Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

The issue I see with this is that those who have beliefs in deities(not RAZDs position but rather extending the application of the argument?) are rarely static throughout life in this belief. Usually there is some conversion event/process that amounts to the evidence that the belief is based upon, whereas the IPU has no evidence whatsoever in contradistinction.If one were to say 'I believe in deity X' and when pressed with 'why' says 'no reason, I just assert that X exists', then the IPU fits that situation and special pleading applies. If someone claims belief in diety Y and when pressed says 'because I fell from the edge of the grand canyon and an angel caught me and placed me on a ledge where I could be rescued' then the IPU argument does not apply.
Here there is evidence that is claimed as the basis for the belief. One can now dispute that evidence/claim but can no longer compare the belief with the IPU designed for a belief held w/o evidence.This is my current understanding of the IPU argument as presented in this thread. The reason for self contradictory aspects of the IPU I am not sure I understand. Why were they used or what was the application in philosophical debate? Was it intended to correspond to contradictory deities of differing faiths or ideas within a specific faith that are self-contradictory like the 'trinity'? Thanks, 'enjoying the discussion.. Again I am not familiar with RAZD's world view nor with his/her arguments other than what is in this particular thread. I will let RAZD answer for RAZD..

I have asked RAZD if the number of planets in the universe has any bearing on the probability of extraterrestrial life existing numerous times.He has repeatedly ignored or dismissed this question on the basis that it is an irrelevant detail which has little or no bearing to the subject matter of his OP.I would like to explain why it is that I am not just being pedantic in relentlessly asking this question. I would like to explain why it is that this question goes right to the heart of the whole basis of RAZD’s position in both this thread and the previous deism thread.The founding principle of RAZD’s position in both this thread and the last is the concept of Absence of evidence. From this he deduces that subjective "world view" is the defining factor when assessing plausibility of un-evidenced claims such as the existence of deities or the existence of extraterrestrial life.The founding principle of my argument, in both this thread and the last, is the concept of relative likelihood (or assessing probability) based on the relevant objective evidence available. It is my position that no claim operates in a complete vacuum of all relevant objective evidence.It is indeed true that the existence of alien life in the universe is strictly un-evidenced.However there are a number of objective factors which have a bearing on the probability of the claim that extraterrestrial life exists. It is objective evidence, not subjective world view, that is the basis for extraterrestrial life being considered plausible and even likely.For example consider the situation where there are no other planets in the universe. A scenario in which the Earth, the Sun and the moon are the sole constituents of the universe. In such a scenario the probability of extraterrestrial life is 0.Now as we add planets to this scenario the probability of life existing on other planets indisputably rises. This is just mathematical fact. Thus if we have a small number of planets the probability is comparatively low whilst if we have a very large number of planets the probability of extraterrestrial life actually existing rises proportionately.Now the number of planets is not the only factor involved. The probability of life arising even given the required conditions is obviously also relevant. This is yet another scientifically determinable factor that does not rely on subjective "world view".But the point is that — The possibility and probability of a claim can be assessed in terms of it’s likelihood based on objective scientific evidence relating to the relevant factors.When RAZD talks about an absence of evidence for gods, IPUs or whatever and equates this to the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life he fails to acknowledge this fact.If RAZD accepts that the scientifically evidenced and objectively derived conclusion for the scale of magnitude of planets existing in the universe is relevant to the likelihood of extraterrestrial life existing then he undermines his whole Absence of evidence + world view position. Instead of subjective "world view" being the primary factor, un-evidenced claims can instead be assessed probabilistically in terms of the indirect relevant objective evidence. Thus contradicting RAZD's founding principle of "absence of evidence".But if he does not accept that the number of planets in the universe has any bearing on the objective likelihood of alien life existing then he denies the whole basis of the scientific method......He is stuck between a rock and a hard place.That is why he won’t answer the question directly.

