Is there a shred of evidence for atheistic physicalism?

[CogentPhilosopher]

I reject physicalism because of my belief in many types f paranormal phenomena that do not fit into a worldview of physicalism; ghosts, spirit communication; consciousness not through a brain; etc.. It is my opinion that these things do exist dismissing physicalism as my functioning worldview.

My alternate view, from the teachings of many advanced souls, is that Consciousness/God/Brahman is the source of everything and the universe is a play/drama of Consciousness/God/Brahman. So my view is almost the complete opposite of physicalism.

Frankly what you want to believe does not change the minds of the academically honest.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY YOU ****ING FILTHY ATHEIST! TRYING TO GET ALL THE KIDS TO WORSHIP SATAN!

MWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[George-ananda]

Frankly what you want to believe does not change the minds of the academically honest.

I am honest and rational and physicalism does not stand up against the evidence in my considered opinion. What one WANTS to believe is irrelevant in my objective analysis. I make my mind much like a razor when judging these things.

 

[1137]

I assume then that your question could be stated as simply: "Is there a shred of evidence for physicalism?" That about it?

I am fine with that, I was simply trying to be as clear as possible.

If so, I would say, yes, there is. This comes from a lack of evidence of its supposed counterpart: non-physicalism. Physicalism comes out on top because it's the default condition substantiated by our agreed experiences. Purported non-physical events, such as consciousness, have failed to show themselves to be free of the physical. Others, such as ethereal entities like gods and such, are at best claims of composited characteristics of a non-physical element assembled to conform to the particular needs of an individual or group. Their strength resides only in their ability to satisfy psychological demands.

As I have already covered, a "lack of evidence" (which in reality tends to mean you are unconvinced by the evidence) is not a valid response. It is a subjective appeal to your own personal feelings. Your second point is that physicalism is the default position based on experience, which is self-evidently incorrect. In fact, experience itself is something that we cannot access or share in any direct, physical way. While we directly know our own inner experience, all that we call matter is actually known through that inner experience. In this sense, a type of solipsism is actually the default position. One could easily argue, and many idealists do, that you have it backwards: we have no evidence of physical events free of consciousness. What can you consciously know and understand without, well, consciousness? All three of these points fail. To deny gods on the basis of something psychologically beneficial still does not imply any type of physicalism.

Not being unconvinced?!?!?!!? Not a good way of responding with a double negative, That is not logical.

Sorry, but obviously you understood what I meant, so it's rather suspicious you would use a simple error as such a central point of refutation.

I accept 'Methodological Naturalism,' because it has survived centuries of testing and it is consistent and predictable. The problem with Philosophical Naturalism is that it makes an assumption of philosophy like other philosophical and theological arguments, and not falsifiable by the methods of science.

What the hell is an "assumption of philosophy."

Evidence for what?!?!?

Physicalism.

Is that why you tried to shift the burden of proof in the first place?

I did not try to shift the burden of proof, I asked for any supporting evidence for physicalism. I did not put forth a single aspect of my own metaphysics in the OP, I asked for evidence of physicalism. You, like literally all your peers thus far here, failed to provide and, and are now throwing every play from the physicalism handook to see what sticks.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I am honest and rational and physicalism does not stand up against the evidence in my considered opinion. What one WANTS to believe is irrelevant in my objective analysis. I make my mind much like a razor when judging these things.

Yet you refuse to provide evidence of your position when asked to.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I did not try to shift the burden of proof, I asked for any supporting evidence for physicalism. I did not put forth a single aspect of my own metaphysics in the OP, I asked for evidence of physicalism. You, like literally all your peers thus far here, failed to provide and, and are now throwing every play from the physicalism handook to see what sticks.

No we are using plays from the logic handbook.

Perhaps you should read it sometime.

Now prove to me that Lord Helix is not real.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidence?
We have the physical world (as we observe it with our imperfect senses).
So this is as far as I go...no invoking the supernatural.
But I won't tell you the supernatural is impossible...just unevidenced.

 

[Skwim]

As I have already covered, a "lack of evidence" (which in reality tends to mean you are unconvinced by the evidence) is not a valid response.

