BRILLIANT.

It's one of the best ideas to tell those people that don't see the possibility of a vast universe of ideas and wonder but just blindly believe with a second thought of what if...

Love the fact that its Twilight that's saying it when her mentor raises and lowers the sun. The LOL of it all is almost too much to handle withe laughing to death.

to her credit, her mentor is a physical being with a provable existence. :)

That is true but only in the confines of the MLP:FiM universe is that existence provable. But when you think about isn't a thought of something proof the it may exist or might have existed at some point?

Humans have I think therefore I am which is proof of existence is a since that is provable and not provable at the same which brings to Ockham's Razor and Schrodinger's Cat type discussion.

Ockham's Ravor Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Schrodinger's Cat Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C.....dinger%27s_cat

Food for thought.

On the wiki, I read Celestia Teapot...

Personally I don't believe in an all powerful being of any description, but the Russell's teapot argument is quite flawed and Twilight would recognize that :P Very simply put, it doesn't matter if there is a teapot in orbit, but the possibility of an all powerful and vengeful being does. Pascal's Wager is a more thorough argument regarding the possible existence of god, and far more reasonable. Any argument that assumes by default that god doesn't exist falls prey to the Pascal's Wager counter argument, oddly enough Pascal's Wager does not lose to it's own counter argument because it acknowledges some level of uncertainty. Absolute certainty is the tool of both militant atheists and religious zealots, and it can't make either of them right :P

I almost forgot to explain Pascal's Wager. In essence it was originally used to say that because if god does exist, and you don't believe in god your loss could be infinite, but if you do believe and god doesn't exist your loss is finite, so a person should live as though god exists and try to believe. There are variations of this argument however that state that the argument is too rigid, it does not allow for the idea of less than all powerful gods, or that god may not care if you believe.

In essence, the original argument fell short because it was constructed in an entirely christian framework, but it's variations state that because if there is a god, it may not be Christian, your loss may be infinite regardless, therefore you should simply try to live a good life and experience no loss in life because afterwards could be anything.

The base of the original argument and some other stuff can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager