Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

I would be interested to know what you think of this.The generalised form of RAZD's example is as follows:Evidenced concepts are concepts
Un-evidenced concepts are concepts.If you believe in evidenced concepts you should therefore believe in un-evidenced concepts too.Atheist: I only believe in evidenced concepts. I do not believe in un-evidenced concepts.RAZD: Aha special pleading! A logical fallacy.Yes it is special pleading. Special pleading on the grounds of objective evidence.Whether or not that is fallacious depends on whether or not you agree that objective evidence is a valid reason for belief.So special pleading on the basis of objective evidence separates the possibility of alien life and the IPU.What special pleading separates deities and other such entities from the IPU?In essence the argument will come down to who has the form of "special pleading" that is objective and definable rather than subjectively ambiguous.Interested in your thoughts.......

And I would agree with you. But someone who believes that subjective faith provides the best means to uncovering the truth and who has no regard for objective evidence would disagree.They would say that you are special pleading the role of objective evidence over faith.And they would be technically correct. The point is that placing objective evidence over faith is demonstrably superior with regard to uncovering the 'truth'.Thus the "special pleading" in favour of objective evidence is justified whatever our friend of faith may think.If we agree that objective evidence is justified "special pleading" then what justifiable special pleading is required to seperate the IPU from deities and gods?

Well precisely. It is evidence.You therefore agree that alien life is evidenced.Why was that so hard? Cognitive dissonance? On what grounds? Evidence?So on what grounds are the IPU and deities not logically equivalent?As for the rest of your post regarding UFOs and other apparantly on topic entities (despite still insisting that the real deistic issue is off topic - avoidance tactic anyone? - :rolleyes - I refer you to here: Message 242This more than adequately answers all your points. Maybe come back to me once you actually know what my position is regarding such claims.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZD answer me ONE question - Are evidence based hypotheses more, less or equally as reliable as wholly subjective claims? From Message 242But try reading the full post rather than just picking apart this quote before coming back to me.

Don't give us the "love argument".Love does not exist distinctly or seperately to those who experience it.Love did not exist before conscious beings existed in the universe and it won't exist should the universe become devoid of conscious beings at some point in the future.Love, toe stubbing experiences etc. etc. etc. are not entities that exist independently of conscious beings so unless you agree that deities (and I include the IPU in that term) are just the product of human consciousness with no validity or existence outside of that consciousness they have nothing to do with anything that we are talking about.Nothing. Nada. Squat.

You are (perhaps intentionally) confusing and conflating the evidential basis for UFOs having actually visted Earth with the possibility that they could visit Earth.The first is completely unevidenced in any objective terms I am aware of.The second is a potentially valid scientific hypothesis that involves factors about which I claim nothing but ignorance. The physics of inter-galactic space travel etc. etc. etc.If you want to start a thread on the second then I will happily participate.The former is more than adequately covered by my response here - Message 242Having had this conflation pointed out to you I trust that you will desist from any further confusion between the two?Edited by Straggler, : Wrong linkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What logical fallacy?Be specific.

And I agree.But what has that to do with the supposed actual existence of gods, deities, Immaterial Pink Unicorn, Wagwah, Face Sucking Jellyfish or any other such inherently undetectable entity?

If it was you and only you I would advocate flogging and hanging.Given that I am also guilty of such discrepancies I will advocate forgiveness and compassion instead.Let he who hath not deviated off topic cast the first (metaphorical) stone.May all your contributions be wise ones.

I agree with pretty much all of that. No No No No No No No. That is not what I am trying to do at all.What I am trying to do is explain to you that non-belief in the objective existence of entities for which no objective evidence exists whatsoever is the only rational option.Personal experiences like love can only "exist" as long as the person experiencing them. I have no problem "believing" in the human experience of love. I do deny that love will "exist" in the universe if we remove all those capable of experiencing love.If you are claiming that the deity in which you believe is nothing more than a personal experience that has no reality or meaning in any objective sense and which will die when you die then......we have no argument?So which is it? Is your deity purely a personal experience or do you claim it actually exists external to you in any way at all? It seems that we have moved onto stage 2 of the theists playbook "My subjective evidence is as relevant as your objective evidence"Top marks for originality then Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes I do. Regarding the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY of alien visitations - Yes I do agree that the logc is the same even if the objective factors involved in determining probability are very different.The logical factors involved would suggest that alien visitatons are considerably less probable than the mere existence of life elsewhere in the universe and may even be impossible to all practical intents and purposes.Either way there is no objective evidence to suggest that any alien visitations actually have occurred. By the terms set out in your OP the possibility of alien life and the actual existence of the IPU ARE logically equivalent. Your position rests on there being a logial distinction and there isn't one.The thing that seperates the possibility of alien life (or the considerably more remote possibility) of alien visitations from the existence of the IPU is EVIDENCE.But are we ever going to get to the real question at hand?What objective factor separates the IPU from deities?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

