Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

That's far from the only problem. RAZD is ignoring what "A" actually is. The IPU is used to satirize absurd supernatural propositions, specifically gods. Everything in "A" is an absurd god for which there is zero evidence. The IPU is never used in respect to any serious naturalistic hypothesis like the possibility of extra-terrestrial life or dark matter. So "E" is not in "A", whereas "C" and "D" (the IPU) have to be absurd gods for whom there is no evidence in order to be in the set "A".The use of the IPU is perfectly valid and reasonable in respect to absurd deities for which there is no evidence, and she's at her best when there is something paradoxical about the belief expressed.If someone expresses a belief in an unknowable god and then appears to know something about that god, she's in her element. Such a belief can certainly be seen as the equivalent of believing in both invisibility and pinkness at the same time.

Hi Straggler, Do we?As far as we are aware, life could be so unlikely that if we rerun the universe a million times they all could be sterile. The fact is we don't know how unlikely abiogenesis is in order to be able to make such claims.Mark

---

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

RAZD's formal logic may or may not be formally flawed.I don't think it matters. The whole concept of "absence of evidence" is just irrelevant in any practical sense.In the genuine absence of all other evidence we are still left with the evidentially supported fact that humans are deeply prone to, and very capable of, 'making shit up'.Any claim for which there is genuinely no other evidence, direct or indirect, must be assessed in terms of it's likelihood on that basis.Think of any practical example you like and those things that seem plausible, such as the existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe, will be supported by reasoned conclusions based on related evidence even if no direct evidence is available.Then think of any obviously stupid, silly and ridiculous example and I am willing to bet that the motive for human invention will be obvious (e.g. to make a point on a debate forum) and that there will be no other relevant evidence available.No claims are made in a total vacuum of evidence. If people want to undertake the intellectual exercise of formally logicising that fantasy circumstance of utter absence of evidence then fair enough.But in any practical sense it is a complete waste of time.

It doesn't matter. The relative probability has still been significantly increased even if the absolute probability remains too low to be considered at all likely or to actually happen.If abiogenesis is a 1 in a trillion possibility we still have more chance of it having occurred elsewhere if we are considering a hundred other planets than no other planets.We still have more chance of it having occurred if we are considering a million other planets than a hundred other planets.No matter how desperately unlikely the actual occurrance may be we will always have a greater probability of it occurring the more planets with conditions conducive to life there are.Quibble about the actual likelihood if you want. But there can be no doubt that the probability increases as we increase the number of possible instances. That is just maths.Relative likelihood is what we are talking about here.RAZD's logical argument completely fails to incorporate any such notions and is thus inadequate in any practical sense.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hmmm, if that is the case, life arose suspiciously quickly on Earth. Given our best guesses regarding abiogenesis, the early Earth's chemical abundancies, its gelogical activity, stellar populations and associated planet distributions - I would say we are in a reasonable position to make tentative claims regarding the likelihood of unicellular life arising. I'm not sure you would find many astro-biologists who would support your statement.ABE: Sorry, OT here, but a good thread topic...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I've never considered the IPU to be a very satisfying line of argument against religious faith in specific deities, but I don't find your criticism of it to be very satisfying, either. I think you misrepresent both the typical example and the counter-example in the OP: As I understand it, the main motivation for the IPU/FSM argument is not simply that these are examples of belief in things for which "there is no evidence" -- rather, they are meant to represent examples of belief in things for which there can never be evidence, in the sense of objective, replicable and/or independently confirmable observation that would go one way if an assertion were true versus some other way if the assertion were false. That is, we're talking about assertions that can only be accepted on subjective grounds.I would also raise the point that the term "invisible pink unicorn" in itself captures an attribute of many deistic assertions (which the "flying spaghetti monster" seems to miss completely): there is an intrinsic contradiction in the properties of the entity being asserted. How can something be pink and also invisible? How can something be omnipotent and also need (in whatever sense) our personal decisions and actions? How do we understand an entity that both loves us all and consigns many of us to dire suffering in life and/or condemns many of us to eternal damnation? To finish out my first point, an assertion like life existing elsewhere in the universe is not equivalent to assertions about IPUs/deities, because it does not entail intrinsic self-contradiction, and the conditions for its verification can be stated in terms of objective observation. The absence of actual observations may be considered "accidental" or "coincidental", and evidence might come into view at any time.So, to paraphrase an idiom used elsewhere in this thread, I don't really accept the notion that IPUs and alien life constitute anything like:A -> C
B -> C
therefore A = BThat is, I don't see how your A (IPU) and B (alien life) are examples of the same C; I'm fairly certain they are not.My second point about how you have misrepresented things is that assertions of the latter type (with objective conditions for verification) are generally not tenets or dogma in any given system of belief, but merely possibilities to be taken into consideration. I can consider the possibility of something like life elsewhere in the universe without having any sense of "belief" that this must be true.I suppose I can "consider the possibility" of an IPU or deity, although it strikes me as somewhat less worthy of consideration, given its defining attributes: the intrinsic contradiction(s) I would need to accept, and the impossibility of objective verification.I realize that what I've said will probably qualify me for a reply containing yet another copy of the ugly red-and-yellow box. (So maybe you'll forego that -- it really isn't necessary.) My rationale for saying it anyway is probably a variant on what others in the thread have expressed: that you've built a sort of strawman.I think what I consider unsatisfying about the IPU argument is not that it leads to a logical fallacy, but simply that by invoking something ridiculous and comical, it verges on being overtly insulting. In order to make the point that these arguments are after, I find it sufficient to look no further than the multiplicity of "attested" deities that have been given credence, or merely the many diverse, irreconcilable yet equally "well-founded" versions of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity (or deities, depending on who you talk to, I suppose).My sincere apologies for having violated your specific (and oft-repeated) directive about what I should/should not have said. Edited by Otto Tellick, : (decided to include Islamic with Judeo-Christian, and added the smiley to clarify my state of mind)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

