Is there a shred of evidence for atheistic physicalism?

[CogentPhilosopher]

Imagine that, not only do you provide nothing, you ignore a straight offer to debate my personal position. Anyways, I would not rely on simple googling to understand complex problems. I mainly learned of and became taken by the mind-body problem through the academic study of psychology, which studies the brain in depth along with the mind. In fact, if it is so easy as to just google it, then why have you not provided the mechanism for consciousness?

Did you ever take an actual course in psychology?

Also your not offering a debate in anything.

You only care about "winning" an argument.

 

[1137]

Did you ever take an actual course in psychology?

Also your not offering a debate in anything.

You only care about "winning" an argument.

Yes, I have my Bachelors of Science in Psychology and am an active social worker. I literally said "Defending Set is not even slightly on me here when I did not make a claim, but I'm more than happy to start a thread on the topic for debate. Just cleaned it up a bit actually." But that debate is an entirely separate topic from "is there evidence for physicalism." Oh, and I'm still waiting on that by the way!

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Yes, I have my Bachelors of Science in Psychology and am an active social worker. I literally said "Defending Set is not even slightly on me here when I did not make a claim, but I'm more than happy to start a thread on the topic for debate. Just cleaned it up a bit actually." But that debate is an entirely separate topic from "is there evidence for physicalism." Oh, and I'm still waiting on that by the way!

Answer this question. No evasion, no changing the subject, no flipping the question, or any similar kinds of bull****.

Can you prove that there exists something besides the natural?

 

[1137]

Answer this question. No evasion, no changing the subject, no flipping the question, or any similar kinds of bull****.

Can you prove that there exists something besides the natural?

No, I think anything that exists is natural.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

No, I think anything that exists is natural.

Do you think it is ridiculous to believe in something that you cannot observe or observe the effects of?

 

[1137]

Do you think it is ridiculous to believe in something that you cannot observe or observe the effects of?

Hmmm, maybe. I certainly don't agree it's ridiculous to believe in what I cannot see, that's ignorance 101. But anything that exists probably has an effect that at least allows us to infer it.

 

[1137]

Answer this question. No evasion, no changing the subject, no flipping the question, or any similar kinds of bull****.

Can you prove that there exists something besides the natural?

On a side note can we talk about how hilarious it is that in a thread asking for evidence of physicalism, you think asking for evidence of physicalism is flipping the question? Hahaha no man, that's not how it works.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Hmmm, maybe. I certainly don't agree it's ridiculous to believe in what I cannot see, that's ignorance 101. But anything that exists probably has an effect that at least allows us to infer it.

Well, just imagine for a moment, that most or all of the world has never seen the effects of anything that does not come from material things.

Given that would the logical conclusion not be that those people should not believe in anything but the material?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

On a side note can we talk about how hilarious it is that in a thread asking for evidence of physicalism, you think asking for evidence of physicalism is flipping the question? Hahaha no man, that's not how it works.

I was listing that as an example of one of your tactics, I was not saying you did that here.

 

[1137]

Well, just imagine for a moment, that most or all of the world has never seen the effects of anything that does not come from material things.

Given that would the logical conclusion not be that those people should not believe in anything but the material?

I cannot imagine such a fictional world very clearly, I live in a world where most of our experience is internal and subjective, not objective and material. In fact, I live in a world where people are directly aware of their thoughts, emotions, and experiences, and only know what seems to be the "material world" through such thing.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I cannot imagine such a fictional world very clearly, I live in a world where most of our experience is internal and subjective, not objective and material. In fact, I live in a world where people are directly aware of their thoughts, emotions, and experiences, and only know what seems to be the "material world" through such thing.

Prove that those are immaterial and not the result of the brain.

 

[1137]

Prove that those are immaterial and not the result of the brain.