Yes this does superficially sound very reasonable doesn't it.But this relies on all viewpoints being subjective and all world views being equally reliable.The Higgs Boson, dark matter and extraterrestrial life all qualify as totally unevidenced by RAZD's reckoning. Despite the fact that they are possibilities derived and assessed as highly probable on the basis of tested, objective, empirical evidence and the scientific method.He equates these scientifically derived potential phenomenon with gods and the IPU in terms of rational basis. He insists that any assessment of plausibility is the result of subjective world view alone.Despite the fact that there is no remotely equivalent basis for concluding that any such wholly unevidenced entities even might exist.He is wrong. Or at the very least in making this assertion he is denying the viability of the scientific method.I personally would go further and add that we have considerable objective evidence in favour of the hypothesis that any particular god is the result of human invention and thus does not actually exist.But that is probably off topic and better discussed here - Message 175

The issue is that such "conversion events" and the so-called "evidence" they provide are not really evidence at all. They're invariably subjective, and thus not "evidence."A "feeling" is not objective evidence of the existence of anything. A "vision" is not objective evidence of the existence of anything. Personal credulity is not evidence of the existence of anything.Belief that an "angel" caught you is simply yet another unverified claim. It's not an objective fact that you were caught by an angel. It would be an objective fact that you fell, and that you survived...but a near-death experience combined with a vision of a supernatural entity whose existence cannot be verified outside of your own mind is not evidence that the entity actually exists.Evidence must take the form of one or more facts that support a given conclusion above other conclusions. There are no facts, nothing objective whatsoever, involved with faith - else it wouldn't be faith.The IPU has exactly as much evidence supporting its existence as any given figment of the imagination, which includes deities. In other words, none at all. This is what makes the comparison valid in the first place - when the theist has confidence in the existence of one entity and not others when none are supported by evidence, the theist engages in special pleading.To combat this, one would need to describe what differentiates their entity from any other imaginary one. I can do this, for example, for the phone on my desk - it has a set of observable properties that are identical independent of the observer, and I can test for its existence or nonexistence. There are a series of objective facts that support the conclusion that there is a telephone on my desk as oppose to nothing, or an invisible pink widget.Unfortunately, there are no objective facts surrounding the existence of a deity. In fact, many deities are specifically described in such a way as to defy any attempt to define them or give the notion of their existence any sort of falsifiability. "Unknowable" deities cannot be differentiated from any other figment of one's imagination - if it's "unknowable," you cannot define it in terms that differentiate it from an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an uncaring omnipotent self-contradiction named Carl. There are no facts that support any conclusion regarding the existence or even possibility of one or more of the infinite number of imaginable but unfalsifiable entities.This means that, even when one believes they have "evidence," unless one has objective facts that support their conclusion, they have exactly the same amount of real evidence as one who claims the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn - absolutely none.RAZD may have a subjective "reason" for believing in his "deity," but subjective "reasons" are not evidence. Evidence is all that matters. Subjective "reasons" have a well-established track record of leading to false conclusions and even delusion.RAZD has thus far not shown how the entity he refers to as a "deity" is different from the "Invisible Pink Unicorn," except that he believes in his deity and (supposedly) not in the IPU. He has confidence in entity A but no confidence in entity B, and has not presented any objective facts that support the existence of entity A above entity B. He's hemmed and hawed and distracted and generally avoided the actual issue by claiming that the IPU is different from his "deity," and by falsely identifying the IPU argument as a variety of logical fallacies, but he has still not produced a single reason to have confidence in Entity A but not in Entity B without invoking special pleading. He hasn't even described his "deity" in any way to differentiate it from the IPU - it's entirely possible given RAZD's (lack of) claims regarding his "deity" that the "unknowable deity" could in fact be an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Purple Telletubby, or a formless coalescence of sentience with physics-defying abilities. He's dismissed several of those proposals as "ridiculous" or "silly," because they certainly sound silly, but he hasn't demonstrated how they are any more or less reasonable than his "deity." He's simply retorted with "your comparison of my beliefs to such a silly entity are insulting, and my personal offense validates my claim that the IPU is a fallacious argument."In effect, RAZD has utterly failed to show that the IPU argument is invalid. He's had ample opportunity to do so, and has instead taken several pages from the Creationist playbook by ignoring arguments and dismissing others as fallacious without demonstrating how.The IPU argument stands so long as "deities" can be decribed as entities about which no evidence exists. The personal credulity surrounding the IPU or "deities" or fairies or dragons or anything else is irrelvant - all that matters is evidence and argument.IF
Confidence(Entity A) > Confidence(Entity B)
AND
Evidence(Entity A) == Evidence(Entity B)
THEN
Special pleading has been invoked.This is the heart of the IPU argument. The IPU is designed as a ridiculous-sounding (but objectively still unfalsifiable and thus no more or less ridiculous than any other speculated entity) entity to bait theists into admitting that they have more confidence in the existence of their preferred entity than they have in the existence of other entities, where the objective evidence supporting those entities remains the same across the board. The "absurdity" of the IPU itself is not actually related to the argument, in the same way that personal insults to an opponent are not ad hominem attacks unless those personal attacks are used as the sole rebuttal. The IPU argument is identical to the "why no belief in other deities" argument ("Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? YHWH? Anubis?") with a bait to induce a knee-jerk reaction.To invalidate the IPU argument, RAZD (or someone else) must show how
Evidence(Entity A) != Evidence(Entity B)
or show that "subjective evidence" is a rational means to draw a conclusion.

