Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT. Off topic alert. None of your post addresses the topic.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.Do you deny this fact? Can you refute this fact?Or not?

Subjective evidence is worthless in terms of establsihing truth.So "No" is the answer to your question. No. And people who have experienced the IPU may well change heir minds regarding the actual existence of the IPU.So what?What is your point? I do not believe the in the actuality of entities for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even might exist.That is a simple and consistent answer.A simple a consistent answer which is impossible if you believe in some unevidenced concepts but not others on the basis of the logical fallacy of special pleading.As you do. No.You are not a fool so I can only conclude that the need to confuse and conflate the logically derived possibility of alien existence from known facts (i.e. life exists and other planets exist) with the subjective, unevidenced and highly improbable, claims of actual alien visitation is intentional on your part.If this is not the case then please forgive my scepticism. Ask the question and I will explain it to you. Just as I would explain such evident differences to Buzsaw and ICANT. I do not believe in the actuality of entities for which there is no evidential reason to think possible.Call it "hardline" if you will.But I challenge you to give an example of any such entity (existing seperately and distinctly from the experiencee) in which you believe actually exists on the basis of no objective empirical evidence whatsoever. Other than your deity.In fact I double dare you!!!!! "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is NOT my position.No matter how much you assert or wish it to be.Your deistic conclusions are unfounded and unwarranted. They are no more worthy of my agnosticsim than the IPU.Until you can explain why your deity is different to the IPU in purely evidential terms this remains fatally, factually and intrinsically true.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Tut tut tut.Raz you are confusing your possibles and your probables again. This is becoming a habit of yours. Fact: Life exists on this planet.
Fact: There are other planets.Thus the possibility of life on other planets is a logical conclusion that requires no more evidence or interpretation of evidence than that.Now determining the actual probability of life on other planets relies on obtaining and analysing all sorts of evidence relating to the chemistry of life, the nature of the universe and the hospitability of the planets it contains.It is a very different sort of question.Fact: Intelligent life exists on this planet.
Fact: There are other planets.Thus the possibility of intelligent life on other planets capable of communicating with us is a logical conclusion that requires no more evidence or interpretation of evidence than that.Now determining the actual probability of intelligent life capable of visiting us from other planets requires all sorts of evidence pertaining to the chemistry of life, the nature of the universe, the physics of space travel etc. etc. etc. It may well be that this logical possibility is in fact deeply improbable in any practical sense.Either way it is a very very very different question.Whatever the case - People's subjective experiences give us no objective reason to think that any alien visitations have actually occurred. Extrapolating personal experience in the way that you are suggesting is akin to climbing a stairway made of sponge. YAWN.......See above.Come back to me once you have grasped the differences between logical possibilities derived from known facts, practical probabilities determined by interpretation of evidence and extrapolation of unreliable subjective experience. The three things are very different.And you can rest assured that I have no problem with my position being inspected. Feel free to inspect away.How about your position regarding the logical equivalence of the IPU and your deity.....? Surely that is the real topic at hand, no? Are we ever going to get to inspect that? Or not? Well so it would seem. If I did know anyone who claimed to have been genuinely "touched" by the IPU would it really change anything?Would you suddenly accept the IPU as a viable entity?Give it 2000 years of mythology and whole culture raised to believe that the IPU is the grand creator of all that we see and do you really think that subjective experiences would not be attributed to the IPU? How do you differentiate between "peoples actual experiences" and "stuff they have made up"?How do they differentiate between the two? If the experience is the same in either case how can anyone tell one apart from the other?Except by means of objective evidence? Nobody is disputing that life changing experiences occur.I am disputing that they are changed by supernatural entities that objectively exist distinct and seperate from the person who