who honestly believed that he'd had an experience involving the IPU; I have met people who claim to have had such experiences of God. That's a criteria the IPU doesn't meet, and God does. Whether it's sufficient is a separate question.

Biff the unclean

So now do you see what The IPU just did GeoTheo? He is not proving that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists. We know for a fact that it doesn't. Yet all the arguments that are used to prove God exists can be used for the IPU equally as well. Yet the IPU is a fake. Therefore the arguements are useless for proving that something exists.