Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

No, I won't confuse or conflate them, I'm just trying to add it up, and see where you draw the line between (1) alien life is probable, and (2) alien visitations "in UFOs" is highly unlikely.You say (loudly and positively) that no claim is made in a vacuum of evidence (except possibly the IPU claim, of course), so what is the difference between the evidence for the probable existence of alien life and the evidence for the likelihood of alien visits? Where do you draw the line?

• life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries
• life that can manage their microenvironment to exist in space for extended periods of time
• life that can travel out of their local system
• life that can travel to nearby stars
• life that can live (reproduce, survive) continuously in space

Where does the train of logic run off the extrapolated tracks of probability? So you prefer to believe. It does make it easier to reach conclusions when you exclude the possibility of evidence contrary to your belief eh? Mod seems to say that there is evidence, just that it is poor and inconclusive. There is much solid and objective evidence that shows people will deny evidence contrary to their beliefs (the world view and cognitive dissonance thing again). Start with a small organism pre-adapted for hibernation and with naturally slower metabolism than humans. Add a million years of technology over what we know. Consider an organism that has adapted to living in space ships permanently, that only needs occasional contact with systems that have readily available resources (asteroids).That's all I have time for tonight.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : the train

---

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) • • •

There is no vacuum of evidence regarding the IPU either. As I have repeatedly stated there is great deal of evidence to suggest that such things are the product of human invention.You are confusing and conflating my statement that "No claim is made in a vacuum of objective evidence" with the assertion that "No claim is objectively unevidenced". I have very definitely never said the latter, you have just incorrectly assumed that is what I mean. As far as I am aware the vast majority of the "evidence" takes the form of claimed subjective experience. There is no objective, scientifically valid evidence from which to conclude that we might have been visited by alien spacecraft that I am aware of. I draw the line on evidence that is empirical, objective and scientific in nature.I am going to ask you two questions RAZ. Questions that I think will cause you to experience uncomfortable feelings of cognitive dissonance. But I really really would appreciate an answer.1) How do you think that valid scientific hypotheses regarding as yet unevidenced physical phenomenon are formulated, what is the process for this?2) Do you think that scientifically valid hypotheses are more or less likley to be true than wholly subjective conclusions which have no basis in objective evidence? Answer the questions and we will see who the one suffering cognitive dissonance is.

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.

Really? So now you are equivocating\equating\conflating intentionally fabricated fiction with objective evidence of reality?That is what your "no claim occurs with a vacuum of evidence" claim is left with. What you are saying is that an intentional lie is something that should be considered, just as much as a rock that can stub your toe is evidence of the objective reality of the rock.Cognitive dissonance anyone? Personally I'm disappointed. You've been pounding out in bold the assertion of no claim without evidence, and here we have the cop-out conclusion: if you don't believe the claim, that's because the evidence was just a fiction, if you do believe the claim it is because there is rational logical evidence for it. Welcome to oz. I think there are things we can experience that are not able to be investigated scientifically. Love is one.Once again, once you have left the realm of science and logic the tools of science and logic do not help you.One can still make logically consistent hypothesis, extrapolating on known human experiences and knowledge, but they are not testable in scientific ways. This becomes obvious when we can extrapolate an entirely rational and logical alien life explanation for UFO sightings, and your final conclusion was a subjective one. I find it curious that you cannot state exactly where you step off the logic train./qs Where is that point on the logic train? Where does the probability end?