undergoes the experience.There is absolutely no rational reason to conclude that such entities exist.NOT because "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence" but because there is evidence. Evidence that humanity is exceptionally gifted at creating such concepts to fulfil such needs. Many many many of which are demonstrably false concepts.Simply designing your preferred entity to resist direct refutation is just the next logical step in clinging onto intellectually unjustifiable beliefs. And yet strangely this "evidence" you speak of you are willing to completely ignore 99.9% of the time.Would you decide when to cross the road on the basis of subjective evidence? (blindfolded and ear muffed - use the force Raz, use the force).No? Why not? because it would be a fucking stupid, unreliable and downright dangerous method of making such a decision.It absolutely baffles me as to why you think such "evidence" is any more reliable in other circumstances? No.There is a clear and evident distinction between those concepts that have no evidential basis whatsoever and those that do.The grey area only exists if you insist on confusing and conflating conceptual logical possibilities derived from evidence, practical probabilities based on the interpretation of objective evidence and wholly subjective experience. Exactly as you are attempting to do with the alien visitation question.ALL concepts which are not logical possibilities derived from objective evidence, concepts like gods and deities and spirits and "the soul" and Wagwah and undetectable toilet goblins and face sucking jellyfish and all those other concepts you despise so much, are logically equivalent to the IPU.So do you still deny that the IPU and deities are logically equivalent?Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No argument from me there. Fuck! Finally we agree on something.But does that mean in any way that the IPU actually exists as an objective entity distinct and seperate from the person having the experience?If your answer to this question is 'No' then welcome to the atheist conclusion.Come RAZ. Join the dark side..........(Hssssss Hssssss - Darth Vader breathing noises)

Concepts either have an objective evidential basis or they do not. This much at least is black and white.Lets be frank here.Even you seem to have given up the ghost on this topic. The IPU and the possibility of alien life are not evidentially equivalent. The IPU and deities are. Given that the IPU was specifically created for the purpose of demonstrating the irrationality and illogic of belief in the unevidenced it would be surprising if this were not so.You were onto a sure fire loser from the start in this thread. It is to your credit that you have dragged it out this long.The reason that you were onto a sure fire loser is because you are coming at this from a different, and I believe flawed, angle to everyone else.I would summarise (and I am genuinely attempting to be fair here) your whole argument as something along the following lines:There is a sliding scale of evidence. All conclusions are based on evidence and subjective world view. The more evidence there is available the less subjective world view plays a part. The less evidence there is available the more subjective world view plays a part. Thus any conclusions made in the absence of all evidence are 100% subjective world view. Hence deistic and atheistic conclusions are wholly equal. "Equal sides of the same coin" as I believe you put it.You have then gone on to attempt to show this sliding scale of evidence, your "shades of grey", through the use of ever less evidenced examples - alien life, alien visitation etc. etc.Is this a fair summary of your argument to date?If so you should take note that it is not a case of me not understanding your argument.Rather it is that I find it completely flawed with regard to wholly unevidenced claims derived purely from subjective "evidence" for the following reasons:1) There is no such thing as a vacuum of ALL objective evidence. You may dismiss the argument that "people make things up" as trivial and superficial but it is actually both highly evidenced and incredibly powerful. It is also the only thing that distinguishes your deity from the IPU in any remotely evidential sense at all.Why do you reject the IPU out of hand? Because it is so obviously made up? Absolutely. I could not agree more.Why is your deity less easy to reject? Because it is much less obviously a made up entity? Absolutely. I could not agree more.People seem to have an almost limitless capacity for creating concepts that are not 'real'. It comes to us as easily as breathing.Given motivation to do so - e.g. to make a fellow debator and his irrational belief in the unevidenced look foolish - and we will create an endless array of such concepts. Hence the IPU and all those other examples you were besieged with early on in the other thread.The difference between me and you is that I apply the same logic to your deity too. The