|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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 AD is an example of A Therefore C = D NO! C is an example of AD 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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 AD is an example of A Therefore C = D NO! C is an example of AD 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024