Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Hmm, interesting, so you think we are using the same words to mean different things? Interestingly, I had a subjective experience that I had written something along the same lines and posted it to EvC earlier today.If you want to argue semantics with RAZD, go ahead, but I don't see that you are fundamentally disagreeing with me in any interesting way. For example: I could argue the toss that there might actually be a difference between 'unhallucinatable' and 'inconceivable' - but I don't think it's all that interesting to do so, right?

Yes, but that's pretty common in English. Context is everything, as we unfortunately see all the time with the word "theory." "Interesting," of course, being a subjective personal assessment of value. I'm certainly not disagreeing with any of your points. I'm simply pointing out that when someone says "It's possible that a deity exists," they're still making an unfounded assertion despite the fact that they have not asserted that a deity does exist.

Yes. When it comes to deities the assertion of the possibility is equally as evidentially unfounded as the actuality. Despite differing terminology you, Mod and I are all consistently saying this same thing. It is this simple point that RAZD seems bewilderingly unable to grasp. He also seems intent on confusing the issue by relentlessly conflating unevidenced possibilities (i.e. gods and deities) with possibilities that are derived from an objective evidential basis but which are mutually deemed to be deeply improbable for whatever other objectively evidenced reason (e.g. aliens wishing to probe people, Nessie the living dinosaur etc. etc.). RAZD's incessant conflation of possibilities, probabilities and actualities has been going on for literally months now and is driving me mad.With regard to the semantics at hand - Deities are not impossibilities and so must, I would argue, be referred to as possibilities of one sort or another. However this applies equally to the IPU as any other deity. Concepts can be both possible and impossible so I am not sure that this is the best term to use. I have been trying to use the term "hypothesis" to refer to possibilities derived from objective evidence and "unevidenced possibilities" with regard to the IPU and other deities.However given my total lack of success at getting this concept across to RAZD maybe my terminology is not the best example to follow.............. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

is off topic

you are off topic

Off topic Off topic - never was I find it highly insulting that you are discussing some made up concept and attributing it to me. You have absolutely no clue what I believe. Stop making up lies.You can't seem to post one post on topic on this thread.

off topic STILL not the topic

off topic I have found emoticons to be fairly vapid in terms of arguments.

off topic STILL off topicand using bold to shout your question doesn't make it on topic either

Percy, frankly I am disappointed in the (lack of) moderation of this thread. I don't know how many times I have said, pointed out, pleaded, to have people discuss this issue without reference to god/s, and it seems people are incapable of it.I had hoped that another thread could take that tendency off this thread. It seems the only other option is to close this thread as being terminally off topic.I certainly see no reason for a thread to be kept open to have people make up lies about me.

Special pleading - Wikipedia Seems to me that I am not applying any special rules to consider subjective concepts as possible, while all of you are trying to exclude subjective evidence from having any value.And you accuse me of special pleading.The only thing I have excluded on this thread is discussion of god/s, and yet you all keep bringing it in because the IPU "only applies" to god/sAND you all accuse me of special pleading for the existence of god/s.Should I post a "rolleyes" emoticon to make my point? So you are making a distinction between your extrapolation of the one example of life on this planet, and taking it to the logical extreme of extrapolating the possibility of alien visitations, versus the subjective experience of alien visitations being a possible validation of that extrapolation.Your shaky evidence is okay, mine is not? Yet they reach the same conclusion???And yes, your shaky extrapolation is a guess. There is absolutely no evidence of life on any other planet. It is not a concept that can be falsified, so no, you cannot claim that it is scientific. So does it, or does it not, apply to the subjective experience of alien visitations?According to your position, it cannot apply when I reach the same conclusion by your logical extrapolation method -- no matter how tenuous -- as I reach by consideration of the evidence of multiple subjective experiences. It's very simple, Straggler, you have a high opinion of the value of your argument, but a lot of it is insulting ad hominems like this, and what remains when you strip out the arrogant insinuations, shouted repetitions and multiple emoticons, is your opinion.Curiously, your opinion does not whelm me.If you truly feel that the IPU does not apply to any of the topical arguments on this thread, arguments where logic is involved and that starts with a basis in evidence of some kind, then you have demonstrated that the IPU is not a logical argument.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) • • •

This is the original starting point

quote:

---

The argument usually goes something like this:

1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.