motivation for creating your deity may be more sophisticated than that for creating Wagwah, or the face sucking jellyfish or whatever. It may be more complex. It may, arguably, even be more valid.But at the end of the day there is the motivation to create such a concept there. There is also arguably motivation to create this concept in such a way as for it to be effectively immune from disproof.Given the motivation to create such a concept the ability to do it is so humanly innate that there is little doubt it will be created. Lo and behold that is exactly what we are being faced with.Hence the "deities are almost certainly human inventions" line.I don't really see how anyone can refute this.2) To me evidence is the means by which we distinguish truth from falsehood. Using anything oxymoronically known as subjective "evidence" to do this is demonstrably pointless. We always base our empirical decisions on some evidence. Even that which we call gut instinct is more of an attempt at an ill informed educated guess 99% of the time.The sort of wholly subjective "evidence" required to conclude that gods exist would not be employed to reach any other conclusion in life. It certainly would not be used to draw verifiable or refutable conclusions? Why?Because they would be repeatedly proved wrong. That is why faith only ever applies to those things which are designed to be irrefutable. If anyone tried to apply faith based thinking to anything that could be refuted there is little doubt that they would soon give up on it as a method of establishing truth on the basis of it being wholly ineffective.So why would anyone think that subjectively derived faith based conclusions are any more likely to be correct regarding the objective existence of supernatural undetectable beings than they would be regarding the any other physically verifiable conclusion?Would we use subjective evidence and faith to determine whether or not the Higgs boson actually exists? No? Why not if this is a valid form of evidence?Would we use subjective evidence and faith to determine the spread of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation across the universe? No? Why not if this is a valid form of evidence?If subjective evidence and faith were valid means of establishing truth we could save ourselves a hell of a lot of money on expensive experiments. Instead we could just know.Subjective personal experiences are just that. Personal subjective experiences. This does not lessen their meaning or diminsh their validity as personal experiences. But it does mean that they are of little value in determining and establishing objective truths.Objective truths such as the actual existence of supernatural beings distinct and seperate from those humans that experience them.So is it possible that gods and other wholly unevidenced phenomenon exist? Yes it is.But everything we know suggests that such claims are human inventions and that the likelihood of someone having stumbled across an objective truth on the basis of no evidence at all is about as likely as a nomadic hunter gatherer from the dawn of humanity conceiving quantum mechanics.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I accept everything you say about your experiences being real experiences.Nobody is denying this.But that does not mean that the conclusions that you draw from those experiences are objectively valid in the sense that the entities experienced actually exist in any sense that is distinct and seperate from you. If subjective evidence is that unreliable why do you believe anything at all on this basis?RAZD castigates me with mocking accusations of cognitive dissonance for refusing to acknowledge a form of "evidence" so woefully undeserving of the term that even it's proponents refuse to actually use it to form any conclusion that can be verified, refuted or that actually matters in any objective sense.Meanwhile in nearly 600 posts spanning two threads RAZD fails to even once acknowledge the overwhelmingly objectively evidenced fact that deities are quite possibly purely human inventions.Go figure.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then I think we we have no argument.Based on the objective evidence alone non-belief is the rational, evidentially and intellectually consistent conclusion. Well that is an interesting question. Do we choose to be convinced or will certain experiences inevitably convince us? Perhaps another thread another time. Now that is obviously just your subjective world view talking.

Have you ever read a work of fiction or seen film? Star wars for example. Everyone has seen that surely.Do you not consider a work of fiction to be objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans are able to invent false concepts?If I ask you to imagine a blue baby elephant siting on your sofa eating ice cream can you envisage that?False concepts come as naturally to humans as does breathing.Before we move on would you agree that this much at least is evidentially verified?Or not?

