Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

The IPU is an actual religion and I'd thank everybody not to take the name of my God in vain. Sheesh, one apostate and the whole world has to bad mouth the IPU. Please before discrediting my church, learn about it from one of our missionaries, and not from one of our critics.Rhain #34 The difference is in the sacramental wine. In one instance it contains a little LSD. Curiously this correlates strongly with the conversion process in my church. Our venerated prophet, Dr. Leary, wanted to introduce the sacred substance into the public water supply on a global basis. But it seems our converts lose interest in this plan of world wide conversion after the third or fourth sacrament and prefer to hang out in opium dens with prostitutes.On a slightly more serious note, the problem with the IPU argument is that it is a thinly veiled ad hominum attack. Aside from the purpose of illustrating a lack of evidence it is a form of ridicule of the opponent. It should be replaced with something less personal in nature, like more governmental guarantees about the economic system or some such..Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

Hi Rrhain,
Rahvin in post #62 did an excellent job of explaining the purpose of the IPU.I was first exposed to it on another board where I think it was improperly used in less intelligent debate and assumed it was pulled out of someone's arse and just happened to catch on. The point of 'w/o evidentiary support' was not a part of my exposure to this argument previously. As such it serves the purpose as you state. In my first exposure it was used against positions that were claimed upon some evidence. While that evidence might be debated the use as assumed in comparing unevidenced claims did not properly apply and the intent of revealing special pleading was not brought up.I am not sure where the argument that originated this thread began, but I have to agree with the following observation made by RAZD: As I understand the IPU now, it should only be applicable where lack of evidentiary support is admitted and is uncontested. Then special pleading is accurately assessed. But in a situation where some degree of evidence is claimed I would conclude the IPU as being improperly applied by definition, and the proper course of debate to be against the claimed evidence instead.

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..

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 find it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that 'faith' is held w/o evidence of one form or another. I see that a few think that way. If you were never exposed in any manner to that which you have faith in would your faith exist? Somehow faith not based on any claim to evidence whatsoever sounds strikingly analogous to 'homeopathy'.I now understand more than I desired about the IPU, unless the IPU religion that I initially described actually exists, I might entertain the idea of converting..So the intent of the IPU is not that it is without evidence, got it. I think..