Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

I know I said I would not participate further in this thread but having been away for a while I feel that some clarification is necessary: Once you had eventually conceded that life on other planets is a logical possibility derived from objective evidence the only entities that remained equivalent to the IPU in objective evidential terms, the objective evidential terms originally stipulated by YOU in your OP, are the gods and deities that originally prompted this whole discussion.What else are we supposed to discuss and why would anyone want to continue with the facade when we all know what we are really talking about? Yes - The logical possibility that this could potentially occur is derived from the known facts that intelligent life exists on this planet and that other planets exist.Thus, logically based on these two facts alone and taking into account no other less evidenced criteria, we must conclude that life with a degree of space travel technology similar to our own is at least a purely logical possibility even if not a likelihood. Message 335Because you are conflating the objectively evidenced and logically derived possibility that this could occur with the objectively un-evidenced notion that this possibility has occurred.The two propositions are very very different. The nature of evidence required to support a purely logical possibility that something could occur as opposed to the evidence required to determine whether or not something has actually occurred are obviously not the same.See message 335 in the other thread for details (linked to in the paragraph above) Shooting stars are highly objectively evidenced phenomenon. A claimed sighting of a shooting star is in no way equivalent to a claim that one has experienced god's existence.Claimed sightings of shooting stars are closer in nature to claims that one has just seen a cat cross the road than to spiritual expereinces of god's existence. Does the subjective experience of love felt by a human being continue to exist independently and distinct from the experiencee once they cease to exist? Do you agree with me that subjectively experienced god concepts also cease to exist once the experiencee dies as there is no non-subjective basis for these concepts?If not then the two are not equivalent and love has no bearing on this discussion. You initially claimed that faith required no evidence. Now you distinguish between those things that are worthy of faith and those things which are not on the basis of subjective "evidence".Thus the IPU has been successfully deployed to reveal the specific nature of your special pleading. Namely subjective "evidence". Once you start considering subjective belief to be a form of knowledge in itself the flood gates of absurdity are opened and the dam of reason has been breached.You deny that you are engaged in the circular reasoning of including belief itself as evidence upon which to base belief and yet you also assert that the IPU is an invalid concept on the basis that there is no subjective evidence in favour of the IPU because no-one has ever believed in it's existence.Contradiction? Yes. We all subjectively experience objective reality. Nobody disputes this. Nobody has at any point disputed this.But you continue to fail to demonstrate that the notion of wholly "subjective evidence", evidence derived from no objective basis whatsoever, the form of evidence required to conclude gods, is in any way more reliable than biased guessing.Until you can apply wholly "subjective evidence" (as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) to something verifiable and demonstrate that this form of "evidence" is indeed more reiable than guessing any unverifiable conclusions made on the basis of this form of evidence must be deemed invalid.For details see here Message 329Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It looks like your new thread request is not going to be promoted. I hope you won't mind if I post a brief reply here.Here Message 1 you wrote the following: Firstly no-one is telling you what you should believe. I am merely pointing out your evidential and logical inconsistencies in believing in some things but not others. You are welcome to be as inconsistent as you want and to believe whatever you damn well please. Is not blue a concept that can be defined with reference to an empirical, objective shared common reality?Is not your preference for blue (or chocolate or whetever) thus not the result of your subjective perception and interpretation of objective reality?How are concepts with no evidential basis in empirical, objective, shared common reality (concepts such as immaterial pink unicorns or deities) evidentially comparable to your preference for blue? What does choice have to do with 'truth' in the context of the nature and reliability of evidence?Isn't 'choice' just the latest example in a long and seemingly endless line of special pleading criteria?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I accept this possibility. But have no reason to think wholly subjective evidence (as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) is any better than guessing.You continue to fail to demonstrate otherwise or even to acknowledge that there is a necessary difference between the two. Life exists. Other planets exist.
Based on the two facts available is life on other planets possible or impossible?
What is "tenuous or convoluted" about that?The likelihood is a different question that can be assessed on different evidence. Again? How many more times will you fail to grasp this? Is alien visitation a possibility? Yes. An actuality? The paucity of evidence suggests not. "Help I have been probed by aliens" is not enough to conclude that such a fantastic possibility has actually occurred.Once again you hugely conflate logical possibilities with probabilities and the evidence required to determine what "could happen", what "might happen" and what "has happened"Dude how many times must I point this conflation out before you stop.............? A possibility that is "evidenced" in such a way as to be little more reliable than guessing as to what might exist. Yes it is subjectively real. But is it in itself evidence?I would treat evidence as that which enables us to distinguish truth from falsehood.Wholly subjective experiences (as distinct from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence) may form the basis of a belief but on what basis do we consider that belief "evidenced" in terms of it's reliability? Has anyone really disputed that?I (hope) I have maintained throughout that you are entitled to believe in whatever entities you choose based on whatever experiences of those entities you have had.I thought this whole debate originated when those of us who do not deem such experiences to be a reliable basis on which to believe declared our atheism towards such entities and you told us that this non-belief was unjustified. No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The possibility of alien life is a scientific hypothesis derived from objective evidence. The possibility that a deity (such as the IPU) actually exists is not a scientific hypothesis derived from objective evidence. You conceded this earlier in this thread. Thus the two possibilities are not evidentially equivalent in the manner required for your OP as originally conceived and written to hold true. Nor are they equivalent in terms of any reference to unevidenced faith as per your original position in this extended discussion.It seems that you are too stubborn, or blinded by the inadequacy of your position, to cope with the subtleties of this difference as applied to the various subsequent examples you have raised or to appreciate why this distinction is so important. So let's just stop banging our heads against a brick wall and agree that the two things are not evidentially equivalent (which is all that really matters in the context of this discussion) and leave it that shall we? But it is you, not I, that has consistently argued that the science fiction conclusion of this actuality should be given any airtime in terms of evidence. It is you, not I, that has arrived at this ridiculous extrapolation by consistently conflating the evidence required to determine possibilities, probabilities and actualities. A conflation that serves only to confuse the issue in a disingenuous attempt to promote your own flailing arguments. With that one sweeping statement you have denounced the validity of a large and key component of the scientific method.(objective evidence) + (deductive logic) = (hypothesis)Nobody has ever argued that every scientific hypothesis will be confirmed as correct. But to claim that this method of determining possibilities is no better than guessing via means of wholly subjective "evidence" is preposterous. Was General Relativity just a lucky guess? Are the IPU and other unevidenced deities just as likely to exist as the Higgs Boson? Or dark matter? Was the discovery of Tiktaalik the result of subjective "world view"? Was the specific predicted value of the CMB just a fluke?Think about what you are saying here RAZD. Are you really denouncing our proven ability to derive highly evidenced possibilities from evidence and logic? How do we make predictions to test? How do we discover new evidence if not by seeking out those results that are the logical extrapolation of known evidence? How does science progress?Is the human-chimp common ancestor directly evidenced? Have you ever seen one? Do we have any direct evidence of the physical actuality of this phenomenon? Anything that is not inferred from indirect evidence to some degree? You and I would both agree that this concept is as evidenced as any in science yet is this not derived by means of the application of minimal logical extrapolation to a ream of exceptionally reliable and tested indirect objective evidence?Unless subjective "evidence" can be proven to be more reliable than guessing it should be considereed to be no more reliable than guessing. The logical extrapolation of objective evidence that you are so keen to discredit has already passed that particular test with flying colours. That is why the logical extrapolation of objective evidence is a key component of the scientific method (i.e. scientific hypothesis) whilst subjective "evidence" is most definitely not. So finally you concede that you are simply unable to demonstrate that wholly subjective "evidence" is superior to merely guessing in terms of reliability. Thank-you for that. The question must therefore be asked:On what basis is your "subjective evidence" argument even remotely valid....?????!!!!And why is it impossible to test this? If I have a feeling or even a vision that placing my life's savings and home on "red 19" will make my fortune I am considered to be an irrational fool (not to mention almost certainly bankrupt and homeless). If I have an equally subjectively "evidenced" feeling or "vision" regarding the existence of gods this is suddenly worthy of the deepest respect and a reason not just for me to believe this irrational nonsense but, according to you, a reason why others should accept my beliefs at least to the point of agnosticism too. This is logically and evidentially inconsistent. Indisputably so.So why can we not apply subjective evidence to something testable? Something like gambling? Why will you only apply such "evidence" to the "unknowable"? Let's actually see whether this subjective "evidence" you have so fiercely advocated is even remotely deserving of the term "evidence" by actually testing it's reliability and validity. Why are you so afraid to do this? And you have also agreed that some world views are more logical and rational than others. Given that every single supposedly unknowable and subjectively "evidenced" god concept that has ever subsequently become knowable has been refuted do you think that a degree of non-belief, a degree of atheism, is logical and evidentially valid with regard to any god concept derived from subjective "evidence" alone?Do you still dispute that the answer I originally gave way back when we started this discussion - i.e. "Philosophically possible but unlikely" - Is rational, logical and evidentially justified?Bearing in mind all that has been discussed do you still maintain that agnosticism, as opposed to a degree of atheism, is the evidentially consistent, logical and rational position regarding the actual existence of gods?Answer that one last question if no other...........