The "Supernatural": Burden of Proof?

[boatsnguitars]

Question:
Why should the burden of proof be placed on Supernaturalists (those who believe in the supernatural) to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural, rather than on Materialists to disprove it, as in "Materialists have to explain why the supernatural can't be the explanation"?

Argument:

Placing the burden of proof on Supernaturalists to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural is a logical and epistemologically sound approach. This perspective aligns with the principles of evidence-based reasoning, the scientific method, and critical thinking. Several key reasons support this stance.

Default Position of Skepticism: In debates about the supernatural, it is rational to start from a position of skepticism. This is in line with the philosophical principle of "nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it) and the scientific principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall on those making the extraordinary claim of the existence of the supernatural.

Presumption of Naturalism: Throughout the history of scientific inquiry, the default assumption has been naturalism. Naturalism posits that the universe and its phenomena can be explained by natural laws and processes without invoking supernatural entities or forces. This presumption is based on the consistent success of naturalistic explanations in understanding the world around us. After all, since both the Naturalist and Supernaturalist believe the Natural exists, we only need to establish the existence of the Supernatural (or, whatever someone decides to posit beyond the Natural.)

Absence of Empirical Evidence: The supernatural, by its very nature, is often described as beyond the realm of empirical observation and measurement. Claims related to the supernatural, such as deities, spirits, or paranormal phenomena, typically lack concrete, testable evidence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those advocating for the supernatural to provide compelling and verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Problem of Unfalsifiability: Many supernatural claims are unfalsifiable: they cannot be tested or disproven. This raises significant epistemological challenges. Demanding that Materialists disprove unfalsifiable supernatural claims places an unreasonable burden on them. Instead, it is more reasonable to require Supernaturalists to provide testable claims and evidence.

In conclusion, the burden of proof should rest on Supernaturalists to provide convincing and verifiable evidence for the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural. This approach respects the principles of skepticism, scientific inquiry, and parsimonious reasoning, ultimately fostering a more rational and evidence-based discussion of the supernatural in the context of understanding our world and its mysteries.

If they can't provide evidence of the supernatural, then there is no reason for Naturalists to take their claims seriously: Any of their claims that include the supernatural. That includes all religious claims that involve supernatural claims.

I challenge Supernaturalists to defend the single most important aspect at the core of their belief. We all know they can't (they would have by now), but the burden is on them, and it's high time they at least give an honest effort.

Please note: Arguments from Ignorance will be summarily dismissed.

[William]

If they had physical characteristics, then we wouldn’t consider them supernatural, yes. As to examples of supernatural claims, I think there are much better supported ones than ghosts.

Take for example the belief that a Creator of the Natural Universe has no phisical characteristics and therefore "logically" "must be" "supernatural " when the Natural Reasoning has it that the Creators physical characteristics can be observed in the overall thing created.

What logical and reasonable purpose does anyone have to make claims that the creator has no physical characteristics (is ghostlike) and is "therefore" "supernatural"?

[Diogenes]

I have several reasons I do not like the word "atheist" and do not use it to define my ideas. I prefer 'naturalist' or 'naturalism.'

n philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Almost everyone is a naturalist, most of the time; that is, even when one argues for the supernatural, they use science, history, common sense observation that can be duplicated, even when trying to prove the supernatural exists. The only other tool they have is 'faith' or 'feeling' or some other subjective thought process.

An example of this thesis is the old line, "We are all atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do." In other words, the Christian (for example) says there is no evidence for other gods, but ultimately uses his faith or tradition to justify his belief, but also attempts unsuccessfully to use naturalism to buttress his faith. Thus he finds himself denying evolution or radiometric dating, or a spherical Earth.

In the ancient world we attributed many 'acts' of nature to the gods. Now almost everyone relies on science/naturalism to prove how things work and what facts are. What this leads to is the obvious conclusion, "Yes, the burden of proof is on the one who alleges the supernatural exists." The naturalist simply says, I believe what can be proved by the scientific method, by carefully observing nature. When the naturalist says he does not believe in God or gods, he is not making an affirmative statement. He is simply putting God and gods in the same category that contains fairies, ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, and other magical beings.

[boatsnguitars]

Either something is natural, non-natural (i.e., supernatural), or a mixture of the two. Those are the only 3 logical options. So, is your ‘subnatural’ the third of these, something that is both natural and supernatural? Or were you trying to say that ‘subnatural’ is none of those 3 things, but a fourth option? If so, how does a fourth option make logical sense?

No, that' a false dichotomy. I've defined Subnatural in exactly the same way you have defined Supernatural - via negative definition which you said was valid. The burden is now on you.

If you would like, how about this: Subnatural = not natural, not supernatural. But, I reserve the right for it to be a mixture, too.

[The Tanager]

Almost everyone is a naturalist, most of the time; that is, even when one argues for the supernatural, they use science, history, common sense observation that can be duplicated, even when trying to prove the supernatural exists. The only other tool they have is 'faith' or 'feeling' or some other subjective thought process.

