Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

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.

This is what I've been driving at. I have asked for a more definitive explanation from him, something more explanatory where he can show a distinction between the experience itself and the attached diety to the experience.I don't believe he can make a distinction. I believe his belief in a diety is simply for lack of a better term. I agree. And I'm curious as to where he stands, because I don't believe diesm can be distinguished from athiesm once one asks the diest to define his diety. I know you're not, I didn't phrase that properly. - my bad. The athiest doesn't accept subjective experiences as evidence of anything.The diest accepts, with some reservations - (and this is where I would like to see RAZD be more specific) - that subjective experiences lend some weight to belief in a diety - On the basis that the experience actually happens.Neither has evidence to support or reject their individual world views. They both accept their world views on the basis of their own individual perspective.The only consistency I see from both sides is that both sides only accept their world view.With that being said, if RAZD claims:

quote:

---

an entity distinct and independent of his ability to experience actually exists

---

Then I am with you 100%, And he has failed to demonstrate how it doesn't.But, I'd like to wait and see how he defines it.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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.......

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't think we're on the same page as to what solipsism is.

---

Indeed. You've backtracked to the Kantian premise that we can only experience the world through our senses. I would certainly agree with that, but that isn't solipsism. Solipsism is the doubt and denial of all external reality, including other minds; it is only a figment of your own imagination.

quote:

---

Yes, and from Cartesian doubt is how Descartes came to the conclusion that in order for the doubt to exist, his own conscious self must exist - I think therefore I am.

---

Nobody is denying that. However, you need to keep going: Descartes did away with his universal doubt. We call this universal doubt "Cartesian Doubt" not because he advocated it but because he wrote about it.

quote:

---

Pink? ...Maybe invisible, but not pink.

---

Why not? Why can't an invisible object be pink? All cats are grey in the dark, as the saying goes.

quote:

---

But this does not mean that what RAZD is claiming can only be claims for the supernatural. The statement "I believe there is a god" is simply a statement about a personal subjective experience.

---

What part of "god" is devoid of "supernatural"?

quote:

---

But, with that aside, his experience is not diminished in any way because I lack the same experience.

---

An individual experience is an experience. A shared experience has a property an individual experience lacks: Corroboration.Ergo, an experience that is only individual is diminished. That doesn't make it unimportant or even require a conclusion of "unreal," but it is diminished.

quote:

---

Nor does claiming "I believe in pink invisible unicorn/s" the same as " I believe there is a god"

---

Why not? The claims are identical, down to the existence of established characteristics and empirical claims.That's the entire point behind the IPU (BBHH). If you deny the IPU (BBHH) despite its identical justifications to any other deity, why does the deity get to stay while the IPU (BBHH) get discarded? How does one justify the special pleading?

quote:

---

So, what would suit RAZD and Percy better, to follow whats in their own mind, or take our word for it?

---

Is there not some other possibility? After all, what makes us right?

quote:

---

Where do you draw the line between materialism and idealism then, whats your position?

---

False dilemma. Why can't there be both matter and ideas?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Can you explain to me what the difference between an empirical claim and a claim to an experience is?Before you answer know ye that the IPU whose works are without end, whose hooves are never shod, whose pinkness defies all description, and whose true name can neither be spoken nor written, cannot be subject to testing?It sounds to me like all you are saying is that the IPU is a more specifically defined entity than the comparably vague entity that RAZD believes exists. RAZD has said that whatever this entity is it has "abilities beyond\outside nature\time." that this being might have somehow fashioned human brains so as to incite belief in a "highly complex supernatural being", that it is also a possibility that the "universe as a whole is designed to provide as diverse a set of environments as possible".Whatever it is, and as vaguely described as it is, RAZD seems to think there is something outside of the human mind that is to be described as 'god' ie., god is more than an experiential phenomena, but there is a god-noumenon out there.

First, let me explain what I meant, perhaps that'll put us on the same page.What I meant by the empirical claims is things like "invisible" "pink" "unicorn". Those are empirical characteristics, such that if you experienced the IPU you could verify that it was the IPU by making the comparison as to what you saw when you had the experience. Then you can claim "I saw an invisible pink unicorn"..."in my mind".That makes empirical claims about the characteristics, even though it is a subjective experience.Saying, "I had an experience that I felt was god" in my opinion makes no empirical claims about the characteristics of god, subjectively, and of course, objectively. Huh? No. What I'm saying is that if you experienced the IPU then by definition you saw, be it in your brain, an "invisible pink unicorn", ignoring of course the obvious "invisible" part. If you have experienced it, and claimed it as such, then you have attested to experiencing just such a unicorn.With the claim "I had an experience and it was god" in no way defines anything about the god.That is why I say the argument is not the same. If he has made empirical claims about the characteristics of god, then my argument is irrelevant. It only applies when no such claims are made. I'd still like to wait for RAZD to say what he means.Edited by onifre, : added "characteristics" to the empirical claims.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

onifre writes:

quote:

---

Saying, "I had an experience that I felt was god" in my opinion makes no empirical claims subjectively, and of course, objectively.

