This is called Begging the Question. The claim is, "when you look out into the universe you only find material stuff." That's the claim. The claim is that what we perceive is "material stuff." Materialism claims that, "we exist in an objective material universe," and every thing we perceive is objective material stuff. That's the claim. What I am asking for is evidence which supports this claim, which you have not provided.
The hell it is! "When you look out into the universe you only find material stuff" isn't just something I'm asserting, as would be required for this to be a real begging the question. It is the observation.
It also happens to be a prediction of materialism. Materialism makes the prediction that what you will find behind the scenes of all universal phenomena and objects is what we would call "matter" — tangible, fundamentally simple entities obeying physical laws. Our observation
of that universe reveals that behind every phenomenon within it is "matter" and only "matter."
And by "material stuff" we don't
just mean "anything in the universe" as you seem to be implying. We do not include spirits, innate intelligence, conscousness-as-a-thing, vital force, crystal powers, and the whole pantheon of what we usually shove under the category of "woo." Materialism predicts there are some things you will not see
in this universe. This is what makes materialism falsifiable. And the observation
is that we, indeed, don't see anything but
material stuff at work.
What is apparent to me is that you do not know what "evidence" means when talking about evidence for a hypothesis. A piece of evidence for a hypothesis is a fact about the universe in line with the predictions of that hypothesis and not with alternatives.Is it true
that when you look out into the universe, do you only find only matter operating behind the scenes? Yes? Then that's evidence for materialism.
Each observation of that fact or similar facts in line with the hypothesis of materialism is evidence for materialism. Materialism's first claim (as you have listed them) is a prediction
about what you will find in the universe. When that prediction bears out —when you find facts in line with that prediction— then materialism is supported; it is evidence for materialism. Period.
Brian Whitworth could say, "The Virtual Reality Model can be disproven: Find something that's not virtual in the universe! Every time you look out into the universe you find only virtual stuff. The Virtual Reality Model predicts that you will find only virtual stuff, and the fact that all we ever find is virtual stuff supports the Virtual Reality Model." You see, Brian Whitworth would be making a positive claim there without providing a shred of evidence, just as you have done.
Not even close. These assertions are, indeed, merely assertions... unless and until
you can distinguish a virtual object from a non-virtual one. This is, of course, very hard to pin down for someone within the virtual world as is proposed, which is why the virtual reality model remains a conjecture. But once we're able to tell the difference between a virtual object and a non-virtual one by some means available to us, the virtual reality model will become a falsifiable model we can gather data for.
I have no idea what this has to do with me asking for evidence that Materialism is true.
It's cutting off any counterargument from you that consciousness is a non-material stuff. Seriously, in future, if I ask for evidence of non-material stuff in the universe, save yourself some time and don't cite consciousness or quantum mechanics.
If I am presented legitimate evidence I will.
At this point, I don't think you know what legitimate evidence is.
Do you consider what has been offered so far evidence?
What, the entire body of science
that has so far found it unnecessary to propose things that are not material? Absolutely!
THEORIES and HYPOTHESES are falsibiable, you boob. There's no such thing as falsifiable evidence.
You have said, "Every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe." I can't accept this as evidence I'm sorry.
The body of evidence that convinced the scientific world that materialism is the word of the day couldn't fit in this entire forum,
let alone one of my posts, and I would destroy my carpel tunnel if I tried. The statement "every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe" is necessarily a summary of that body of evidence. Are you looking for the one piece of evidence
that proves without a doubt that the universe is materialistic? Sorry, no one
piece of evidence proves materialism. Except for the most trivial of hypotheses, no one piece of evidence proves anything in science. I cannot think of a major theory in science that was proven with a single piece of evidence, let alone a whole paradigm.
No one piece of evidence proves materialism, but when that one piece becomes untold trillions
of individual observations supporting materialism, the weight of that evidence becomes all but incontrovertalbe.
Again, it is not "begging the question" when I point out that the evidence —which is what is deduced from the reality we're talking about— happens to match a prediction of a particular theory. In a different world, with a different way of working, it could easily not be the case.
That it does happen to be the case that our body of evidence is consistent with materialism is not my fault, nor is it a "begging the question" fallacy as you claim, Professor Wogglebug.
Then you suggest that the fact that no one has ever been able to preserve a brainless consciousness in a bottle of formaldehyde is proof that Materialism is true.
I just want some evidence
that a consciousness can
exist as a thing in and of itself. It's up to you to figure out how that's to be accomplished.
Can't figure it out? Well, too fucking bad.
Just because an apposing claim has no evidence cannot be used as evidence that your claim is true.
So you finally admit that your entire strategy in your "debate" with Mr.Obvious was a waste of both of your respective times.
You cannot just point to the fact that some other competing claim has not been proven to prove that your claim is true. Sir, this is another fallacious argument, not evidence, and yet you chastise me for being someone who will not be convinced by this "evidence"...
But I did
point to specific evidences: the body of evidence known as "scientific knowledge."
They are observations that do not admit the existence or role of any nonmaterial substance in the universe. That that body of evidence happens to coincide with the claim of materialism is just too bad for you.