I disagree. Arguments for the supernatural include philosophical reasoning in addition to science, history, and common sense observations. And naturalists do the same. That’s not ‘faith’ or ‘feeling’ or some subjective thought process.

In the ancient world we attributed many 'acts' of nature to the gods. Now almost everyone relies on science/naturalism to prove how things work and what facts are. What this leads to is the obvious conclusion, "Yes, the burden of proof is on the one who alleges the supernatural exists." The naturalist simply says, I believe what can be proved by the scientific method, by carefully observing nature. When the naturalist says he does not believe in God or gods, he is not making an affirmative statement. He is simply putting God and gods in the same category that contains fairies, ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, and other magical beings.

Almost everyone relies on science (which is not the same as naturalism) to describe how things physically work and what physical facts are (or at least they should). To go beyond that to say gods are involved or not involved in that process relies on philosophy (which is what naturalism is).

The burden of proof (for one making a claim beyond the science) is on anyone who goes beyond the science (supernaturalists and naturalists alike). The naturalist, as a naturalist, may say that the only way anything can be proved is by scientific observations of nature, but that is a philosophical claim that has a burden of proof (and, in fact, is self-defeating). Naturalism is an affirmative statement. If a person isn’t saying naturalism is true (or the most reasonable position), then they aren’t a naturalist. Putting God and gods in the same category as other things they think don’t exist is an affirmative statement. Saying that they see no good reason to put God in a different category means they think they (at least) have good reasons to reject the reasons that they know are offered in defense of putting God or gods in that different category (if they don’t also have positive reasons for God not existing). If they want to claim that is the most reasonable position to take, then they have a burden to share their reasons for that affirmative statement.

[The Tanager]

Either something is natural, non-natural (i.e., supernatural), or a mixture of the two. Those are the only 3 logical options. So, is your ‘subnatural’ the third of these, something that is both natural and supernatural? Or were you trying to say that ‘subnatural’ is none of those 3 things, but a fourth option? If so, how does a fourth option make logical sense?

No, that' a false dichotomy. I've defined Subnatural in exactly the same way you have defined Supernatural - via negative definition which you said was valid. The burden is now on you.

If you would like, how about this: Subnatural = not natural, not supernatural. But, I reserve the right for it to be a mixture, too.

No, you haven’t defined subnatural in exactly the same way I defined supernatural. Yes, a negative definition is perfectly valid, but negative definitions have to follow logic just as positive definitions do. My definition follows logic; yours doesn’t.

The following is a logical necessity: either something is (1) A, (2) non-A, or (3) part A and part non-A. There are no other logical options. Either something is a horse (like Black Beauty), a non-horse (you and me, for instance), or part horse-part something else (a centaur). Everything in reality (and made up) will fall into one of those three categories without exception.

Now, of course, you can make different categorical systems, but that’s not the issue here. This categorical system has only 3 options. Just because I put some words together in a negative or positive way and give it a name doesn’t mean a fourth category exists. There logically cannot be a non-horse, non-non-horse, non-[horse/non-horse hybrid]. There are only three logical options.

For (1) A we have ‘natural’. For (2) non-A, we have ‘supernatural’. If your subnatural is neither of those, then (3) part A, part non-A is the only logical option left.

[Diogenes]

What do you suppose would happen if, one day, ghosts were demonstrated to exist? I think to most people, ghosts would then come into the realm of natural phenomena. This is how I think people are defining the supernatural out of existence: To them, it's simply something that hasn't been demonstrated and has no plausible mechanism of explanation. So when they say, "there's no proof of the supernatural" they're stating a tautology. And when somebody proves to them that ghosts exist, ghosts become part of the natural world and they quickly latch onto the most convincing theory of how they exist.

I agree that some seem to make a tautology out of ‘natural’ and ‘existing,’ which defines supernatural out of existence. I’m saying that’s an irrational thing to do and better definitions are needed. If ‘natural’ means something that is made of physical, material ‘stuff’ and ghosts are not made of any of that ‘stuff’, then whether they exist or not, they are not natural. If they were demonstrated to exist without that ‘stuff’, then they couldn’t logically be called natural.

The problem here is that Purple Knight is correct when he writes of the supernatural, simply something that hasn't been demonstrated and has no plausible mechanism of explanation. That is a good definition of the SN. That it is a 'tautology' does not render it invalid. A tautology is simply "saying of the same thing twice in different words." If I define 'blue' as 'the color I see when I look at something blue,' I still have a good definition even tho' it is tautological. A better definition might involve wavelengths or it's position on a color wheel, but it does not render the definition invalid.

Whether we call it Zeus or YHVH or Fairy; ghost or goblin, magic or mystery; whether we say a watch works because it has tiny invisible Leprechauns running on hamster wheels; all of these labels apply to postulates that "havn't been demonstrated and have no plausible explanation."
That is the definition, like it or not. So, yes, the supernatural is something that does not exist; it is mere speculation spawned by tradition, like Zeus throwing lightning bolts. The supernatural should not be confused with the theoretical. If you wish to remove 'God' or 'angels' from the category SN, then you must have a "plausible mechanism of explanation."
And in that case, it would be a theory that if substantiated would move it from the theoretical to the realm of fact, which is what happened with evolution and gravity, and the cause of lightning.