Your initial response falls in line with what I was getting at, that you can dispute the claims to evidence. I am not sure if the IPU can be shoehorned into the argument w/o establishing that the 'evidence' is indeed subjective and not objective or can be dismissed with Stragler's 'people make shit up' etc or in some other way. Everyone will likely be convinced of such arguments against the evidence with the noteable exception of the person who claims to have experienced the evidence. Which is what I stated. The evidence is the issue if the IPU argument is to be applicable.IF
Confidence(Entity A) > Confidence(Entity B)
AND
Evidence(Entity A) > Evidence(Entity B)
THEN
Special pleading is not invoked.

Hi Straggler, I think the argument is that there is a continuum of objectivity/subjectivity and evidence.The ToE went from a reasonable observation and became more objective with the discoveries of Gregor Mendel until today we have ERV patterns and chromosome 2 etc and the evidence is so firmly established now, that the only way to deny it is to hold up with 'last thursdayism' or refuse to look at the evidence.Aboigenisis will likely follow suit.So what evidence has theism? Different people consider different things to be evidence. That is the battlefield I think.
Is consciousness special in some way. Will it be created and shown to be an emergent property only or will the attempts to create artificial consciousness prove that something else is lacking and necessary? Are the arbitrary constants of nature which if tweaked slightly give rise to a dead universe evidence of anything? They can be viewed to be, but in order to do so we need some more information about other universes as well as our own. Is conscience an evidence for something? We can account for it with the ToE perhaps but some will remain convinced of something more based upon the existence of some sense of right and wrong. None of these are proofs but still are points upon which some will feel to hang their hat, at least until more evidence is in.

I'll re-post the first half of my previous reply, where I wrote at length about the nature of evidence as it applies here:

quote:

---

The issue is that such "conversion events" and the so-called "evidence" they provide are not really evidence at all. They're invariably subjective, and thus not "evidence."

​

A "feeling" is not objective evidence of the existence of anything. A "vision" is not objective evidence of the existence of anything. Personal credulity is not evidence of the existence of anything.

​

Belief that an "angel" caught you is simply yet another unverified claim. It's not an objective fact that you were caught by an angel. It would be an objective fact that you fell, and that you survived...but a near-death experience combined with a vision of a supernatural entity whose existence cannot be verified outside of your own mind is not evidence that the entity actually exists.

​

Evidence must take the form of one or more facts that support a given conclusion above other conclusions. There are no facts, nothing objective whatsoever, involved with faith - else it wouldn't be faith.

​

The IPU has exactly as much evidence supporting its existence as any given figment of the imagination, which includes deities. In other words, none at all. This is what makes the comparison valid in the first place - when the theist has confidence in the existence of one entity and not others when none are supported by evidence, the theist engages in special pleading.

​

To combat this, one would need to describe what differentiates their entity from any other imaginary one. I can do this, for example, for the phone on my desk - it has a set of observable properties that are identical independent of the observer, and I can test for its existence or nonexistence. There are a series of objective facts that support the conclusion that there is a telephone on my desk as oppose to nothing, or an invisible pink widget.

