Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

What about those that say there is a causal agent for their belief in the IPU? How do you dismiss them? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I thought you were saying it as 'matter of fact'. We would only be able to investigate the functional aspects of the experience, in other words, how the brain functions during these experiences. The significance of the experience can only be given by the person having the experience it.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

No, I do not think their claims validates anything.

But the experience of learning about the physical causes of the experiences can be significant to all those having that learning experience, and even to those who had the experience under study

Absolutely, it can be very interesting and necessary to understanding the human emotional development and the emergence of consciousness and subjective awareness.I take it you've had these experiences under study?Would you not agree with RAZD then, that having said experiences can make someone more prone to accepting the possibility of something other than the natural, just on the basis of the experience seeming so real and yet is just taking place within the mind?I believe this is the fundamental basis for belief.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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

BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT. Off topic alert. None of your post addresses the topic.ANY possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU.ANY possibility which is NOT derived from ANY evidence IS equivalent to the IPU.The original grouping of the IPU and the possibility of alien life was defined by the terms of the OP that you wrote. Evidential terms.You have since agreed that both the possibility of alien life and the tangential possibility of alien visitation are in fact NOT equivalent to the IPU in evidential terms.However the concept of deities, the concept which the IPU was specifically designed to be equivalent to in evidential terms, REMAINS evidentially equivalent to the IPU.To Separate the IPU from any other concept by means of anything other than evidential terms, the evidential terms originally specified by you in your OP, would be to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.The IPU IS a logical argument when discussing evidence and the belief or non-belief in wholly un-evidenced entities.Do you deny this fact? Can you refute this fact?Or not?

Believers don't need anything as an ongoing process, since we have already labeled them "believers". The experiences themselves draw attention from skeptics, on-the-fencers and possibly diesm-type "believers" who hold to some level of metaphysical possiblities existing."Believers", as in theists, need no other confirmation for their beliefs. They have already placed faith in said diety and accept it on the basis of faith...and possibily on that basis alone. This has proven impossible to do in my life experiences. Even if we ignore you, you are not likely to keep quiet - lol (just kidding )- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Sorry Straggler, but you still can't force it.Curiously you still have not answered whether people that claim to have seen alien visitations can be interpreted as validation for the probability of alien visitations. Is it not probable that some of the alien visitations would be seen in some way?A simple yes or no will do for starters. One wonders if the reluctance to answer such a simple question is due to cognitive dissonance. Maybe it's time to explore your mind and your conclusions?Do you, or do you not, think people that have had such visitation experiences would change their minds in favor of the probability of alien visitations relative to their position previously?These are simple questions.If increasing the number of planets increases the probability of life on other planets, does not increasing the numbers of people who have had similar experiences increase the probability of what they are claiming as true?I must say I am disappointed in both your and mod's replies - more like hard-line fundamentalists than open-minded skeptics, repeating tired old party lines rather than addressing the issue. You have just repeated a post without making any change whatsoever in your fundamentalist argument. Modulus quotes a mockery of "scripture" and with onifre we are back to the old "people make things up" excuse -- which is just about as explanatory as "god-did-it" -- and that takes as a tacit assumption that anything that contradicts your world view is made up.You all keep telling me that atheists are open-minded quasi-agnostics and just have not seen sufficient convincing evidence -- while building up the barricades.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I'll just jump in with an answer - no, it cannot. Not in any scientific sense anyway, which is all that matters to us. Who cares what is and is not admissible in a court... I trust you are asking this rhetorically with the obvious negative connotation? If not, then I'm afraid I will have to call for the yellow van...

