tavarish, your Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is not only regurgitated from the same tired old idea used in an atheistic viewpoint over and over again, it is also faulty because of the nature of your so-called 'Invisible Pink Unicorn.' The suggestion that thisUnicorn exists supposes that there must be a physical or biological entity known as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and that it could, in theory, be found or constructed or proven.
This pales in comparison to the idea of what God is supposed to be, which is a being free of tethers such as biological or physical existance and exists merely on a plain of it's own. The nature of God is different from the nature of your IPU because He is an entity which exists everywhere simultaneously, exists in a way that is non-physical, and exists beyond the scope of anything less than spiritual perception.
The IPU as you present it, however, presuppoes that the entity of God could perhaps be touched or seen or perceived in a lesser state than that of God. If you really want to talk about a being like that, let's start a topic about Angels and you can bring up your personal 'Angel', the IPU, there.
This pales in comparison to the idea of what God is supposed to be, which is a being free of tethers such as biological or physical existance and exists merely on a plain of it's own. The nature of God is different from the nature of your IPU because He is an entity which exists everywhere simultaneously, exists in a way that is non-physical, and exists beyond the scope of anything less than spiritual perception.
The IPU as you present it, however, presuppoes that the entity of God could perhaps be touched or seen or perceived in a lesser state than that of God. If you really want to talk about a being like that, let's start a topic about Angels and you can bring up your personal 'Angel', the IPU, there.