​

Unfortunately, there are no objective facts surrounding the existence of a deity. In fact, many deities are specifically described in such a way as to defy any attempt to define them or give the notion of their existence any sort of falsifiability. "Unknowable" deities cannot be differentiated from any other figment of one's imagination - if it's "unknowable," you cannot define it in terms that differentiate it from an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an uncaring omnipotent self-contradiction named Carl. There are no facts that support any conclusion regarding the existence or even possibility of one or more of the infinite number of imaginable but unfalsifiable entities.

​

This means that, even when one believes they have "evidence," unless one has objective facts that support their conclusion, they have exactly the same amount of real evidence as one who claims the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn - absolutely none.

---

Subjective experiences are not evidence. Period. Ever."Evidence" is one or more facts that support one conclusion over others. Facts are not subjective. Subjective experiences and feelings do not involve facts, and thus do not qualify as evidence. This does not represent any argument I have ever seen where (Entity A) is a deity. Unless you, RAZD or anyone else makes such an argument showing that evidence does exist in support of the existence of a deity, this line of reasoning is irrelevant.

Straggler,I begin to wonder if you understand my argument at all. I feel that the answers I have given several times deals with this issue. Does the increase in the number of planets alone increase this likelyhood? Obviously not, because Mark24 argues against the likelihood of life on other planets, and he is looking at the same number of planets as you are.So far all the increase in knowledge about planets has been to increase the number of planets without life. How does that change your equation? Correct, but what one person regards as supportive evidence when another person regards the same evidence as negative or inconclusive is not objective evidence. The Drake Equation gives significantly different results depending on your initial assumptions, and all those assumptions involve things we don't know, which are then multiplied together. Frankly I consider your worldview and Mark24's, Ned's, Mod's, Rrhain's, etc., worldviews of equal value, which is why I can state with a high degree of confidence that worldview trumps the evidence when there are different conclusions reached from the same evidence.And no, all worldviews do not need to be of equal value, for a worldview that is massively at odds with the evidence of reality is of quite a different value in being able to deal with reality than one that has no known issues with reality. However when two worldviews disagree on concepts where there is no evidence pro or con, AND where neither of those worldviews is in conflict with any known issues regarding reality, THEN if feel that this shows the conclusions to be subjective and not deductive. And on how much we think we know the truth. According to your world view, which also claims: You can't have it both ways or you are guilty of special pleading.So far, what I have seen is that

• IPU is an example of intentionally ridiculous concepts
• The flying spaghetti monster is an example of intentionally ridiculous concepts
• Green toilet bowl goblins are an example of intentionally ridiculous concepts
• Face hugging jellyfish are an example of intentionally ridiculous concspts
• Your Wagwah is an example of an intentionally ridiculous concept
• etc etc ad absurdum ... are examples of intentionally ridiculous concepts

And what they prove is that (1) they all belong to the class of intentionally ridiculous concepts, (2) comparison of them to concepts that are of the class of things that we don't have evidence for pro or con can only be an attempt to ridicule the concept.Then you have (your claim - correct me if I'm wrong)

the possibility of alien life is not an intentionally ridiculous claim because we have a logically extrapolated conclusion based on our subjective interpretation of evidence that makes it scientifically rational, in spite of no objective evidence pro or con, and in spite of the concept not being falsifiable.

​

That's all I have time for tonight. I've got a week of ten hour days to look forward to as well, so my ability to go into detail is limited.