Subjective evidence is worthless in terms of establsihing truth.So "No" is the answer to your question. No. And people who have experienced the IPU may well change heir minds regarding the actual existence of the IPU.So what?What is your point? I do not believe the in the actuality of entities for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even might exist.That is a simple and consistent answer.A simple a consistent answer which is impossible if you believe in some unevidenced concepts but not others on the basis of the logical fallacy of special pleading.As you do. No.You are not a fool so I can only conclude that the need to confuse and conflate the logically derived possibility of alien existence from known facts (i.e. life exists and other planets exist) with the subjective, unevidenced and highly improbable, claims of actual alien visitation is intentional on your part.If this is not the case then please forgive my scepticism. Ask the question and I will explain it to you. Just as I would explain such evident differences to Buzsaw and ICANT. I do not believe in the actuality of entities for which there is no evidential reason to think possible.Call it "hardline" if you will.But I challenge you to give an example of any such entity (existing seperately and distinctly from the experiencee) in which you believe actually exists on the basis of no objective empirical evidence whatsoever. Other than your deity.In fact I double dare you!!!!! "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is NOT my position.No matter how much you assert or wish it to be.Your deistic conclusions are unfounded and unwarranted. They are no more worthy of my agnosticsim than the IPU.Until you can explain why your deity is different to the IPU in purely evidential terms this remains fatally, factually and intrinsically true.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you are simply going to take the "probability" as the standard by which validity is given, then any and all things which have followers is likely to be probable, on the basis that increased testimonies automatically increases the probability. My next question would be, how many testimonies does it take to make the likelyhood of anything probable, 1, 100, 1000?If this is your only point then by YOUR standards we have to agree with you.But "we" (assuming that Mod and Straggler agree) don't just settle for likely probabilities based on individual testimonies.Either nothing is likely probable until objective evidence is shown, or, anything is likely probable once claims are made, since, by your standards, the likelyhood increases as more and more people make the claim.Following your logic then so is the IPU "likely probable" since there is an increase of individual experiences. I think you have oversimplified my position."People make things up" is neither an excuse, my excuse or a valid excuse when hearing someone out. First, people make things up, period - I don't see how you can argue around that fact. Second, I have not said that you're making things up, I have stated that you had an experience which you've self assuringly attributed to god, I then asked how you corelated the experience with god.You have failed to show the connection and are left with a belief based on assumtions about a world view that you yourself can't explain any further than, "Well others have experiences too and that lends weight to the probability."If probablity is all you seek then an argument can be made for existance itself being sufficent enough for the probablity of god...and by that measure so too is the IPU probable, and intelligent design is too, since many ID supporters argue that existance itself lends weight to the likelyhood of a designer. It also has many followers, people who have given testimony to having spoken directly with the designer and by your above probablity standards has an increase in probability since many support these claims.Have I failed to understand your position?- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Which contradicts your logical extrapolation on the possibility of alien visitation. What you are confronting is your readiness to completely and entirely dismiss any all subjective experiences as fabrications of the mind, while the logical extenuation from evidence reaching the same conclusion finally (after much teeth pulling) got a "yes" -- because of your readiness to value logic and deduction no matter how tenuous.I figured it would be. You don't want to be inspected for why yes on one question and no on the other when they are the same end result - the probability of alien visitations being observed. I can understand that. Cognitive dissonance works that way. Well, curiously that is the point. Do you know of any? Not the kind of fabrication Mod made, but actual documented experiences? Experiences where people have changed their behavior or belief? When it comes to other peoples actual experiences, and not stuff they have made up, I maintain an open mind, so No I do not automatically reject all such claims. There is plenty of objective evidence of life changing experiences that cannot be explained by purely objective criteria. But, when you reject the possibilities of evidence before you start, you will never know.Do you or do you not agree that there is a large gray area between absolutely no evidence of any kind, and concepts that can be validated by objective, repeated experience?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Tut tut tut.Raz you are confusing your possibles and your probables again. This is becoming a habit of yours. Fact: Life exists on this planet.
