Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

You haven't shown that the phenomena I have given you are physical.

I'm not claiming that it necessarily is physical. As you keep saying I do, making a strawman. I say I believe it's physical because I don't believe it's non-physical.

Be honest in your argumentation EvF. First you say that the phenomena I've given you are not necessarily physical (see above).

Then you say this:

And physical is the only alternative.

Well if there are indeed no other options (how do you know?) than the logical conclusion would be that these phenomena ARE necessarily physical. You see, your answer is not straight at all. You grant the non-physical in one sentence and deny it in the next (as a logical conclusion not as your personal belief). And this happens over and over again. I'll show the original context of the examples you give where you allegedly agreed bazillion times to my definition of 'non-physical'.

Also you mix what you believe (as in "I believe it's physical because I don't believe it's non-physical") with what is proof for. It's OK with me that you believe whatever you believe. Believe that mathematics is made of horseshit, I really don't care. My argument is not about belief and I have told you so many times in this thread.

It is accepted by science itself that these phenomena have no physical explanation and that they currently are outside the physical framework.

Wanna see how many times (at least) I've already said I accept 'non-physical' if you are defining it that way?

Yes, I am all eagerness to hear you count to bazillion (how many zero's is that? I have a counter here with 24 decimal places, hope that's enough).

So, to be clear on this, we are going to count the number of times you accepted the following definition of non-physical:
(A) a non-physical phenomenon is a phenomenon that currently has no explanation within the physical framework

And hey, if you really had shown that you accepted this one, without more or less hidden denial in surrounding text, we could have dropped this ages ago.

Wait, I'll set my counter to zero first. I hope it will not fail on us with these big numbers. OK, let's go!

I'm happy with a definition of 'non-physical' if you are fine with it being made of physical as you say!

Congratulations! You've picked a fantastic beautiful example of how you take away in the second part what you grant in the first part. So do you really think you've offered me anything with a definition like this: "these phenomena are non-physical being made of physical"? Well, you certainly fooled me there. If you would have read what I really said, you would not say "being made of" but "dependent on". So I hope you see this time does not really count. Counter = 0

If you want to call them non-physical because they're not shown to be physical, fine. But they're not shown to be non-physical either! They're just physically undetected.

First we can observe that this is quite another definition you here suggest: "these phenomena are non-physical because they are just physically undetected". So quite strange to count it as a case that you agreed with my definition of non-physical. Apart from that, I've have given you ample argumentation that your detectability criterion does not capture the distinction between the physical and the non-physical that the given phenomena face us with. But I'm happy to rerun it all over again as a special favour to you. Just let me know.

So the conclusion is that this is not the same definition of non-physical as in (A) and not a criterion we agreed on. Oops, sorry counter still zero. But I agree this is fun!

[...](which is all I've been saying, I've said that I'll accept 'non-physical' if you are just defining it as 'not shown to be physical[...]

Ah, yes that post #86. We came close in that one. The full quote is this:

2. I know of no evidence that thought isn't physical, only a lack of evidence that it is. I am yet to know of any evidence that thought is necessarily an exception and isn't made of the physical, isn't physical, isn't physically part of the physical universe (which is all I've been saying, I've said that I'll except 'non-physical' if you are just defining it as 'not shown to be physical', because it still probably is because that doesn't prove anything to the contrary). I require evidence for that.

You suggest agreement on "a non-physical phenomenon is a phenomenon that is not shown to be physical" and the "probably" almost had me on board because with "probably" you refer to intuition or belief, not to substantiated scientific claims. But what a pitty when in that same post you say this:

Such concepts haven't been shown to be physical, sure. But they haven't been shown to be not physical either.

I thought we agreed in the above that these phenomena are shown to be non-physical. Here you deny that again. Maybe I should have read a clue in the difference between "not physical" and "non-physical" but I decided that if it was important tou would have commented on it. So we came very close indeed, but in the end there was no agreement in that post #86. You took away with one hand what you gave with the other.

Counter = 0

And as I have repeatedly said now, if that's how defining 'non-physical', fine! I accept that definiton.

We go to post #90. Here 's my quote you commented on:

The only possible conclusion is that these phenomena are unexplained from the physical and that they are to our current understanding of the word non-physical, i.e. immaterial.

Here's your full quote again:

And as I have repeatedly said now, if that's how defining 'non-physical', fine! I accept that definiton.

But that definition does not mean they're not physically part of the physical universe, or not made of physical properties (as you rightly say now and then....and I have told you I accept that), not does it even mean they're necessarily physically undetectable, because the most we can know is that...at least, so far, we (humans) haven't been able to detect thought as physical.

But if it does NOT mean that these phenomena are NOT physically part of the physical, they must be physically part of the physical universe, because physical and non-physical do not leave room for a third option logically speaking. Something either is explained from the physical or it is not.

So again you do the same trick from the bag. First you give than you take it back. There is no agreement whatsoever here.

Counter = 0

So if 'not physically detected' =not physical, then fine.

Same post (#90) right behind the quote from that post I just commented on, you manage to give a vastly different definition than the one just given, a definition we did not agree on. So again the conclusion is that this is not the same definition of non-physical as in (A) and not a criterion we agreed on.

Counter = 0

If you want to call 'not detected as physical yet', 'non-physical', fine. But not detected as phyiscal doesn't mean it's [actually] not physical [in reality], it just means it hasn't been detected as physical.

Same one. You seem to think we somewhere agreed on your detectability criterion. Well, we never did.

Counter = 0

If 'non-physical' just means 'not shown to be physical', as I have repeatedly said: Fine!

Still in that #90 post where you added that the phenomena must be physically part of the physical universe.
Doesn't seem as agreement to me, and believe me I should know.

