Is there a shred of evidence for atheistic physicalism?

[sayak83]

Oh, that depends.

Let's talk, for a second, about the general case, okay? Not about a/theism, but the general case. I maintain that there are cases in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence, while in other cases it's not.

Say you are looking for a hard-boiled egg in your fridge. You open the fridge, you don't see an egg. I'm fairly certain you'd count that as evidence.

Of course, the egg could be invisible. It could be in "another dimension". You could be under hypnosis to not see the egg. Any number of possible (if hilariously implausible) scenarios could apply.

So, under some circumstances, you'd count absence of evidence as evidence of absence, right? Namely, *when positive evidence should be expected*.

So... how come one would not count it in the case of god? Would you say that evidence of god is not to be expected in a universe that was created by god?





There are only four worldviews that are possible:

1. Nothing exists
2. Everything is essentially spirit, and physical bodies are just an epiphenomenon
3. Everything is essentially physical, and spirit is an epiphenomenon
4. Both spirit and physical bodies exist

(Okay, I lied. You could make up any number of hypothetical substances and attach a worldview to all of them, but I maintain that that would be massively superfluous and impractical.)

So... which one of the four, would you say, should be the default position?

Just to specify which philosophies go where
1)Buddhist Madhyamaka (though a more sophisticated version of nothing exists)
2)Buddhist Yogacara and Hindu Vedanta. Maybe platonism.
3) Epicurean, Carvaka, modern naturalism and humanism
4)Hindu Samkhya, Nyaya-Vaisesika, Abrahamic theism, most belief systems.

 

[George-ananda]

Problem with claims of a 'bunch of 'Evidence.' Anecdotal testimony, conjecture, and hypothetical conclusions are not objectively verifiable evidence that may be tested in a predictable way.

I wasn't claiming testable proof in the first place.

Read through it all or skim and criticize. In the end what matters is our own judgment and the more we are exposed to, the better our judgment. Try to be objective with no preference for any position.

 

[Polymath257]

I am fine with that, I was simply trying to be as clear as possible.

As I have already covered, a "lack of evidence" (which in reality tends to mean you are unconvinced by the evidence) is not a valid response. It is a subjective appeal to your own personal feelings. Your second point is that physicalism is the default position based on experience, which is self-evidently incorrect. In fact, experience itself is something that we cannot access or share in any direct, physical way. While we directly know our own inner experience, all that we call matter is actually known through that inner experience. In this sense, a type of solipsism is actually the default position. One could easily argue, and many idealists do, that you have it backwards: we have no evidence of physical events free of consciousness. What can you consciously know and understand without, well, consciousness? All three of these points fail. To deny gods on the basis of something psychologically beneficial still does not imply any type of physicalism.

Sorry, but obviously you understood what I meant, so it's rather suspicious you would use a simple error as such a central point of refutation.

What the hell is an "assumption of philosophy."

Physicalism.

I did not try to shift the burden of proof, I asked for any supporting evidence for physicalism. I did not put forth a single aspect of my own metaphysics in the OP, I asked for evidence of physicalism. You, like literally all your peers thus far here, failed to provide and, and are now throwing every play from the physicalism handook to see what sticks.

The main evidence that physicalism is true is that no additional assumption is required to explain anything that anyone has detected. Yes, our experiences are based in physical processes. That is quite obvious from a number of studies of the connection between the mind and the brain.

So, we have a system that requires nothing other than the physical to explain what we know exists around us. That is, in and of itself, very good evidence of physcialism.

The point is that there are times when absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. if you would *expect* there to be evidence in the case of existence, then absence of that evidence *is* evidence of absence. This is additionally true when that lack is maintained even though there has been a long-term devoted series of attempts to find evidence of existence.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I did not try to shift the burden of proof, I asked for any supporting evidence for physicalism. I did not put forth a single aspect of my own metaphysics in the OP, I asked for evidence of physicalism. You, like literally all your peers thus far here, failed to provide and, and are now throwing every play from the physicalism handook to see what sticks.

That's fair. Assuming no other view on your part.

