I was not asking for any such thing, I was asking for support of physicalism.
The reasoning is the same though which is why I made the comparison.
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?
Let me break down why this post is so flawed.
Here:
Usually there are only two responses. First is a "lack of evidence," which itself isn't evidence at all.
You are conflating proof FOR physical things and proof AGAINST non-physical things. Can we at least agree that the physical does exist? If so, we can continue, if not then there isn't a point for me to continue but anyways...
So everyone agrees that the physical universe exists... but some people believe that there is more to it... spirits, whatever have you.
Those who believe in more have the burden to prove that this extra thing is real too. People who only believe in the physical have no need to prove, or disprove anything. This is where it's the same kind of reasoning, as you've asked people who only believe in the physical to prove that there is only the physical. Christians believe in the physical but also god. No one can disprove god if he isn't there, and no one's ever proved to any normal standard that he is there.
Also "I'm unconvinced" isn't about emotions. Most people use that to actually just mean "I don't see evidence which meets the normally accepted standards for it to be considered true". That isn't emotional, that isn't arbitrary. Every modern luxury we have we were afforded by that same rigorous standard.
Basically we could be looking forever for say a leprechaun hiding in a room or whatever, and never find it but you could always say "but it might still be here somewhere!" at some point they need to call it a day and say that they don't believe it was ever there and it's just the room. I don't have to prove that only the room exists, when someone else was the person who decided to add a leprechaun which I've not seen before.
You also said in the topic that "physicalism" isn't the default position, but that has no bearing on the truth of it. What most people believe or what is the norm in a culture doesn't matter one bit.
Now, if you want a real argument for the existence of non-physical objects/things, the only real way, and the way I feel is convincing, is to argue for it philosophically and compare it to things we consider real but really isn't by purely physical standards (we just have representation of "value". Money is my favorite example to use. You can then extend this ontology to anything else that is non-physical. I also like to point out that the laws of nature itself seem to be unchanging and the same everywhere... which might point to them as being a nonphysical transcendent governance for forces and matter. It's the closest comparison I can think of that we know of in modern science. But at the same time a lot of discussions about this breakdown into huge language barriers so I won't get much more into it here.
Edit: clarified that money is real... basically non-physical 'things' are very real in terms of our lives and it's impact on the world...