​

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 wonder if you understand the implications of your own argument at all..... Yes. No matter what other logical and objective factors may also be relevant, if life on other planets is possible then a greater number of planets gives a greater probability of extraterrestrial life existing. That is just mathematically indisputable. The absolute probability is irrelevant. It is a mathematical fact that the greater the number of planets the greater the relative likelihod of life on other planets is. If Mark24 denies this he is just mathematically wrong. As are you.Thus we can conclude the principle that you must deny in order to maintain your flawed "world view" philosophy. Namely that the relative likelihood of a claim can be deduced from objective factors that have nothing to do with subjective world view. False. Not all supporting evidence is logically equally relevant. If your claim were true the formation of highly defined scientific hypotheses would be absolutely impossible. We are not expending vast resources on researching the Higgs Boson, dark matter or even extraterrestrial life on a subjective whim. We are doing so on the logical and reasoned extrapolation of tested evidence.Why do you deny this fact? In doing so you are denying our ability to form reasoned hypotheses. In doing so you are denying the validity of the scientific method. In 1915 General Relativity was just as unevidenced as dark matter, the Higgs boson and extraterrestrial life are currently.By your assessment GR, at that point in time, was no more or less objectively likely to be true than any of these current hypotheses are today.How do you reconcile your "world view" assertion with the fact that GR has been subsequently spectacularly verified? Could it be that even as an unevidenced claim it had a firm rational, reasoned and logical basis derived from objective evidence?Not all unevidenced claims are equally objective. Not all unevidenced claims are equally rational. Not all unevidenced claims are equally grounded in objective knowledge. Subjective world view is not the defining factor when determining objective likelihood.Why do you deny this fact? In doing so you are denying our ability to form reasoned hypotheses. In doing so you are denying the validity of the scientific method. I am not having it both ways. I am not guilty of special pleading.There is a vast array of relevant objective evidence that strongly suggests that gods, deities, the IPU et al are the product of human invention. See Message 175 for details.There is also a vast array of relevant objective evidence that suggests that dark matter, the Higgs Bososn and extraterrestrial life are highly probable scientific hypotheses even if directly unevidenced.Your "Absence of evidence" assertion is false. No claim is made in a vacuum of all objective evidence. As I have been saying for two threads now. My position is as follows:A = The set of all concepts for which there is no direct evidence.

​

B = The set of directly unevidenced concepts which are derived from objective evidence and the application of the scientific method.

​

C = The set of concepts which are not derived from any objective evidence or scientific methodology.

​

B and C are both subsets of A.
B does not equal C.

​

Thus we have a clear and objectively derived distinction between B and C.Extraterrestrial life, the Higgs Boson and dark matter are all clearly members of set B. At one point or other in time GR, the CMB, QED and a whole host of other since verified hypotheses would also have been members of set B.God, gods, the IPU, Wagwah, face sucking jellyfish, toilet goblins et al are all clearly members of set C. Any other wholly unevidenced and subjectively derived entity would also be a member of this set. No matter how plausible or absurd one may subjectively find any particular such entity to be.

Thus comparison of the IPU with extraterrestrial life is invalid in scientific, objective and rational terms.

​

Thus comparison of the IPU with your deity is wholly valid in objective rational and scientific terms. Any denial of this equivalence on the grounds of subjective "absurdity" requires special pleading on the part of your deity.

​

FINALLY.......
Ultimately there is no rational, reasoned, objective, evidentially supported or logical basis for your belief in whatever deity it is you choose to believe in. Subjectively I think that your deity is both absurd and ridiculous. Subjectively we both think that the IPU is absurd and ridiculous. There is nothing logical, objective or evidence based that seperates your deity from the IPU. The only thing that separates your deity from the IPU is your subjective faith and belief in your deity.

​

It boils down to Faith Vs Reason.

​

Exactly as I have been telling you for two threads now.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree that this may well be where the real battlefield lies. But I don't think that RAZD explicitly realises that this is the battle he is actually fighting. RAZD has repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional ability to present, and argue in favour of, highly scientifically evidenced concepts here at EvC in numerous different threads. But in this thread he has demonstrated complete ignorance of the scientific method at large.RAZD is claiming that the untested hypotheses of science are no more or less objectively valid than faith based assertions regarding deities or gods.Scientific hypotheses are derived from all of the tested objective evidence that precedes them. They are the product of the scientific method.There can be little doubt that an unverified and untested hypothesis is inadequate and inferior as compared to directly evidenced scientific theory. But to dismiss unevidenced hypotheses as objectively and evidentially groundless, to dismiss any confidence in the veracity of a scientific hypothesis as the product of subjective world view, displays a gross miscomprehension of the scientific process, an ignorance of how hypotheses are formed and a misunderstanding as to how science progresses.Numerous wholly accepted scientific theories were unevidenced hypotheses at one point. Was confidence in General Relativity or the existence of the CMB really just a product of subjective world view before discoveries were made or predictions verified? Were these theories as objectively groundless as belief in a deity prior to being confirmed?. No of course not. They were the product of reason and logic as applied to the objective evidence available. They could have been wrong of course. But that does not mean that a high degree of certainty as to their eventual confirmation, technological and practical considerations allowing, was not objectively and rationally justified.Currently we have the Higgs Boson, dark matter and extraterrestrial life as examples of untested scientific hypotheses. It may well be that any or all of these turn out to be wrong. Nobody is claiming certainty regarding these phenomenon actually existing. BUT the perceived likelihood of these claims being true is not objectively groundless. We are not expending vast resources researching these areas on a subjective whim.For RAZD's position to hold, untested scientific hypotheses must be considered as being no more or no less objectively valid than unevidenced claims for the existence of supernatural entities. That position can only be deemed consistent if one rejects the scientific method as being the most reliable method we have of establishing reasoned hypotheses and, ultimately, the veracity of claims.There are those who would take such a view. That is a different discussion. RAZD seems to be both accept the scientific method whilst simultaneously completely contradicting this with his present arguments.Extraterrestrial life, the Higgs boson and dark matter all have the weight of the scientific method behind them. Various gods, including RAZD's deity, do not. Nor does the IPU or any other similarly "absurd" proposed entity. That is why the IPU is comparable logically and evidentially to supernatural beings. That is why the IPU is not comparable logically and evidentially to scientific hypotheses.That is the answer to the perceived injustice raised in RAZD's OP. That is why RAZD is wrong.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and tidying