The physical model of reality is repeatable and testable.
The physical model of reality can make very precise predictions of future events and then watch them come to pass with no other interjections. The physical model of reality has no equal in this capacity, being able to predict future events and produce a logical and reasonable of past events based on evidences that are observationally valid.

The physical model carries the weight of shared experience, substantiations, and accuracy. That's a pretty big deal when determining whether or not it's legit, don't you think?

 

[viole]

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?

Of course there is evidence for atheistic physicalism.

I am an atheist and a physicalist (although, I prefer metaphysical naturalist). And I know a few others who support that position as well.

By the way, naturalism entails atheism. Therefore, atheistic physicalism has a word not necessarily required.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

What the hell is an "assumption of philosophy."

Very simply, it is an assumption of belief without verifiable objective physical evidence to support the philosophy or belief.

I did not try to shift the burden of proof, I asked for any supporting evidence for physicalism. I did not put forth a single aspect of my own metaphysics in the OP, I asked for evidence of physicalism. You, like literally all your peers thus far here, failed to provide and, and are now throwing every play from the physicalism handook to see what sticks.

I believe you are trying to shift the burden of proof, because all philosophical and theological positions that believe, or in the case of 'philosophical naturalism' do not believe, in worlds beyond our physical world lack a basis in the objective physical evidence, therefore they equally ALL lack 'proof' or falsifiable hypothesis or theories that would favor one over the other.

 

[viole]

Very simply, it is an assumption of belief without verifiable objective physical evidence to support the philosophy or belief.

Questions:

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

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

My blind neighbor can't see the giant tree in his front yard.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Got any real evidence?

You know, any that holds up to the slightest scrutiny and does not require confirmation bias?

What evidence made you believe what you do?

Don't bother, I've been down this road with him a number of times, and it never leads anywhere substantive or meaningful.

 

[james bond]

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: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ .

.​

Batting .333. Good in baseball, but sucks in philosophy ha ha.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

I could but I don't have the energy to reboot. I feel most anti-religious want the same ol' argument against theist and it gets old. That, and a lot of it is common sense. It's hard to debate something when you agree with it. Though thiests have not replied either. I had a friend that I mentioned some points to and she said not to talk about it because it makes her doubt her faith. So..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 first step to deciding whether a claim is supported by the evidence is specifying the claim.

So what are the claims of this "atheistic physicalism" you're referring to?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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?

It almost seems like you set this up such that you can simply dismiss anything presented, but here goes:

I present as evidence: the myriad form/function/mythology of God/gods to be found among the various members of humanity. It's all different. Spirituality itself is handled differently from culture to culture, and even person to person. This points to any of it being completely arbitrary, and therefore unnecessary. And you can point to other things and say it applies as well. Take, for example, the preference people have to different fruits throughout the world. From an outside (objective) perspective, people's preference to various fruits is completely arbitrary, pointing to there being no objective "best" fruit to be found. And it also leads one to understand that no one's preference really matters at all. And if we apply that to the realm of the spiritual, and say that none of spirituality matters, then all of the stories are proven false - because they nearly all/each claim to be of the greatest import... from which follows the idea that there is nothing to any of it - no spiritual realm. If there is, then what form does it take? Why buy into one story over another?

 

[Ricktheheretic]

The problem is that there hasn't been a definition of the term 'substance'. So I am not at all sure that this claim (that everything must be composed of a substance) is true.

You gave a nice description of what Plato, Aristotle, and others have believed, but we *know* that Aristotle was wrong in a great many of his conclusions. Plato was even worse.

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.

You make a good point. But things that exist that aren't composed of a substance are the properties of things that are composed of a substance. How could anything exist without something that is "there," that takes up space? BTW isn't charge just another name for electricity? So charge would be a form of energy. I will say that I didn't take my statement (that everything must be composed of a substance) from the laws of physics, so maybe I'm wrong, or maybe that's just my opinion. Of course the emptiness of space exists and it isn't made of any substance, but it's filled with everything that exploded out of time-zero. That's another thing isn't composed of a substance, time. Again you make a good point.

