This may sound silly, and I may be confusing myself for absolutely no reason at all. Perhaps someone else could shed some light on this for me.
Do invisible pink unicorns exist… sound silly well yes but if they do not exist then why do I have any idea of what an invisible pink unicorn is ? ( a unicorn ( wich is a mythological beast that looks like a horse with a horn coming from its head ) that is evolutionarirly disadvantaged by being pink who however has made up for this fact by being invisible)
Now you may so what that is all in your head
I say yes so what the concept is in my head therefore it exists as a concept.
Now here is where i get to the meat of my question.
looking up the definition of Nothing here is what I find
Main Entry: nothing
Function: noun
Date: 1535
1 a : something that does not exist
All I want to know is how can something not exist or how can somthing be so contradictory ie. nothing does exist ???
My head hurts now…
No they don’t exist. An invisible unicorn might exist, as well as a pink unicorn, but an invisible pink one cannot exist. Now if it were wearing a scarlet shirt of deep forest green you might have something.
Yes, they do exist.
One posted here as proof.
It was called Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Its was of course swiftly banned.
Its post were subsequently deleted, so there’s no evidence.
(Xpt, you can’t register as Invisible Pink Unicorn. I betcha. )
It’s a plot you see.
Just ask Scylla, the mythological monster.
Here it is.
Click on the picture to enlarge it.
Say the IPU exists, and you believe in her. Then you get pizza throughout eternity. Say she exists, and you don’t. Then you get gored by her holy horn, and tromped by her holy hooves forever. (And she is mad at you also.)
Now if she doesn’t exist, and you don’t believe no problem. No problem if you do believe, since there isn’t even a church to tithe you.
Clearly, it makes sense to believe - and who cares if she exists.
Sorry, but you seem to be confusing things. The invisible unicorn need not wear deep forest green. It must be in a deep green forest (or deep in a green forest). Preferably be falling or sh*tting.
What was the question again?
OK-- but why is everyone treating this question as a joke? If someone asked “Does God Exist?” a serious discussion with much emotion on both sides would ensue.
Why does a question about one made-up (as far as we know) being deserve any more solemness and seriousness than a discussion about any other made-up (AFAWK) being?
Well, for one thing, the Invisible Pink Unicorn appears to be something like a running joke around these parts of the Internet.
Another thing is that while the first half of the OP is only slightly confused, the last half (starting with ‘looking up the definition’ looks like it veers to loony-land. That makes it seem more worthwhile to first joke about it, until the OP makes clear that he is serious.
I’ve seen to many GD’s started, then me and others putting an effort in for a serious answer, and never hearing from the OP again. That’s rather demotivating, lemme tell ya. Much more fun to simply joke around until the OP returns.
If you want a quick and dirty answer:
Syllogism A
- OP says a unicorn is a mythological beast (which I agree with)
- mythological beasts by definition don’t exist
-
ergo unicorns don’t exist
Syllogism B
- unicorns don’t exist
- an Invisible Pink Unicorn is a unicorn
-
ergo Invisible Pink Unicorns don’t exist
Voila. Or Q.E.D. Or whatever.
I know the OP is asking for something else, but I’d have to crack open my Locke to answer that and he hates being bothered at this time of day.
Yes, one of my friends turned me onto the place. He told me of all the great minds that hang out here. I have posted twice, and in the first one I’m somehow missing something because the replies have dwindled to name calling, and attacks on my intelligence. This my second post, coming as a result of the first ( which was about " Does god exist " and here nobody cares take it at all seriously. I suppose I will have to take these and other things I would like to discuss elsewhere. I will wait and see what transpires for a few days.
Is there a purple brick on the floor somewhere around you? Because I just imagined you being struck in the head by a purple brick. Since it is all in my head, the concept is in my head and the brick therefore exists as a concept. Therefore it exists. Please mail the brick to me:
js_africanus
123 Fake St.
Rural, MI 49686
After receiving the brick, I will mail the IPU to you. Until then, let it stand that the idea of a thing is not the thing itself. The idea of my purple brick (specifically, the one that struck your head) is not a purple brick (striking your head), it is an idea–nothing more, nothing less.
