Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Thanks Straggler, Thus the difference between "C is an example of A" and "D is an example of A" is based on what we consider reasonable extrapolation of what evidence we do have to support "C" or "D" and not on the form of the argument:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DThis difference is subjective opinion based on our world view, so while we can both agree that "D is an (intentionally absurd unbelievable) example of A" ...... and we can both agree that "E is a (believable) example of A" ...... we can disagree on whether "C is an example of A" is believable or unbelievable, and the relative position of either of us is not based on the argument:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DEnjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

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) • • •

Not all world views are equally defensible. Credibility is established by appeals to evidence; not to your world view. No, it's not. It's the argument you're responding to. You can't repeatedly ignore corrections to your position by bleating that they're off-topic. Unless you want to keep banging away at a strawman?

You folks are just going to have to bear with me on this one (as per your desire), an actual point to all this is forthcoming.Two nights ago, I dreamed about a - let's say demonic presence. In a house I was unfamiliar with, this presence decided to pester my family except I chased it into a room. Now in that room I sought to open the door in order to confront and destroy that presence, but it resisted to the point I was unable to fully get into said room. I tried to go to sleep still annoyed by the presence, somehow a younger version of my daughter was there as well. I asked her if she was used to this pain in the ass entity and she said she had simply gotten used to it. I had to fight with this annoying presence over even the covers on the bed and became quite irritated to the point I invoked.Now I have learned some control over the content of my dreams so it is very rare that I find any entity annoying long enough to survive. Nor have I ever under any circumstances in dreaming invoked intervention from a 'higher' power.So now I am outside the house amongst several unknown people except for the one I do know, namely my wife.Guess who gradually descends from the night sky enveloped in a planetary nebula with a bright star in the middle but God itself.Now God did me the favor of ridding us of the annoying entity, and proceeded to speak directly to me.Now that 10 line post of pure logic concerning metaphysics, I really did try to remember it and did, for about 5 minutes after I woke up.I figure if this deal is ongoing, God will forgive my inability to remember and force me to have the same dream every night.There were some other points about morality, ethics, and honesty, which I just shined on as it was already known to me in essence.However the one thing that stood out was that it is a sin to disturb natural beauty in topography, such as cutting a road through the Grand Canyon. Perhaps California should fry the Hetch Hetchy reservoir as it violates the desire of God at least according to what God said to me in my dream.Then God just became purple and red stratus clouds.Asked the wife if she saw it, well not at all.If that story bored you, perhaps last night concerning the three dreams I had, first meeting and loving a woman quite above my station, being rejected for unknown reasons for a new beau, and then after all that confusion running into her at the grocery store in a less glamorous image to be told she suffered from multiple personalities would be more to your liking.I have extremely lucid dreams.OK, now to the point.Let's get Indian be it East or American, which is the true reality? That which is here now or that which is dreamed?Or another altogether?Where is the evidence/proof for either contention?Obviously, I agree with the rules and their importance in the here and now reality, but is that the be all-end all for all realities?Perhaps one should look for God beyond any gaps and instead in dreamtime.Man am I going to catch hell from Modulous and Bluegenes (among others).

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Except that I am not trying to prove anything on this thread other than thatC is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DIs a logically flawed argument. I believe this has been done.We now haveC is an example of A
D is an (intentionally absurd unbelievable) example of A
E is a (believable) example of AAnd the problem is that you cannot tell whether C is more similar to D or E from the logic. Message 1The logical extrapolation of a flawed argument is still a flawed argument. Thus the first issue, the one this thread is designed to answer, is whether or not you can show that:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DIs not a logically flawed argument.Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

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) • • •

Let's take this apart a little:There is, of course, no convincing evidence of alien life (as yet). There is, however evidence. That has already been given. (we are alien life to all the rest of the universe, the building blocks seem to be everywhere, there is nothing known to forbid it within a range of conditions, planets are proving to be rather common).The only reason to think we may never have convincing evidence of alien life is that it is probable that it is a long way away. However, as it is defined, we do have a chance of finding it (unlike "unknowable" dieties).We may already have found it in the methane on Mars. We are also building the kind of instruments that may find it extrasolarly (a new word for google I hope).

RAZD, It is a flawed argument, it seems to me it's a strawman, too. Who is putting this forward? Not me.Grapes (C) aren't lemons (D) because they are both fruit (A). Believing alien life exists is just as absurd as believing invisible pink unicorns exist. It doesn't matter how large the universe, how many planets there are. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what the probability is of life occurring. In the same way we have no way of quantifying that the IPU exista. Life happened once, here, is the best we can say. It's entirely possible that the universe is finite, but the possibility of life occurring even once is remote, we just got lucky in this universe. In the same way that finding a molecule of active ingredient in a homeopaths cup is unlikely. If the universe were rerun a trillion times, as far as were are concerned it could be utterly sterile every time.Invisible pink (or otherwise) unicorns presumably live on planets. Does finding more planets mean we have a quantifyable way of determining the likelihood of such beasties existing? Of course not.At the end of the day it doesn't matter. No evidence = no acceptance.I don't accept that the statement that life exists elsewhere in the universe is true because we have no evidence, I do hold it as a possibility, however. I don't accept the statement that invisible pink unicorns exist because of a lack of evidence. I do hold it as a possibility, however. I don't accept the statement that a deist god exists for the same reason, I do hold it as a possibility. To accept one statement without evidence whilst refusing to accept the other is special pleading.It's inescapable.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Considering that Invisible Pink Unicorn arguments are entirely about theism and deism being logically invalid, your O.P. has a built in contradiction. I think we can safely assume that it's there to help you avoid difficult arguments.

