What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities?

[Arkilogue]

Still no clear statement what non-physical entities are?

As for me I word say that the meanings of words, language in general, is nonphysical. At the very least, it is irreducible.

The meanings maybe, but language is very physical, just ask the vibrating/wave compressing air around you.

Sound (unweaponized) from a point source exists as outward traveling wave compression shells.

---

Challenge each other on what? Either science is wrong or the monotheistic deities are out of the window. That in itself doesn't mean that I spiritual entity is unimaginable. That's why my sig still read agnostic and will continue to read so. But any scripted god is utter bullshit in lights of what we know about the world and the universe.

Could a totally neutral higher intelligence exist? Certainly. I don't have evidence for or against it's existence. But a humanocnetric deity doesn't make any sense, given the short period of time humans have been around.

I've found no disharmony.

And certainly, if The God does exist, it's the same one for all sentient species since the beginning of the universe.

---

Chemists don't believe in atomism either, lol.

Unlike their modern scientific namesake in atomic theory, philosophical atoms come in an infinite variety of shapes and sizes, each indestructible, immutable and surrounded by a void where they collide with the others or hook together forming a cluster. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

Ah, research research research, thanks for informing me. =)

[Panatheist]

Well I have to say that I am not philosophically well versed. I would like to change that, but I can give you ideas for food for thought, and perhaps others more philosophically inclined may be able to build on that if they wish depending how the conversation goes.

I have my entire life had experiences of beings and other phenomena that are seemingly not physical. Everyone experiences something like this to a degree I think -- thoughts, mental visuals, dreams.

I do not believe my internal visual and audial experiences are mere fancy either -- it's pretty annoying to hear that from people who have no information of how I experience such phenomena. Some of these experiences have been very complex and have facilitated the rapid processing and healing of psychological trauma -- in fact, I have every reason to believe those experiences are largely a mechanism for addressing and repairing that trauma. Thus I tend to interpret these experiences, many of them very moving, in psychological terms.

There are a number of ways altered states may be induced. Though my experiences are not drug induced, that is certainly one way to do it -- by manipulating chemicals in the brain. There is a correlation between those physical changes and mental experience. Certain forms of meditation and prayer in more subtle ways also affect changes in the brain and thus lead to altered states including but not limited to visual and audial experiences not directly related to the surrounding physical environment. Sometimes the experiences may be spontaneous, but I would think there would be a physical correlate. Near-death like experiences (involving a tunnel, a light, spirit beings, etc.) can be produced by drugs, hypnosis, fear of immediate injury or death. Aspects of NDEs are reported in patients when certain parts of the brain are stimulated (the life review).

Though these correlations cannot disprove a spiritual dimension they incline me to believe that all such experiences are produced by the brain. All of the evidence suggests that we cannot experience anything without a brain or nervous system, and due to injury or unconsciousness we may not experience anything even if the brain is alive.

If communication with spirits or experience of non-material realms are occurring I want to know how the interaction is occurring. What does it even mean to be a non-material being? Such a term suggests what an entity or realm is not, not what it actually is. How can a non-material being exert any influence over the physical world at all? How could such beings manipulate the brain to produce experiences or communication if they do not consist of physical energy with which to interact with the material realm?

After a lifetime of apparently unusual experiences, some of them involving striking intuition, I still have no reason to assume that any of it involved a non-material being or realm or passed on any insights or information that could not have been arrived at based on what I already knew or had good reason to suspect even if I was not always conscious of all the factors involved. At most some of the experiences involved intuition which we all have in one form or another, but definitely not extra-sensory perception or psychic abilities.

I value my experiences for what they are and for the benefits they have given me, and I strongly dislike when such perceptions are dismissed by people who likely have no personal experience of anything of the kind. Still, I have not needed any supernatural hypothesis to account for them. It is not apparent to me how such explanations actually explain anything at all.

[Panatheist]

I should add this:

An author I very much like is Susan Blackmore. She has had a number of experiences commonly believed to be paranormal, some of them drug-induced, others induced by various forms of meditation. After making a career out of parapsychology she became an atheist. In all of those years she was not able to find evidence of the paranormal that could not be explained in a more direct and easy fashion in a non-supernatural manner.

Like myself she does continue to value her altered states even though she does not attribute them to the supernatural. She has written a large amount of material to account for the value of such experiences as well as more sensible explanations for how they come to exist.

This is an author I have really enjoyed. It is interesting to me that someone who obtained a Ph.D. in parapsychology would become an atheist after twenty years of research. She continues to research and lecture on various related topics but now from a skeptical perspective. You may enjoy reading some of her books and articles or listening to some lectures. I cannot say I agree with everything therein of course, but there is quite a bit to read about her research of the paranormal.

[The Grand Nudger]

I strongly dislike it when people dismiss the fact that my wife is the coolest female in the world just because they've had no personal experiences of anything of the kind.  I've had personal experiences to that effect daily for more than a decade now, and I value them greatly for what they are and what benefits they bring me.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I have corroborating data...so them's the breaks, and neither of us should take it too rough when someone dismisses either claim on that count. 