Sure it is, It's a frequent situation wherein evidence is put into exhibit that's so sleazy it utterly fails to qualify as anywhere reasonable. Someone presents the Illiad as proof for the actual existence of Zeus. Think this qualifies as evidence? In a very broad sense it could, just as a rainy day offered as proof of the Noachian flood could be. But are they reasonable? Hardly. Which is why the discriminating mind differentiates between propositions that qualify as evidence and propositions so abysmally poor that they don't deserve the name, which is the situation for propositions offered as evidence for non-physicalism.

Your second point is that physicalism is the default position based on experience, which is self-evidently incorrect.

Not my point at all. My point was "Physicalism comes out on top because it's the default condition substantiated by our agreed experiences. People around the world all agree that what ever it may be called, an elephant is an elephant. Why? Because they all agree on its identifying characteristics: Trunk, tusks, size etc. However, they don't all agree that whatever it may be called, a god is a god. The reasons should be obvious.


NOTE: I began to continue on here but suddenly grew quite bored of the whole thing and deleted all my additional responses.

Reply, don't reply, Have the last word if you wish.

.

 

[George-ananda]

Yet you refuse to provide evidence of your position when asked to.

'Refuse' is not the right word. 'Don't bother' is the better wording.

Here's a bunch of Evidence. It's the tip of the iceberg of paranormal evidence. I think it stands and disproves physicalism. You won't.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I want to know if there's any solid support/evidence or reasoning for your position.

Want to have your mind blown? I consider myself a theistic naturalist. I don't really believe in "supernatural". If something exists, it has a nature and is natural.

So beside a subjective appeal (unconvinced) and dodging the question (prove otherwise), is there any evidence or reasoning to support a purely "physical" universe without any gods currently posited, knowingly to you, by human beings?

As we are physical beings, to interact with us, the "supernatural" would HAVE to have physical characteristics of some sort.

Hell, even hallucinations are real in the sense that stimuli created actual neural activity...

Actually you have a point, while an atheist may not be a physicalist, I don't see how a physicalist could be a theist, as any god is inherently non-physical.

That does not follow as not all religions would say such a thing.

I think there is a good argument for non-physical objects

I think there is a good argument for non-solid objects. I question what people think of when they say "immaterial" or "not physical". Energy IS physical. Just because you can't "hold a moonbeam in your hand" doesn't mean the photons aren't real or physical.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

'Refuse' is not the right word. 'Don't bother' is the better wording.

Here's a bunch of Evidence. It's the tip of the iceberg of paranormal evidence. I think it stands and disproves physicalism. You won't.

Got any real evidence?

You know, any that holds up to the slightest scrutiny and does not require confirmation bias?

What evidence made you believe what you do?

 

[Ricktheheretic]

's

I'm well aware not all atheists are physicalist, materialist, naturalist, etc, but I'm specifically talking to this common subcategory of atheists. I want to know if there's any solid support/evidence or reasoning for your position. Literally anything at all. Usually there are only two responses. First is a "lack of evidence," which itself isn't evidence at all. People also tend to confuse "I'm unconvinced" with "that's not evidence," but even "I'm not convinced" is a simply a subjective feeling, an appeal to your own emotion. The other is simply "prove otherwise," but physicalism is not a default position, and it's specifically physicalism being put forth, the asker is not making some claim.

So beside a subjective appeal (unconvinced) and dodging the question (prove otherwise), is there any evidence or reasoning to support a purely "physical" universe without any gods currently posited, knowingly to you, by human beings?

