Actually, I think that's about as serious as Mister Twister gets. I think he's trying to be humorous, yes, but just because he likes humour; I think Mister Twister is making a point, and, you know what, if you can make a point and be humorous at the same time, good on you.
Unfortunately, not Mister Twister's funniest joke ...
But, anyway, Mister Twister's logic, if a little off, is not completely fallacious; it's a fairly common philosophical exercise. Mister Twister is arguing from a Platonic base (which deals more with perception or "ideas" of reality), while Rakuen Growlithe is arguing from a very Aristotlian base (which deals more with measurable absolutes of reality).
Neither way to view reality has yet to be proven wrong, and it is probably impossible to prove either wrong, right or even "better". I'm a Platonic guy myself; most religious people are by necessity.
Actually, I think that's about as serious as Mister Twister gets. I think he's trying to be humorous, yes, but just because he likes humour; I think Mister Twister is making a point, and, you know what, if you can make a point and be humorous at the same time, good on you.
Unfortunately, not Mister Twister's funniest joke ...
But, anyway, Mister Twister's logic, if a little off, is not completely fallacious; it's a fairly common philosophical exercise. Mister Twister is arguing from a Platonic base (which deals more with perception or "ideas" of reality), while Rakuen Growlithe is arguing from a very Aristotlian base (which deals more with measurable absolutes of reality).
Neither way to view reality has yet to be proven wrong, and it is probably impossible to prove either wrong, right or even "better". I'm a Platonic guy myself; most religious people are by necessity.