ANY possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU.ANY possibility which is NOT derived from ANY evidence IS equivalent to the IPU.The original grouping of the IPU and the possibility of alien life was defined by the terms of the OP that you wrote. Evidential terms.You have since agreed that both the possibility of alien life and the tangential possibility of alien visitation are in fact NOT equivalent to the IPU in evidential terms.However the concept of deities, the concept which the IPU was specifically designed to be equivalent to in evidential terms, REMAINS evidentially equivalent to the IPU.To Separate the IPU from any other concept by means of anything other than evidential terms, the evidential terms originally specified by you in your OP, would be to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.The IPU IS a logical argument when discussing evidence and the belief or non-belief in wholly un-evidenced entities.EnjoyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add absurdityEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

A = Those conceptual possibilities which are not derived from any objective evidential basis or foundation at all.B = The existence of the IPUC = The existence of DeitiesD = The existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe.E = The concept of potential alien visitation.B is an example of AC is an example of AThe possibility of both life on other planets and alien visitation are derived from the objective empirical facts that life exists on this planet and that other planets also exist.RAZD has agreed that this is indeed true.The probability or improbability of such concepts being true is irrelevant. Only the basis of the possibility is at issue by our definition of A.Therefore:D is not an example of AE is not an example of AIf all A are classed as "absurd" on the basis of lacking any objective empirical foundation then deities and the IPU are both "absurd" whilst all evidentially founded concepts are not.No subjective definition of "absurd" in terms subjective world view is required to differentiate the two classes of concept.I believe that this is exactly the conclusion that Rrhain arrived at about a 100 posts ago. And he probably said it more succinctly.But having just "got it" myself I thought it was worth repeating.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In terms of objective empirical evidence the IPU, deities and all other unevidenced concepts are absolutely identical. This is indisputable.Evidence was the only criteria specified in RAZD's OP.By the criteria of objective evidence, a criteria which can be objectively rather than subjectively assessed to exist or not, the IPU is a logical argument.Which is after all the subject at hand. No? In the evidential terms of the OP this is irrelevant.I do not believe in the IPU or deities because they are both unevidenced. I am evidentially consistent in my beliefs.RAZD does not believe in the IPU but does believe in deities. He is being evidentially inconsistent.Whether you think evidential consistency matters or not is not the point. The point is that it can be objectively assessed and thus stated as fact rather than just opinion.Distinguishing equally unevidenced things in terms of "believability" however is an opinion and not a fact as there is no objective measure of "believability".RAZD is trying to distinguish between proposed entities in terms of "believability" or some other such subjective variant. Do these experiences exist as seperate and distinct entities to that which is experiencing them or do these experiences only exist as long as the experiencee has the ability to experience them? Are they real in that sense?IS RAZD claiming that a personal experience exists when he says that he believes in a deity? Or is he saying that an entity distinct and independent of his ability to experience actually exists?He hasn't actually specified. I don't even know if RAZD knows exactly what he does believe in. But the term 'deist' usually refers to someone who believes in the latterIf the former I have no argument. If the latter then in evidential terms attributing unique and personal experiences to the IPU is just as valid as attributing them to some less specified and "more believable" concept of a deity.By the objective criteria of evidence they are logically equivalent. By some other subjective criteria such as "believability" they may not be. It will be a matter of opinion. It is true that RAZD's actual beliefs remain broadly undeclared. I am not telling RAZD what he should experience or believe at all!!I am stating the fact that atheism is evidentially consistent whilst demonstrating that deism is evidentially inconsistent. RAZD is disagreeing and saying that it is all a matter of subjective "world view", that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and that non-belief is no more or less consistent or justified on purely evidential terms than belief.With regard to evidential consistency he is wrong.Whether evidential consistency matters or not is up to you. Percy agress that by believing in a deity he is being evidentially inconsistent. He just doesn't care. Nor do I. But he is evidentially inconsistent in his beliefs.

True. Well.......Do we have evidence that human beings invent demonstrably false concepts? Whether intentionally or unintentionally. Consciously or unconsciously.I would suggest that a look around the fiction, mythology or religion sections of any bookshop would reveal that humanity is far far more adept at inventing false concepts than determining objective truth.Don't get me wrong. That is a good thing! I would rather we were an imaginative, creative species than a bunch of logical and wholly objective automatons.But this fact is something of a pisser if one is claiming that their wholly subjective and completely unevidenced view has any objective validity regarding actual existence.In the absence of absolutely ALL other evidence, in the case where there is a complete and utter lack of objective reason or supporting evidence to think that a claim even might be a possibility (e.g. the IPU or deities) - I would suggest that there is a wealth of objective evidence to suggest that such concepts are human inventions. Yes. Me too. But however he defines it the IPU is a logical argument in the purely evidential terms laid out in the OP.Now I am going to stop filling up this thread until RAZD returns.Happy to keep discussing these tangential issues if you want to propose another thread.Otherwise until Raz returns.......