The I.P.U, or the invisible pink unicorn was invented by atheists in their attempt to find a way around the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This fallacy is committed when a person argues that because there is a lack of evidence for p, then p is false.
This reasoning is fallacious because all sorts of things can exist despite no proof or evidence for their existence.
For example, before humans knew that the planet pluto existed, then one could conclude it didn't exist before it was detected by humans. For obvious reasons this line of reasoning does not hold water. (Logical Positivism)
So atheists conclude that God does not exist because in their subjective opinion, there is no evidence that God exists. (As opposed to science, which has no comment to make about God or gods)
The invisible unicorn was created by atheists to show theists that although logically you cannot infer that God does not exist, any farcical entity could be deemed to possibly exist.
This reasoning is not sound, logically because equating a hypothetical entity with another proposed entity p, does not mean that the hypothetical entity is equal to p.
The problem is you can literally create the most absurd, unlikely and improbable entity possible such as an invisible mash potatoe with a monkey's brain that levitates above rabbit droppings only.
As you can see, it is, for want of a better word, impossible that such a ridiculous thing exists. It is clearly false.
And so as you can see, although the invisible unicorn is undetectable, like God is undetectable, and invisible like God is invisible, it does not therefore follow logically that God is as absurdly impossible or equally unlikely.
Of course, it is reasonable to dismiss a pink unicorn as false, but only if God is equivalent to such an entity, can we dismiss Him. But atheists have not proven that God is equal or the same thing in value, as again, there is no way to test. We are led in a circle, back to the original problem of our own ignorance.
- Whatever might truly exist however amazing or improbable, is therefore possible.
If it is not possible ERGO it does not exist. (sound logic)
A pink unicorn is not possible, as it has no rational reasons to be possible ERGO it does not exist.
(Notice we can infer that a pink unicorn is not possible, because we know it has no rational basis for being the creator of the universe, it is an inadequate, nonsensical composition of absurdities, but of God, we simply are ignorant, which is not the same thing.) Furthermore, the assumption there is not a Creator is not granted given there is an orderly Creation, therefore, the Creator of the universe, whatever or whoever He is, is represented to some degree, by the universe itself. This is further evidence that the IPU doesn't actually exist because the qualities of the Creation show the qualities of the Creator, there is intrinsic rationality and orderliness and design in the Creation, and stability. we can therefore infer that there is genuine depth, meaning and complexity to the Creator, therefore we can't equate the Creator with anything shallow or flimsy, or nonsensical to reality, because the Creation is a consistent reality, therefore the Creation itself leads us to dismiss the nonsense atheists have stated, such as invisible unicorns or invisible teapots orbiting Saturn. These vacuous comments are logically flawed propositions.
So we can conclude that ACTUALLY there are ways to disprove negatives, or at least to rationally remove them, through evidence that goes against them, in a reasonable way.
Logically there is more to this issue, because of compositional element-comparisons. I have revealed some fundamental differences between an invisible unicorn and the one responsible for the Creation of the universe. As you can see, those un-noticeable differences actually show us the difference between something that is completely dismissable and something that is of valid contemplation, therefore I will give an equal example of a compositional comparison, as that of a waxwork human being and a real human being.
1. They both look the same. (God and IPU are both invisible)
2. Both human and waxwork are identical, visibly.
3. Both have the capacity to stand still.
Question: Can we, because of the shared elements, say that either both are the same, or both are false or both are none-living or both are living? Can we say they are the same? No, we can't.
Actually, it is what they DO NOT SHARE that makes them very different. The insides of a human prove a living being but a waxwork is a shallow shadow of life, DESPITE the fact that they share elements. In the same way, God and the IPU share elements, but one is demonstrably false. The unicorn only had invisibility because it doesn't exist. Logically it is proven that something that does not exist and something that does exist, can share elements. For example, the Higgs Boson is invisible, and so is an invisible unicorn. They are both invisible, but for different reasons.
Higgs Boson -> Invisible, was undetectable, -> True
Unicorn -> Invisible, undetectable, -> False.