Prove to me that IPFUs exist.

Great Debates
1

That’s right. We hear a lot about them in this forum, but I don’t believe they exist.

I’m talking about IPFU - Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns.

You hear about them all the time - everyone believes they exist, but no one is willing to give proof. Well, here’s your chance. I’m listening. Convince me.

2

I think you’re using her wrong.

3

Don’t be silly. I rode one to the Eugenics And Genetic Freedom Convention in Atlantis last December.

4

In an infinite Universe all possible things must exist ergo Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns must exist.

5

I had to swerve, officer! It was a pink invisible flying unicorn! Honest!

Almost as lame as Heisenberg’s excuse that the cop can’t know he’s ON the highway AND speeding at the same time.

-PK

6

Maybe this has been asked before, but I’ll ask again:

If they’re invisible, how can you say they’re pink?

7

Courtesy of you-know-who (with appropriate and apparently inconsequential changes made)…

Given

~N(~g) It is possible that the IPFU exists (premise)

Prove g

  1. g --> N(g) If IPFU exists in actuality, then it is necessary that God exists (Law of Necessitation)
  2. N(g) v ~N(g) Either it is necessary that IPFU exists, or else it is not (Law of Excluded Middle)
  3. ~N(g) --> N(~N(g)) If it is not necessary that IPFU exists, then it is necessary that it is not necessary that IPFU exists (Modal Axiom)
  4. N(g) v N(~N(g)) Either it is necessary that IPFU exists or else it is necessary that IPFU necessarily does not exist (Disjunction on 2,3)
  5. N(~N(g)) --> N(~g) If it is necessary that IPFU necessarily does not exist, then it is necessary that IPFU does not exist. (Becker’s Postulate — necessity obtains)
  6. N(g) v N(~g) Either it is necessary that IPFU exists, or else it is necessary that She does not. (Disjuntion 4,5)
  7. N(g) It is necessary that IPFU exists (Law of Noncontradiction 6, premise)
  8. N(g) --> g If it is necessary that IPFU exists, then IPFU exists. (Law of Necessitation)

Conclusion:

g IPFU exists. (Modus Ponens 7,8)

QED

No, it actually doesn’t make any more sense in a real-world way than the original does. But if it’s supposed to be true for God, ain’t no reason I can see that it can’t be true for the IPFU…

8

Dang. Change “God” in Step 1 to “IPFU”.

I knew I’d miss one…

9

I don’t know about the flying part, but there was an invisible pink unicorn who registered, posted proof of its existence and was summarily banned with the thread being deleted from the archives.

It’s true. I swear it. Just ask Scylla, he was there.

10

Through faith.

11

Simple.

In order to be invisible, they must be there to be not seen. Thus, by their very definition, they are necessarily existant.

12

Well, I got no proof. But FWIW I have seen IPFU’s (nevermind that they are invisible, they are still pink) but only about half past a bottle of Jack…

13

Flying?

When did they introduce flying into her name?

:confused:

14

[troll cap off]

I love this community. Damn shame I’ll have to leave come April 21st.

[troll cap on]

WTF!?! There aren’t any arguments here! I want some good, solid, incontrovertible proof. Otherwise you are all admitting the truth: that IPFUs really don’t exist!

15

I read IPU’s posts.
I saw them with my own eyes.
Beings who do not exist are specifically prohibited from registering and posting. Just ask Scylla

16

42

17

I have a friend who is a unicorn. She can fly, like all unicorns can, and when she’s visible she’s pink. I suppose one could argue that she is EITHER pink OR invisible, since she loses her pinkness when she becomes invisible and loses her invisibility when she becomes pink, and is thus not “an invisible pink” unicorn. Furthermore, she is not a flying unicorn when she is standing, sitting, lying down, or walking, or otherwise not moving through the air of her own volition. However, she is a unicorn, pink in color when visible, able to fly and make herself invisible. If you want to see her as proof, she is perfectly willing to reveal herself to you. She needs to keep this whole existence thing kind of quiet, and she can only fly so far, so you have to meet her on her own terms. She’ll just pop over to the top level of the west ramp at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota at 3:00 AM. She will appear, then fly, then become invisible. You are not allowed to touch her, because if a virgin touches her she has to grant them three wishes. You are not allowed to photograph or record her in any way, and you must come alone. If you violate any of these rules, the deal is off. If you do not appear, as planned, she will assume you have taken our word for her existence.

She looks forward to meeting you.

BTW, her name is Lavender.

18

I did not realize you were a hitchhiker, too. So Long and Thanks for All the Fish (not a swansong just an attempt at a literary reference)

19

I think one just landed in my pink, fluffy “whipped raspberry” yogurt.

It left hoof prints!

20

ahem…

Don’t be silly. These kinds of silly intellectual mind games trying trying to deny the obviousness of her existence do get tiring.

But here goes…

Proof 1: Cogito ergo IFPU
I think therefore IFPU’s exist. In order to have a thought, there obviously must be an IFPU to conceive of the thought. The mere fact that you question the IFPU’s existence proves that she does indeed exist.

Proof 2: “I refute it thus” (or something like that)
We know that without presupposing the existence of the IFPU, no form of useful knowledge can be gathered, therefore talking about the nonexistence of the IFPU is mere sophistry. If it isn’t in relation to, or demonstrated by the IFPU it might as well not exist because there’s no way to prove assertions outside of the IFPU.