• single cell life
• multicell life
• life with differentiated tasks
• life with organs
• life with skeletons
• life that can manipulate objects
• life that can manipulate it's local environment
• life that can make objects
• life that can make local environments
• life that can send objects into space
• life that can send life into space
• life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries
• life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundaries
• life that can manage their microenvironment to exist in space for extended periods of time
• life that can travel out of their local system
• life that can travel to nearby stars
• life that can live (reproduce, survive) continuously in space

Where does the train of logic run off the extrapolated tracks of probability into a parallel universe with Immaterial Pink Unicorns? Usually by making logical assumptions based on what we know, what we think is true and what we know to be false, and determining ways to test the hypothesis. Sometimes by making up something new and untested.Many similar logical assumptions can be made that are not testable, that cannot be invalidated, and where you may never know the answer - the existence of alien life can easily fit in this category.Once again, once you leave the realm of science and testable logic the tools of science and logic do not help you.No cognitive dissonance, and ground already covered before.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) • • •

Absolutely. If you want to call deities "fabricated fiction" I will not disagree with you. I wrote this to you previously: I guess you never read this - Message 175Neither claims of deities nor the IPU operate in a vacuum of objective evidence. Neither have any objective evidence in their favour. But both are equally subject to the wealth of objective evidence that we do have in favour of the fact that 'people make shit up'. Intentionally or otherwise. Now you are not making any sense at all.Are you claiming that there is no evidence to suggest people create false concepts? Or are you claiming that this evidence is irrelevant to the question of wholly unevidenced entities actually existing? Ahem. Straw man alert. I have never said "no claim without evidence" because both your deistic claims and claims of the IPU are utterly unevidenced and have always been so. That is kind of the point. Go back and read message linked to above if you doubt that.I have repeatedly stated that "No claim operates in a vacuum of evidence".In the absence of any objective evidence to suggest that something does exist we are left with the only objective evidence available. Namely evidence that strongly suggests it has been invented. Aha. So finally we get to the heart of the matter.What is the rational logical evidence for believing in a deity?
Or is a deity equally as unevidenced as the IPU?Or are you going to shy away from the real debate yet again with the "It's off topic" avoidance tactic? Excellent. So you apparently agree that the possibility of alien life is derived by the application of logic to known evidence.Is the proposed existence of the IPU also derived from the application of logic to known evidence?If not we would appear to have our answer as to why they are not equivalent in terms of evidential support, objectivity or logic.With regard to the explicit question in the OP is that not "case closed"? Erm what the fuck does that have to do with the price of fish?Are hypotheses derived by the application of logic to known evidence superior to wholly subjective conclusions regarding the existence of directly unevidenced phenomenon?Or not?SUMMARY
I believe that we have the emergence of an answer to the question posed in RAZD's OP. If as seems to be the case you agree that the proposed existence of the IPU is wholly and utterly unevidenced whilst acknowledging that the possibility of alien life is evidentially and logically supported.....Well that is why they are not evidentially equivalent.Case closed. No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you agree that the IPU is a total fabrication with absolutely no evidential basis, and thus has no bearing on concepts that are logically consistent and not invalidated by any known evidence, then yes, case closed: the IPU is a false argument. If you agree that your "deist-like" (positive) conclusion regarding alien life is just as logically consistent with the evidence and logic and not contradicted by any known evidence as Mark24's "atheist-like" (likely negative) conclusion regarding alien life, and that neither of them are represented by the IPU, then yes, case closed: the IPU does not represent a valid representation of either of the conclusions reached on alien life.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) • • •