I want to ask "what is the difference between the physical or material and the non-physical or non-material?" Everything that exists must be composed of some substance. I remember from a particular philosophy book that there used to be a debate about what everything is made of. The question asked: "what is the substance of existence?" There were two schools of thought 1. idealism, 2. materialism. I understand Plato was the representative of the first: all that really (ultimately, without-end) exists is "idea," or "mind," or "spirit." According to Plato (student of Socrates) the physical world existed after the non-physical "ideal" world and was fashioned after it's likeness in an attempt to redeem it, like the Gnostic demiurge modeled chaos into the form of things in the Aeon (world) above. Plato taught a morality based on self-denial and obedience to enlightened philosopher kings in a perfect "Republic" based on an order above. Aristotle (student of Plato) represented the second view: all that exists is matter, what is physical. God, the "nous" or "mind" that created physical creatures exists out somewhere, and is a superior being (like a man) who has no concern for humans and this world. Aristotelian ethics is about developing what is within the self most fully, mostly finding one's place in society and being kind to fellow men. Death means death and no reward or punishment is promised in Aristotle's philosophy, just like the Epicureans who saw creation as the result of colliding atoms in space and life as the quest for earthly contentedness. In contrast you have the school of Xeno and the Stoics, who stressed moral living and the existence of a divine being who placed a living soul: "fire" or "ether" within each human being and created the four material elements which make up the physical world. In the end most people agreed on the existence of 2 kinds of substance, except atheists, who see matter as all that exists, and Brahmans & Buddhists who view all matter as "maya" or illusion and spirit as the only reality. But what is the difference between the 2 substances? Benedict Spinoza, an outcast Jew from Holland, posited the existence of a third substance that makes up both matter and spirit. This third substance is God, and everything is a manifestation of God.

 

[sayak83]

I'm well aware not all atheists are physicalist, materialist, naturalist, etc, but I'm specifically talking to this common subcategory of atheists. I want to know if there's any solid support/evidence or reasoning for your position. Literally anything at all. Usually there are only two responses. First is a "lack of evidence," which itself isn't evidence at all. People also tend to confuse "I'm unconvinced" with "that's not evidence," but even "I'm not convinced" is a simply a subjective feeling, an appeal to your own emotion. The other is simply "prove otherwise," but physicalism is not a default position, and it's specifically physicalism being put forth, the asker is not making some claim.

So beside a subjective appeal (unconvinced) and dodging the question (prove otherwise), is there any evidence or reasoning to support a purely "physical" universe without any gods currently posited, knowingly to you, by human beings?

There seems to be a technical confusion here. Every single piece of successful prediction, explanation and application through scientific knowledge based on methodological naturalism is an evidence for metaphysical naturalism. That is how evidence works. So there are lots of evidence for naturalism. The question is if there is evidence against naturalism or a refutation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm well aware not all atheists are physicalist, materialist, naturalist, etc, but I'm specifically talking to this common subcategory of atheists. I want to know if there's any solid support/evidence or reasoning for your position. Literally anything at all. Usually there are only two responses. First is a "lack of evidence," which itself isn't evidence at all. People also tend to confuse "I'm unconvinced" with "that's not evidence," but even "I'm not convinced" is a simply a subjective feeling, an appeal to your own emotion. The other is simply "prove otherwise," but physicalism is not a default position, and it's specifically physicalism being put forth, the asker is not making some claim.

So beside a subjective appeal (unconvinced) and dodging the question (prove otherwise), is there any evidence or reasoning to support a purely "physical" universe without any gods currently posited, knowingly to you, by human beings?

None that I've ever both understood to any great detail and found convincing. It's why I don't think of myself as anything other than a methodological naturalist, though some might see that as avoidance or hair splitting.

 

[shunyadragon]

'Refuse' is not the right word. 'Don't bother' is the better wording.

Here's a bunch of Evidence. It's the tip of the iceberg of paranormal evidence. I think it stands and disproves physicalism. You won't.

Problem with claims of a 'bunch of 'Evidence.' Anecdotal testimony, conjecture, and hypothetical conclusions are not objectively verifiable evidence that may be tested in a predictable way.

 

[vijeno]

First is a "lack of evidence," which itself isn't evidence at all.

Oh, that depends.

Let's talk, for a second, about the general case, okay? Not about a/theism, but the general case. I maintain that there are cases in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence, while in other cases it's not.

Say you are looking for a hard-boiled egg in your fridge. You open the fridge, you don't see an egg. I'm fairly certain you'd count that as evidence.

Of course, the egg could be invisible. It could be in "another dimension". You could be under hypnosis to not see the egg. Any number of possible (if hilariously implausible) scenarios could apply.

So, under some circumstances, you'd count absence of evidence as evidence of absence, right? Namely, *when positive evidence should be expected*.

