Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

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

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

OK. It is my stated intention to present my wider argument whilst staying absolutely within the narrow confines of the topic as you have defined it to be. RAZ your position regarding the accepted scientific likelihood of life on other planets as being completely equal to belief in the IPU or any other wholly unevidenced claim is leading you to a "cognitive dissonance" situation. By considering the following series of questions the reasons for this cognitive dissonance and the nature of this contradiction should become clear:1) Do you agree that the scientific method is the most objective and reliable means we have of determining the veracity of empirical claims?2) Do you agree that hypotheses are a key component of the scientific method?3) Do you agree that scientific hypotheses are tentative, directly untested conclusions which are derived by applying logical reasoning to existing objective evidence and scientific conclusions?4) Is the belief in the possibility, and indeed likelihood, that alien life exists elsewhere in the universe a scientific hypothessis directly derived from current scientific knowledge regarding the nature of the universe and the nature of life?5) Is the belief in the likelihood of the existence of extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the universe as completely and utterly as subjective and empirically unfounded as the belief that the IPU exists?In objective, evidence based terms the existence of the IPU is not comparable to any scientific hypothesis.In objective evidence based terms the IPU is absolutely comparable to any other wholy unevidenced claim.If you both accept the scientific method as superior whilst simultaneously insisting that the possible existence of life on other planets is wholly unevidenced in objective and reasoned scientific terms then there is an inherent contradiction in your thinking.This contradiction is the source of your cognitive dissonance.To refute this you need to either disclaim your acceptance of the scientific method OR demonstrate that the alien life hypothesis is completely ungrounded in existing scientific conclusions.Good luck.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZDIs the proposed possibility of alien life elsewhere in the universe derived from the objective empirical scientific evidence available?Or not?Is the proposed existence of the IPU (and other comparable entities which must remain nameless by the strict definition of your OP) derived from the objective empirical scientific evidence available?Or not?I am perfectly willing to evaluate the concepts under consideration within the context of your "world view" assertion if you are willing to acknowledge that not all world views are equally objective, reliable or evidentially founded.Enjoy.

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE
The possibility of life on other planets is derived from the firm objective evidential foundation of knowing that life exists on this planet and knowing that other planets exist.The probability of of life on other planets can then be objectively evaluated in terms of what we know about the nature of life and the number of planets available to spawn such phenomenon. The probability is very much a secondary consideration and will depend on the information available.THE IPU AND OTHER UNFOUNDED CLAIMS
The possibility of the IPU actually existing is derived from a purely subjective basis with no objective evidential foundation whatsoever.The probability of the IPU actually existing can only be considered in terms of the observed propensity for humankind to invent such things as there is no other objective evidence available on which to evaluate such a claim. So UFOs are on topic now are they.......?Is there any firm objective evidential foundation for seriously considering the possibility that we have been visited by alien spacecraft?I would say not. All of the "evidence" I am aware of is wholly subjective. Very much more like the IPU in that important sense. There is no objective evidential reason for thinking that we have ever been visited by alien spacecraft.There is much objective evidence to suggest that people make such things up.There is also objective evidence regarding the physics of space travel that, as I understand it, would suggest the sort of claims made by people with relation to UFOs are unlikely to be true. The evidence available suggests that any of these might possibly exist elsewhere in the universe.But there is still no objective reason to think that any of them have ever made their way here in UFOs.Of course I am confident that you won't attempt to confuse or conflate the two issues...........?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

So are all hypotheses merely subjective opinion? And who is claiming that hypotheses are the same as evidence? Hypotheses are derived from evidence. By the terms of your OP alien life and the IPU are logically equivalent.The reason that they are not actually equivalent is because of indirect evidence.Your wider argument regarding the non-equivalence of the IPU and deities has been thoroughly refuted. If you omit any concept of indirect evidence then yes the two are logically the same.If indirect evidence is deemed to be both important and to potentially increase confidence then factoring that in will make the two propositions non-equivalent.If you deny that indirect evidence has any validity at all then you deny that reasoned scientific hypotheses are any different to wholly subjective opinion. And thus you deny the validity of the scientific method as a whole.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Lots of edits - Trying to entertain a 3 year old whilst debating online is no easy task.

No worries.I have posted all too many booze inspired irrelevencies that seemed deeply poigniant at the time.............