Is there a shred of evidence for atheistic physicalism?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Substance is difficult to define, but I tend to think of it as referring to that which can hold form, where form can be relatively static, such as a memory or the contour of a stone, or dynamic, such as one's evolving mental state as he reads these words or the shape of ocean waves lapping onto the shore.

By this reckoning, a god, because it has ideas, is made of a substance that can retain those ideas lest the god forget. Of course, this also implies that such a god is subject to laws not of its own making, the laws determining and preserving its form.

As for the non-substance aspects of reality, the way I've seen it worded is that everything can be reduced to a substance (or two) and the phenomena which supervene due to the substance. Momentum and charge aren't substances, but rather properties of them that depend on substance as a substrate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

"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"

You only have to have no need for the concept of a creator god to not accept it. No emotional response is required, and no leaps of faith. Accepting such a claim without sufficient reason is the leap of faith.

Incidentally, I notice that twice, you chose to use a synonym that implies mind. When you call it "creation" rather than "reality," you subliminally introduce a creator.

A more subtle example is your use of the word "information" rather than "form," which implies consciousness. If there were no consciousness in the universe, there would be no use for the word "information."

Likewise, if one chooses "design" over "pattern," he subliminally suggests a designer.

The typical user of these terms is likely unaware of that, but the sources of them are not. It's called framing, a well known tactic for persuading, whether that be advertising or propaganda. Word like "leftist" and "entitlement" are chosen for the negative subliminal messages they send.

You'll often see conservatives call it the "Democrat Party" rather than "Democratic" because of the positive connotations carried by the word democratic.

If you want to modify how one thinks of Christians, call them religionists or Christianistas. If you want to subtly derogate Catholics, call them papists.

When sugar and fried foods became the enemy a few decades ago, "sugar" was jettisoned from the names of cereals - Sugar Frosted Flakes became Frosted Flakes, Sugar Crisp became Honey Crisp, and Sugar Smacks became Honey Smacks - and Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC.

 

[Polymath257]

Substance is difficult to define, but I tend to think of it as referring to that which can hold form, where form can be relatively static, such as a memory or the contour of a stone, or dynamic, such as one's evolving mental state as he reads these words or the shape of ocean waves lapping onto the shore.

I'm not sure what it means in this context to 'hold form'. In what way is a memory a 'form' that is 'held'?

And, for example, one the the defining properties of a gas is that it *doesn't* 'hold form', at least in the sense of shape or volume. Liquids preserve volume (mostly) but the shape conforms to the container.

And that doesn't even get to the hard cases: is an electron a 'substance'? A photon? How about a neutrino? In what sense do any of these have a 'form'?

As for the non-substance aspects of reality, the way I've seen it worded is that everything can be reduced to a substance (or two) and the phenomena which supervene due to the substance. Momentum and charge aren't substances, but rather properties of them that depend on substance as a substrate.

It is very far from clear to me that everything can be reduced to a 'substance' or a 'property' of a 'substance'.

Again, I consider the term 'substance' as being *way* too vague to handle the universe as it is. It was a term used by Aristotle for his philosophy, but it seems to no longer be a viable term.

 

[Polymath257]

A more subtle example is your use of the word "information" rather than "form," which implies consciousness. If there were no consciousness in the universe, there would be no use for the word "information."

While I agree with the rest of your post, I have to take issue with this one. Information is produced in any causal relationship where aspects of an earlier state are encoded in a later state. In this, no consciousness is required for this to be a useful concept (well, other than the consciousness of the person using it).

 

[1137]

First,I do not consider Methodological Naturalism 'so true.' I believe it works because it is consistent and testable. Philosophical and Theological claims are NOT testable by any methods that consider objective physical evidence.



Actually, no the obvious is a vague issue to introduce here. Need more explanation concerning your objections

Yet you STILL refuse to shows that your physicalism is superior to photocopy and theology without relying on argumentation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet you STILL refuse to shows that your physicalism is superior to photocopy and theology without relying on argumentation.