But the counter argument is that this is not related to the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument. I did this by trying to explain what the actual Invisible Pink Unicorn argument was meant to be about, what some of the related arguments were about and what the general argument behind them all were.Since nobody is claiming that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is God - I have no idea what you think this logical construct has to do with your own topic.If your only point was this logic statement here is flawed - nobody would bother arguing with you. However, your argument in the OP is the topic, and it is to that I am arguing against and I am doing so by pointing out that you have not shown a correlation between what lies behind the actual IPU argument and your logically flawed syllogism. More like(G)od is an example of an unfalsifiable/unverifiable entity
(I)nvisible Pink Unicorn being an unfalsifiable/unverifiable entityTherefore G belongs to set A (the set of all unfalsifiable/unverifiable entities)
I belongs to set AFinally:
(D)ark matter is an example of a falsifiable and verifiable entity which has some verification supporting its existence and no falsification.D belongs to set B (the set of all falsifiable and verifiable entities that have not been falsified and have had some verification.You can tell the difference between them all based on what set they belong to and we tell what set they belong to by examining their properties.G belongs to A
I belongs to A
D belongs to BWithout further argumentation on behalf of the believer, the IPU and god are no different as far as believability. If you can explain why a subset of A exists whose members should be more believable, then you have made some progress in tackling the actual argument. I fear however, that you think the actual argument is off topic - in which case this thread is just a pointless echo chamber.

Only an idiot would disagree. Why do we need an entire thread for this? But you have no example of E to offer. Thos that you have offered have already been shown by variou smembers to not be example of E. Considerations of alien life and dark matter, in their scientific study, have always been evidence based and never faith based. [ABE]I'm not convinced that E exists...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Thanks mark24 Curiously, I am not concerned with what their subjective opinions are on various different examples of the arguments, but on the issue of the logic. But then you say If you accept B that is an example of A, then you should accept C that is an example of A. Message 1

quote:

---

1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for invisible pink unicorns.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in invisible unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.

---

If you believe C, which is an example of A
Then you should believe any D, which is an example of ABecause
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
you believe C so you should also believe D because ...?D = something you should believe (= A), because C = something you believe (= A) ... which is only true if C == D, which has not be demonstrated for all (x) that are examples of A. Rather it has been demonstrated that there are several cases of "E is an example of A" where E &no; D and therefore being an example of A does not mean C=D.The only difference pointed out so far, is based on what is subjectively considered supporting rational extrapolation, a matter of subjective opinion based on one's world view. One could consider each of these cases as special pleading ... that E is not A because of subjective supporting rational extrapolations. Interestingly, I am not talking about the logical validity of any belief in C, but whether or not it can logically be compared to D solely on the basis of both being examples of A: that is (still) a side issue.The real issue remains that this is still an argument of the formC is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DAnd you cannot logically say that C = D or C ≠ D because you just don't know. You can assume it, but that doesn't make C = D. Thanks.Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : ps

---

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) • • •

RAZD,Sorry, mate, I spotted a serious flaw & rewrote my entire post. I just noticed you replied.ApologiesMarkps tho' why this post was timestamped before my last post was edited despite being written after mystifies me.pps I do...C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DNO!C is an example of A
D is an example of A
That's it.They are both examples of evidentially vacuous positions (A), they are not the "same", even though they share the same relevent property. They are not "each other" they are different statements. Edited by mark24, : No reason given.Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Evidentially, you are correct. You cannot show, however, that some people have actually observed an interaction with an existing God. We can't show you that we have, however, so your observation is challenged, though not refuted.

Are you implying that someone using the IPU as an example has actually suggested to you that your deity or the Christian god or any other deity believed in literally is an invisible pink unicorn? Of course C = D doesn't follow.If that was on EvC, could you provide a quote?

Thanks Ned, So E is an example of A, and E ≠ D, therefore we cannot conclude - logically - whether C = D or C = E. ... if we assume the development a new system\technique to find it.In other words this is special pleading that this is different because we can make rational assumptions and extrapolations to support it.That still does not remove it from the class "E is an example of A" - so what you are saying is:C is an example of A
E is a (believable) example of A
Therefore C ≠ E?Thanks.The argument of the relatively believability of C, D or E is based on what we each consider a reasonable extrapolation of what evidence we do have to support "C" or "D" or "E" - and this is subjective opinion - and it is independent of their being examples of A - things believed without (convincing) evidence.Enjoyps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

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) • • •

General reply: Does not mean that the argument is logically valid, it just means you are seeing confirmation in it.The logical extrapolation of a flawed argument is still a flawed argument. Thus the first issue, the one this thread is designed to answer, is whether or not you can show that:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DIs not a logically flawed argument.Any discussion of deism, theism or atheism without resolving this question is off topic.The purpose of this thread is to deal with a common logical fallacy that is used to argue against faith. Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

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) • • •