---

Your task is to summarize in one or two paragraphs why this is a logical argument on it's own value.Let's see if it helps by making this semi-inversion comparison: You will note that the logical structure here is valid.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : contrary example

---

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) • • •

Please post only once after seeing this message.Please only post a summation.Please do not respond to summations.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi RAZD,The IPU is a hypothetical construct used to juxtapose against other constructs that also do not have an acceptable level of evidence. In this it succeeds, I have actually dreamt of the IPU (This forum was the last thing I did before bedtime & I freely admit I was subconciously mulling it over, or was I?), that is an experience of it, & therefore must be accepted by you or you commit Special Pleading.But for the record, dreaming of something constitutes evidence that you had a dream, regardless of whether you were daydreaming or night dreaming. I realise that you are not restricting yourself to dreams, but any experience that is not objectively verifiable canot be considered evidence. I was on the computer a few years ago & heard my wife enter the room behind me, I struck up a conversation only to discover she wasn't actually there. Clearly I have evidence of ghosts or teleportation, right? No, my mind played a trick. I did experience something, probably with one sense only, but my mind jumped to a conclusion that an agency was responsible & it was wrong. It is not reliable.I know my wife exists, & my brain still got it wrong.The IPU works as a hypothetical construct for unknown but conceived entities, & there is no reliable evidence that any exists.In the same way you would dismiss subjective evidence that Yahweh or Jesus visited a christian, or Allah or Muhammed visited a muslim, I dismiss your subjective evidence that a creator exists. I do this because I am consistent & do not engage in Special Pleading.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Post whatever you want. But comparing the IPU, an example of a wholly objectively unevidenced concept, to concepts that are derived from or supported by objective evidence (no matter how weak or minimal that evidence may be) remains evidentially unjustified.Equally comparing the IPU, an example of a wholly objectively unevidenced concept, to other equally wholly objectively unevidenced concepts (i.e. deities) remains wholly evidentially justified both in terms of the specific OP written by YOU and the more generalised IPU argument. If I derive the same conclusion by reading tea leaves does that validate tea leaf reading as a form of evidence? It is the nature of the evidence used to derive the conclusion, not the conclusion itself, that is the relevant issue at hand here.My "shaky" evidence (combining the indisputable facts that both intelligent life and other planets exist to form a hypothesis as per standard scientific methodology) is used to derive the logical POSSIBILITY that this COULD conceivably occur. The evidential validity of the possibility only. Nothing about probability. Nothing about actuality.Your position is based on subjective "evidence" (a form of evidence that you have conceded you are unable to demonstrate as being any more reliable than guessing) of the ACTUALITY of alien visitation having occurred and from this you derive the possibility that this HAS actually occurred. Everything about actuality. Nothing about the evidential validity of the conceptual possibility.Should I be surprised that you continue to conflate "could occur" with "has occurred"? Should I be shocked that you continue to relentlessly conflate the evidence required to determine conceptual "possibilities" and "actualities" unabated right up until the bitter end? Should I now post a rolleyes emoticon to make my point? If you cannot see that the evidence required to derive what "could" conceivably occur is different in nature to the evidence required to determine what "has" occurred then that is your failing and not mine. Is it possible that you could be hit by a meteor? Is it probable? Has it actually happened?Why don't you go away and think about the differing evidence required to determine an answer to each of these questions. Then look back at your posts in this thread to honestly assess whether or not you have conflated these concepts in a bid to support your flawed "It's just your opinion" position as applied to the various examples raised in this discussion. In fact I challenge you to look back at your posts in both this and the deism thread and deny that this continual conflation has formed the basis of your opposition to my arguments. It's very simple RAZD. If you are unable to actually refute arguments without grossly misrepresenting them by conveniently and relentlessly conflating very different concepts despite this conflation being pointed out to you numerous times then it is you that is incessantly expressing an invalid opinion rather than a reasoned argument. Frustration leading to derision is all but inevitable in such circumstances. Then why don't you try actually answering questions and responding to the arguments rather than commenting on the emoticons? Let's remind ourselves of the numerous inconsistencies and flaws that you have repeatedly failed to address in your responses shall we?THE NUMEROUS FLAWS IN RAZD's ARGUMENT

You have contradicted yourself as to whether belief in god(s) is derived from pure faith alone or some form of "evidence".