---

Um, doesn't "emprical" mean that it was something that was experienced? How could an "experience that I felt was god" not be an "empirical" claim?

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that if you experienced the IPU then by definition you saw, be it in your brain, an "invisible pink unicorn", ignoring of course the obvious "invisible" part.

---

Says who? Why do you keep contradicting what the people who have experienced the IPU (BBHH) have told you about their experiences? That you don't understand it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

quote:

---

With the claim "I had an experience and it was god" in no way defines anything about the god.

---

Incorrect. It defines this god as something that can be interacted with at least in the manner in which you acquired your feeling. After all, you experienced it.

quote:

---

If he has made empirical claims then my argument is irrelevant. It only applies when no such claims are made.

---

All experiential claims are empirical. That's the entire point behind empiricism.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

As I wrote in the post, which I didn't in the statement you quoted, I meant empirical claims about the characteristics of the god.Yes, the experience itself is an empirical claim, of the experience, but not of the characteristics of god. My mistake again."If he made any empirical claims about the characteristics of god"...I should have said.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I disagree. It makes the 'empirical' claim that god can give experiences to or be experienced by people. No, they can be the same. And here is why:

---

Mod: "I had an experience and it was caused by the god'onifre: "How do you know it was the god?"Mod: "I felt it was."onifre: "Did you experience its godliness?"Mod: "No, I just...felt that the experience I had was as the result of that which divinity defies all description. In a way I experienced the godhood, but not directly."

---

Mod: "I had an experience and it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn"onifre: "How do you know it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn?"Mod: "I felt it was."onifre: "Did you experience its invisbleness, its pinkness or its unicornness?"Mod: "No, I just...felt that the experience I had was as the result of she whose pinkness defies all description. In a way I experienced her Unicornness but not directly"

---

Now granted, the IPU is designed to say more than it is being used to demonstrate in this case. Namely the absurdity of believing in something that has contradictory properties (or indeed because of those properties) which can't apply to an entity who only has one ill-defined property 'divinity'. But if a theist/deist wants to retreat to the purely "I had an experience that I labelled 'god'" the argument could be changed to "Why did you label the experience 'god' and not an 'Invisible Pink Unicorn'? Would it not be better to use a less confusing term, rather than refer to the experience as being what most people would think of as an objective being? Why not say you had some kind experience like mysterium tremendum et fascinans or a 'Numinous' experience?"

Just to play fast and loose- we must face the truth, no matter how unpalatable
- a creator IPU is, by definition, not part of the cosmos
- space, time, matter, energy, etc. are limited to the cosmos, so why not also logic itself.The question of the existence of the IPU is then outside the bounds of logic. The IPU may of course use logic, but is not constrained by it, as is necessary if the IPU is to be fully omnipotent. In confirmation, the IPUist points out that their holy book says the IPU’s ways are not our ways, and goes off for a drink.Does this argument have a (non-comedic) name?

---

Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

As I wrote in the post, which I didn't in the statement you quoted, I meant empirical claims about the characteristics of the god.

​

Yes, the experience itself is an empirical claim, of the experience, but not of the characteristics of god.

---

And what part of "capable of being interacted with" is not a "characteristic"?You've been spending too much time around the creationists, onifre. You're starting to use the same ridiculous semantic arguments they use.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Not unless they're in comedy clubs, bars and strip clubs. Which I don't think they frequent. I don't think you've understood my argument. If RAZD, or anyone, is saying that they can "interact" with said god outside of their experience, as in some physical way, then I agree with you guys; it is the same argument as the IPU.But as I have stated before, I would like a better definition from RAZD because I don't think he's claiming to be able to "interact" with what he has described to be "god".Re-read my posts in their entirety, you'll see that my argument has not been in support of god, but in support of the experience itself. I was curious as to how RAZD correlated that to a god specifically, or is he using god as a default answer for lack of a better definition.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

And you know that not to be true? Please, explain.Not that I think god does do that, but I'd be curious as to how you know that for a fact.Experiences are personal, private and infallible. The only person who knows of it is the person who experienced it. How did you determine what someone elses experience meant? I agree, those 2 conversations would be the same.Here would be mine:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod: "I had an expeience, I think it was god."Oni: "Well, why do you think it was god?"Mod: "What else could it be? Experiences like that can only have a divine explanation."Oni: "Well, do you know the divine to exist, to be able to correlate the experience with it?"Mod: "No, I don't..."Oni: "Then why don't you reserve your interpretation of the experience until such time that you have a better understanding of what the "divine" is?"Mod: "Perhaps you're right. Well, for what it's worth I had a really cool experience"Oni: "I have too, enjoy them but don't try to over define them"- later, at a bar.........Mod: "Oni, I don't know how to tell you this, but I think I'm falling for you..."Oni: "Mod please, we've gone over this before, it's just not going to work out...I'm not attracted to guys with ponytails"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes....... Because all people of skepticism would still question the "mysterium" part. But nevertheless, you're right. That is what I've been trying to get RAZD to better define, his experience.I believe it is just that, un mysterium tremendum...which he has taken to define as god for lack of a better definition.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