Again, you need to work on your terminology. I do not believe in physicalism (?) whatever that is. I support Methodological Naturalism. The objective evidence and the science fills libraries, all you have to do is read, be literate and understand science. I do not sppon feed those who do not do their homework themselves. There is abundant scientific reference and texts based on high school level English.

 

[1137]

Again, you need to work on your terminology. I do not believe in physicalism (?) whatever that is. I support Methodological Naturalism. The objective evidence and the science fills libraries, all you have to do is read, be literate and understand science. I do not sppon feed those who do not do their homework themselves. There is abundant scientific reference and texts based on high school level English.

Lol see, you're providing a philosophical argument for science. I don't want that, it makes you hypocritical. Let's try again without any philosophy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We don't have certainty of anything, though. Science is built on statistical correlation, not absolute proof. Observation is not a substitute for the experience of consciousness, and the outside world--which is an uncertain observation only--is therefore unknowable in fact.

It is possible, normal and typical in science to perform statistical analysis, draw conclusions from the outcome, and therefore advance a general probability of what a model of this physical environment may look like. But it's not knowledge and it's not certainty in philosophical terms.

The longer I have worked in research and seen the foundations of science, the less I believe it can explain anything at all. It's just an aggregate body of likelihoods which produces observable positive developments in the physical world often enough to demonstrate soundness for the method, no different than a skilled craftswoman building a boat which can float, quite reliably, but never according to an absolute design. That makes it neither certain nor fact. The Scientific Method just serves as an aggregator for useful observations in terms of utility in the observed world.

Certainty is overrated. Utility is enough. Utility without certainty is valuable. Certainty without utility is worthless.

 

[Lucifer_]

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?

The burden of proof falls to the one making the positive assertion. If you wish to claim something exists, then provide evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not sure what it means in this context to 'hold form'. In what way is a memory a 'form' that is 'held'?

What I mean by "form" in this context refers to the aspects of a thing that allow it to be recognized as that thing or that type of thing and not something else.

The memory requires some kind of substrate (substance) into which to be engraved to persist through time. If there is not substance upon which that thought has not been impressed and recorded, it will not be remembered or recognized when held a second time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

While I agree with the rest of your post, I have to take issue with this one. Information is produced in any causal relationship where aspects of an earlier state are encoded in a later state. In this, no consciousness is required for this to be a useful concept (well, other than the consciousness of the person using it).

I would call what is preserved "form." Once apprehended, it is form in a consciousness - information.

In general, when I have two words and two distinct ideas, I like to assign one to each. I don't need the word information to refer to form stored in matter not yet apprehended by any conscious agent. I already have another word for that: Form. The form of the trilobite is embedded in the fossil. Once apprehended, it informs a mind and becomes information.

It's not standard usage. I consider it an improvement on standard usage and offer it as such.

 

[1137]

The burden of proof falls to the one making the positive assertion. If you wish to claim something exists, then provide evidence.

Yes that's what I'm asking for, physicalists to at least try to meet their burden of proof.

 

[shunyadragon]

Lol see, you're providing a philosophical argument for science. I don't want that, it makes you hypocritical. Let's try again without any philosophy.

Lol see, you're providing a philosophical argument for science. I don't want that, it makes you hypocritical. Let's try again without any philosophy.

Again, you need to work on your terminology. I do not believe in physicalism (?) whatever that is. I support Methodological Naturalism. The objective evidence and the science fills libraries, all you have to do is read, be literate and understand science. I do not sppon feed those who do not do their homework themselves. There is abundant scientific reference and texts based on high school level English.

Your the one asking prove that does not exist for atheist philosophy.

 

[Lucifer_]

Yes that's what I'm asking for, physicalists to at least try to meet their burden of proof.

No. The "physicalist" worldview is the only verifiable one. There's no reason to assume the existence of anything else. Since you're the one claiming that there's more than meets the eye, it's your burden to provide proof.

