Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 21 of 304 (499911)
02-21-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
02-21-2009 9:53 AM


Re: More side issues
RAZD,
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D
Is not a logically flawed argument.
It is a flawed argument, it seems to me it's a strawman, too. Who is putting this forward? Not me.
Grapes (C) aren't lemons (D) because they are both fruit (A).
If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
There is no evidence for alien life elsewhere in the universe.
therefore, you should believe in alien life elsewhere in the universe or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.
Curiously, this does not seem as absurd as the belief in invisible pink unicorns, in fact it seems quite possible - even if it may never be possible to prove that alien life exists.
Believing alien life exists is just as absurd as believing invisible pink unicorns exist. It doesn't matter how large the universe, how many planets there are. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what the probability is of life occurring. In the same way we have no way of quantifying that the IPU exista. Life happened once, here, is the best we can say. It's entirely possible that the universe is finite, but the possibility of life occurring even once is remote, we just got lucky in this universe. In the same way that finding a molecule of active ingredient in a homeopaths cup is unlikely. If the universe were rerun a trillion times, as far as were are concerned it could be utterly sterile every time.
Invisible pink (or otherwise) unicorns presumably live on planets. Does finding more planets mean we have a quantifyable way of determining the likelihood of such beasties existing? Of course not.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter. No evidence = no acceptance.
I don't accept that the statement that life exists elsewhere in the universe is true because we have no evidence, I do hold it as a possibility, however. I don't accept the statement that invisible pink unicorns exist because of a lack of evidence. I do hold it as a possibility, however. I don't accept the statement that a deist god exists for the same reason, I do hold it as a possibility. To accept one statement without evidence whilst refusing to accept the other is special pleading.
It's inescapable.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 9:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 11:18 AM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 26 of 304 (499927)
02-21-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
02-21-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Focus
RAZD,
Sorry, mate, I spotted a serious flaw & rewrote my entire post. I just noticed you replied.
Apologies
Mark
ps tho' why this post was timestamped before my last post was edited despite being written after mystifies me.
pps
If you accept B that is an example of A, then you should accept C that is an example of A.
I do...
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D
NO!
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
That's it.
They are both examples of evidentially vacuous positions (A), they are not the "same", even though they share the same relevent property. They are not "each other" they are different statements.
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 11:18 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 32 of 304 (499939)
02-21-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
02-21-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Topic Focus
RAZD,
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D
Is not a logically flawed argument.
Strawman. That isn't the argument I'm making.
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D
NO!
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
That's it.
They are both examples of evidentially vacuous positions (A), they are not the "same", even though they share the same relevent property. They are not "each other" they are different statements.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 12:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2009 2:06 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 47 of 304 (499977)
02-21-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
02-21-2009 4:20 PM


Re: Practical Example - Your Logical Argument is Inadequate
Hi Straggler,
If we expand our universe to be the Milky Way galaxy then we increase the chances of alien life existing significantly.
Do we?
As far as we are aware, life could be so unlikely that if we rerun the universe a million times they all could be sterile. The fact is we don't know how unlikely abiogenesis is in order to be able to make such claims.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 4:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 02-21-2009 6:35 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2009 6:43 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 133 of 304 (501584)
03-06-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Straggler
03-06-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Kepler Space Probe
Straggler,
In the observable universe it is estimated that there are 10 billion trillion (i.e. 10^22) hospitable planets.
In the "unobserved" universe, surely? Were it observed, we would know.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2009 6:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2009 8:16 PM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 137 of 304 (501626)
03-07-2009 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Straggler
03-06-2009 8:16 PM


Re: Kepler Space Probe
Straggler,
No. The "observable universe" is a technical term meaning the following:
Yeah, I know. I generally keep to my mental note of not posting when drunk. Apologies for the time wasty pit-nikin.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2009 8:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 7:02 AM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 139 of 304 (501628)
03-07-2009 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by RAZD
03-06-2009 10:11 PM