There are two ways of interpreting your challenge.1) You are challenging me to explain how I am confident that a deity cannot give experiences to or be experienced by people. I never claimed that a deity couldn't 'as a fact' so I don't see why I would need to accept your challenge.2) You are challenging my interpretation of your view. I claimed that it is a fact that your god-entity "makes the 'empirical' claim that god can give experiences...". This latter is a bit more fiddly to deal with so I'll answer it if that is what you meant. I've never said otherwise. Though we can engage in a systematic empirical (experience-based) investigation into these matters to derive tentative conclusions about what those experiences might have been {abe: caused by}. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler,Forgive me if I do a little summary to get back into this thread. I see that some interesting conversation has gone on in my absence, so I think this is a necessary step at this point in the thread. You'll orgive me, I trust, if I also borrow from the thread this was a spin off from, because they do overlap.(1) Mark24's opinion: DING!! Straggler finally gets the significance of the difference in opinions.The corollary, of course, is that your opinion is just that - An opinion. You have tried mightily to frame it as a logical result of evidence, but in the end it is just your subjective opinion, based on your world view.(2) Alien VisitationsDING! We come to agreement that your logical process includes alien visitations just as much as it include life on other planets.(3) The relative importance of relative evidence: BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!No, Straggler, just that it is as relevant as subjective evidence used elsewhere. That it may be prone to error and misinterpretation, that it cannot be tested, and can only validated by more similar subjective evidence from other people or invalidated by contrary objective evidence.I note that there is a vast difference between any evidence at all and "ALL empirical objective evidence" - a difference that in our courts of law is filled with subjective evidence when it is available. A person who has experience regarding the question under investigation can testify what they believe occurred. This does not mean that such testimony is necessarily true, nor does it mean that the court must use it in reaching a decision. It also often brings into question the character of the person/s presenting such evidence. In some cases you have several witnesses that can each testify as to what they observed, and the consistency of their testimony helps to bolster the validity of the evidence presented.Would you not agree that when we have run out of "ALL empirical objective evidence" that is available, that the existence of some subjective evidence does not mean there is an total absence of evidence?(4) Why Love MattersBZZZZZZZZZZZZT!You are attempting to limit the discussion only to the evidence that you find convincing, evidence that fits your world view, and thus leads to your frequent leaping to conclusions.Would you not agree that the experience of love changes you, changes how you behave in regards to one person over others? Would you not agree that this change in behavior is objective external evidence of this experience of love?I can only put your reluctance to consider subjective evidence, and what it shows, is due to your firm convictions in your world view. Please note that you have still not answered (that I have seen) whether you think the objective existence of claims by people of having seen aliens or spaceships could be taken as validating evidence for alien visitations that you have logically concluded could have occurred.The question is one of relative validity of experiences that cannot be confirmed by people who have not had a similar experience.One way to validate the experience is to have several people have the same or similar experiences, and there is evidence of this in alien visitation sighting.Another way to validate the experience is to see if it leads to changes in behavior and beliefs -- does this experience lead one to conclude that the probability of alien visitations is a higher probability or a lower probability compared to their belief/s before. Interestingly, I agree with this, with the additional stipulation that "evidence" here is not restricted to "empirical objective evidence" so that the existence of some subjective evidence is fundamentally different from an absence of ANY evidence and that you cannot equivocate from one to the other.As I said to onifre in Message 174, the next question to address is whether such belief in alien visitations involves special pleading (I believe X but not Y but cannot say whY), or does the experience qualify as a causal agent for changing their mind?

quote:

---

It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

​

While determing what counts as a legitimate basis for exemption can be a difficult task, it seems clear that claiming you are exempt because you are you does not provide such a legitimate basis. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot claim to be exempt.

---

I would say that an experience, even if it cannot be confirmed, is a Relevant Difference between people who have, and those who have not had, that experience.Another way we can measure the importance of experience is by how much it affects your life - is your behavior changed from before the experience?
Belief_(before) + experience &rarr Belief_(after) ≠ Belief_(before)I would agree that people who have changed their beliefs subsequent to an experience means that their subsequent belief is different fundamentally from postulated beliefs in the IPU or similar arguments, because it is based on experience, and as far as I know that experience does not exist for the IPU. And thus I conclude that the beliefs of any person who has experienced what they claim is an alien visitation, and who have subsequently altered their behaviors and beliefs, qualifies as a "...possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU." There is a causal agent for belief in alien visitations - experience - that occurs before change in belief, and which is lacking in the case of the IPU.Do you not agree? (how's that cognitive dissonance going?)Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •