Pink Unicorns & Other Nonsense
by Paul Ross
The atheist thinks it’s just as reasonable to posit the invisible pink unicorn as the creator of the universe as we do God; although atheists don’t believe in invisible pink unicorns they use such caricatures so as to belittle belief in God as a ploy to derail serious conversation. In fact you’ll be hard pressed to find an atheistic/theistic discussion where these analogies are not constantly used in the arsenal of caricature ridicules against the Christian. I personally don’t bother taking it seriously because the whole history of Christianity is about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the global historical, life changing experiences, of those that have encountered Jesus. Moreover if God was an invisible pink unicorn then I’m sure He would have made that clear to us by now. Although a very small group of individuals have claimed to see unicorns, none of their testimonies have claimed that this unicorn was the creator of the universe; and I’m sure there are far less who have encountered an intelligent sandwich orbiting in outer space.
If the atheist wants to posit various silly competitions to the existence of God to minimise and trivialise belief in God then that’s fine but this does not even remotely get us close to addressing the serious questions in regard to the origin of life and the universe. The pink unicorn – and other analogies – are nothing more than a mock kindergarten attempt at ridicule by the atheists instead of offering answers to the origin of the laws of physics, the origin of life, the origin of the first living cell, the origin of information or a rational explanation on how dumb mindless matter morphed into thinking conscious sentient self-aware beings the atheist is just asserting that ALL peoples’ experiences of God, across the globe, and down throughout history, are ALL equally delusional and false and here the atheist is making positive claims that need to be proved. Moreover it seems ridiculous to me when they assert that our belief in God is a misuse of reason when they can’t first establish (given that in their worldview the universe is nothing more than the by-product of impersonal mindless processes and forces) what the proper use of reason is in the first place.
Atheism and science should not be conflated – they are not synonymous. Atheism is a philosophy whereas science attempts to remove philosophy as much as possible from its evaluation of the natural world and its phenomenon (though such a goal is often thwarted when science is removed from its proper context and used as a philosophical tool against theism). The assumption that there isn’t anything outside the system. This is the mother of all assumptions. There is no way to get outside the present system so there is no way to prove that assumption. You can believe it, but it has to be by faith.
Atheists have proved themselves desperately committed, over and over again, to removing God and have endless alternative explanations to deploy in their rejection of God; for example the multiverse explanation is just another one of their red herrings manufactured to distract the mind away from the fine-tunning argument; because if a lottery universe-making machine causes to pop into existence extraordinary universes like ours that show purposeful design, that in turn ensure life and the emergence of conscious sentient beings then a special creation from God is rendered redundant. But this theory fails at two basic levels:
1. It is an explanation that can never be verified through experimental data and so therefore is a pseudo-science; it’s a metaphysical faith-based philosophy.
2. It does not escape the need to explain a first cause that caused a multiverse, and its laws that govern the multiverse to further cause the possibility of the existence of life and conscious sentient beings in the first place. In short God could have created the laws that govern the multiverse that in turn produce fantastic mathematically finely tuned universes like ours.
In short, atheism is not an unbiased viewpoint; it is a viewpoint that is filtered through an empiricist epistemological presuppositional materialistic interpretation of reality in which everything is framed and restated to fit into only one point of view – namely its own. Moreover to call our experience and belief in God an illusion – produced by matter – is just begging the question (Conclusion without proving the assertion) because in calling it an illusion the atheist is presupposing omniscience of knowledge to differentiate between illusions and non-illusions as far as what ultimate reality really is and such a claim is self-evidently ridiculous. Now God is a non-material being (Spirit) – He is not made up of matter/stuff that is subject to decay and disintegration; neither is He contingent on other factors to enable Him to exist. Given that God is non-material one cannot give material evidence for the non-material any more than one can taste the colour blue. Apart from direct personal experience there is no direct material evidence of God but the absence of MATERIAL evidence is not evidence of absence. How does the skeptic KNOW that non-material things/persons do not exist? He\she cannot KNOW this but must hold to this as an article of faith. To say that non-material things DO NOT exist is to say too much for it is a claim of omniscient knowledge, which again is evidently ridiculous, as I said before.