Well, there the OP is. Allright, a serious answer.
We seem to agree that IPU’s don’t actually exist, right? (no offense to the people of the Church of IPU’s, or COI for short) So there’s no debate at that point.
Then you say it exists in your head as a concept. Well, if you say so, who am I to dispute you? Again, no debate here.
What you actually mean to ask (but I’m guessing here) is: I’ve had a conversation with someone who said that the concept of an IPU is incoherent and therefore cannot and does not exist, but since I’m thinking of an IPU, the concept does exist, doesn’t it?
If that is your question, we can have a debate about existence, essence, ideas and what not. But since your OP was not phrased very clearly I’m still not sure that this is what you want to debate or ask. It may well be that you find it difficult to phrase your question propery. But combined with your user name, that doesn’t exactly encourage meaningful debate. There are a couple of people around who deliberately post stupid questions, so I hope you understand that we have become a bit weary around here. 
As you can see, I still haven’t responded to your question, since I haven’t had confirmation yet that this actually is your question.
Aaack Ok my point is being lost again… I’ll try and bring it back.
I looked up mythological---- the definition steers you to mythical
Mythical definition:
Main Entry: myth·i·cal
Pronunciation: 'mith-i-k&l
Variant(s): or myth·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
Date: 1669
1 : based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history
2 usually mythical : existing only in the imagination : FICTITIOUS,
Ok now is Websters incorrect or does it say “existing”
I’m not arguing where it exists only that it does at all. Dictionary says it does. In my head yes… so what
Now on to the philosophical part… forget the unicorn for a moment and look at the definition of “Nothing”
I am saying that as long as something is a concept it does exist…if only as a concept or thought in my mind. Now how is it that " nothing " defined as something that does not exist - exist ? even as a concept ? For if you tell me that a concept or thought doesn’t really exist, than aren’t you tearing up the fabric of reality?
I’m not being a jerk, and I’m not trying to get into some sophist thingy here. I haven’t gone to college, and I have nothing else to go on other than logic here…
A skeptic checks all the drawers.
I undesrtand the difference between exist and existence it seems some other people here do not. Before we can begin to have a meaningful discussion some things need to be straightened out. Namely the difference between the two.
JS… I question the existence of your purple brick, however I do believe that it exists.
Bummer, without this point I am afraid I will never get anywhere…
I think Webster has a poor definition.
How about:
“Nothing is the absence of anything and everything”
You are still defining it therefore it exists… I guess where I am leaning here " Is nothing possible " I don’t think so.
Then get some stiches and mail my purple brick to me. It’s right there, next to you. You can’t miss it. It is a particularly noticable shade of purple. If you clap three times it will squawk like a domesticated fowl. I’m imagining it, therefore it does exist. Why don’t you see it? Why isn’t it there next to you? Either the concept is not in my head, or the existence of a concept or thought does not imply (force?) the actual existence of the object of the thought. Clearly, I the concept of the purple brick that just struck you in the head exists, otherwise I couldn’t be typing about it, so I can only conclude that the existence of the thought does not imply the existence of the object.
You know that painting This is Not a Pipe? It’s a painting of a pipe. But the painting is not a pipe. It is a painting of a pipe. Indeed! it may merely be the painting of the concept of a pipe. There is no Egg-Boy. But there is, on my notes made during the last staff meeting, a drawing of Egg-Boy robbing a bank.
You merely assert that an object must exist because the concept of it exists. Why should I think that’s true? Where’s Egg-Boy? Where’s that brick you just got hit in the head with? Where’s god?
Look at it this way in mathematics 0 essentially equals nothing. However without 0 our math falls apart so it is something…
Invisible pink unicorns do not exist. The concept of invisible pink unicorns exist.
The concept of invisible pink unicorns is not true – which is to say that they do not correspond with the state of reality, and what your friend means by incoherent – but the concept is valid – which is to say that it is logically self-consistent and also consistent with the axioms of predicate / propositional calculus.
Well, thanks for explaining it.
Existence: The fact or state of existing
Exist: To have actual being; be real
If it exists because it is defined, then it has existence since existence is the fact or state of existing. Therefore the purple brick has existence. Produce it.