Is there a shred of evidence for atheistic physicalism?

[shunyadragon]

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

True but my belief is not the subject of the thread. Nonetheless my belief is not supported by methodological Naturalism, nor are the existence nor non-existence of none-material worlds.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

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.

Prove it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Any simple study into comparative mythology clearly shows similar patterns of belief, similar archetypes, similar assignments of importance, etc. I truly don't understand this objection at all, it's like you've never looked into mythology.

The devil is in the details.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to be conflating "supernatural" and "not physical." Does something not physical have to be supernatural? Or could nature possibly be more that just the physical?

Aye, the word "physical" is the problem here.
I use it broadly, as in anything in the material world which we can
objectively observe, measure, test, & deduce from what we learn.
The supernatural would be that which is not amenable to the above.

 

[George-ananda]

True but my belief is not the subject of the thread. Nonetheless my belief is not supported by methodological Naturalism, nor are the existence nor non-existence of none-material worlds.

Maybe we actually agree in that I earlier said that 'Physicalism' can not be proven or disproven (but is something I do not personally subscribe to after my study of the paranormal and spiritual teachers).

 

[1137]

Prove it.

It's really rather simple: both mind and matter seem to exist, and there is no known mechanism by which one causes the other.

I'll leave my invitation to debate my own views one on one open, just out of curiosity.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It's really rather simple: both mind and matter seem to exist, and there is no known mechanism by which one causes the other.

I'll leave my invitation to debate my own views one on one open, just out of curiosity.

Prove that mind is separate from matter.

 

[Milton Platt]

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 have been an atheist all of my life and have no idea if I fit into this mish-mash of tags you have assembled. What is a physicalist, materialist, naturalist atheist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. If you study the nature of psychology, sociology, archeology, theology, culture, and language you will find that man came first then gods not the other way around. I listed "proof" or more like a summary conclusion on how these things make people believe gods exist and the nature of the sacred. No one. Not even one post replied to my thread and it wasnt that long either.

I found it. I didn't realize it was that long. I must have did another thread and shortened it. I never got a discussion either way even when I mention it in other people's threads.

The Psychology of God

God is defined by culture, language, and tradition. It's not an isolated term and it's not a "being" separate from the people who believe in it. If it were, everyone would know because it would be a universal fact. Since god has many shapes and sizes, fussing over evidence of god is like arguing over the evidence that the Muslim god doesn't exist but not giving a thought to the creator of the Lukumi faith and other creator-oriented faith as if god fits into one size fits all. It doesn't.

How can you find evidence of god apart from the people who believe in it?

 

[1137]

Prove that mind is separate from matter.

It's not about proving they're separate, it's about if we have reason to believe otherwise. With no mechanism and a slew of logical issues, it isn't.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It's not about proving they're separate, it's about if we have reason to believe otherwise. With no mechanism and a slew of logical issues, it isn't.

So then are you saying you don't have a shred of evidence that they are separate?

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

Evidence yes, conclusive “proof” no.

First, despite your attempt to push the idea that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, this isn’t true. An absence of evidence for something when evidence has been actively sought does provide a level of evidence against a hypothesis, though it alone can’t provide a definitive conclusion alone. On that basis, the absence of evidence supporting any hypothesised non-material elements to the universe can be evidence supporting materialism.

Beyond that, there have been a range of phenomena, events and concepts traditionally attributed to non-material causes which have subsequently been proven to have (or at least most likely have) entirely material ones – weather and atmospheric effects, celestial movements, physical and mental illness etc. Again not conclusive but generally supportive of materialism all the same.

I think there is also a general definition and hypothesis issue with any and all non-material claims. In simple terms there has never been a definitive definition established for anything non-material which could then be assessed and tested. Indeed, there are massive disagreements and contradictions between all of the varying claims for such things. Surely if there were real non-material forces or beings out there, it would have been possible to establish some level of consistent definition of what they are and how they work.

 

[Polymath257]

It's really rather simple: both mind and matter seem to exist, and there is no known mechanism by which one causes the other.

I'll leave my invitation to debate my own views one on one open, just out of curiosity.

And yet there is *plenty* of evidence that the mind is a process of the brain. There is NO evidence otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not about proving they're separate, it's about if we have reason to believe otherwise. With no mechanism and a slew of logical issues, it isn't.

On the contrary, the weight of the evidence is that the physical processes of the brain dictate what happens in the mind. If you know everything about the physical world, you would know everything about the mental world also.

And I agree, we do not know the mechanisms for this correspondence. But that isn't required to show there is such a correspondence.

 

[Polymath257]

Aye, the word "physical" is the problem here.
I use it broadly, as in anything in the material world which we can
objectively observe, measure, test, & deduce from what we learn.
The supernatural would be that which is not amenable to the above.

And, using this definition, it is quite reasonable to deny existence to anything that is not physical. Since there is no way to detect it, no way to measure it, no way to test it, and no way to deduce it from anything else, the very existence of it is problematic, at the very least.