My apologies if I somehow managed to convince you that I didn't understand your argument so that you felt the need to repeat it. I guess I'll just repeat my counter argument and assure you that I understand what you are saying.Astrobiologists disagree with you. They point out that in order have uninterrupted evolution for as long as we have had there would need to be several fortunate events such as the existence of something like Jupiter and our Moon to protect life from constant catastrophe. From our single sample of one solar system, we know that most bodies aren't in the fortunate position that Earth is, and plenty of them aren't even solid.They would point out that complex life would need to live somewhere temperate - so Io might have simple life forms on it, but it is unlikely to ever develop anything more interesting that extremophiles etc etc.Now - if you would like, you can try and argue that complex life will always develop from simple life regardless of the selection pressures acting against that happening. Good luck with that, but please don't repeat your argument that we can calculate the probabilities of complex life arising using the simplistic method you outlined.Are you really going to ask me to do the web search for you on this one?Let us say that by divine fiat we learn that there is life on Pluto. We don't know what kind of life. Without knowing much more about Pluto than that, other than its extreme distance from the Sun and it being much smaller than Earth and its location in the Kuiper belt...are you suggesting that we should believe it is equally probable that the life there is
1) extremophilic type life
2) complex tool making intelligent beings with organs, large brains, hair, two eyes, a skeleton etc., etc.Really? No - I think there is also poor, likely to be erroneous and possibly hallucination type evidence for the existence of the IPU. The difference is that as far as I can tell, any given 'sighting' of the IPU (say by equine revelation), is unverifiable and unfalsifiable whereas we can in principle falsify or verify many UFO sightings as being terrestrial or otherwise.That is what separates them as far as our discussion is concerned. I don't know, how could we? There may be people who have genuinely believed in the IPU. However, alien life and cryptozoology are generally in the realm of 'verifiable and falsifiable'. The IPU is of course cryptozoology, but deliberately constructed so as to be unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Right - because it is inherently unverifiable. Whatever evidence anybody presents for it, can be easily dismissed as not being very convincing and a long way off from being verification of its existence. And no matter what evidence is presented, nothing will ever demonstrate it doesn't...even in principle.Alien life existing on other planets can be falsified in principle if it were to be shown that there are no other planets...

We are close to tying this up here so let's not get distracted by tangential issues. I will come back to those later or in the other thread.Are the IPU and alien life evidentially equivalent in objective terms?You have agreed that the proposed possibility of alien life IS derived by the application of logic to objectively verifiable known evidence.You also seem to agree that the proposed existence of the IPU IS NOT derived from the application of logic to known evidence.Thus we have finally reached an agreed conclusion regarding the non-equivalence of the IPU and alien life in strictly evidential terms.Hallelujah!!The only question that remains - (Not in terms of the OP but surely it is time to move onto the wider issue now) -
Is whether or not the proposed existence of gods and deities are equivalent to the proposed possibility of alien life OR equivalent to the proposed existence of the IPU. In strictly evidential terms.Please note - STRICTLY EVIDENTIAL TERMS.What do you think? And how is that cognitive dissonance coming along?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

One conclusion is based on experience and worldview, the other is not, it is artificial. One conclusion is based on experience and worldview, the other is not, it is artificial. Certainly people that seem to have experienced alien visitations have a different view from those who have not.What did they experience? Immaterial Pink Unicorns? Or are you going to claim that the experience was made up again. Do you mean the cognitive dissonance you have regarding alien life but not UFO visitors? Where's your logical line? Why do you decide to embrace one and not the next?Or do you finally concede that this argument uses a false logic, and the IPU argument is essentially useless.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) • • •

Throughout this extended discussion the atheists position has been to hold objective evidence as the basis for belief.You have agreed above that there are objective evidential reasons to believe in the possibility of alien life existing elsewhere in the universe. You accept that this possibility is derived from well evidentially founded knowledge and that it is thus a valid hypothesis.You also agree that there are no evidential reasons for believing that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn even might exist.Thus the two are definitely and definitively NOT evidentially equivalent.You also agree that there are no objective evidential reasons for believing that deities even might exist. Such things require faith.Thus deities and the Immaterial Pink Unicorn are evidentially equivalent.In purely evidential terms deities ARE TOTALLY EQUIVALENT to the IPU, Wagwah, The Face Sucking Jellyfish and all those other concepts that you find so insulting and "absurd".That is why these "absurd" entities are wholly legitimate comparisons to deities if one consistently considers objective evidence to be the only rational basis for belief. The falsifiability issue is definitely one that might be worth moving onto if you will first accept that alien life is deemed possible rather than absurd because solid empirical evidence points to this possibility. The possibility of alien life is thus not "unevidenced".Whatever the case - By your own admission the IPU and the possibility of alien life are not evidentially equivalent.So I am afraid that it really is "Case Closed" with respect to the OP.You have lost this one RAZ.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Coincidentally I was reading about the Kepler space probe in todays Guardian newspaper.This probe, amongst other things, is looking for signs of intelligent life in nearby star systems.According to this article it is estimated that there are a 100 billion "hospitable planets" in the Milky Way galaxy alone.In the observable universe it is estimated that there are 10 billion trillion (i.e. 10^22) hospitable planets.Now of course this is estimation and speculation but it is evidence based estimation and speculation.So what is the relative likelihood of life forming and evolving in such a vast and incomprehensible magnitude of possible sources?