If RAZD was arguing that there was evidence for such a position and that is why the IPU doesn't apply to him - then so be it. It might be better to argue the FSM instead (which does have evidence for it -> see the decline of piracy as it relates to global temperatures).Instead, RAZD is talking about faith and faith as RAZD says is

quote:

---

...based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. Faith is non-reasonable\rational: it is belief without evidence. Faith does not make conclusions based on evidence, it makes conclusions about evidence based on faith.

---

Which I think means that the IPU is fair game.

Just to nitpick, and so that the money spent on my college philosophy classes gets put some use. It is evidence of existance. And thus subjective experiences are factual, in that they provide proof for a persons existance. They do not qualify as objective evidence. They do qualify as evidence for the existance of itself.

---

"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

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

But the IPU is C, not A

---

So? C is an example of A. Therefore, because C was designed to be like all B you might care to name, also examples of A, it is done to show that all A are absurd. To claim otherwise is the logical error of special pleading.

quote:

---

You were the first to refer to A as being absurd.

---

Huh? Message 1: That's in message 1, RAZD. Are you claiming there's a zeroth post? I started your thread before you did?I was the first respondant to your thread once it was released, but I never used the term "absurd" in it. I never used the word "absurd" until Message 38 in direct response to you: You were the one who brought up the term "absurd" and started throwing it around. And now you're complaining that people are responding to it?

quote:

---

Thus you are arguing that A is absurd because C is absurd.

---

That's because C is specifically designed to match any example of A you care to name. Thus, since C is equivalent to all A, then if C is absurd, so are all A. To claim otherwise is special pleading.

quote:

---

Then don't redefine A.

---

Who is redefining it? We're simply pointing out that this example that you call absurd is equivalent to A. Thus, if C is absurd, so is A. To claim otherwise is special pleading.

quote:

---

But claiming that A is necessarily "absurd" from the start is begging the question.

---

And you might have a point if anybody was doing that other than you. I am not claiming A is absurd from the start. I am concluding that A is abusrd by pointing out that its equivalent, B, is absurd. For crying out loud, RAZD, you quoted me. Didn't you read it before you quoted it? Where is the "redefinition" of A as absurd? This is the first statement. Are you claiming that there's some super-secret hidden writing there that only you can see and I didn't actually write? Where in that statement do I claim A is absurd?It is only after work that we conclude that A is absurd.And again, the only reason we're talking about absurdities is because you brought it up in Message 1. Are you claiming there is a zeroth post? I started your thread before you did?

quote:

---

A is the class of things where we don't have evidence pro or con.

​

No evidence for
No evidence against

​

There are many examples of A, including the concept of alien life in the universe.

---

But "alien life in the universe" is not an example of A.Do you deny that you are alive? That is a very serious question. I do not ask it for my health. I want you to give me a yes or no answer.Why is it that whenever I go out of my way to point out specific questions that I want answered, concretely saying that an individual question is the only one I'm really interested in, that question is always ignored? Please don't let this be yet another one of those times, RAZD. I really only want an answer to that question:Are you or are you not alive?

quote:

---

So your education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not part of reality the reality that is Rrhain?