Would you also agree that it is an evidenced fact that humans have created demonstrably false god concepts?Demonstrably false god concepts such as Scarab the Egyptian god of the rising Sun. A godly dung beetle that dragged the Sun across the sky each day.Would you also agree with me that there is substantial historical evidence to conclude that many of these demonstrably false god concepts were created to explain those phenomenon and aspects of life that were otherwise unknowable at the time?Fertility, weather, harvests, seasons etc. etc. etc.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Have you finally succumbed to the fact that the IPU is a valid means of demonstrating that the logical fallacy of special pleading is required to differentiate one wholly unevidenced entity from another? YAWNYou really will not grasp the difference between logical possibilities derived from fact, evidence based assessments of probability and the pointless extrapolation of wholly subjective claims will you?It has got to the point where I am beginning to suspect wilful refusal rather than just mere ignorance on your part.See here for all the answers you have chosen to ignore Message 209No RAZ not everything is likely to be made up. Only those things for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even possible.Things like deities. Things like the IPU. Strangely the workings of science are not dependent on your inconsistent and illogical advocacy of subjective "evidence". So we can all breathe a sigh of relief on that front. Phew.I have no doubt that if you could think of an example of a wholly unevidenced concept that is generally deemed to be believable you would raise it here.But having failed to achieve this with regard to the example originally laid out in your OP, the example that you eventually had to admit is a possibility derived from objective evidence, I guess maybe it is a case of once bitten twice shy huh? Back to our subjective "evidence" sponge stairway again I see. I will ask my question yet again in the forlorn hope that you might answer it this time.If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zeroBe honest. Really? If we follow the objective evidence the answer becomes "Almost certainly not".Is it an evidenced possibility that gods and deities are human inventions?Or not?I have asked this about 20 times and am still awaiting an answer from you............ Oh so now you do require evidence for your faith? Documented evidence apparently.That seems a little inconsistent with your previous assertions regarding the nature of belief and subjective evidence.Please do explain. Find it yourself.As John10:10 is always telling me - "Only if you seek HER will you find HER".Have you tried seeking her? Have you given yourself to the majesty of the IPU fully completely and faithflly? No? Well no wonder you don't believe then.Isn't that obvious?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So we have established that it is an objectively evidenced fact that humans are capable of inventing god concepts that are false.What objective evidence exists to support the claim that any god concepts are actually true?On balance what does the objective evidence available indicate? And yet as mans objective knowledge of these phenomenon has increased so has mans atheistic attitudes towards the godly explanations for these phenomenon.Do you truly see no justifiable correlation between the two?

Hmmmm. Let's summarise the conversation so far (shall we stick to one thread rather than spread the responses across both?)We both agree that the possibility that gods are human inventions is objectively evidenced.We both agree that the possibility that gods are actually true is objectively unevidenced.We both agree that the subjective "evidence" which you find so utterly convincing is also utterly unreliable as a means of distinguishing between objective truth and falsehood.Given the above......On the basis of the objective evidence available I conclude that any god concept is more likely to be the false product of human invention than it is to actually be real.On the basis of the objective evidence avilable I conclude that the likelihood of someone correctly conceiving a specific objective truth on the basis of no objective evidence is comparable to a random guess plucked from amongst the near infine number of unevidenced possibilities that could conceivably exist.On the basis of the objective evidence alone how can anyone conclude that the agnostic maybe, maybe not, 50-50, no opinion either way conclusion with regard to an unevidenced conclusion made by a species with a proven penchant for invention actually being true is justified?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you agree that we have objective demonstrable evidence of the fact that humans create false god concepts.But you deny that the possibility that deistic god concepts are false human inventions is evidenced.This is inherently contradictory. Ahem. So can we make reliable and objectively verifiable conclusions on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone? Or not?Your previous comment would suggest that you believe not. Yes it does. Wrong. By your own admission it is an objectively evidenced fact that gods are quite possibly the product of human invention.There is no objective evidence to suggest that gods are anything other than the product of human invention.To deny this is to contradict yourself.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But some is more than none. Thus the two possibilities are not equally evidenced.Anyone who thinks that agnosticism is the logical conclusion based on the objective evidence available needs to think again.To believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible flies in the face of the evidence available.THE EVIDENCE
It is an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are quite possibly the product of human invention.It is not an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are the possible product of the actual existence of any gods.Every single god concept ever presented that can be refuted by means of objective evidence has been refuted.The only god concepts that anyone here is advocating are so pointlessly ambiguous and undefined that it would be difficult to conceive of something more immune to direct refutation even if one intentionally set out to do so.THE QUESTION
