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. And physical is the only alternative.

There is evidence for the physical.

There is no evidence for the non-physical.

Physical has the upper hand if I'm gonna pick one.

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?

:

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

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.

[...](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[...]

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

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

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.

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

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.

So...

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!!!

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?

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

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.

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??

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Do you need any more elaboration on this? Is this completely, utterly clear now, or shall we go through this one more time? If so, what part of this don't you get?

Just see above! - and do as you wish.

EvF

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