Yours is a positive too. You are saying there is something immaterial, non-physical, called thought, that is an exception. There is evidence for the material however, and not the immaterial so is is what you are claiming that is an exception, lacks evidence.
Any 'others' who have also said here that the burden of proof is on me, I of course also believe to be wrong for exactly the same reasons. I don't care who says it, why make an exception? Why?
You are claiming that there is something extra to what we need to believe. We know there's material, we don't know of anything immaterial, so you are making the exception, you are making the positive claim. Any 'positive claim' that I am making, there's already plenty of evidence of. We know of matter, the immaterial however, where's the evidence?
At least thus far physically undetectable doesn't mean it's non-physical, not made of matter, etc.
Why do thoughts have to be immaterial? Why the exception and the special case simply because we haven't detected it as physical at least yet? Or even if we can't ever? Why the exception?
To believe they're non-physical, immaterial, not made of matter - would be to believe in some sort of bizarre one-off exception that I would require evidence for in order to believe myself.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove that non-physical thought does exist. That the non-physical exists at all, as an exception to the physical. I know of no evidence whatsoever for anything non-physical. So where's your evidence?
Proving a negative is the fallacy of proving that something doesn't exist.
I'm asking how does the non-physical thought - or indeed the non-physical at all - exist? Where's your evidence for that?
BoP is therefore on you for you are making the bizarre one-off exception to the rest of the known universe, and you are the one that lacks evidence, not me.
EvF
Any 'others' who have also said here that the burden of proof is on me, I of course also believe to be wrong for exactly the same reasons. I don't care who says it, why make an exception? Why?
You are claiming that there is something extra to what we need to believe. We know there's material, we don't know of anything immaterial, so you are making the exception, you are making the positive claim. Any 'positive claim' that I am making, there's already plenty of evidence of. We know of matter, the immaterial however, where's the evidence?
At least thus far physically undetectable doesn't mean it's non-physical, not made of matter, etc.
Why do thoughts have to be immaterial? Why the exception and the special case simply because we haven't detected it as physical at least yet? Or even if we can't ever? Why the exception?
To believe they're non-physical, immaterial, not made of matter - would be to believe in some sort of bizarre one-off exception that I would require evidence for in order to believe myself.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove that non-physical thought does exist. That the non-physical exists at all, as an exception to the physical. I know of no evidence whatsoever for anything non-physical. So where's your evidence?
Proving a negative is the fallacy of proving that something doesn't exist.
I'm asking how does the non-physical thought - or indeed the non-physical at all - exist? Where's your evidence for that?
BoP is therefore on you for you are making the bizarre one-off exception to the rest of the known universe, and you are the one that lacks evidence, not me.
EvF
