Atheism feels shunned...

[Edwardo Piet]

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?)

Umm....because....by definition it's the only alternative? Something is either a rainbow or it isn't a rainbow. Something is either a Flying Spaghetti Monster or it isn't a flying Spaghetti monster. Something is either a cat or it isn't a cat.

Thought is either physical or non-physical. By definition, right?

than the logical conclusion would be that these phenomena ARE necessarily physical.

No, not at all. That would be the argument from ignorance. Because I am saying that there's no evidence to make an exception. I am not saying that just because of this then thought must be physical, that it necessarily is - I'm not saying that. I have never claimed absolutism. In fact I have repeatedly stated that I'm not claiming that.

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).

No I don't. I do not absolutely deny the non-physical. I just disbelieve it because I don't know of evidence for anything non-physical.

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

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.

Because I'm talking about actually non-physical then, as in not made of physical energy. The definition I wont accept, and the one that you lack evidence for.

I'm probing. Like I said, I'm fine to accept 'non-physical' as 'not shown to be physical', but I'm not happy to accept 'non-physical' as in 'not made of physical energy' because there's no evidence of anything of the sort. That I know of anyway. Unless you can enlighten me.

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.

I think I should have just been more clear about my point there, and how I was talking about the two different definitions there (the one I will accept, and the one I won't). Hopefully I've made it clear this time round. And apologies for my lack of clarity/being specific.

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.

Which is why I won't accept the other definition of physical, that I speak of. I will not accept thought not being made of physcial energy, not being physically part of the physcial universe, etc - because there's no evidence for any such thing, as far as I know, so that's why I don't believe in that.

Non-physical to mean 'not shown to be physical', I will accept. But if it's not something that isn't made of physical energy, then it must be something that is, so then it can't be literally non-physical because it's literally physical. So taht's what I mean by no evidence of the 'non-physcial', if you are defining 'non-physical' as 'not shown to be physical', then I 'll accept that. But what I don't understand is that I would have thought that 'non-physical' would not be made of physical energy, otherwise I don't see how it's not physical. I would think that as physically undetected but still no reason to believe it isn't made of physical energy.I wouldn't think that as 'non-physical' is there's no reason to believe it isn't made of physical energy. But like I said - if you want to define 'non-physical' as 'not shown to be physical', then I will accept that definition.

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

No Ifs, Ands, or Buts, agreed?

Yes, no buts about that definition. I was trying to explain that I accept that, yes.

I don't accept the other definition I was trying to present though. I will not accept that thought actually isn't physical....as in not made of physical energy. Because there's no evidence for anything that's not made of physical energy, isn't physically part of the physical universe, etc. So I'm not going to take such a notion on faith.

A non-physical phenomenon is a phenomenon that currently has no explanation within the physical framework. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts.

I'm fine with that definition. But I won't believe in the other definition as in non-physical as literally something that is positively shown to be non-physical by finding evidence for something that isn't made of the physical - as opposed to 'non-physical' being failing to find something that is made out of the physical, that cannot be explained at least so far, etc.

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.

But that's not the definition I was arguing against, that's the one I accept.

I'm arguing against the hypothesis of there being any positive evidence that there's anything that necessarily is 'non-physical', by the other definition of, shown not to be made of physical energy. Not something that has 'failed to be shown to be physical', when in actuality it could just as easily just be physically undetected but actually still made of physical energy and in every sense be physical, other than the fact it not being detected as such....which is a definition I say I will accept but for this reason I see it as pointless if the only shown difference to the physical is that it hasn't been shown to be physical...

if the only difference is that it's undetectable/undetected so far I don't see how it's actually any different in reality.

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.

I'd just like to note here. That I don't remember ever accusing you of the supernatural. If I did, can you point to where? Because you seem to be implying I am suggesting that (not just on this post but one or two before it too).

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.

Which is much closer to what I had in mind for you than 'supernatural', in fact.

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.

No I do not believe I did. Anywhere. Point to where I claimed absolute knowledge. Point to where I said something like "Because you have no evidence then I must be right."

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?

I'm saying:

1.There's evidence for the physical.

Ok? How's 1 for you?

2. There's no positive evidence for the 'non-physical', not by the definition I accepted (obviously) but by the definition that I don't accept. Meaning: There is no positive evidence for something that is positively not made up of physical energy (I don't accept that without evidence).

3. '2' being opposed to: The definition I do accept, which is: There are some things, 'thought' at least being an example, that haven't positively been shown to be physical - 'Non-physical' meaning just that, I will accept.

Ok, now how's 2 and 3 for you?

and do as you wish

You know me by now, I certainly will!

That's nice to know

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.

Oh I always enjoy it here PR . And your posts are always a good read when I can understand them, and I admit that's part of the trouble on my side at least, and the confusion in general. But I do my best and curiosity is important to me. So I appreciate it when you elaborate.

EvF