Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

I've never considered the IPU to be a very satisfying line of argument against religious faith in specific deities, but I don't find your criticism of it to be very satisfying, either. I think you misrepresent both the typical example and the counter-example in the OP: As I understand it, the main motivation for the IPU/FSM argument is not simply that these are examples of belief in things for which "there is no evidence" -- rather, they are meant to represent examples of belief in things for which there can never be evidence, in the sense of objective, replicable and/or independently confirmable observation that would go one way if an assertion were true versus some other way if the assertion were false. That is, we're talking about assertions that can only be accepted on subjective grounds.I would also raise the point that the term "invisible pink unicorn" in itself captures an attribute of many deistic assertions (which the "flying spaghetti monster" seems to miss completely): there is an intrinsic contradiction in the properties of the entity being asserted. How can something be pink and also invisible? How can something be omnipotent and also need (in whatever sense) our personal decisions and actions? How do we understand an entity that both loves us all and consigns many of us to dire suffering in life and/or condemns many of us to eternal damnation? To finish out my first point, an assertion like life existing elsewhere in the universe is not equivalent to assertions about IPUs/deities, because it does not entail intrinsic self-contradiction, and the conditions for its verification can be stated in terms of objective observation. The absence of actual observations may be considered "accidental" or "coincidental", and evidence might come into view at any time.So, to paraphrase an idiom used elsewhere in this thread, I don't really accept the notion that IPUs and alien life constitute anything like:A -> C
B -> C
therefore A = BThat is, I don't see how your A (IPU) and B (alien life) are examples of the same C; I'm fairly certain they are not.My second point about how you have misrepresented things is that assertions of the latter type (with objective conditions for verification) are generally not tenets or dogma in any given system of belief, but merely possibilities to be taken into consideration. I can consider the possibility of something like life elsewhere in the universe without having any sense of "belief" that this must be true.I suppose I can "consider the possibility" of an IPU or deity, although it strikes me as somewhat less worthy of consideration, given its defining attributes: the intrinsic contradiction(s) I would need to accept, and the impossibility of objective verification.I realize that what I've said will probably qualify me for a reply containing yet another copy of the ugly red-and-yellow box. (So maybe you'll forego that -- it really isn't necessary.) My rationale for saying it anyway is probably a variant on what others in the thread have expressed: that you've built a sort of strawman.I think what I consider unsatisfying about the IPU argument is not that it leads to a logical fallacy, but simply that by invoking something ridiculous and comical, it verges on being overtly insulting. In order to make the point that these arguments are after, I find it sufficient to look no further than the multiplicity of "attested" deities that have been given credence, or merely the many diverse, irreconcilable yet equally "well-founded" versions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity (or deities, depending on who you talk to, I suppose).My sincere apologies for having violated your specific (and oft-repeated) directive about what I should/should not have said. Edited by Otto Tellick, : (decided to include Islamic with Judeo-Christian, and added the smiley to clarify my state of mind)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.