Atheism feels shunned...

[Edwardo Piet]

But there is not enough evidence for the statement that all there is, is physical. Suggesting this with the above sentence is plain false.

I'm not saying that there's evidence that everything is physical. I'm saying that I don't know of any evidence of anything but the physical. So I'm not going to believe thought isn't physical without evidence for such a (at least seemingly) one-off exception.

2. I know of no evidence to to the contrary.

If this is meant as an argument you of all should recognize it as a argumentam ad ignorantiam. Your ignorance cannot be evidence of anything.

No because as I have said many times. I am not saying that no evidence of the non-physical means that it 'must be physical', which would be the argumentum ad ignorantum. What I am saying is that no evidence for the non-physical=there's no reason to believe that there's anything non-physical. Untill there is any evidence for the non-physical. That's the reasonable stance.

You therefore cannot, at the moment, conclude that mental states are physical states.

Nor can you conclude that they're not, without evidence. There is evidnece for the physical in this universe however, and no evidence for the non-physical.

The fact there's no evidence it's specifically not physical, not made up of the physical, not physically part of the physical universe, indeed, as you rightly say - does not mean that it is physical. That would be the argumentum ad ignorantum - but I'm not claiming that.

I'm saying that failure to detect as physical doesn't mean it's not physical, and failure to detect as non physical doesn't mean it is physical either.

What I am arguing then, is taking all that aside, when it comes down to it...there at least is, positive evidence of the physical, and none of the non-physical. Just because there's no evidence that thought is physical doesn't mean that it's not physical, that would be the argument ad ignorantum on your part, just as to claim the other way specifically because of a failure to detect as non physical would be me making that very same fallacy.

All I'm arguing is that there is actually positive evidence for the phyiscal, and none to the countrary. So taking all the claims from ignorance aside, on both sides - when it comes down to it, why make thought an exception?

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.

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.

So if 'not physically detected' =not physical, then fine. But that doesn't mean that thought is in any way different to the phyiscal, or in anyway not physical other than this fact that at least so far it hasn't been detected specifically as physical - it hasn't been shown to be not physical either.

As far as I know there's no reason to believe thought is in any way special or 'non-physical' other than the fact it hasn't been detected as physical, at least yet.

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

Therefore to claim that the non-physical exists is claiming an exception to the rest of the known universe, and without evidence , is special pleading.

Non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from the premises. (1) is only suggestive for your conclusion but it fails to acknowledge that there are phenomena for which there is no explanation from physical properties,

The fact there's no explanation for it being physical at least yet, doesn't mean it's not physical. So there's still no reason to make an exception whatsoever. So that's a non-sequiter on your part.

(2) is logically fallacious,

I don't see how? Let me explain. If there was tons of evidence for the non-phyiscal then that would make the non-physical more commonplace and more probable in the universe. The fact there's zero evidence for the non-physical, means that to claim an exception without evidence is even more ludicrious.

(3) contains a twisted version of the fact that not all phenomena can be explained from the physical and concludes from this falsely that these phenomena necessarily are physical.

Which is another strawman again. Sorry, but please...when have I ever claimed that it's necessarily physical as you keep claimng I do? How many times have I said that I'm not claiming that?!

Your strawman= "The fact there's no evidence for the non-physical means that thought is necessarily physical."

What I'm actually saying is: "The fact there's no evidence for the non-physical means there's no reason to believe thought is non-physical. And burden of proof is on the claim for non physical because it's the non-physical that is the one-off exception to the rest of the known universe.."

And since the only alternative to 'non-physical' by definition is 'physical', that's why I believe it's physical. Because I can't believe neither, thought clearly exists, and the BoP is on the claim for it being non-physical in actuality.

The existence of mental states is fact as is the fact that they are unexplained in the current physical model.

Nor have they been explained to be not physical. I assume they are still part of the physical universe...still physically part of the physical universe. I would think that nonphysical as in, not physical....would be opposed to that. If it isn't...what is? What literally means 'not phyiscally part of the physical universe', if non-physical doesn't when non-physical means ...not physical?

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

But then there's no reason to believe it is an exception to the physical universe, isn't physically part of it...or literally isn't physical. If 'non-physical' doesn't literally mean not physical then what the hell does? Has science canceled out the possibility for something that is literally not physical...or is the literally non-physical called something else besides 'non-physical'?? Or does 'non-physical' literally mean 'not physical', as in not physically part of the universe...not made of physical energy of any kind, etc?

The existence of mathematical truths is fact as is the fact that they are unexplained in the current physical model.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this whole 'maths' lark in this debate because...

Can you show me any evidence that the concepts of 'numbers' for instance, exist at all outside of physical brains?

In which case why believe they're non-physical (once again).

Come again?

1. Premise 1: There's no evidence that maths inside the brain that is physical.

2. Premise 2: There's no evidence of maths inside the brain that is non physcial.

3. Premise 3: Thre's no evidence at all that maths actually exist (literally, actually, exist) outside the brain.

So why do you conclude that maths is in any way non-physical, whether inside or outside the brain?

Although there is sufficient evidence that mental states are dependent on the physical

Where? Sorry...but that sounds like argumentum ignorantum to me.

1. There is no evidence that thoughts are physical.

2. There is no evidence that they are not physical.

3. There is merely a failure to detect them physically, there's still no reason to believe they aren't made of physical energy.

4. To claim that this is evidence that they positively are 'non physical' as in, not made of phyiscal energy...not actually physical just because it hasn't been physically detected that they are physical - is argumentum ignorantum on your part.

there is not sufficient evidence that mental states are within physical explanation.

So?

There is sufficient evidence that mathematical truth are independent on the physical.

Where? Are you speaking of negative evidence, per chance? Once again, this sounds like the argumentum of ignorantum that you excuse me of......

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

Your caim that all that exists is physical is unsubstantiated and unscientific wishfull thinking.

My claim is that we know of no postiive energy for the non-physical for anything that positvely isn't made of physical energy. So I see no reason to believe thought is an exception just becasue it hasn't been physically detected. Because to use negative evidence ( a failure to detect to be physical) for its positive opposite of it being positively 'non physical' is the falacious argument of argumentum ignorantum, that you, accused me of.

So one question really:
Do you acknowledge that there are phenomena that the current scientific physical model of reality fails (to scientific standards) to explain, or not?

Yes. Of course I do. And as I have said, to claim that thought not being physically detected means it therefore literally isn't phyiscal, and is 'non-physical', is argumentum ignorantum on your part.

So the question is irrelevant 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 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?

EvF