Why I'm not an Atheist

[Dre89]

John- I think you should probably read some metaphysics before you try clump into science.

And no I wouldn't say the stars aren't a matter of science because observable phenomena is a matter of science. The question of God isn't a question of observable phenomena. Most metaphysics doesn't deal with specific observed phenomena.

Some arguments for God are based on metaphysical necessity, meaning no matter what existed in the universe, the fact that anything exists would necessitate God.

Some atheists believe the idea of God is contradictory, regardless of what he creates.

And the fact you think theists haven't tried to provide evidence (not saying I agree with it) suggests you're not educated in philosophy of religion.

You sound like you still think all theists are religious people, whose only arguments for God are the Bible and the complexity of the universe.

Now I'm guessing you're a logical positivist, like most modern people not educated in epistemology, and will say the only thing that can prove truths is empirical evidence. That no other evidence apart from the empirical kind exists.

 

[infiniteV115]

give an example of a case in which you know one answer is wrong without knowing anything about the correct answer.

If I asked you what the exact frequency of the electromagnetic radiation being emitted from a radio station was. You wouldn't know what the answer is, but you would know that it isn't anywhere between 400 and 700 nm, because if that were the case, it would be emitting visible light.

 

[Jim Morrison]

If I asked you what the exact frequency of the electromagnetic radiation being emitted from a radio station was. You wouldn't know what the answer is, but you would know that it isn't anywhere between 400 and 700 nm, because if that were the case, it would be emitting visible light.

But then you know something about the correct answer;
That it cannot be 400-700 nm.

 

[infiniteV115]

If 'knowing that a certain answer is wrong' counts as 'knowing something about the correct answer' then what was the point of mentioning both?

Edit: Besides, my original point was that you can know an answer is wrong without knowing what the correct answer is.

 

[john!]

And the fact you think theists haven't tried to provide evidence (not saying I agree with it) suggests you're not educated in philosophy of religion.

You sound like you still think all theists are religious people, whose only arguments for God are the Bible and the complexity of the universe.

Now I'm guessing you're a logical positivist, like most modern people not educated in epistemology, and will say the only thing that can prove truths is empirical evidence. That no other evidence apart from the empirical kind exists.

when did i say any of this?

your entire post is a bunch of unfounded statements hiding behind the veil of educated arrogance. if you can't back up what you say, then expect me to call you out on it. please provide quotes that prove that i believe all these things.

a word of advice: next time you try to intimidate someone with a phony display of knowledge, make sure you aren't talking to someone who is actually knowledgeable.

If 'knowing that a certain answer is wrong' counts as 'knowing something about the correct answer' then what was the point of mentioning both?

Edit: Besides, my original point was that you can know an answer is wrong without knowing what the correct answer is.

the reason you know that the answer isn't 400-700 nm is because you have information about the set of possible answers to the question (all possible wavelengths) and can eliminate some answers with reasonable certainty. you can narrow down your choices.

the set of possible answers to the god question has two answers: "god existed" and "god did not exist". what information do we have about our universe that provides evidence for or against either of these choices? why would we select one answer over the other? why do atheists narrow down their choices despite the lack of evidence?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

I'm sure it's physically possible for a universe to exist without time. the only downside is that it would be static, as there is nothing to progress.

Lol. How do you picture that?

 

[Deleted member]

give an example of a case in which you know one answer is wrong without knowing anything about the correct answer.

I know the answer to any calculus problem is not "bananas".

tadaa

EDIT:
@above, like a static universe. ie a proton, and that proton is the entire universe.

 

[Krystedez]

Very interesting read, it makes you think. Thanks for posting, I don't have any specific objections and arguments to state other than "wow", heh.

 

[Dre89]

John- What do I have to back up?

It's not like I said your beliefs are wrong. I was just pointing some things you say about the topic are wrong.

If you want to talk about burdens of proof, your initial claims were as undetailed as mine. Seeing as bops fall onto anyone making a claim, if I have a bop you do too.

 

[JTsm]

Guys, this is not a debate/argue thread. This is a blog. Sheesh.

Responding to your blog, black holes are the only "things" that can actually stop space and time. So who knows, maybe time and space didn't start until the big bang, but who knows... Astrologists are trying to make telescopes that try to peer into the universe billions of years back in time to find where the big bang originated (which I really don't how they could), but I guess it's possible. If you have Netflix, try watching, "How the Universe works." It's pretty fascinating if you have an open mind.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Expecting a thread called "Why I'm not an Atheist" to not be a debate/argue thread is like expecting God to exist... Oh wait.

