The Invisible Dark Pink Balloon Theory

My childhood argument against my parents belief in the existence of god is simply this.

1) You can't falsify the existence of god so it can't be proven that god exists.

2) Proposition: There is an invisible floating dark pink balloon in every single room of the world.

3) You can't ever disprove this so we can say with certainty that it is not true.

4) So it is not true that there is an invisible floating dark pink balloon in every single room of the world.

5) Therefore, there is not an invisible floating dark pink balloon in every single room of the world.

6) This implies that there is no omnipresent, invisible god.

Existence is physical, so you can falsify anything which exists simply because you can move it elsewhere, perhaps even into the invisible, or you can dissolve it by eradication. "There is a chair in that room" can be falsified by simply physically removing the chair from the room such that "There is not a chair in that room." With every reality, there is a not or a possibility of a not, and in predicate logic not is a crucial function. My issue with god's existence is that he's never appeared to humankind so we can't deduce that he exists in the way that we can imply that infinity exists. If you add, or multiply etc, all the numbers we know together, you get infinity. Although infinity is implied, it is definitely a physical composition. God does not have a basic mineral existence, so he cannot exist because he can't be implied from material clues.

Although the invisible is included in philosophical set theory as Nikk Effingham points out in An Introduction to Ontology by saying that "The larger infinities are virtually invisible when it comes to science. Nonetheless, set theory includes them, and mathematicians think about them," I personally believe that invisibilities can only be stated if they have originally existed, if they have firstly been visible even just once. As I said, the number infinity comes from adding all the other numbers together, multiplying them, etc, but god has never appeared, been seen by anyone or existed visibly so as to be counted. This is a problem for me. As I said, as a child I said my invisible pink balloon theory in reply to my parents and my brother's certain truth that god existed. This meant that as a teen they didn't question me as much or delve as much into my mind for my personal beliefs, so now I'd just like to try my argument on you.

It's different from the invisible gardener argument stated by Anthony Flew about an invisible gardener http://www.politik-salon.de/files/theory_of_falsification.pdf because it drops the problem of the character of god to just concentrate on if you can say that anything that invisible can exist if it has not previously existed visibly before to someone or some group. The image of a gardener loving and tending to his garden distracts us away from the rugged, pure question of a big, everywhere god existing by asking if the Christian god exists, a loving god or if an invisible entity which nurses us exists, rather than if just an omnipresent god exists. Gardeners are by definition caring because they love the garden, and whether or not a loving god exists is not my question. My quest is to find out by philosophical argument whether a god can exist. As a believer in the literary arts, I think philosophical arguments are not just embellished by their characters or objects, but they are defined and freed by them, so here the gardener is an expression of the Christian god who loves his church, because the gardener loves his garden.

In the end as a child, I argued over what a vision was, because my family said that if you've seen god once, you or anybody past or present, then he exists now and always has. Mohammed had a vision which made him into a prophet, but I told them that visions don't count as evidence of the physical or chemical because you can't video visions to analyse them and you can’t sense them, and also visions indicate mental illness inside you in that you are just attempting to avoid hallucinating since to have a vision as your mental process are such that you firstly need to avoid hallucinating by telling yourself that visions are acceptable. Instead of accepting that god does not exist and thus hallucinating when you push yourself harder than you should, indeed, over the edge, you simply have a vision of god who is set within the societal concepts and social flows of your everyday life. Your vision will undoubtedly surround what your community's or city's future life is going to be like and will be a prediction of future life or business because that's what we worry about. You hallucinate when you're unspeakably worried about something and don't believe you can confide in someone, but if you think you're sane and are not using false propositions then you may have a vision of your future life with other people, those in your realm.

Anyway, once you account for visions you realise that saying that something is invisible doesn't prove it ever existed physically in the physical world, because it needs to have previously been a physical reality to somebody once, since the invisible entity or body may be a sci-fi creature out of a book or film. This does not make it real, this makes it literature based and invented by humankind for entertainment, which normally attempts to disseminate a moral truth so that readers or viewers can form better reasoning methods internally. Does Superman or Alien exist? No, but they have a value, a meaning and moral teaching, and this is what I think god and Jesus had in past centuries. Today the church is unnecessary and archaic, sometimes dangerously, but we must reply to Christians and others by believing that the physical is different to literary characters, who have a mobile interpretation through the centuries.