I don;t know that not finding evidence of the paranormal has anything to do with atheism, btw. Plenty of atheists do believe in "the paranormal"...and plenty of theists don't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's more fun to wait until they start in on each other.  *goes to make popcorn*

At least the believers on this forum are willing to challenge each other. Maybe it is confirmation bias but it truly seems to me that the atheist members do not challenge each other nearly so much. I have never seen one atheist debate another about causality for example . It is nearly always gang up on the theists.

Nonsense. We atheists have goes at each other all the time, even on the topic of god's non-existence (cf. the atheist vs agnostic vs agnostic atheist discussions).

Perhaps you should doff your blinders there. You're startled that atheists agree that they don't believe in god? So startled you cannot look past that premise to find out why, and to what extent?

Says a lot more about you than it does about atheists that you cannot see that much.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still no clear statement what non-physical entities are?

As for me I word say that the meanings of words, language in general, is nonphysical. At the very least, it is irreducible.

... he typed onto a keyboard, in order to present a physical expression of language ...

Language is always physical except in the sense of us talking to ourselves -- and even then, our neurons are firing. You talk to your neighbor, right? Are the molecules between the two of you stilled? No, they are the medium.

The meanings of the words, you say? That isn't physical?

Let me know your opinion after you've had your Broca's Area removed ... if you can. Language arises in the neurophysiology of the brain -- a physical element -- and is transmitted by both speech and writing -- both physical modes. Speaking is an act, which is a physical thing. Writing is an act. Even listening is a physical action. Processing what is heard is also a physical act -- you don't need to take my word for it, you can read this study.

The idea that words have Platonic meanings is silly. The evolution of languages disproves it, the misunderstandings in communication disproves it, and the fact that brainless things cannot engage in linguistics disproves it.

[Panatheist]

I strongly dislike it when people dismiss the fact that my wife is the coolest female in the world just because they've had no personal experiences of anything of the kind.  I've had personal experiences to that effect daily for more than a decade now, and I value them greatly for what they are and what benefits they bring me.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I have corroborating data...so them's the breaks, and neither of us should take it too rough when someone dismisses either claim on that count. 

I don;t know that not finding evidence of the paranormal has anything to do with atheism, btw. Plenty of atheists do believe in "the paranormal"...and plenty of theists don't.

I cannot of course prove to others what kind of purely subjective experiences I have. There are nevertheless reports of similar experiences that can be produced in various ways including electrical stimulation of parts of the brain. My point here is that said experiences as reported are different than merely being fanciful - they involve altered states often correlated with highly altered emotions, thoughts, and visual and audial perceptions. Depending on where the brain is stimulated or how the altered state is affected different reports of experiences are issued: in one case a life review, in another an out of body experience, etc. It is not necessary to dismiss such accounts to disfavor dualistic supernatural explanations (or non-explanations).

I understand there is no necessary connection between skepticism of the paranormal and atheism and did not claim that. Blackmore did become an atheist, yes, and she also generally became a skeptic of the paranormal. In her case those two perspectives are related, but not in everyone.

[abaris]

I understand there is no necessary connection between skepticism of the paranormal and atheism and did not claim that.

Offer one conclusive proof that the supernatural exists and I will give it some consideration. Otherwise I can only repeat what I already said. It might exist. But I haven't seen anything pointing that way, other than oral accounts. Which are unreliable, to say the least.

Once again, I don't rule out a higher intelligence. I only rule out an intelligence being concerned over humans, since that would be way off the mark, all things considered.

[The Grand Nudger]

I cannot of course prove to others what kind of purely subjective experiences I have.  There are nevertheless reports of similar experiences that can be produced in various ways including electrical stimulation of parts of the brain.  My point here is that said experiences are different than merely being fanciful - they involve altered states.

-Some- of them do..but is there any reason for anyone to conclude that yours is one of them? Is there any reason for -you- to conclude that yours was one of them?  What equipment were you using to determine that you were in an altered state?  We also misremember and retcon with more than a trivial amount of regularity.  You've read about altered states, and then assume you were in one, that your x was one of those x's........or is there more to the story? This is all ancillary to your experiences, or whatever they mean to you...nothing to do with it, only giving you some insight as to why people can and rightly do dismiss these anecdotes.

I understand there is no necessary connection between skepticism of the paranormal and atheism and did not claim that.  Blackmore did become an atheist, yes, and she also generally became a skeptic of the paranormal.  In her case those two perspectives are related, but not in everyone.

Rgr, rgr, I thought that there was some significance there, in that you found it interesting.  What did you find interesting about it, specifically, btw?

[Panatheist]

I understand there is no necessary connection between skepticism of the paranormal and atheism and did not claim that.

Offer one conclusive proof that the supernatural exists and I will give it some consideration. Otherwise I can only repeat what I already said. It might exist. But I haven't seen anything pointing that way, other than oral accounts. Which are unreliable, to say the least.

Once again, I don't rule out a higher intelligence. I only rule out an intelligence being concerned over humans, since that would be way off the mark, all things considered.

I'm not sure why you are quoting me here exactly. I argued against and not for the reality of supernatural phenomena.