 

[JTsm]

Expecting a thread called "Why I'm not an Atheist" to not be a debate/argue thread is like expecting God to exist... Oh wait.

Yeah that's true, LOL.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well thought-out, incredibly long, but some pretty bad logic going on in here.

The Big Bang is nothing more than the rapid expansion of energy and particles into space. It is an event that occurs within reality, which consists of time and space. Most atheists I've spoken to believe that time prior the Big Bang is "meaningless" because there is no change. That word bothers me. It implies that that time exists but is somehow not important. This is one of the areas where I simply can't agree with modern atheism. The atheistic concept of time relies solely on visible, physical, recordable change. But both time and change are concepts, and just as there is physical change, there is also conceptual change. Even prior to the Big Bang, there was the conceptual change of "then" and "now". Even if everything that is existed in and unchanging singularity, that unchanging singularity still existed within increments of "then" and "now". Though it was not recordable, time "predates" the Big Bang, as does space. The fact of that existence makes all the difference because it refers back to the infinitely regressing time paradox.

This is a flawed line of thinking. It's kinda reminiscent of the idea of faster-than-light travel; thinking you could get one spaceship traveling at 0.9c through space, then fire out a rocket from it which, relative to the spaceship, moved at 0.9c, and then have it move almost twice as fast as light relative to a stationary observer. On paper it looks fine... But many of our intuitive human concepts simply fail to apply on the micro or macro scale, and the Big Bang is one of those key points. As far as I am aware, the most common phyiscal models assume that time essentially started with the big bang. It's easier to imagine if you assume that time is simply another dimension we move through, akin to the other three we have, but one which doesn't stretch itself infinitely in both directions. Once you hit "0" on the time scale, which would be in this case the Big Bang, you can't go any further back. Before that, there is no concept of time. To an outside observer, there might be a "then" and "now", but it's completely impossible for said outside observer to exist in the first place, because there is no "outside" to begin with!

That's just in terms of the physics, really... My knowledge of the subject is limited at best, but I hope that cleared up a thing or two. But my main issue is not really this. It's what follows.

So relating this again to why I'm not an atheist, if there is any one thing that needs explaining and science can't explain it, the only conceivable answer is something unscientific, unrealistic, specifically, not relating to reality as we understand it. I'm sure you can see where this is going now. I'm not an atheist because I believe that evening the most scientific modes of thought we will eventually hit a brick wall where unscientific "things" become necessary to explain. Equally important is the necessity for the unscientific "things" to be unexplainable, such to avoid more origin crises. I just don't think it's rational to rule out "God", rather, at the very least, I think it is at the utmost of logic to believe that supernatural "entities" exist. Granted, this does not suppose that all the hoopla about the Christian God follows, but I wasn't going for that in the first place. For you, my reader, you can consider this the end of this blog as it refers to rational thinking, but I will now go on into my own personal beliefs.

This is what I take issue with. It's an argument from ignorance; a "god of the gaps" argument. It's essentially stating that any answer is better than none. See, even if science can't readily explain something now, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's out of science's reach. We thought we'd never know how the universe was formed... And then we started picking up cosmic background radiation which lead us to the big bang. We thought we'd never know how all kinds of things... But every time we have gone from "We don't know X" to "It's the work of god/fairies/magic", it's been a catastrophe, and has set us back by a long, long way. Hell, look at the USA even today, where a good third of the country still believes, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, that god created the world in seven days.

But that's just the consequence and track record of that action, both of which tend to be incredibly horrible. What I'm also bugged by is the fallacy contained therein: the idea that, because we don't know how it works, we know it's X, Y, or Z. How can you tell it's a supernatural entity? It's certainly not self-evident, and you yourself have indicated that you don't believe that we can really know anything about that... So why imply the supernatural when the correct answer truly and honestly is, "We don't know"?

Seriously, what's wrong with "I don't know" as an answer? In the words of QualiaSoup, "'I don't know' is a wonderful answer. It's honest, accurate, and requires no faith. There's no shame in admitting you don't know something. On the contrary, the only shame is in claiming you know when you don't, or can't possibly know."

 

[PersonallyIPreferDair]

BPC just ninja'd me in the best way possible <3

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah, Budget Player Cadet put it well, I'd rather wait some time and work hard for an answer than pretend to have the right one right now.

 

[Alphicans]

Read the OP, not the thread, but just wanted to say something.