 

[Polymath257]

You make a good point. But things that exist that aren't composed of a substance are the properties of things that are composed of a substance. How could anything exist without something that is "there," that takes up space? BTW isn't charge just another name for electricity? So charge would be a form of energy. I will say that I didn't take my statement (that everything must be composed of a substance) from the laws of physics, so maybe I'm wrong, or maybe that's just my opinion. Of course the emptiness of space exists and it isn't made of any substance, but it's filled with everything that exploded out of time-zero. That's another thing isn't composed of a substance, time. Again you make a good point.

Well, physics tends not to use the word 'substance' any longer because of its philosophical connotations, which are seen to be outdated. In modern physics, *everything* is defined in terms of its properties. Such properties as 'taking up space' are derived from the fermionic aspects of certain particles (electrons, for example) and have more to do with how the particles interact (their properties) than anything else. Fermions tend not to like to be in the same place at the same time. Bosons, on the other hand, do.

No, charge is not just another name for electricity. And it is quite different than energy. I tis a separate property of some particles (which can have positive or negative charges or be neutral--uncharged).

Since I have never seen a good definition of 'substance' that doesn't pre-assume that things have to be made of such, I will wait until I have clarification on this issue.

 

[1137]

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...

Agreed.

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.

Wait, if we have no need to prove the physical, yet you needed me to accept it for the purposes of making your point, that doesn't exactly make sense. You're basically saying that you accept physicalism on faith, with no need for evidence. I am not ok with this step. You don't explain even why the burden is on those who believe that there is more than the physical. Anyone who believes anything beyond "I exist" has moved away from the base position of neutral knowledge into a metaphysical position, requiring evidence and reason to be valid. For example, you are directly aware of your own thoughts and emotions, yet you could never hold these things, smell them, taste/touch/see these things with your eyes. And in fact, it is this aware Self that perceives all that we call the physical world in the first place.

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.

Actually it is indeed emotional. If we pretend humans are magical creatures who use perfect, unbiased standards of evidence, and could not possibly have any confusion about how the world works, then sure you have a point. Sadly this is not the case most of the time with most positions.

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.

Are you under the impression that cultural norm = default position?

No we are using plays from the logic handbook.

Perhaps you should read it sometime.

Now prove to me that Lord Helix is not real.

Who is Lord Helix? Why do you insist on creating random, nonsense examples instead of explaining why you have moved from the default position to physicalism?

Evidence?
We have the physical world (as we observe it with our imperfect senses).
So this is as far as I go...no invoking the supernatural.
But I won't tell you the supernatural is impossible...just unevidenced.

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?

Sure it is, It's a frequent situation wherein evidence is put into exhibit that's so sleazy it utterly fails to qualify as anywhere reasonable. Someone presents the Illiad as proof for the actual existence of Zeus. Think this qualifies as evidence? In a very broad sense it could, just as a rainy day offered as proof of the Noachian flood could be. But are they reasonable? Hardly. Which is why the discriminating mind differentiates between propositions that qualify as evidence and propositions so abysmally poor that they don't deserve the name, which is the situation for propositions offered as evidence for non-physicalism.

That's all awesome, but if you read the OP you'll see I'm simply asking for evidence for physicalism, no more or less, no need to refute any position, I have not even presented mine. I'll go ahead and put you down as a "no."

Not my point at all. My point was "Physicalism comes out on top because it's the default condition substatiated by our agreed experiences. People around the world all agree that what ever it may be called, an elephant is an elephant. Why? Because they all agree on its identifying characteristics: Trunk, tusks, size etc. However, they don't all agree that whatever it may be called, a god is a god. The reasons should be obvious.

Lol, are you seriously suggesting that internal, subjective experience is not substantiated by agreed experience?!

NOTE:

I began to continue on here but suddenly grew quite bored of the whole thing and deleted all my additional responses.

Reply, don't reply, Have the last word if you wish.
.

Ah, right on cue. That two "no"s.

Want to have your mind blown? I consider myself a theistic naturalist. I don't really believe in "supernatural". If something exists, it has a nature and is natural.

As we are physical beings, to interact with us, the "supernatural" would HAVE to have physical characteristics of some sort.

I agree with "theistic naturalism." Why do you think the immaterial need physical characteristics? Why can it is not interact with the immaterial aspects of us?