​

You have repeatedly conflated the subjective interpretation of objective evidence (e.g. courtroom testimony) with wholly subjective "evidence" (e.g. experiences of the supernatural).

​

You have conceded that you are unable to demonstrate that wholly subjective evidence (i.e. where there is no objective evidence to interpret) is any more reliable at determining truth than simply guessing but you continue to advocate a dependence on this form of "evidence" as some sort of legitimate or reasoned position.

​

In contrast you assert that the logical extrapolation of objective evidence is no more reliable than guessing despite the fact that this is a key component of the scientific method and has a proven track record of success at deriving possibilities that have subsequently been verified. Your position on this amounts to a simple denial of evidence.

​

You say that you are not engaged in the circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence in favour of the subjectively "evidenced" concepts in which people believe. Yet you also argue that the IPU is not subjectively evidenced because nobody actually believes in it. This is contradictory.

​

You have attempted to conflate the everyday mundane experience of highly objectively evidenced phenomenon with wholly subjective experiences of the exceptional and fantastical.

​

You have attempted to conflate subjectively derived personal emotions (e.g. love) with concepts which supposedly exist independent of, separate to and distinct from (e.g. gods) the person affected by the subjective experience in question.

​

As already discussed you have repeatedly, relentlessly and incessantly conflated the evidence required to determine possibilities, probabilities and actualities in order to promote your flawed "it's just your opinion" line of argument despite being asked to desist from this unjustifiable conflation multiple times.

​

Despite the fact that ALL of the objective evidence we do have available suggests that unevidenced god concepts are almost certainly human inventions and despite the fact that the subjective evidence with which you counter this argument is no more reliable than guessing you continue to assert that agnosticism rather than a degree of atheistic non-belief should be the logical, rational and evidentially consistent position with regard to the actual existence of gods.

​

In short your argument is a mish mash of contradiction, conflation, circularity, guesswork and good old denial of evidence. Little different in nature to the usual fare typically served up by creationists.

​

RAZD writes:

​

Off topic

​

Evasion.

​

RAZD writes:

​

Off topic

​

Evasion.

​

RAZD writes:

​

Off topic

​

Yes you guessed it. Evasion. Plain and simple and obvious to everyone. Evasion.

​

Your task is to summarize in one or two paragraphs why this is a logical argument on it's own value.

​

The IPU is legitimately deployed whenever one wholly objectively unevidenced concept is declared to be superior in terms of truth than any other. It is used to elicit the exact nature of the special pleading being invoked by those who would claim that their particular subjectively preferred concept is different and more deserving of objective consideration than any other equally objectively unevidenced claim.

​

If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.

​

The question that you need to ask is NOT why you should believe in the IPU but instead why it is that other equally unevidenced concepts that you DO believe in (e.g. deities) are deserving of any less atheism from others than the degree of atheism that you apply to the IPU. You have completely failed to answer this question.

​

It is not, and never has been, about what anyone should believe in. That is largely a straw man position of your own making. Instead the issue at hand is the nature and standards of evidence that are, or are not, being applied to the various concepts under consideration.

​

The IPU has been successfully deployed against you to reveal the multiple contradictions in your position and the increasingly subjective and unreliable nature of the special pleading criteria on which you differentiate between those objectively unevidenced concepts in which you do believe and those equally objectively evidenced concepts that you do not.

​

If you are simply unable to recognise that the various (and ever changing) criteria that you have applied to separate deities from the IPU in this extended discussion amount to nothing more than special pleading on your part, no matter how subjectively legitimate you may deem these various special pleading criteria to be, then you have entirely missed the whole point of the IPU argument.

​

That is your failing and nobody elses.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.