I think trying to decide whether or not God exists through investigating the scientific origins of the universe is a bad way of going about it. There are much simpler ways of convincing yourself that God exists (although obviously they are still questionable, but to a non-critical thinker they are convincing). I take a fantastic way to go about this is idealism. In a nut shell, idealism is the idea that there is no physical stuff in the universe, only non-physical "mental" things. In order to avoid the issue of things changing when you're not sensing them, idealism holds that God is a supreme mind that is sensing everything at once, so even if you're not sensing an object, he still is, and so therefore it exists. Idealism also goes on to say that to claim there are things external to the mind, or that there are physical things leads to many absurdities.

I laid out a brief summary, but if you read it in its entirety, you'll likely have issues defending realism (that the world is physical).

Another good way to convince yourself of God's existence, is the modal ontological argument, which basically states that if a perfect being (God) is not impossible, then he must exist. This is because necessary existence is a perfection (which is pretty obvious, I don't see how you could argue against this), which means that God exists in every possible world. Taking those two premises together it becomes clear why God exist. The issue is whether or not God is possible or not. This argument is good for telling an atheist why you believe in God, but it runs into the same issues as a typical God vs non-God debate does. Idealism could get into that as well, but the atheist would have a much harder time defending themselves.

Just my understanding of the existence of God arguments intended for all those believers that want something to throw at atheists who call them dumb, because really I've come to respect believers of God.

 

[Teran]

Guys, this is not a debate/argue thread. This is a blog. Sheesh.

This is religion, people have to argue!

>.>

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah it is a pretty big deal when someone is wrong on the internet.

 

[Teran]

People were born wrong.

 

[Theftz22]

Read the OP, not the thread, but just wanted to say something.

I think trying to decide whether or not God exists through investigating the scientific origins of the universe is a bad way of going about it. There are much simpler ways of convincing yourself that God exists (although obviously they are still questionable, but to a non-critical thinker they are convincing). I take a fantastic way to go about this is idealism. In a nut shell, idealism is the idea that there is no physical stuff in the universe, only non-physical "mental" things. In order to avoid the issue of things changing when you're not sensing them, idealism holds that God is a supreme mind that is sensing everything at once, so even if you're not sensing an object, he still is, and so therefore it exists. Idealism also goes on to say that to claim there are things external to the mind, or that there are physical things leads to many absurdities.

I laid out a brief summary, but if you read it in its entirety, you'll likely have issues defending realism (that the world is physical).

I'm not sure why you think idealism entails theism. You state,

"In order to avoid the issue of things changing when you're not sensing them, idealism holds that God is a supreme mind that is sensing everything at once, so even if you're not sensing an object, he still is, and so therefore it exists."

Firstly, I'm not even sure theism is coherent given idealism, seeing as god is defined as a real, concrete object. For the idealist, god would have to be just an another idea in your mind only, not having any external existence. This is certainly not what theists mean when they claim that "god exists".

You seem to think that idealism entails theism because you have to avoid the issue of "things changing when you're not sensing them". But on idealism, these "things" are not real, external objects, but just impressions in the mind. Indeed, on idealism, you're not really even having sensory experiences of physical things, since idealism claims that they do not exist. But what then is you're claim? Are you saying we need god to insure that our thoughts do not change when we are not thinking them? I'm not even sure what that means, let alone why you'd think that it's true. Anyway it would be self-defeating since I think idealism entails that "god" would just be another thought in your mind.

Another good way to convince yourself of God's existence, is the modal ontological argument, which basically states that if a perfect being (God) is not impossible, then he must exist. This is because necessary existence is a perfection (which is pretty obvious, I don't see how you could argue against this), which means that God exists in every possible world. Taking those two premises together it becomes clear why God exist. The issue is whether or not God is possible or not. This argument is good for telling an atheist why you believe in God, but it runs into the same issues as a typical God vs non-God debate does. Idealism could get into that as well, but the atheist would have a much harder time defending themselves.

Even Plantinga pretty much admits that the modal ontological argument doesn't really provide any reason for thinking that god exists. The problem is that the possibility premise "Possibly a maximally great being exists" is just logically equivalent to "A maximally great being actually exists". But then we couldn't have any reason to think that the first is true that we don't already have for the second. The argument simply begs the question. Indeed, considering that "Possibly a maximally great being does not exist" just as well entails that "A maximally great being actually does not exist, it's just as good of an argument against god's existence as it is an argument for god's existence. Especially if you think that we have have better grounds for affirming possible non-existence than possible existence. For instance, impossibility arguments are one of the main arguments against the existence of god, but they apply onto the possible existence premise. And if you think that depictability or conceivability entails possibility, then it would follow that god does not exist, since we can conceive of, or depict, a possible world in which god does not exist, but god, as an immaterial being, is not depictable or conceivable.

