Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Just to play fast and loose- we must face the truth, no matter how unpalatable
- a creator IPU is, by definition, not part of the cosmos
- space, time, matter, energy, etc. are limited to the cosmos, so why not also logic itself.The question of the existence of the IPU is then outside the bounds of logic. The IPU may of course use logic, but is not constrained by it, as is necessary if the IPU is to be fully omnipotent. In confirmation, the IPUist points out that their holy book says the IPU’s ways are not our ways, and goes off for a drink.Does this argument have a (non-comedic) name?

---

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

This experience can be had in a darkened room, staring at a solid-color screen for a minute and then blanking the screen. Your nerves, having compensated, then see the inverse color for a short while, and because it is generated internally it does indeed exceed all understanding, or at least is way cool.You can also create an out-of body experience without recourse to drugs
We're Sorry - Scientific American
Real Out-of-Body Experiences - Scientific AmericanI’ve never met anyone who had an out-of-body experience, except a long way back I went to a church where an invited speaker told us that while in hospital he flew off to heaven, etc., and the congregation politely said no way. Most Christians that I’ve met are also highly skeptical of any claim that ‘God spoke to me’ — talk to God, fine, but when God speaks back, maintain eye contact and back away.Rarely, some churches have generated mass phenomena, probably hysteria (google Toronto Blessing for an example — the YouTube videos are particularly scary) from which the average Christian would step smartly away.But having said all that, suppose it was possible to create a vision of God in the lab, and I had that experience, and so now am even more skeptical of such claims. Then along the road to Damascus, out of the blue that exceeds all understanding I have another vision of God. I’m not absolutely certain I would just think it was my brain kicking-up, or if I would believe that even though the lab simulation was all very interesting, this time it’s the real thing and will change my life forever. That it would be as real as my socks to me. From what I said above you may be right about visionaries, but it would seem that believers do not need such experiences as an ongoing process.

---

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

I get it, I’m not wanted but as all this interests me, will try one last time without any attempt at subtlety and then crawl back in my cave.Is it possible for a Turing machine to do science, or did Einstein have a vision of an IPU so beautiful that he then back-filled the logic?If the latter then by extension, what if someone has a vision of an IPU that takes many years to fully post-rationalize, such as strings.Then by one more extension, can there be IPUs so magnificent, so beguiling, that words just don’t do them justice and further explanation is/should be superfluous.Call them coping mechanisms, call them viruses, call them Starry Night or Beethoven’s 7th. My contention is just that all branches of thought have their limitations, and that some ideas cannot be objectively, rationally, expressed and yet can still be meaningful because we evolved that way. Perhaps it’s baggage or maybe it’s because we can see more than Turing machines, time may tell.Thanks if you read this far, and onifre, just for you, different sig.

---

Can we ever truly know when our philosophy assignment is due?