Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Terrible. The hypothesis that there's life elsewhere in the universe is based primarily on the observation that life exists here, then that the universe is immense, that life's building blocks are common, and that the process of abiogenesis is very much in keeping with what we know at present of chemistry and physics. God hypotheses are not based on the observation of existing gods.That's as bad as your blind men feeling elephants analogy on the other thread.As for invisible unicorns, they are relevant whenever a god is given a description, like my example of the racist god who particularly favours one middle eastern tribe. The proposition of unknowable, unidentifiable deities in general is usually argued against on the lines of: "what the hell is the point of saying you believe in something when you've no idea what it is you're believing in".It would certainly require confirmation bias to do the above. Edited by bluegenes, : typo

I'd phrase it more like this for your deism:If you believe that you know enough about any unknowable supernatural proposition to be able to believe in it, then that's just like believing in an invisible pink unicorn.The adjectives in the IPU are there to illustrate paradoxical beliefs, as well as evidenceless beliefs.

Considering that Invisible Pink Unicorn arguments are entirely about theism and deism being logically invalid, your O.P. has a built in contradiction. I think we can safely assume that it's there to help you avoid difficult arguments.

Are you implying that someone using the IPU as an example has actually suggested to you that your deity or the Christian god or any other deity believed in literally is an invisible pink unicorn? Of course C = D doesn't follow.If that was on EvC, could you provide a quote?

What has your thread title to do with that? Why should people using the IPU in argument want to defend your strawman? Who has suggested that your god is a unicorn?

That's far from the only problem. RAZD is ignoring what "A" actually is. The IPU is used to satirize absurd supernatural propositions, specifically gods. Everything in "A" is an absurd god for which there is zero evidence. The IPU is never used in respect to any serious naturalistic hypothesis like the possibility of extra-terrestrial life or dark matter. So "E" is not in "A", whereas "C" and "D" (the IPU) have to be absurd gods for whom there is no evidence in order to be in the set "A".The use of the IPU is perfectly valid and reasonable in respect to absurd deities for which there is no evidence, and she's at her best when there is something paradoxical about the belief expressed.If someone expresses a belief in an unknowable god and then appears to know something about that god, she's in her element. Such a belief can certainly be seen as the equivalent of believing in both invisibility and pinkness at the same time.

I think that "alien spacecraft" might be better than UFOs, as I know two reliable types who have seen things in the sky that they couldn't identify, but neither particularly thinks they've witnessed alien presence, just UFOs (by definition).I just want to point out that your original post juxtaposed this: With this: What's wrong with it is, firstly, that life and "elsewhere in the universe" are things known to exist, and that IPUs (and their habitats) aren't. That alone makes it a useless analogy.Secondly, it's particularly bad as a choice because it doesn't even describe something unlikely in terms of our present scientific knowledge. There is good evidence for it, although it's not direct or conclusive. So your "no evidence" bit is wrong.If you want to use alien life in a way that's a better analogy to believing in IPUs or knowing about unknowable deities, I'd suggest something like:"There's no evidence for little green giants in invisible yellow spaceships visiting the earth."Better, eh?

No, they're not. They go from first to last because of contingency.It's also worth mentioning that there are other environments in this solar system which could support the first, and even possibly the second and third, but seem unlikely or impossible for the rest.Anyway, I've already given you an alien equivalent to believing in the IPU, which really sums up this section of the O.P.

What you're talking about is how we assess evidence, and then confusing that with how we decide to have faith or not to have faith in propositions for which there is no evidence. You've identified the obvious point that subjectivity exists in both cases, but you're missing the point that the two situations are not equivalents, and that where there's evidence, a good level of objectivity can be achieved.For example, using territory that we're both familiar with, you and I could probably have an interesting discussion/debate on the relative importance and the roles of natural selection and drift in evolution. We both know that it's a current area of research and debate in biology, there are no definite conclusions, and the research that we would be looking at is complex.So, in our personal assessments we might differ slightly, but we're different people (automatically we assume our own subjectivity if we're wise) and we've looked at different information, so we'd have the good sense to listen carefully to each others views, and also to look at the views of as many experts as possible. We would probably both learn something, because the discussion would be about reality, and there's plenty to learn.We know that we have to be very tentative about any conclusions we come to. So, a question like "does drift play a greater role than selection in speciation" is one that would generate a spectrum of interesting viewpoints on EvC, and we would certainly see different assessments from different members.If we had a different discussion on a supernatural question, like whether or not the existence of one deity is more or less likely than the existence of ten deities, we wouldn't have any evidence whatsoever to go on, and our discussion would do nothing to help inform anyone. (There'd be heavy subjective bias for the 1 deity proposition amongst many EvC members, illustrating a cultural "world view". )So, assessing the merits of arguments about the likelihood of life in various different forms in the universe is in the first category. We can talk chemistry, biology and cosmology, and make our various (obviously very tentative) assessments on the evidence available.But IPUs and deities are in the realm of evidenceless fantasy land, a land renowned for being inhabited by figments of the human imagination, and we have no reasonable way of assessing zero evidence propositions, which is why it's apparently pointless believing in anything that area. I can describe something like omphalism as "silly" without hypocrisy, but people with religious beliefs of their own cannot.Discussing the likelihood of alien life would make a very interesting science thread, but it's not part of comparative religions.

Hardly surprising (or shocking) as the IPU is a goddess, and only manifests herself when other deities are being satirized.The problem with your O.P. is that you think that she's used for the argument that you characterize here:

quote:

---

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.

---

Rather, she's used as an analogy for any specific described god, ideally one with apparent contradictions. So, when someone claims to know something about a god that he/she describes as unknowable, that's the ideal type of usage. That's why it's "invisible pink" not "immaterial pink" as you've reinvented it ("immaterial solid" would have been better).But she's not an "argument by analogy". Analogies are for illustration, not precise logical argument.So, if someone suggests to a theist that knowing his unknowable god exists is like believing in an IPU, "like" means "similar to", and the comparison is meant to illustrate the paradoxical nature of the person's belief, as well as the fact that it's evidenceless. She also illustrates the arbitrariness of anyone's imaginary supernatural friends.I think I said something like that in one of the first few posts of the thread.When atheists want to point to an equivalent to gods, and want something that some people actually are known believe in, the most likely is something else general and supernatural, like fairies, for whom, according to you, there's "subjective evidence".