So... how come one would not count it in the case of god? Would you say that evidence of god is not to be expected in a universe that was created by god?

The other is simply "prove otherwise," but physicalism is not a default position, and it's specifically physicalism being put forth, the asker is not making some claim.

There are only four worldviews that are possible:

1. Nothing exists
2. Everything is essentially spirit, and physical bodies are just an epiphenomenon
3. Everything is essentially physical, and spirit is an epiphenomenon
4. Both spirit and physical bodies exist

(Okay, I lied. You could make up any number of hypothetical substances and attach a worldview to all of them, but I maintain that that would be massively superfluous and impractical.)

So... which one of the four, would you say, should be the default position?

 

[1137]

Damn this exploded over night. I'll have to respond later in the day after work.

 

[Polymath257]

's

I want to ask "what is the difference between the physical or material and the non-physical or non-material?" Everything that exists must be composed of some substance. .

The problem is that there hasn't been a definition of the term 'substance'. So I am not at all sure that this claim (that everything must be composed of a substance) is true.

You gave a nice description of what Plato, Aristotle, and others have believed, but we *know* that Aristotle was wrong in a great many of his conclusions. Plato was even worse.

So, what is the definition of the term 'substance'? Why does everything that exist have to be composed of a substance?

I would, in fact, say that this is an out and out falsehood. For example, momentum exists. It is a property of physical objects. But it is not composed of a substance. Charge exists. But it is not composed of a substance. And, I would argue, mind exists but is not composed of a substance. it is, instead, a property or even a process of the physical brain.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm well aware not all atheists are physicalist, materialist, naturalist, etc, but I'm specifically talking to this common subcategory of atheists. I want to know if there's any solid support/evidence or reasoning for your position. Literally anything at all. Usually there are only two responses. First is a "lack of evidence," which itself isn't evidence at all. People also tend to confuse "I'm unconvinced" with "that's not evidence," but even "I'm not convinced" is a simply a subjective feeling, an appeal to your own emotion. The other is simply "prove otherwise," but physicalism is not a default position, and it's specifically physicalism being put forth, the asker is not making some claim.

So beside a subjective appeal (unconvinced) and dodging the question (prove otherwise), is there any evidence or reasoning to support a purely "physical" universe without any gods currently posited, knowingly to you, by human beings?

I think there was a better argument to be made >100 years ago, in the golden age of materialism- when we lived in a small static universe with no creation event, run by classical physics, Darwinism - a superficial Victorian model of reality, where a handful of simple 'immutable' laws were able to create all the wonders we see around us without any specific predetermined direction/ guidance.

Since the primeval atom/ universal constants, quantum mechanics, subatomic physics, digital DNA code etc, information technology, this model looks a little naive today. The crucial question now is not so much the origin of physical 'stuff' but the deep and vast amount of information that is essential to underwrite all reality as we perceive it

Of course we know that creative intelligence can create such truly novel information systems, functions, with new emergent properties etc, we are using empirical proof of that right now

Whether or not the same can happen by purely materialistic/naturalistic processes... creation without creativity? It's an interesting question, it's difficult to say that it's not technically possible.. but even most atheist cosmologists today now concede that some sort of infinite probability machine (multiverse/ M Theory) would be required to achieve this without creativity - something inherently beyond evidence.

I think ultimately you have to dislike the concept of an intelligent creator quite passionately, in order to take such a leap of blind faith

 

[jonathan180iq]

I want to know if there's any solid support/evidence or reasoning for your position.

What did use to type these words?
What are you using to read them?
Do those devices rely on any type of subsidiary infrastructure - Some greater network of industry in order to arrive to the point at which they can be used?
What of language?
How are you expressing your ideas to me right now?
What is the origin of those ideas?
Are they reliant on a physical set of traits to allow both their creation and expression?
What are those biological parts made of?
Are their individual parts a combination of anything?
Are those things organic or mystical in nature?

You have answers to all of those questions - and none of them require magic invisible people or forces... You're asking materialists to provide evidence for an assertion that you've made without substantiation.

Like it not, your claim is not our burden to prove.
We can support ours.
You've never once supported yours.