 

[Alphicans]

If you do not allow God in idealism, you fall into the exact same problems as realism, and therefore idealism serves no greater purpose. Think about it, the argument against realism for idealism, is that if you allow realism to be true, then you're allowing physical things to have multiple contradictory properties (like how at a distance the mountain looks small, but up close it looks massive). If you do not allow God in idealism, then you essentially have the same thing except it's all non-material.

I don't know what kind of idealism you've read up on, but Berkeley's idealism CLEARLY states God has to exist, and he does a good job arguing it, even though there is the issue of "having the notion of God." As for the MOA, I know it question begs, but I only mentioned it because it forces atheists to show how a supreme mind could be impossible. Some people might not have the ability to do that.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Small and large are not actual properties, considering they are relative terms defined by our senses. A mountain does not possess big or small, it is neither, there is no such thing as "big" or "small", it is just an idea to express when something is larger than ourselves, larger than ordinary specimens of the subject, or whatever we are talking about.

Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Theftz22]

If you do not allow God in idealism, you fall into the exact same problems as realism, and therefore idealism serves no greater purpose. Think about it, the argument against realism for idealism, is that if you allow realism to be true, then you're allowing physical things to have multiple contradictory properties (like how at a distance the mountain looks small, but up close it looks massive). If you do not allow God in idealism, then you essentially have the same thing except it's all non-material.

Those aren't contradictory properties because they are subjective: the property of appearing to be large or appearing to be small only exists due to the observer, which means the property is contained in the subject and not in the object. Besides, we may say that they appear large from distance x and appear small from distance y. In that case there isn't even a hint of contradiction. Besides, how does idealism handle that objection. Even on idealism, the idea of the mountain in your mind appears large from one "distance" in your mind and appears small in your mind from another "distance" in your mind. And even more to the point, what does god have anything to do with this? Plainly, we actually see the mountain as qualitatively large or small depending on where we view it. So if god exists, the "mountain problem" isn't dissipated.

I don't know what kind of idealism you've read up on, but Berkeley's idealism CLEARLY states God has to exist, and he does a good job arguing it, even though there is the issue of "having the notion of God."

Obviously Berkeley himself was a theist, but that doesn't mean that subjective idealism must entail theism. The only subjective idealists I know are atheists, in fact they run an atheistic philosophy of religion podcast here. You can see their blog on subjective idealism here

As for the MOA, I know it question begs, but I only mentioned it because it forces atheists to show how a supreme mind could be impossible. Some people might not have the ability to do that.

It doesn't do that at all. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument to establish his premises, so the burden of proof is on the theist to show that a maximally great being possibly exists, not on the atheist to show that a maximally great being is impossible. I might as well say that the burden of proof is on the theist to show that a "correct atheist" is logically impossible.

 

[Alphicans]

Those aren't contradictory properties because they are subjective: the property of appearing to be large or appearing to be small only exists due to the observer, which means the property is contained in the subject and not in the object. Besides, we may say that they appear large from distance x and appear small from distance y. In that case there isn't even a hint of contradiction. Besides, how does idealism handle that objection. Even on idealism, the idea of the mountain in your mind appears large from one "distance" in your mind and appears small in your mind from another "distance" in your mind. And even more to the point, what does god have anything to do with this? Plainly, we actually see the mountain as qualitatively large or small depending on where we view it. So if god exists, the "mountain problem" isn't dissipated.

The first line is the whole point of idealism. As a realist you cannot say this, because as a realist you maintain that the world is external to the mind. I don't understand what you were trying to say with that :/. Then you go on to describe idealism again.... The role of God is to stop idealism from turning into a mental realism as I said already. God is an all powerful mind that gives other minds ideas about objects. He is external to our mind but is obviously non-physical just like us. God sees everything as the way things are, because he sees everything and everything in every possible way.


Obviously Berkeley himself was a theist, but that doesn't mean that subjective idealism must entail theism. The only subjective idealists I know are atheists, in fact they run an atheistic philosophy of religion podcast here. You can see their blog on subjective idealism here

I'll check that out, but it seems that if idealism doesn't entail God, it serves no real purpose.

It doesn't do that at all. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument to establish his premises, so the burden of proof is on the theist to show that a maximally great being possibly exists, not on the atheist to show that a maximally great being is impossible. I might as well say that the burden of proof is on the theist to show that a "correct atheist" is logically impossible.