Is any particular god concept the product of human invention or is it objectively real?How can anyone basing their answer on objective evidence alone seriously claim that the answer to this question must be I don’t know. It is 50-50 either way. How can the possibilities on offer be equal when there is evidence only to suggest that one of these possibilities is evidentially valid?On the basis of objective evidence alone the answer has to be directed towards the side of the equation that represents human invention. The only side of the equation that has any objective evidence in it's favour at all.The non-belief side of the equation. The atheist side of the equation.Why is the god side of the equation even considered a possibility in objective evidential terms?On the basis of objective evidence alone the only question that should remain is to ask what degree of disbelief is justified.THE EXCEPTION
If you have had subjective personal experiences that you consider to be both reliable and convincing enough to override the inevitable conclusion of non-belief that objective evidence alone suggests then fair enough. Nobody is telling you what you should or should not believe.But please don’t tell me that I should merit your subjective personal experiences of god with any more objective validity than you would accept that my subjectively derived favourite colour is evidence of any one colour being objectively superior to any other.Please also do not tell me that I should be agnostic because you choose to ignore the only objective evidence available to you in order to maintain some sort of irrational facade that your religious beliefs in no way contradict anything that the objective evidence suggests.If you’re subjective experience is so damn convincing why do you even care if it contradicts the conclusion that the objective evidence suggests? I am not denying anybody elses experiences. That is the point you keep missing.I am denying that wholly subjective personal experience equates to anything that could meaningfully be called "evidence" with regard to objective reality.You seem to intensely dislike this conclusion because you seem intent on justifying your beliefs in terms of evidence. You are also unable to accept that your beliefs in any way contradict anything that objective evidence might even suggest.Only you can know why you find these conclusions so disturbing. Really?What attributes does this "reason" have?Be specific.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.

If the interpretations are different then on what basis do you have the right to conclude that the thing being interpreted is actually the same?Why are you privy to the elephant while those experiencing it directly are not? This would seem to be an assumption made by you on the basis of your desire to validate your own conclusions regarding unevidenced entities. The common experience of exposure to mass media and wider culture is probably the most relevant. How many detailed accounts of alien abduction follow the reporting of a single instance of such a claim? Is this evidence of commonality of alien experience or commonality of cultural experience?It only takes one spark of creativity to unleash the forest fire that you are asking us to accept as evidence in favour of the shared experience of alien visitation. And this leads you to ascribe validity to a form of evidence, "subjective evidence", that tells us that Scarab the Egyptian godly dung beetle that carries the Sun across the sky each day is a viable concept worthy of consideration and respect whilst the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a self evident absurdity.The only difference is the motive for creation. Unless you are going to deny that people have the motive to create god concepts the inevitable conclusion to be made from the objective evidence available is that all unevidenced god concepts are the result of human invention and that only the motives for creation differ. In the case of genuinely believed god concepts we have hamanity's desire to answer questions that they cannot otherwise answer. In the case of the IPU we have the atheists desire to show the inherent absurdity of believing in unevidenced god concepts.Desire for explanation and meaning is the driving force behind most god concepts and a very very powerful force it is too. That is what is common to humanity as a whole and that, I would argue, is what leads to the commonality of experience that you take as evidence in favour of god concepts being actually true. ANSWERING THE OP
So is the IPU a logical argument? That was the question originally posed by YOU. You then attempted to show that the comparison of the IPU with deities was the result of some sort of logical fallacy. You failed to demonstrate this. However it has since been demonstrated that your own position, the position that the IPU and deities are not comparable entities in evidential terms, is itself based on the logical fallacy of special pleading.THE PREMISE OF YOUR OP HAS BEEN REFUTED AND YOUR OWN POSITION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE THE RESULT OF A LOGICAL FALLACY.The original grouping of the IPU and the possibility of alien life was defined by the terms of the OP that YOU wrote. The terms of objective evidence alone.
ANY possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from objective evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU.
ANY possibility which is NOT derived from ANY objective evidence IS equivalent to the IPU.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 objective evidential terms.
However the concept of deities, the concept which the IPU was specifically designed to be equivalent to in objective evidential terms, REMAINS objectively 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 indisputably a logical argument when discussing evidence and the belief or non-belief in wholly un-evidenced entities. Notions of subjective evidence or absurdity or whatever else are just examples of special pleading.Until you are able to accept and acknowledge this fact there is little point in continuing this discussion any further.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.