---

If they're bogus, no. I've been taught lots of things that weren't true, had experiences that were naught but hallucination, held philosophies that had no connection to reality, deduced things that weren't true, believed six impossible things before breakfast, and had numerous opinions that I've had to be disabused of.Surely you aren't saying that you've never been absolutely sure of something that wasn't true, are you?And let's not play dumb and claim that your picture was talking about the belief itself, not the object that was believed in.

quote:

---

It should be obvious that I've answered this several times.

---

Then humor me and answer it again because apparently I missed it.

quote:

---

The perception of the number of planets is part of the information you process when deciding on the likelihood of life on another planet, as is your knowledge and the evidence of life on earth.

---

Do you not see that you just contradicted yourself? Did you or did you not just say: But if the number of planets in the universe is information to be taken into account, then it turns out that we DO have evidence. Thus, we get back to my question:Are you alive or not?

quote:

---

we have a range of people with different responses to the question from highly unlikely to almost a foregone conclusion

---

So? The defining point isn't about how confident we are in the results of our analysis of the evidence. Instead, the point is whether or not we have any evidence to analyze in the first place.Are you alive or not?

quote:

---

so the conclusion is that the resulting opinion is more a function of individual world views, not on the concrete objective reality of planets.

---

Nice distraction. Again, the question isn't how confident we are in our analysis of the evidence. It's whether or not there is any evidence to analyze in the first place.Congratulations, RAZD. You just demolished your own argument. Since there is evidence regarding the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, then that means it is not a member of A.I seem to recall saying just that.

quote:

---

Thus the worldview trumps the issue of how many planets exist in forming an opinion.

---

Huh? You mean the complete non-existence of planets wouldn't have any effect on the results of the analysis? Don't you think that the absence of any place for life to exist would have some bearing on the question of whether or not life existed elsewhere?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

shalamabobbi responds to me:

quote:

---

Usually there is some conversion event/process that amounts to the evidence that the belief is based upon

---

How many people do you know restrict their claims of god to, "This is only my opinion because I was the only one who had the experience"?Personal experience is one thing, but we are talking about external realities that are supposedly achievable by all people.

quote:

---

whereas the IPU has no evidence whatsoever in contradistinction.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? How do you know nobody has had some "conversion event/process" with regard to the IPU (BBHH)? Tales of her manifestations are myriad.Now you're mixing in a "True Scotsman" fallacy in with the special pleading. Only "true" theists are allowed...that "fake" religion is discarded out of hand even though it is functionally identical to the "true" one we're all supposed to take seriously.

quote:

---

If one were to say 'I believe in deity X' and when pressed with 'why' says 'no reason, I just assert that X exists', then the IPU fits that situation and special pleading applies.

---

But that isn't the IPU (BBHH). There are people who will give you plenty of reasons why. So now what? Again, the IPU (BBHH) was specifically designed to mimic the claims of others. So if you're going to dismiss the IPU (BBHH), why do the others get to be taken seriously? That's right, special pleading.

quote:

---

Here there is evidence that is claimed as the basis for the belief.

---

The problem is that it is evidence that nobody else can see. To everybody else, it's invisible but to you, it's pink. Do you now see the point in the construction of the IPU (BBHH)? Nobody else can contradict the fact that you are seeing pink. You're the only one who can say what you see. But just because you see it doesn't mean anybody else does.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

onifre responds to Rahvin:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Subjective experiences are not evidence. Period. Ever.

---

​

It is evidence of existance.

---

Of the one having the subjective experience, yes, but that isn't of any use nor is it what we are talking about. Please do not play dumb.

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Evidence" is one or more facts that support one conclusion over others.

---

​

And thus subjective experiences are factual, in that they provide proof for a persons existance.

---

And if that had any relevance, you might have a point. Please do not play dumb.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Subjective experiences and feelings do not involve facts, and thus do not qualify as evidence.

---

​

They do not qualify as objective evidence. They do qualify as evidence for the existance of itself.

---

And if that had any connection to anything in this discussion, you might have a point. Please do not play dumb.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.