Fact: There are other planets.Thus the possibility of life on other planets is a logical conclusion that requires no more evidence or interpretation of evidence than that.Now determining the actual probability of life on other planets relies on obtaining and analysing all sorts of evidence relating to the chemistry of life, the nature of the universe and the hospitability of the planets it contains.It is a very different sort of question.Fact: Intelligent life exists on this planet.
Fact: There are other planets.Thus the possibility of intelligent life on other planets capable of communicating with us is a logical conclusion that requires no more evidence or interpretation of evidence than that.Now determining the actual probability of intelligent life capable of visiting us from other planets requires all sorts of evidence pertaining to the chemistry of life, the nature of the universe, the physics of space travel etc. etc. etc. It may well be that this logical possibility is in fact deeply improbable in any practical sense.Either way it is a very very very different question.Whatever the case - People's subjective experiences give us no objective reason to think that any alien visitations have actually occurred. Extrapolating personal experience in the way that you are suggesting is akin to climbing a stairway made of sponge. YAWN.......See above.Come back to me once you have grasped the differences between logical possibilities derived from known facts, practical probabilities determined by interpretation of evidence and extrapolation of unreliable subjective experience. The three things are very different.And you can rest assured that I have no problem with my position being inspected. Feel free to inspect away.How about your position regarding the logical equivalence of the IPU and your deity.....? Surely that is the real topic at hand, no? Are we ever going to get to inspect that? Or not? Well so it would seem. If I did know anyone who claimed to have been genuinely "touched" by the IPU would it really change anything?Would you suddenly accept the IPU as a viable entity?Give it 2000 years of mythology and whole culture raised to believe that the IPU is the grand creator of all that we see and do you really think that subjective experiences would not be attributed to the IPU? How do you differentiate between "peoples actual experiences" and "stuff they have made up"?How do they differentiate between the two? If the experience is the same in either case how can anyone tell one apart from the other?Except by means of objective evidence? Nobody is disputing that life changing experiences occur.I am disputing that they are changed by supernatural entities that objectively exist distinct and seperate from the person who undergoes the experience.There is absolutely no rational reason to conclude that such entities exist.NOT because "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" but because there is evidence. Evidence that humanity is exceptionally gifted at creating such concepts to fulfil such needs. Many many many of which are demonstrably false concepts.Simply designing your preferred entity to resist direct refutation is just the next logical step in clinging onto intellectually unjustifiable beliefs. And yet strangely this "evidence" you speak of you are willing to completely ignore 99.9% of the time.Would you decide when to cross the road on the basis of subjective evidence? (blindfolded and ear muffed - use the force Raz, use the force).No? Why not? because it would be a fucking stupid, unreliable and downright dangerous method of making such a decision.It absolutely baffles me as to why you think such "evidence" is any more reliable in other circumstances? No.There is a clear and evident distinction between those concepts that have no evidential basis whatsoever and those that do.The grey area only exists if you insist on confusing and conflating conceptual logical possibilities derived from evidence, practical probabilities based on the interpretation of objective evidence and wholly subjective experience. Exactly as you are attempting to do with the alien visitation question.ALL concepts which are not logical possibilities derived from objective evidence, concepts like gods and deities and spirits and "the soul" and Wagwah and undetectable toilet goblins and face sucking jellyfish and all those other concepts you despise so much, are logically equivalent to the IPU.So do you still deny that the IPU and deities are logically equivalent?Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I see you are dismissing the very real philosophical question at stake. Don't worry - I'm getting used to it.It's bad when atheists dismiss religious experiences as fabrications, hallucinations, neurological phenomenon and so on, but when the experience is clearly absurd according to RAZD it must necessarily be a fabrication, "we are back to the old 'people make things up' excuse" - its just the "tacit assumption that anything that contradicts your world view is made up.". And yet this does not answer the question. If someone did actually have an experience that they attributed to the IPU, and that subsequently caused them to believe that the IPU was real (call them drug addled or insane if you like) - how would your position deal with this?Or would you prefer to continue the 'hardline' tactic of dismissing it out of hand?Talking about important philosophical points that continue to be dismissed: does the IPU argument still hold up when we are talking about the Garage Dragon position?It might sound puerile - but I tried laying out the argument in a more formal fashion and that didn't seem to work so I'm trying a different tactic. I promise you that it is not without a point.