In fact, we then get to the question of what it means to say that something *exists*. Is it reasonable to say that something exists that *cannot* be observed, tested, deduced, or detected in any objective manner? To me, that is contrary to what the term 'exists' means.

 

[Underhill]

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?

That is some of the most backward thinking I've ever seen.

So lack of evidence isn't evidence. By that measure we can assume all religions are true, as are every conspiracy theory on the planet. Little green men, the boogeyman under my daughters bed... none of it can be dismissed any more.

There is plenty of evidence of how things happened. But since it doesn't have a sign on it saying, "this is the result of evolution" then it isn't evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that pretty much all religions are wrong, but that will be written off as 'misunderstanding', unless it's a religion you don't believe in, in which case you will nod vehemently.

So we are at an impasse.

 

[Revoltingest]

And, using this definition, it is quite reasonable to deny existence to anything that is not physical. Since there is no way to detect it, no way to measure it, no way to test it, and no way to deduce it from anything else, the very existence of it is problematic, at the very least.

In fact, we then get to the question of what it means to say that something *exists*. Is it reasonable to say that something exists that *cannot* be observed, tested, deduced, or detected in any objective manner? To me, that is contrary to what the term 'exists' means.

And of course, we reserve the right to discover the existence of things which we later become able to observe.
It reminds me of the concepts of dark matter & dark energy.....the universe continues to surprise us.
We are fortunate that way.

 

[Polymath257]

And of course, we reserve the right to discover the existence of things which we later become able to observe.
It reminds me of the concepts of dark matter & dark energy.....the universe continues to surprise us.
We are fortunate that way.

Of course!

As we learn more, we gain the ability to observe the universe in different ways, opening up more phenomena to testing.

The problem isn't whether we can observe something *now*. The problem is whether it is possible *at all* to observe and test a 'supernatural'. If it isn't possible *even in theory*, then the existence claim is rather meaningless. If we *can* observe and test, then the phenomenon is physical *by definition*.

So, I would claim that a non-physical existence is impossible just by what the terms mean.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course!

As we learn more, we gain the ability to observe the universe in different ways, opening up more phenomena to testing.

The problem isn't whether we can observe something *now*. The problem is whether it is possible *at all* to observe and test a 'supernatural'. If it isn't possible *even in theory*, then the existence claim is rather meaningless. If we *can* observe and test, then the phenomenon is physical *by definition*.

So, I would claim that a non-physical existence is impossible just by what the terms mean.

I wouldn't say "impossible".
Just irrelevant to us.

 

[1137]

So then are you saying you don't have a shred of evidence that they are separate?

Not at all, there is extensive evidence from the mere facts of things like property dualism to things like self-regulation, meditation, dreams, placebos without deception, etc.

Evidence yes, conclusive “proof” no.

First, despite your attempt to push the idea that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”, this isn’t true. An absence of evidence for something when evidence has been actively sought does provide a level of evidence against a hypothesis, though it alone can’t provide a definitive conclusion alone. On that basis, the absence of evidence supporting any hypothesised non-material elements to the universe can be evidence supporting materialism.

Beyond that, there have been a range of phenomena, events and concepts traditionally attributed to non-material causes which have subsequently been proven to have (or at least most likely have) entirely material ones – weather and atmospheric effects, celestial movements, physical and mental illness etc. Again not conclusive but generally supportive of materialism all the same.

I think there is also a general definition and hypothesis issue with any and all non-material claims. In simple terms there has never been a definitive definition established for anything non-material which could then be assessed and tested. Indeed, there are massive disagreements and contradictions between all of the varying claims for such things. Surely if there were real non-material forces or beings out there, it would have been possible to establish some level of consistent definition of what they are and how they work.

My point about evidence was more that most physicalists simply ignore the evidence, pretending it's not there rather than providing alternatives. You make this same mistake throughout your post. I'll pose the same simple solution I've been giving others, simply allow me physical access to your inner experience.

And yet there is *plenty* of evidence that the mind is a process of the brain. There is NO evidence otherwise.

You confuse correlation with causation, because even if idealism were true we'd see a brain/mind correlation. The same question as above I'll pose here so we can cut to the chase: can you allow me physical access to anothers experiences?

On the contrary, the weight of the evidence is that the physical processes of the brain dictate what happens in the mind. If you know everything about the physical world, you would know everything about the mental world also.

And I agree, we do not know the mechanisms for this correspondence. But that isn't required to show there is such a correspondence.

So correlation = causation because one day we might be able to prove causation in the future? Solid reasoning right there.

That is some of the most backward thinking I've ever seen.

So lack of evidence isn't evidence. By that measure we can assume all religions are true, as are every conspiracy theory on the planet. Little green men, the boogeyman under my daughters bed... none of it can be dismissed any more.

There is plenty of evidence of how things happened. But since it doesn't have a sign on it saying, "this is the result of evolution" then it isn't evidence.

There is plenty of evidence that pretty much all religions are wrong, but that will be written off as 'misunderstanding', unless it's a religion you don't believe in, in which case you will nod vehemently.

So we are at an impasse.

"There's plenty of evidence, I won't provide a shred though."