Got any real evidence?

You know, any that holds up to the slightest scrutiny and does not require confirmation bias?

What evidence made you believe what you do?

There's that double standard again!

There are only four worldviews that are possible:

1. Nothing exists
2. Everything is essentially spirit, and physical bodies are just an epiphenomenon
3. Everything is essentially physical, and spirit is an epiphenomenon
4. Both spirit and physical bodies exist

(Okay, I lied. You could make up any number of hypothetical substances and attach a worldview to all of them, but I maintain that that would be massively superfluous and impractical.)

So... which one of the four, would you say, should be the default position?

I would switch "spirit" with "immaterial," and say that 2 is the default. I personally believe 4.

You have answers to all of those questions - and none of them require magic invisible people or forces... You're asking materialists to provide evidence for an assertion that you've made without substantiation.

Like it not, your claim is not our burden to prove.
We can support ours.
You've never once supported yours.

"Magic invisible people or forces." Of course if I call you out on your pathetic insult you'll simply insist that these words somehow were not condescending! Anyways... Let's just cut to the chase shall we? Please send me an image of your thoughts.

The main evidence that physicalism is true is that no additional assumption is required to explain anything that anyone has detected. Yes, our experiences are based in physical processes. That is quite obvious from a number of studies of the connection between the mind and the brain.

So, we have a system that requires nothing other than the physical to explain what we know exists around us. That is, in and of itself, very good evidence of physcialism.

The point is that there are times when absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. if you would *expect* there to be evidence in the case of existence, then absence of that evidence *is* evidence of absence. This is additionally true when that lack is maintained even though there has been a long-term devoted series of attempts to find evidence of existence.

Except that inner experience is not physical... That's a pretty big "except" though, as it directly disproves your claim that physicalism requires no further assumptions. In fact the most common of those assumptions is that we will one day, hopefully, explain how consciousness arises from the brain. The "default position" when it comes to minds and matter is actually solipsism, and we move from there.

I believe you are trying to shift the burden of proof, because all philosophical and theological positions that believe, or in the case of 'philosophical naturalism' do not believe, in worlds beyond our physical world lack a basis in the objective physical evidence, therefore they equally ALL lack 'proof' or falsifiable hypothesis or theories that would favor one over the other.

So you're upset that we do not have material evidence of the immaterial? You do realize what an absurd and meaningless objection that is right? As with Forms, you seem to not understand the basic law of identity, the material and not-material cannot both be material! 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.

It almost seems like you set this up such that you can simply dismiss anything presented, but here goes:

I present as evidence: the myriad form/function/mythology of God/gods to be found among the various members of humanity. It's all different. Spirituality itself is handled differently from culture to culture, and even person to person. This points to any of it being completely arbitrary, and therefore unnecessary. And you can point to other things and say it applies as well. Take, for example, the preference people have to different fruits throughout the world. From an outside (objective) perspective, people's preference to various fruits is completely arbitrary, pointing to there being no objective "best" fruit to be found. And it also leads one to understand that no one's preference really matters at all. And if we apply that to the realm of the spiritual, and say that none of spirituality matters, then all of the stories are proven false - because they nearly all/each claim to be of the greatest import... from which follows the idea that there is nothing to any of it - no spiritual realm. If there is, then what form does it take? Why buy into one story over another?

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.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Who is Lord Helix? Why do you insist on creating random, nonsense examples instead of explaining why you have moved from the default position to physicalism?

I already did.

Lord Helix is just as nonsensical as Set.

 

[1137]

I already did.

Lord Helix is just as nonsensical as Set.

I remember one post in the other thread where you attempted to explain your position, but it was not exactly flushed out. For example, you have not shown how inner experience arises from physical processes, nor suggested a way in which I may physically access or study that inner experience. 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.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I remember one post in the other thread where you attempted to explain your position, but it was not exactly flushed out. For example, you have not shown how inner experience arises from physical processes, nor suggested a way in which I may physically access or study that inner experience. 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.

Forgive me, I assumed you had at least googled something about the brain before.

 

[1137]

Forgive me, I assumed you had at least googled something about the brain before.

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?