It does do it. To say "a perfect being is not impossible," is a very reasonable claim, and it does force the atheist to come up with why God is impossible. If they can do that, then the theist must show, again, why God is not impossible. At the end of the day this argument doesn't go very far because how are you supposed to argue he is not impossible. However, if the atheist can't come up with a good way to suggest God is absolutely impossible, then this argument actually accomplishes something.

 

[Melomaniacal]

If you don't follow the Catholic church, why do you call yourself a Catholic? Why do you believe in the biblical god? More specifically, why do you believe the bible to be accurate?

 

[Vermanubis]

It's always awesome to see people seeking out answers rather than settling for indefinite "I don't knows." (Which, while yes, not a bad answer, is not a good one either.)

My belief in God came more through math than science (though, make no mistake, the logical rigor required is all the same, if not more). Basically, there's a disjunction between the world and thought. Thought is obviously a chemical process, but it's undeniable that thought is made up something just... different. It's an emergent phenomenon. Thought's probably the only thing that has a bastion as strictly Platonic rather than Aristotelian (metaphysical vs. physical). Human thought is special in that way. No one can explain the sensation of experience, quality or things of that nature. A thought is a non-physical experience that emerges from a physical system, which is problematic under most Aristotelian worldviews. Mathematical paradoxes and stuff made me wanna explore that disjunction. My conceptualization of God is the same as my conceptualization of thought: they're meta-systems. Thought emerges from the neural system, but is inherently different; again, non-physical sprung from the physical. The universe is a physical thing, but I believe the universe emanates <from> God, in the sense that (if you'll excuse the analogy) brain/mind and universe/God are analogues to the improper and proper subsets of something in set theory. No matter how much is contained within the set, there'll always be that outer shell that emanates from the rest of the set and contains it. That's the best I can put it without getting too technical. The contents of something are different from the whole. An apple pie is an arrangement of molecules, but once that other shell of form is given to it in the scope of human consciousness, it undergoes a <platonic> transformation from atomic goodie-bag to an apple pie.

That's why I prefer pure mathematics: it exscinds everything else and leaves pure thought; natural and plain; proportion and relationship. It allows the study of things like atomic (I mean that in the figurative sense) properties, and like in set theory, reveals otherwise counterintuitive ideas like those about emergence in complex systems that would else be considered useless.

Our minds are the one bastion from the physical universe, because it's the one thing that can produce non-physical things that can only be accessed a priori (you can't "witness" a number, a proportion, category or otherwise). That's the one area I believe Science fails in, because it consorts only with the physical, when there is a distinct, stalwart presence of something "metaphysical," which is where math commandeers. To me, when a person says the can't be bothered with the metaphysical, it's like a man who practices higher arithmetic exclusively obstinately denying the existence of irrational numbers.

 

[Alphicans]

You seem to be assuming the existence of non-physical + assuming that thought is something beyond physical. Why must you come to that conclusion? Why is that clear? It's not clear at all, and I think to state that is ignoring important possibilities.

 

[Vermanubis]

You seem to be assuming the existence of non-physical + assuming that thought is something beyond physical. Why must you come to that conclusion? Why is that clear? It's not clear at all, and I think to state that is ignoring important possibilities.

I'm not assuming. Thoughts are not physical. The Banach-Tarksi paradox is a perfect example of this. The Banach-Tarski paradox proves that that a mathematical sphere can be broken down into finitely many, arbitrarily small pieces and reassemble itself and an isomorphic duplicate. In other words, one sphere can be broken down, and reassembled with structural-preservation: both are the same volume and size <exactly>.

That's not physically possible, but it is mathematically possible and has been proven using Aristotelian logic systems. It's easy to think that the universe is linear, and that the realm of thought is just an aberration, but mathematics in particular has a lot to say about that. Science is great, but it's overshadowed math since its birth because of its relative simplicity and accessibility. There're a lot of counterintuitive ideas in pure math that, while coinciding with the logical rules of reality, manages to fabricate paradoxes and impossibilities like the one seen above. Science is great, but it doesn't give the full picture like most would like to believe. Science has its bias in empiricism; it observes what's <useful> rather than what <is>; what "is" doesn't concern Science, because it has no need to.

 

[Alphicans]

Can you explain how that connects to your first premise which was "thoughts aren't physical." Not seeing it.

 

[Vermanubis]

Can you explain how that connects to your first premise which was "thoughts aren't physical." Not seeing it.

Is a number physical? Does the number 5 physically exist?