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes and no.We have had obviousness, absurdity, belief, subjective evidence and choice as special pleading criteria so far.Is there any end to the list? If not then, whilst I will certainly take part, another thread of ever changing special pleading criteria does not seem that worthwhile. And yet, whilst you have made multiple desperate and dispirate changes to the nature of your special pleading criteria, you have never yet once been able to demonstrate any inconsistencies in my arguments without repeatedly and intentionally conflating possibilities, probabilities and actualities.Go figure. The IPU argument applies to none of the conceptual possibilities derived from objective evidence that you have mentioned in this thread. No matter how unlikely or even fantastical these may be deemed to be for other equally objectively evidenced reasons. Possibilities, probabilities and actualities.............we have been through this a dozen times at least. Do you really not "get it" or is your apparent ignorance a debating tactic?The IPU remains totally logically and evidentially equivalent to the concept of deities. Neither are possibilities that we have any reason to think even might be valid by any reliable standard. Both, whilst philosophically possible, are almost certainly completely the result of human invention by the standards of anything that can be meaningfully called "evidence".You concede that and we will take it from there...........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes. When it comes to deities the assertion of the possibility is equally as evidentially unfounded as the actuality. Despite differing terminology you, Mod and I are all consistently saying this same thing. It is this simple point that RAZD seems bewilderingly unable to grasp. He also seems intent on confusing the issue by relentlessly conflating unevidenced possibilities (i.e. gods and deities) with possibilities that are derived from an objective evidential basis but which are mutually deemed to be deeply improbable for whatever other objectively evidenced reason (e.g. aliens wishing to probe people, Nessie the living dinosaur etc. etc.). RAZD's incessant conflation of possibilities, probabilities and actualities has been going on for literally months now and is driving me mad.With regard to the semantics at hand - Deities are not impossibilities and so must, I would argue, be referred to as possibilities of one sort or another. However this applies equally to the IPU as any other deity. Concepts can be both possible and impossible so I am not sure that this is the best term to use. I have been trying to use the term "hypothesis" to refer to possibilities derived from objective evidence and "unevidenced possibilities" with regard to the IPU and other deities.However given my total lack of success at getting this concept across to RAZD maybe my terminology is not the best example to follow.............. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Post whatever you want. But comparing the IPU, an example of a wholly objectively unevidenced concept, to concepts that are derived from or supported by objective evidence (no matter how weak or minimal that evidence may be) remains evidentially unjustified.Equally comparing the IPU, an example of a wholly objectively unevidenced concept, to other equally wholly objectively unevidenced concepts (i.e. deities) remains wholly evidentially justified both in terms of the specific OP written by YOU and the more generalised IPU argument. If I derive the same conclusion by reading tea leaves does that validate tea leaf reading as a form of evidence? It is the nature of the evidence used to derive the conclusion, not the conclusion itself, that is the relevant issue at hand here.My "shaky" evidence (combining the indisputable facts that both intelligent life and other planets exist to form a hypothesis as per standard scientific methodology) is used to derive the logical POSSIBILITY that this COULD conceivably occur. The evidential validity of the possibility only. Nothing about probability. Nothing about actuality.Your position is based on subjective "evidence" (a form of evidence that you have conceded you are unable to demonstrate as being any more reliable than guessing) of the ACTUALITY of alien visitation having occurred and from this you derive the possibility that this HAS actually occurred. Everything about actuality. Nothing about the evidential validity of the conceptual possibility.Should I be surprised that you continue to conflate "could occur" with "has occurred"? Should I be shocked that you continue to relentlessly conflate the evidence required to determine conceptual "possibilities" and "actualities" unabated right up until the bitter end? Should I now post a rolleyes emoticon to make my point? If you cannot see that the evidence required to derive what "could" conceivably occur is different in nature to the evidence required to determine what "has" occurred then that is your failing and not mine. Is it possible that you could be hit by a meteor? Is it probable? Has it actually happened?Why don't you go away and think about the differing evidence required to determine an answer to each of these questions. Then look back at your posts in this thread to honestly assess whether or not you have conflated these concepts in a bid to support your flawed "It's just your opinion" position as applied to the various examples raised in this discussion. In fact I challenge you to look back at your posts in both this and the deism thread and deny that this continual conflation has formed the basis of your opposition to my arguments. It's very simple RAZD. If you are unable to actually refute arguments without grossly misrepresenting them by conveniently and relentlessly conflating very different concepts despite this conflation being pointed out to you numerous times then it is you that is incessantly expressing an invalid opinion rather than a reasoned argument. Frustration leading to derision is all but inevitable in such circumstances. Then why don't you try actually answering questions and responding to the arguments rather than commenting on the emoticons? Let's remind ourselves of the numerous inconsistencies and flaws that you have repeatedly failed to address in your responses shall we?THE NUMEROUS FLAWS IN RAZD's ARGUMENT