So, what is the theory supporting the plausible explanation for the existence of gods or souls? I am aware of none. It is mere tradition. If you go down the 'first cause' road, you go nowhere because you have merely claimed a philosophical need for an explanation rather than a "plausible mechanism."

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #25]

No, you haven’t defined subnatural in exactly the same way I defined supernatural. Yes, a negative definition is perfectly valid, but negative definitions have to follow logic just as positive definitions do. My definition follows logic; yours doesn’t.

What definition have you offered for consideration re "Supernatural"?
The possibility of the existence of the supposed "Supernatural" has not yet been logically established.

[Diogenes]

The following is a logical necessity: either something is (1) A, (2) non-A, or (3) part A and part non-A. There are no other logical options. Either something is a horse (like Black Beauty), a non-horse (you and me, for instance), or part horse-part something else (a centaur). Everything in reality (and made up) will fall into one of those three categories without exception.
[emphasis applied]

The fallacy inherent in this argument is revealed humorously by it's example postulating a Centaur, part horse, part human. Which is again an appeal to tradition and a good example of the supernatural.



This is a perfect example of why claims fall into either the category of the natural or the supernatural. There is no 3d category of mixture. There are no Centaurs and no demigods.

[The Tanager]

The problem here is that Purple Knight is correct when he writes of the supernatural, simply something that hasn't been demonstrated and has no plausible mechanism of explanation. That is a good definition of the SN. That it is a 'tautology' does not render it invalid. A tautology is simply "saying of the same thing twice in different words." If I define 'blue' as 'the color I see when I look at something blue,' I still have a good definition even tho' it is tautological. A better definition might involve wavelengths or it's position on a color wheel, but it does not render the definition invalid.

The former is not a worse definition; it’s simply not a definition at all. Saying you see the color blue doesn’t tell us what blue (or non-blue) is. You are simply making a statement about yourself in relation to a still undefined (for the sake of your scenario) term ‘blue’.

The fallacy inherent in this argument is revealed humorously by it's example postulating a Centaur, part horse, part human. Which is again an appeal to tradition and a good example of the supernatural.

This is a perfect example of why claims fall into either the category of the natural or the supernatural. There is no 3d category of mixture. There are no Centaurs and no demigods.

You are confusing conceptual definitions and the question of existence. In speaking of the three logically possible categories, I’m not saying anything about which ones have members that actually exist. You can’t reject centaurs as existing if they don’t even make conceptual sense.

So, what is the theory supporting the plausible explanation for the existence of gods or souls? I am aware of none. It is mere tradition. If you go down the 'first cause' road, you go nowhere because you have merely claimed a philosophical need for an explanation rather than a "plausible mechanism."

Flush what you mean here out more. What is a ‘plausible mechanism’? Why does philosophical argument based off of true observations and logical principles get us nowhere? [Or explain why the ‘first cause’ road is not that but claiming a philosophical need.] Why is your 'plausible mechanism' the only thing that gets us somewhere?

[Diogenes]

Flush what you mean here out more. What is a ‘plausible mechanism’? Why does philosophical argument based off of true observations and logical principles get us nowhere? [Or explain why the ‘first cause’ road is not that but claiming a philosophical need.] Why is your 'plausible mechanism' the only thing that gets us somewhere?

I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. A plausible mechanism is a theoretical framework or theory that, subject to evidence, would explain a phenomenon. Choose any theory you like. Evolution is an example. Its plausible mechanism is based on the chemistry of amino acids and the double helix of DNA; that replication of DNA is not perfect and small changes are passed on and that some of these changes allow an organism to adapt better to the current environment and survive better than its ancestors which often die out because they fail to reproduce before they die.

You can do the same thing for any natural phenomenon. A theory is posed, then either rejected or proved by experiment or other evidence.

Frequently, if not always, their is an atomic, or subatomic foundation for the plausible mechanism. But when we speak of magic or gods or souls, there is none. The challenge is yours. What is the theoretical framework/plausible mechanism for God or the soul?
When I was an adolescent I believed the conclusion that God existed and I had a soul and God could communicate with me. I tried to imagine how this would work. I failed. I could not and can not even imagine how this would work. Perhaps you can do better.

Name any accepted theory for any natural phenomenon and I will explain its plausible mechanism and the evidence supporting the theory. I will most likely have to 'look it up,' but I will be able to do it. I suggest neither you nor anyone can do the same for the supernatural, for 'gods' or ghosts, goblins or gorgons. How does the 'soul' work? I suggest it will easier to find a plausible mechanism for a unicorn than for a god. But even tho' I can envision the genetic framework for unicorns, there is no evidence for unicorns.

With gods, not only is there no plausible mechanism, there is no evidence to support it.
Prove me wrong.

The Church has long conceded this point with their admission of "mystery." I suggest mystery offers the same explanation for God as it does for Magic.