 

[Alphicans]

The thought of 5 is physical.

 

[Vermanubis]

The thought of 5 is physical.

That wasn't the question.

Does the number 5 actually exist? I'm not asking whether the process of thinking of 5 exists, I'm asking if the final product is.

Let's return to the original example of the BT paradox. Is it physically possible for one ball to be broken down and reassembled as two balls of exact size, proportion and volume? No, of course not; that violates several physical laws. The thought of this happening is not physical, otherwise it wouldn't be logically consistent, which the proof for the paradox is.

In thought/mathematics, it is possible to violate physical laws, while still playing by the rules of logic and reality. This creates paradox and necessarily entails a disjunction between the physical and the non-physical. The number 5 does not exist in nature; it's a construct of human thought. To simplify this pretty complex idea, let's define physical as something you can touch. Can you touch the number 5?

 

[Alphicans]

Yeah but if it is not "physically possible," then it's going on in the mind, correct? If it's going on in the mind, then you are thinking about it, and if you are thinking bout it it's a physical process.

5 is a number to represent a quantity of things. It's a concept created by humans. I do not see how that makes it non-physical. Ideas are physical. If they're not, show me why.

Why would I agree to say physical things are something you can touch!?! If I agreed to that then I'd be an idiot to defend my current position.

 

[Vermanubis]

Yeah but if it is not "physically possible," then it's going on in the mind, correct? If it's going on in the mind, then you are thinking about it, and if you are thinking bout it it's a physical process.

5 is a number to represent a quantity of things. It's a concept created by humans. I do not see how that makes it non-physical. Ideas are physical. If they're not, show me why.

Why would I agree to say physical things are something you can touch!?! If I agreed to that then I'd be an idiot to defend my current position.

You're still not quite on the mark. The end product is what we're concerned with; not the process. You said yourself 5 is a quantity; that's exactly the point. Is a number <itself> physical? The process of thinking of a concept is physical, but is the concept <itself> physical? You're hung up on intuitive ideas of physicalities, which is a dangerous game to play in topics like these.

As for showing you why, I did, you've just kind of blown it off. Why is the BT paradox possible in the mind, but not in the physical world? Again, answer the question directly: can you touch the number 5? If you fantasize about a woman you like, can you physically touch the image of that woman?

 

[Alphicans]

Yes the concept is physical. I don't need to touch 5, because to be physical you don't need to have the property of being touchable.

The BT paradox is possible in the mind, because we can conceive of things that aren't possible. Simply put, the BT paradox only exists in our mind, and if it's in our mind it's physical.

 

[infiniteV115]

So Alphicans, what do you consider non-physical?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

@Vermanubis, I'd say the number 5 is an ideology, where we 'perceive' it as physically impossible.

But religion is a spiritual practice, and I don't recall it relating to mathematical nor scientific concepts...

 

[Alphicans]

So Alphicans, what do you consider non-physical?

I see no reason to include non-physical in our understanding of the universe. If we can understand it purely by physical means, then adding another substance is illogical (by the principle of parsimony or by Occam's razor). Non-physical things are for idealists who believe everything is non-physical.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

I see no reason to include non-physical in our understanding of the universe. If we can understand it purely by physical means, then adding another substance is illogical (by the principle of parsimony or by Occam's razor). Non-physical things are for idealists who believe everything is non-physical.

Non-physical as in it cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, nor tasted?

 

[Vermanubis]

Yes the concept is physical. I don't need to touch 5, because to be physical you don't need to have the property of being touchable.

The BT paradox is possible in the mind, because we can conceive of things that aren't possible. Simply put, the BT paradox only exists in our mind, and if it's in our mind it's physical.

You're blatantly defining metaphysical objects, but not acknowledging the distinction between what's emergent and what's basic. For something to be physical, it has to be touchable--it's an analytic truth. If it is physical, it is inexorably "touchable." You're backing yourself into a corner of having to define what "physical" means. Physical, by definition, means the interaction of bodies. So I'll ask again: can you touch the number 5?

As for the second part, yes, the BT paradox only exists in our mind. However, you're failing to recognize one of my most vital points: where's the disjunction happening? Why is it possible in our minds and not in "the physical world"? You're necessarily implying that there're two physical worlds: one where the BT paradox is possible and one where it's not. You're not making a distinction, so you're pigeonholing yourself into saying absurd things to defend your position. Paradoxes like those defy physical laws because they exist in a realm where physicalities are irrelevant. Experience and thought are physically facilitated, but not physical in nature.