You have contradicted yourself as to whether belief in god(s) is derived from pure faith alone or some form of "evidence".

​

You have repeatedly conflated the subjective interpretation of objective evidence (e.g. courtroom testimony) with wholly subjective "evidence" (e.g. experiences of the supernatural).

​

You have conceded that you are unable to demonstrate that wholly subjective evidence (i.e. where there is no objective evidence to interpret) is any more reliable at determining truth than simply guessing but you continue to advocate a dependence on this form of "evidence" as some sort of legitimate or reasoned position.

​

In contrast you assert that the logical extrapolation of objective evidence is no more reliable than guessing despite the fact that this is a key component of the scientific method and has a proven track record of success at deriving possibilities that have subsequently been verified. Your position on this amounts to a simple denial of evidence.

​

You say that you are not engaged in the circular argument of citing belief itself as evidence in favour of the subjectively "evidenced" concepts in which people believe. Yet you also argue that the IPU is not subjectively evidenced because nobody actually believes in it. This is contradictory.

​

You have attempted to conflate the everyday mundane experience of highly objectively evidenced phenomenon with wholly subjective experiences of the exceptional and fantastical.

​

You have attempted to conflate subjectively derived personal emotions (e.g. love) with concepts which supposedly exist independent of, separate to and distinct from (e.g. gods) the person affected by the subjective experience in question.

​

As already discussed you have repeatedly, relentlessly and incessantly conflated the evidence required to determine possibilities, probabilities and actualities in order to promote your flawed "it's just your opinion" line of argument despite being asked to desist from this unjustifiable conflation multiple times.

​

Despite the fact that ALL of the objective evidence we do have available suggests that unevidenced god concepts are almost certainly human inventions and despite the fact that the subjective evidence with which you counter this argument is no more reliable than guessing you continue to assert that agnosticism rather than a degree of atheistic non-belief should be the logical, rational and evidentially consistent position with regard to the actual existence of gods.

​

In short your argument is a mish mash of contradiction, conflation, circularity, guesswork and good old denial of evidence. Little different in nature to the usual fare typically served up by creationists.

​

RAZD writes:

​

Off topic

​

Evasion.

​

RAZD writes:

​

Off topic

​

Evasion.

​

RAZD writes:

​

Off topic

​

Yes you guessed it. Evasion. Plain and simple and obvious to everyone. Evasion.

​

Your task is to summarize in one or two paragraphs why this is a logical argument on it's own value.

​

The IPU is legitimately deployed whenever one wholly objectively unevidenced concept is declared to be superior in terms of truth than any other. It is used to elicit the exact nature of the special pleading being invoked by those who would claim that their particular subjectively preferred concept is different and more deserving of objective consideration than any other equally objectively unevidenced claim.

​

If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.

​

The question that you need to ask is NOT why you should believe in the IPU but instead why it is that other equally unevidenced concepts that you DO believe in (e.g. deities) are deserving of any less atheism from others than the degree of atheism that you apply to the IPU. You have completely failed to answer this question.

​

It is not, and never has been, about what anyone should believe in. That is largely a straw man position of your own making. Instead the issue at hand is the nature and standards of evidence that are, or are not, being applied to the various concepts under consideration.

​

The IPU has been successfully deployed against you to reveal the multiple contradictions in your position and the increasingly subjective and unreliable nature of the special pleading criteria on which you differentiate between those objectively unevidenced concepts in which you do believe and those equally objectively evidenced concepts that you do not.

​

If you are simply unable to recognise that the various (and ever changing) criteria that you have applied to separate deities from the IPU in this extended discussion amount to nothing more than special pleading on your part, no matter how subjectively legitimate you may deem these various special pleading criteria to be, then you have entirely missed the whole point of the IPU argument.

​

That is your failing and nobody elses.

​

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, : 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.