This is not, in itself, on topic here. But you could ask the question in a new OP.

Straggler, 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

No. The "observable universe" is a technical term meaning the following: Observable universe - WikipediaGiven that the probability of alien life has been a significant if distracting feature of this thread I thought this was relevant.However I have been warned that this is off topic so if you want to discuss further start a new thread and I will be happy to participate.

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).We have experience with life on earth, and this can be used as a logical basis for thinking about life elsewhere in the universe, however there is still absolutely zero evidence that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and it may very well never be known one way or the other, and it cannot be falsified.There are many things we experience where we do not have evidence for why we experience them, including love and other emotions.When I was young, I once tried to convince myself that I was bisexual, but the problem was that I was just not attracted to men no matter how hard I tried. As a result I absolutely know that I could not choose to be homosexual, and thus that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, as some people claim. Nor can I explain why I cannot choose to be bisexual when there is plenty of direct and convincing evidence of bisexual people.There are also philosophical concepts that we can discuss the relative merits of, without having any direct and convincing evidence pro or con relative to their validity (and of course if we had direct and convincing evidence, then they would not be so discussed eh?), which also fit in the class of being things with no (direct and convincing) evidence, pro or con. Politics and economics are topics I can think of where we have different experiences and opinions, and no direct and convincing evidence pro or con regarding the various hypothesis involved. I have not had any experience of Immaterial Pink Unicorns, except as a fictional device used to pursue an argument that depends on several - to me anyway - logically false elements, ones that are rather obvious to me, and which I have pointed out on this thread. I see no refutations of those points. It amuses me that you just can't seem to discuss this topic without bringing this into it, in spite of the fact that it is stated at the beginning in bold yellow letters on a red background that this is NOT part of the topic. You just continue to make the same flawed argument. Congrats on the POTM, btw, and the kind words.You blithely say I am wrong, but in my humble opinion you have wasted a fair bit of time, effort and posts jumping off the topic instead of dealing with the basic issue. Have I? The very point of the first post was that the example of alien life and the IPU were not equivalent, that they shared the trait of being things with no (convincing) evidence, pro or con, but that one could not logically be used to represent the other.You have only served to confirm that they are not equivalent and that one cannot be used in an argument to substitute for the other.Let's go back to the OP one more time again: You admit to believing there is a probability of alien life in the universe in spite of not having any direct convincing evidence of that life. Now let's take the next step:

1. If you believe in something (alien life) without direct convincing evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without direct convincing evidence.
2. There is no direct convincing evidence for alien visitations to earth (UFOs).
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in alien visitations or admit that you cannot believe in something without direct convincing evidence.

Do you or do you not agree that this argument is logically flawed?A simple yes or no will suffice ... no need for bold assertions and long paragraphs ...Now, you also admit to not believing there is a probability of alien visitations, in spite of the logical extrapolation from the (meager) experience we have for life on earth is a (rather small) difference in the degree, and not in the kind, of the logic extrapolations used to conclude there is a probability of alien life?Would you not say that the arguments for alien life and alien visitations are "evidentially equivalent"?Again, a simple yes or no will suffice ... no need for bold assertions and long paragraphs ... Message 131
Message 134
Would you not agree that this dramatically increases the odds of alien visitations?Would you not agree that the likelihood of us finding evidence of the existence of alien life is similar to the likelihood of alien life finding evidence of our existence?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : Message 131 & Message 134Edited by RAZD, : last P

---

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) • • •