Heck, there's not even an agreed-upon definition of "supernatural" besides the non-definition of "that which is not natural."

 

[1137]

Again, you need to work on your terminology. I do not believe in physicalism (?) whatever that is. I support Methodological Naturalism. The objective evidence and the science fills libraries, all you have to do is read, be literate and understand science. I do not sppon feed those who do not do their homework themselves. There is abundant scientific reference and texts based on high school level English.

Your the one asking prove that does not exist for atheist philosophy.

There you go relying on that philosophy your rejected again!

No. The "physicalist" worldview is the only verifiable one. There's no reason to assume the existence of anything else. Since you're the one claiming that there's more than meets the eye, it's your burden to provide proof.

Actually we can be more certain of self existence and inner experience, for everything else is filtered through it. I know that "I exist" is a true statement, and there's no possible way I could deny it or be incorrect. Yet this doesn't mean I can show you my inner experiences in some physical way, they inherently seem to be personal, immaterial, non-spacial, etc and so on. Now sure we have evidence to believe in a physical world, but even then we're moving away from a default position, as we can never know or access this world without obviously existent inner experience. But even if we accept that this world exists despite our lack of certainty - for it certainly seems to exist, it's still then on the physicalist to show that only that physical matter is real, and what we directly and axiomatically seem certain of reduces to it. So in no way you can slice it is physicalism a default position.

 

[Willamena]

The apologetic arguments for the existence of God are more examples, because of the non-physical assumptions that are required.

One might argue that it is evidence only of illogic.

 

[shunyadragon]

There you go relying on that philosophy your rejected again!

Again, you need to work on your terminology. I do not believe in physicalism (?) whatever that is. I support Methodological Naturalism. The objective evidence and the science fills libraries, all you have to do is read, be literate and understand science. I do not sppon feed those who do not do their homework themselves. There is abundant scientific reference and texts based on high school level English.

Your the one asking prove that does not exist for atheist philosophy.

Actually we can be more certain of self existence and inner experience, for everything else is filtered through it. I know that "I exist" is a true statement, and there's no possible way I could deny it or be incorrect. Yet this doesn't mean I can show you my inner experiences in some physical way, they inherently seem to be personal, immaterial, non-spacial, etc and so on. Now sure we have evidence to believe in a physical world, but even then we're moving away from a default position, as we can never know or access this world without obviously existent inner experience.

Lucifer is correct on this one, and you have failed to provide any objective evidence for your 'beliefs.'

Classic anecdotal subjective claim with the fallacy argument from ignorance poured on. The only objective evidence at present is that brain is the source of the mind and consciousness.

 

[Willamena]

Actually we can be more certain of self existence and inner experience, for everything else is filtered through it. I know that "I exist" is a true statement, and there's no possible way I could deny it or be incorrect. Yet this doesn't mean I can show you my inner experiences in some physical way, they inherently seem to be personal, immaterial, non-spacial, etc and so on. Now sure we have evidence to believe in a physical world, but even then we're moving away from a default position, as we can never know or access this world without obviously existent inner experience. But even if we accept that this world exists despite our lack of certainty - for it certainly seems to exist, it's still then on the physicalist to show that only that physical matter is real, and what we directly and axiomatically seem certain of reduces to it. So in no way you can slice it is physicalism a default position.

I think you would benefit greatly from exploring the philosophy of Nietzsche and nihilism. It can be a springboard to unlearning everything you think you know.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you would benefit greatly from exploring the philosophy of Nietzsche and nihilism. It can be a springboard to unlearning everything you think you know.

Actually I like Nietzsche and find his writings intriguing and interesting. Even though I am not a fan of nihilism, I think Nietzsche and nihilism are not generally understood.

 

[1137]

I think you would benefit greatly from exploring the philosophy of Nietzsche and nihilism. It can be a springboard to unlearning everything you think you know.

I studied existentialism and nihilism to a great extent, but don't see how it is suppose to support physicalism.