Is there a shred of evidence for atheistic physicalism?

[1137]

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?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

There is no evidence for anything else existing.

 

[1137]

There is no evidence for anything else existing.

Please see the first paragraph.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Please see the first paragraph.

I know.

Your whole paragraph is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

If you want a counter-argument like you provided with your big-foot example then you need a particular claim for us to counter.

 

[1137]

I know.

Your whole paragraph is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

If you want a counter-argument like you provided with your big-foot example then you need a particular claim for us to counter.

So that's one "no."

 

[shunyadragon]

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 belief that only the physical existence exists is best described as 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which include all terms you used and more. It is basically a philosophical assumption based the fact that there is no objective verifiable evidence that anything exists beyond our physical world. There, of course, is no objective evidence that 'Philosophical Naturalism' is true, as with all philosophical and theological beliefs that believe in worlds beyond our physical world.

On the other hand, 'Methodological Naturalism,' makes no philosophical nor theological assumptions beyond what can be verified as theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence. 'Philosophical Naturalism' is based on 'Methodological Naturalism,' but makes philosophical assumptions that without objective verifiable evidence nothing else can be assumed to exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

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.

 

[1137]

The belief that only the physical existence exists is best described as 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which include all terms you used and more. It is basically a philosophical assumption based the fact that there is no objective verifiable evidence that anything exists beyond our physical world. There, of course, is no objective evidence that 'Philosophical Naturalism' is true, as with all philosophical and theological beliefs that believe in worlds beyond our physical world.

On the other hand, 'Methodological Naturalism,' makes no philosophical nor theological assumptions beyond what can be verified as theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence. 'Philosophical Naturalism' is based on 'Methodological Naturalism,' but makes philosophical assumptions that without objective verifiable evidence nothing else can be assumed to exist.

How is this not you being unconvinced? You've claimed that methodological naturalism is so true, but still haven't provided more than the fact that you're not convinced by "philosophical naturalism."

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've studied all but language, and do not see your conclusion as somehow obvious. I didn't see your thread, life is a rollercoaster for most other forumers I'm sure, but the good thing is since you've already typed up this evidence you should be able to easily repeat it here.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

So that's one "no."

Your asking us to prove that there is no x without telling us what x is.

 

[McBell]

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?

Can you tell me what colour the number 7 tastes like?

Before you start whining about my question, just know that your OP, as written above, makes as much sense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Un

How is this not you being unconvinced? You've claimed that methodological naturalism is so true, but still haven't provided more than the fact that you're not convinced by "philosophical naturalism."



I've studied all but language, and do not see your conclusion as somehow obvious. I didn't see your thread, life is a rollercoaster for most other forumers I'm sure, but the good thing is since you've already typed up this evidence you should be able to easily repeat it here.

Unless youre looki g for proof of some man floating in the sky with a white beard, religion and belief in god does t work that way. Its defined, shaped, and practiced by people and their ideas of how to live in the world, see themselves, others, and their environment. Its a very simple reasoning of how "god" exists. If you stop looking at physical proof for casper and see god in the personal practices of people you will see god exist in them. They project it externally and find connections to the outside world to explain what they feel inside that "has no name."

The mystery or the unseen has always facinated people. When you think of whats beyond the edgesnof the universe, not many can ponder that long. They need something greater. Its not self existant.

Gods are all about the people. Youre trying to ask for external proof the same way some believers use the same logic and give external proof. In both cases, the question and answer doesnt make sense. God isnt external and to believers, god cant be justified by external evidence.

How do you proove an empty space exist if there are no walls?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 hard evidence is the inability to prove any claim that there is even a god to start with in any real convincing fashion, thereby prompting a shifting of the burden of proof upon the givin response generated by the initial question and summarily posed to those who don't see it that way, as a challenge to refute what is claimed by the opposing side.



In other words, no theists, no atheists.

It's not the other way around I'm afraid.

 

[1137]

Your asking us to prove that there is no x without telling us what x is.

I clearly defined X, "atheistic physicalism."

The hard evidence is the inability to prove any claim that there is even a god to start with in any real convincing fashion, thereby prompting a shifting of the burden of proof upon the givin response generated by the initial question and summarily posed to those who don't see it that way, as a challenge to refute what is claimed by the opposing side.



In other words, no theists, no atheists.

It's not the other way around I'm afraid.

And that's great and all. So about physicalism...

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I clearly defined X, "atheistic physicalism."

Reread my post.....Slowly....

 

[Skwim]

Is there a shred of evidence for atheistic physicalism?

Not exactly sure what it is, but in as much as it must have certain characteristics that distinguish it from theistic or deistic physicalism perhaps you could explain these differences? To make this easy you can just provide their definitions.

Definition of atheistic physicalism:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .

Definition of theistic physicalism: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .

Definition for deistic physicalism: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .

.​

 

[1137]

Un



Unless youre looki g for proof of some man floating in the sky with a white beard, religion and belief in god does t work that way. Its defined, shaped, and practiced by people and their ideas of how to live in the world, see themselves, others, and their environment. Its a very simple reasoning of how "god" exists. If you stop looking at physical proof for casper and see god in the personal practices of people you will see god exist in them. They project it externally and find connections to the outside world to explain what they feel inside that "has no name."

The mystery or the unseen has always facinated people. When you think of whats beyond the edgesnof the universe, not many can ponder that long. They need something greater. Its not self existant.

Gods are all about the people. Youre trying to ask for external proof the same way some believers use the same logic and give external proof. In both cases, the question and answer doesnt make sense. God isnt external and to believers, god cant be justified by external evidence.

How do you proove an empty space exist if there are no walls?

I'm afraid I don't quite see your point.

 

[1137]

Not exactly sure what it is, but in as much as it must have certain characteristics that distinguish it from theistic or deistic physicalism perhaps you could explain these differences? To make this easy you can just provide their definitions.

Definition of atheistic physicalism:_______________________________________________________________________ .

Definition of theistic physicalism: ________________________________________________________________________ .

Definition for deistic physicalism: ________________________________________________________________________ .

.​

Atheism: Atheism - Wikipedia

Physicalism: Physicalism - Wikipedia

 

[1137]

Reread my post.....Slowly....

Oh my bad I see, I guess I corrected your objection to make it make sense lol. I'm not asking about X at all, not asking you to deny anything. But from this thread and others I already know you're a "no."

 

[Twilight Hue]

And that's great and all. So about physicalism...

That would be dependent upon a person's interpretation towards the actuality that is going on around him or her as it presently stands.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Oh my bad I see, I guess I corrected your objection to make it make sense lol. I'm not asking about X at all, not asking you to deny anything. But from this thread and others I already know you're a "no."

Since the existence of the material world is probably evident to most of us here. It is clear that what you are truly asking for is a debunking of the claim of some sort of nonmaterial world. What is this nonmaterial world you want us to debunk?