Christians commonly reply to existence arguments by saying “I maybe can't prove that god exists, but you can't prove that god doesn't exist either!” Well, I need to say that we must start somewhere if and construct a refutal of the existence of god by basing our anti-theism theory around a discussion of the falsification of one of these to propositions. The falsification principle states that if something can't be proved wrong, then it has no meaning. When pertaining this principle to objects or people, we would presume that the objects or people we are discussing already exist, but if they don’t, then you could also conclude that they don't. When asking, for example, if Object X is blue, if Person Y is in France today, or if Object Z has changed size, then you should be able to say that Object X is not blue or that Person Y is not in France today by knowing that other colours or places exist. All these statements are falsifiable because Object X could be red, Person Y could still be in Manchester and Object Z could still be exactly the same size as before. And in case Object X, Person Y and Object Z don't exist, you would conclude that these three statements can't be falsified because their entities don't exist and so they are meaningless.

Naturalism which says that no supernatural motion exists is founded on positivism which says that positive knowledge is based on what’s evident in nature which can be stated using philosophical set properties and relations. A set property is just the same as a type in maths or computing, so here Object X would have the property blue because its property could place anywhere on the colour spectrum: you can specify the actual blueness alphanumerically if you want to. The truth about people is that we are all unique so our individual existence does not have a property value because our existence is dependent upon our birth and personality which is DNA based. If the statement Person Y is in France today is false because they are not in France today since they've never been born, then the statement Person Y is in France today is falsifiable by a data check. To see if Person Y exists or not we would just do a data check using computers. Has someone imagined that Person Y exists, and is it provable that they do not? These are the two the basic questions which need answered.

However, when asking if God is in Thailand today, we must proceed to ask if god exists. I believe god’s existence is a simpler question than asking if god doesn't exist, or than the proposition God does not exist which seems double-barrelled or dependent on god’s pre-existence, and indeed, the not function in computing is only the inverse of something else which exists rather than being a composition function like A AND B, or A OR B. In binary code, 1 is the inverse of 0, and 0 is the inverse of 1. NOT blue would simply imply any of the other colours could hold for the colour property of an entity if the property definition of the set included the entire colour spectrum. Therefore, because there is no existence property for god in that we cannot describe god because he’s not physical and has never been seen, basically, you can't inverse god, then we must take the positive proposition that God exists first and attempt to imply things from the fact that this statement is not falsifiable before we attempt to imply things using the inability to falsify the statement God does not exist, because the later feels more like a statement than a proposition. Indeed, it is more effective to operate on and discuss the inability to falsify god’s existence than it is to discuss our inability to falsify god’s non-existence.

So I have taken the statement “You can't falsify the existence of god so it can't be proven that god exists”, statement 1, as my base case rather than “You can't falsify the non-existence of god so it can't be proven that god does not exist”, and I have made it into the basis of my argument argument that god does not exist. This statement, that god’s existence can't be falsified, has first rights for being discussed since it did not come from a NOT function or an inverter statement because it has not undergone a not function, which is important. We atheists stand on surer ground than believers when we attempt to prove that god’s existence is ludicrous because believers, I think, are using a second hand statement by discussing the proposition that god does not exist because it is an inverse of a unique existence claim.

The way forward is through a much more thorough discussion of the inability to falsify god’s existence because this proposition in the whole existence debate is true. It is true that you can't falsify the existence of god, that is what I am sure of, quietly. By stark magnification of a propositional statement embedded in a short but traditional propositional sequence that nodes the church its justification in its deceptive fairness and balance.

Balance? I know I find it in physical grounding, and this proceeds from the second claim or dual proposition of the church, that you can't falsify the existence of god. Take it and run. With everything you've got, and axiom your way into predicates by concise arguments, not by hot emotions and hormones, because they don't mean truth. Sacred is known and rutters our back, so if we think that just saying "I know" in a deep voice works then we lie and will indeed convergently get nowhere. The edifice is not there when we cry true as it is when counter-arguers fraud the microphone with gestures and body language, because vitality is in disjoint AND propositional combinations, the one or other statement, and today it's a statement to the police about god needing a seat in propositional land, because set logic is predicate logic and not social law, witch is called social current.

We must use the truths that we know to make forthcoming implications, because real conclusions are implications based since they do not come from patchwork judgements or from an passionate ferocious reply in a spontaneous combustion. Thinking about god works and is cool, so if you want to, just do. You, in your mind, and with rationality, because reason sits there.

Comments