Re: Still jumping the gun Straggler ...
RAZD,
And yet this hypothesis is not evidence of alien life, rather it is a subjective opinion (as evidenced by the contradictory hypothesis based on the same evidence and logic).
Not really, there are two things going on here. 1/ There is no evidence of alien life. 2/ The possibility of alien life is raised by objective, though tentative calculations.
Everybody seems to roughly agree to this, the difference seems to reside in the wording.
I've totally forgotten why it's important to your argument?
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 03-06-2009 10:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 144 of 304 (501704)
03-07-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Straggler
03-07-2009 1:48 PM


Re: Special Pleading
Straggler,
RAZD: Aha special pleading! A logical fallacy.
Yes it is special pleading. Special pleading on the grounds of objective evidence.
Except that it isn't special pleading. "Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."
I believe no evidence is "adequate justification".
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 1:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2009 2:24 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 211 of 304 (503254)
03-17-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by RAZD
03-16-2009 6:53 PM


Re: Dissapointing.....BZZZZZT
RAZD,
This is all semantics, to accept one proposition without a reasonable level of evidence but reject others is special pleading, & intellectually hypocritical. You can twist & turn like a twisty turny thing, but it won't change this fact.
I don't know why you are arguing.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 6:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 245 of 304 (503550)
03-20-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by RAZD
03-19-2009 8:20 PM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
RAZD,
Some does not equal all and never will
I'm becoming suspicious that you are deliberately missing the point.
You are unable to tell the difference between human constructs that have no supporting evidence, & real things that have no supporting evidence, please don't weasel word me on this, I know some make claims abouth what their god is & isn't, it's immaterial, there is no evidence that any gods exist. As such you are unable to tell which ones are real & which ones aren't, it doesn't matter that "some does not equal all". That isn't & never was the point. What matters is that you can't support any of them evidentially & yet you accept one.
If you have a "god" with no evidence, & another "god" with no evidence, reject one & accept the other, then you are special pleading, intellectually hypocritical, inconsistent & illogical. It is inescapeable. This clearly is the context that straggler is posting in, & your reply sniffs of evasion.
This gets back to world view issues, as within your own world view all your experiences are -- for you -- objective reality
And what experience leads you to conclude a god exists?
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2009 8:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 251 of 304 (504282)
03-26-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
03-25-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD,
That small difference is sufficient for me to see a clear distinction between such experience based beliefs and concepts like the IPU which are not based on experience, but are a constructed straw man used in argument\debate to represent concepts without evidence.
The IPU is an hypothetical construct designed to hold up against another hypothesis that lacks even a minimum standard of acceptable evidence in order to show how ridiculous it is to accept one and not the other. In this it succeeds, it isn't a strawman. As far as a deistic god is concerned, an unshared "experience" isn't good enough to come to a positive conclusion.
I have asked this before but not got a response, what is the experience that leads you to conclude a creator exists?
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 11:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 253 of 304 (504330)
03-27-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by RAZD
03-26-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD,
I have asked this before but not got a response, what is the experience that leads you to conclude a creator exists?
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2009 6:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 257 of 304 (504343)
03-27-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
03-27-2009 8:22 AM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD,
Logically, if invalidation is the only test of reality, then concepts that are not invalidated are possible reflections of reality.
Like the IPU, you mean?
And invalidation isn't the only test of reality, there is confirmation.
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2009 8:22 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 260 of 304 (504593)
03-31-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by RAZD
03-29-2009 10:32 PM


Re: Objective knowledge is the only part of reality?
RAZD,
And yet, like the IPU we have a concept that is an intellectual construct with no subjective evidence for it's existence.
We don't have any for a deistic god, either.
For the third (possibly fourth) time, what is this evidence that is so good it allows you to conclude that a creator exists?
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2009 10:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 282 of 304 (506079)
04-22-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Straggler
04-21-2009 4:46 PM


Re: Blue
Straggler,
I actually dreamt about the IPU last night, really wierd. It could actually be either invisible, or a visible pink unicorn, or even translucently pink. I think I was subconciously going over it my mind & struggling with the contradiction of being visibly pink & at the same time invisible. That was how my REM dreamtime resolved it (presumably).
On the other hand, now we have evidence it exists...
Mark

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2009 4:46 PM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024