The IPU is an actual religion and I'd thank everybody not to take the name of my God in vain. Sheesh, one apostate and the whole world has to bad mouth the IPU. Please before discrediting my church, learn about it from one of our missionaries, and not from one of our critics.Rhain #34 The difference is in the sacramental wine. In one instance it contains a little LSD. Curiously this correlates strongly with the conversion process in my church. Our venerated prophet, Dr. Leary, wanted to introduce the sacred substance into the public water supply on a global basis. But it seems our converts lose interest in this plan of world wide conversion after the third or fourth sacrament and prefer to hang out in opium dens with prostitutes.On a slightly more serious note, the problem with the IPU argument is that it is a thinly veiled ad hominum attack. Aside from the purpose of illustrating a lack of evidence it is a form of ridicule of the opponent. It should be replaced with something less personal in nature, like more governmental guarantees about the economic system or some such..Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

I don't see what is so unbelievable about invisible pink unicorns

---

You've been Gremled!

Churches, deities, theism? Why can't anyone stay on topic?

---

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper." --Robert Frost

I'm sick and tired of people of getting the true name of my god wrong. It's not the Invisible Pink Unicorns, idolaters! With something invisible like that, we can still measure it's volume and other properties by simple experiments like filling the room up with water.IPU stands for Immaterial Pink Unicorn.

Thanks CosmicChimp Let's say that A represents the class of things for which there is insufficient or unconvincing evidence, pro or con, including those things for which there is no present evidence.Thus the logical conclusion is "we don't know" and any other conclusion is made due to subjective comparison to ones world view.B is an example of A
C is an absurd example of A
D is a believable example of AWe cannot conclude that B is like C or that B is like D, because we don't have sufficient or convincing evidence, pro or con, and thus any comparison of B to C is logically invalid. Yes, he redefined A (from unknown to absurd, unbelievable) to suit his argument, thus resulting in an a priori conclusion that the B argument was absurd or unbelievable first in order to be classed as A. For me the second issue is what we consider sufficient or convincing evidence, pro or con, and what we regard as insufficient or unconvincing evidence, pro or con, and this can well be the topic of another thread, as it involves all the elements of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, consilience with world views and delusions.I just want to point out that we have a spectrum of replies on the believability of alien life in the universe, and I suggest to you that the difference is in what people consider sufficient or convincing evidence, vs insufficient or unconvincing evidence, and not on the logic of the conclusion.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) • • •

Thanks Alyssa, One of the results of cognitive dissonance is to (or attempt to) reframe the issue in familiar terms, ones that fit your world view (your collective opinions and deductions you've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge). If you can reframe it to match your world view then cognitive dissonance is resolved.Remember, these are all seasoned members of this forum, people who have had to deal with the cognitive dissonance of other posters (YEC for instance, John 10:10 as an example).Thanks.

---

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) • • •

Hi TazI'll change the topic title. ... like mass ... Or the rotation of galaxies?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) • • •

Why can't anyone stay on topic? Because RAZD has tried to define the topic is a way that is nonsensical. Rather than deal with the actual argument he is beating up a strawman and rejecting attempts to correct his misunderstanding of the argument by framing them as "off-topic".

Thank you Otto Tellick, Curiously, it seems the only argument people are making is to redefine A (your "C") to being absurd or unbelievable or contradictory first. Thus they have already made up their mind that B is absurd or unbelievable or contradictory and don't need to use the comparison with other concepts.These pre-judgments are subjective conclusions, and based on your world view rather than on evidence or logic.In other words the argument goes like this:Person 1: A is an example of B (A=B) (where B is the class of things we don't know)Person 2: No, A is an example of C (A=C), just like D is an example of C (where C is the class of things that are absurd or unbelievable or contradictory)Person 1: No A is an example of B (A=B), we don't have enough information to conclude that it is or is not C (A?=?C), as B is the class of things we do not know, because there is no evidence pro or con for them.Person 2: But D is an example of C and you have not shown that B is not like D (B=D) ... and around we go again.Where = means "is like" versus == which means "is the same as" identity)Note: I've edited previous posts to add a ps for clarity on this meaning.I've also change IPU to immaterial pink unicorn) for Taz. But I don't think you can make that deduction either. Logically all you can deduct is that currently we don't know. It does not matter how much we know or how much we think we know, what matters is that at this current point in time A consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceWhere "evidence" can be qualified to mean "sufficient or convincing evidence" which then means that the acceptance of evidence is itself subjective and based on your world view rather than deductive, because what is "sufficient and convincing" to one person can be "insufficient and unconvincing" to another, resulting in curious debates involving pens on desks and the like. Accepting any concept for which you have no evidence either way is accepting it on subjective grounds. That is not disputed. And again, it does not matter how much we know or how much we think we know, what matters is that at this current point in time we don't know, so the acceptance is subjective rather than deductive.Likewise concluding that an idea is absurd or unbelievable or contradictory without evidence of this is also a subjective conclusion based on your world view, rather than a deductive one based on evidence. In the original post "C" is defined a "something without evidence" so this consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidence So rather than the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, it is the logical fallacy of ridicule (ad lapidem)? Curiously, this is another reason I dismiss the IPU concept. When one employs the Reductio ad absurdum argument one should make sure that what you start with is actually comparable. When we look at "something without evidence" as meaning:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceThen we can eliminate IPU as a self-contradictory concept, while that has not been shown for a belief that meets (1) and (2). So if we eliminate IPU from the class of "something without evidence" due to intrinsic contradiction, you are correct, they are not comparable.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) • • •