Oh good, "prove it." Honestly I don't even need to, it seems that mind and its contents are immaterial, and there's no known mechanism by which the brain gives rise to the mind. In other words, we know that both matter and mind exist in some way, and have no suggested mechanism by which one arises from the other. It's pretty clear where the "burden of proof" is there.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Oh good, "prove it." Honestly I don't even need to,.

So you are a hypocrite.

I doubt you car e about what's true you just want to try to justify what you want to be true.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you're upset that we do not have material evidence of the immaterial?

No, not upset at all. Simply claims of existence of immaterial worlds beyond our physical world, nor the the non-existence of these worlds cannot be falsified to exist or not exist.

You do realize what an absurd and meaningless objection that is right?

absurd at all.

As with Forms, you seem to not understand the basic law of identity, the material and not-material cannot both be material!

Simply, it is possible that the non-material worlds (not-material) beyond the physical world do not exist.

There's actually several ways you can falsify non-physicalism, such as by finding a mechanism by which consciousness arises, arguing against your own inner experience without relying on that experience, or sending me a physical image of your inner experience. [/quote]

Actually no, we cannot falsify the non-material worlds beyond the physical world. It is beyond the scope of Methodological Naturalism to falsify that which may be supported by objective verifiable evidence from the physical world.

None of the above is possibly falsified because they are not supported by objective physical evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Imagine that, not only do you provide nothing, you ignore a straight offer to debate my personal position. Anyways, I would not rely on simple googling to understand complex problems. I mainly learned of and became taken by the mind-body problem through the academic study of psychology, which studies the brain in depth along with the mind. In fact, if it is so easy as to just google it, then why have you not provided the mechanism for consciousness?

There is no objective verifiable physical evidence that consciousness and the mind arises from anywhere else, but the brain.

 

[1137]

So you are a hypocrite.

I doubt you car e about what's true you just want to try to justify what you want to be true.

Not at all, I can support the divide if you want, but don't know how many times I need to say we need a new thread. Could even be a one on one thread. But any evidence aside, there is the way things seem to be, and no explanation to how it could be otherwise.

No, not upset at all. Simply claims of existence of immaterial worlds beyond our physical world, nor the the non-existence of these worlds cannot be falsified to exist or not exist.

absurd at all.



Simply, it is possible that the non-material worlds (not-material) beyond the physical world do not exist.

There's actually several ways you can falsify non-physicalism, such as by finding a mechanism by which consciousness arises, arguing against your own inner experience without relying on that experience, or sending me a physical image of your inner experience.

Actually no, we cannot falsify the non-material worlds beyond the physical world. It is beyond the scope of Methodological Naturalism to falsify that which may be supported by objective verifiable evidence from the physical world.

None of the above is possibly falsified because they are not supported by objective physical evidence.[/QUOTE]

You simply have decided to only accept physical evidence, and reject anything else.

 

[1137]

There is no objective verifiable physical evidence that consciousness and the mind arises from anywhere else, but the brain.

None that you're convinced by, sure. In fact, we don't have any suggested mechanism or logical means to deduce your claim. Do we?

 

[shunyadragon]

Questions:

1) How many times have supernatural explanations been replaced by naturalistic ones?

The history of science is the replacement of supernatural explanations of physical events and their causes with naturalistic ones. It is true methodological naturalism cannot falsify all supernatural explanations of non-material worlds beyond our physical world.,

2) How many times have naturalistic explanations been replaced by supernatural ones?

None

 

[George-ananda]

There is no objective verifiable physical evidence that consciousness and the mind arises from anywhere else, but the brain.

Don't Baha'is believe in God, divine revelation, souls, afterlife, etc.?

 

[shunyadragon]

You simply have decided to only accept physical evidence, and reject anything else.

First I believe in God and your rude assumptions of what I will accept are not the subject of the thread..

It is not a matter of whether I accept only physical evidence, but whether Methodological Naturalism, the basis for philosophical naturalism can falsify the non-material worlds beyond our physical world. What you call 'atheistic physicalism' is a version of philosophical naturalism.