Counter = 0

unless you are defnining 'non-phyiscal' as 'so far not physically detected/maybe forever physically undetectable' - then you get what you want in a single step, I am happy to accept that definiton and I have said this several times now.

Your detectability criterion again.

Counter = 0

So...

Yeah, so what? My counter stuck at zero.

You refuse to accept this as evidence on your willpower alone.

actually....as you can see above...I've already said that I accept that defintion....umm....quite a few times now!!!

Zero times to be exact. But I'll do you a big favour I'll conclude from your intro to this post that you agree that:

(A) a non-physical phenomenon is a phenomenon that currently has no explanation within the physical framework

No Ifs, Ands, or Buts, agreed?

And here are two big points of mine that I don't see how either have been addressed at all:

So which is it? Are you defining 'non-physical' as 'not shown to be physical', or are you defining it as literally non-phyiscal as in ...not physical...not made of physical energy....not physically part of the physical universe, etc?

I'll accept the following one, as suggested by you in the above:
(A) A non-physical phenomenon is a phenomenon that currently has no explanation within the physical framework. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

Where is the evidence that thoughts - or indeed mathetmatics - aren't made of physical energy and therefore are actually non-physical in reality?

When you adopt the above definition of non-physical it is easy to see that your question no longer makes sense, for the predicate 'non-physical' then only means that it currently has no explanation within the physical framework, not that it is definitely outside every physical framework.

Your argumentam ad ignorantiam is as follows (pay close attention, it is really easy to follow):

You said:
1. There's evidence for the physical and
2. I have no evidence of the contrary

In (2) you say that you KNOW of no evidence that contradicts premisse (1). So you put forward your NOT KNOWING, your ignorance, as a relevant part of your argumentation for (1). You do not give other evidence that (1) is true.

Because it's impossible for me to believe neither....for me to believe that thought both isn't and is physical. It's either one or the other. They're mutually exclusive.

You should have no worries about that with the explanatory criterion of (A).

However.....there may not be direct evidence either way for specifically thought...but considering that [b]every single thing we have evidence of is physical....to believe it's non physical is the exception......and the more bizarre and least improbable without evidence, of the two alternatives.

I have to believe 1 of the following:

1. thought is physical.

2. thought is non-physical.

and:

The thing is:

A. There's evidence for the physical. everywhere else!

B. There's zero evidence for anything non-physical.

Ok, so which would you believe?

Don't you think that believing in what there is actually a great deal of abundance in , is more probable to the only alternative in which there's no evidnece of whatsoever??

Firstly, you may belief whatever you like as I've said before, I'm not on the paylist of the Thought Police, but be sure about what you try to publicly argue from evidence. You can't argue a probability from ignorance, from that what you don't know. Probability statistics only can be done when you know the number of possibilities. Also when we use your detectability criterion be aware of the fact that we have no physical explanation for some estimated 74% of the total mass-energy of the universe.

The essence of what you say is that (1) has not been proven false and THEREFORE it is true.

No. The essence of what I say is: neither has been proven false. There is evidence for the physical, and no evidence for the non-physical. Which do you consider more probable? I wouldn't believe in the exception, that is all.

The negation of physical in classical bivalent logic is non-physical, there is no middle ground (the law of tyhe excluded middle), like A and not-A mutually exclude one another, and this may in fact be the cause for many unnecesary arging going back and forth here. For me the choice for bivalence is a choice instigated by what is practical. If we drop bivalence and say there are three classes of phenomena e.g. phyiscal, non-physical and 'of undetermined nature' we only have a verifiable criterion to distinguish the physical from the rest, there is no menaningful verifiable criterion to be defined in the physical framework to distinguish 'of undetermined nature' from 'non-physical' (mind you, using 'non-physical' in this way means it has another definition than the one about explanation from the physical framework).

I've dropped 'immaterial' from my wording because of this, to define non-physical as a container for all that is not explained within the physical framework. My intention is not to suggest that there is evidence for the supernatural. My personal belief, for what it's worth, is that reality is far more subtle than the naive antropomorphic conceptions of the supernatural that have seen daylight so far.

What is an argument from ignorance? This is the definition of the argument from ignorance:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. (source Wikipedia)

Since you claim that premise (1) is true only because it has not been proven false (2), your argument is clearly an argumentam ad ignorantiam, a proof from the negative.

I don't claim that.

Oh, you really DID claim (1) and (2) EvF. Read your posts.

I claim that the alternative the non-physical is less probable because there's no evidence for it at all....anywhere! So I don't see why I'd make an exception and believe thought is non-physical. That is all.

What are you doing here, substantiating a claim to me or battering your own belief system?

You however seem to being saying that "There's no evidence that thought is physical, so that's evidence that it's non-physical." - that is exactly the argumentum ignorantum fallacy that you are speaking of.

No, we first defined physical and non-physical on basis of the explanation criterion (does the phenomenon currently have an explanation within the physical framework or not). Then we can evaluate given phenomena on basis of this criterion. So I am not arguing from ignorance but from the common knowledge that there currently is no explanation for first-person experience from within the physical framework. The big difference betwween what I assert and what you seem to think what I am asserting, is that I am not using 'non-physical' to mean 'definitely not within any future physical framework'.

But if you are simply defining non-physical as that.......just read the start of this post! I've already accepted that definition a bazillion times lol.

I'll accept this one, col:
(A) A non-physical phenomenon is a phenomenon that currently has no explanation within the physical framework. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

and do as you wish

You know me by now, I certainly will!

PS: Note - I'm away for two days now, I'll be back on Sunday.

Then I hope you enjoy the read when you're back and will forgive me my sarcasm that in some places shines through.