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.

[The Tanager]

Almost everyone relies on science (which is not the same as naturalism [?!])

Why the question mark and exclamation point? Are you saying naturalism and science are synonyms for the same thing?

No. Not even close. As you admit, it is an argument, not a 'plausible mechanism.' The first cause argument whether the original or the same in new clothes ('Kalam') is merely the unjustified claim that everything has a cause, followed by the even more ridiculous claim "... and that cause is God." I suppose the only reason that argument didn't die out a thousand years ago is because it was the best they could do.

Where did I say God is an argument? The first cause argument points to the existence of God as the mechanism that explains the beginning of the universe. So, why wouldn’t God be a ‘mechanism’?

But you have completely dodged my challenge. Offer a plausible mechanism for the soul, for spirits, for God and how It would communicate with us? No one has ever done it. Surprise me! I'll even help. You could try "... some as yet unknown, mysterious 'thing' that happens in the subatomic realm of quantum theory that humans are not capable of understanding." Which is just another way of saying 'mystery' or 'magic.' But at least it is a start toward suggesting a mechanism instead of mere argument.

This thread is about the existence of the supernatural (mainly about who has the burden, but obviously people want to talk about whether it exists or not). Asking if or how a supernatural being communicates with the natural are different questions from either of these elements I’ve addressed in this thread. I’m not going to abandon the discussion I made a claim in because you challenged me to answer a different question.

Naturalism is not a dogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely correct. Instead, it simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe and that those processes are what modern science is striving to understand.

This is talking about methodological naturalism, which is a disciplinary method that rightly confines scientific exploration to natural explanations without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. If this is the type of naturalism you are talking about, then we aren’t talking about the same issue. I believe science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe as well. Claiming the supernatural exists is not going against that in any way.

1st, those who believe in the supernatural, do not rely on science, tho' as you point out, "they should." There is a reason naturalism holds that science is the best way to understand nature, whereas the supernaturalist claims 'faith' and tradition are the ultimate ways to 'know.' The religious supernaturalist claims mere faith and what his cultural roots (tradition) are the the ways to find ultimate reality, a 'higher reality.

I do rely on science, as many supernaturalists do…when talking about the natural world, not when addressing questions that go beyond that, as we started addressing in this thread. That’s how we best understand nature. But natural knowledge isn’t the only kind of knowledge. Science isn’t the path of knowledge for non-scientific realms. And I have not and will not claim faith or tradition as ways to know. First cause arguments, for instance, aren’t ‘faith’ or ‘tradition’ but logical arguments built off of sound observations.

[boatsnguitars]

Where did I say God is an argument? The first cause argument points to the existence of God as the mechanism that explains the beginning of the universe. So, why wouldn’t God be a ‘mechanism’?

For the same reason Jimi Hendrix isn't the mechanism for music. What did God do to create the Universe? This is, yet another, glaring omission Theists refuse to address. (Some say, "He spoke!" Others say, "it was the sweat from his armpit!" Others say, "He molded it from clay!" - there are many silly Creation myths.)

They might answer, "We don't care how he did it, as long as we say he did it!"
But what did he do?
"That's still a mystery, but we know he did it!"
How do you know what he did it if you don't even know what he did?
"Because God can do everything."
But how do you know!?
"You have to think about it! Come on! If he could create the Universe, he could do anything! It's logic!"

Touche', Theist... touche' *roll eyes*

[boatsnguitars]

Where did I say God is an argument? The first cause argument points to the existence of God as the mechanism that explains the beginning of the universe. So, why wouldn’t God be a ‘mechanism’?

For the same reason Jimi Hendrix isn't the mechanism for music. What did God do to create the Universe? This is, yet another, glaring omission Theists refuse to address. (Some say, "He spoke!" Others say, "it was the sweat from his armpit!" Others say, "He molded it from clay!" - there are many silly Creation myths.)

They might answer, "We don't care how he did it, as long as we say he did it!"
But what did he do?
"That's still a mystery, but we know he did it!"
How do you know what he did it if you don't even know what he did?
"Because God can do everything."
But how do you know!?
"You have to think about it! Come on! If he could create the Universe, he could do anything! It's logic!"

Touche', Theist... touche' *roll eyes*

[alexxcJRO]

Where did I say God is an argument? The first cause argument points to the existence of God as the mechanism that explains the beginning of the universe. So, why wouldn’t God be a ‘mechanism’?

1.
What is called "the universe" might be just a part of a bigger reality-"multiverse" where inflation is a thing and pocket universes sprang left and right.
This(multiverse) also may be just a part of a much bigger reality the "cacaverse" and "cacaverse" a part of "kikiverse" and so one ... "omniverse".
Ultimate reality might be beyond our mere two digit IQ comprehension where causality, one directional arrow of time-entropy, logical absolutes are things specific to our mere local reality.

2.
Equating God with the ultimate reality, the ultimate stopping/closing gap in this apparent unending reductionism of reality, a mere mechanism the started it all is useless and renders the whole concept meaningless.

[The Tanager]

They might answer, "We don't care how he did it, as long as we say he did it!"
But what did he do?
"That's still a mystery, but we know he did it!"
How do you know what he did it if you don't even know what he did?

Why do you need to know how Jimi Hendrix makes great music to know that he does, in fact, make great music?

[The Tanager]

What is called "the universe" might be just a part of a bigger reality-"multiverse" where inflation is a thing and pocket universes sprang left and right.
This(multiverse) also may be just a part of a much bigger reality the "cacaverse" and "cacaverse" a part of "kikiverse" and so one ... "omniverse".

Not if the ‘universe’ refers to the entirety of anything natural, which is how I think it should be used. This covers multiverses and any bigger reality that is made up of matter and energy.

Equating God with the ultimate reality, the ultimate stopping/closing gap in this apparent unending reductionism of reality, a mere mechanism the started it all is useless and renders the whole concept meaningless.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly here, but I’m not equating God simply with being a stopgap. I think there is good reason to believe there must be a first cause of the natural universe and that we can know certain characteristics it must have, all of those together are what we call ‘God’ (in it’s classical theist sense).

[alexxcJRO]

What is called "the universe" might be just a part of a bigger reality-"multiverse" where inflation is a thing and pocket universes sprang left and right.
This(multiverse) also may be just a part of a much bigger reality the "cacaverse" and "cacaverse" a part of "kikiverse" and so one ... "omniverse".

Not if the ‘universe’ refers to the entirety of anything natural, which is how I think it should be used. This covers multiverses and any bigger reality that is made up of matter and energy.

Equating God with the ultimate reality, the ultimate stopping/closing gap in this apparent unending reductionism of reality, a mere mechanism the started it all is useless and renders the whole concept meaningless.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly here, but I’m not equating God simply with being a stopgap. I think there is good reason to believe there must be a first cause of the natural universe and that we can know certain characteristics it must have, all of those together are what we call ‘God’ (in it’s classical theist sense).

Q: What if Ultimate reality might be beyond our(yours too) mere two digit IQ comprehension where the hypothesis: a being with a mind started it all is unnecessary and maybe even laughably stupid?
Like the idea that Ra moves the sun cross the sky.
Q: What if these supposed problems are not in fact problems but mere things sprang out in our pathetic attempt to reconcile things because of our ignorance? Ignorance which could unimaginable huge.
Like our knowledge compared to ants knowledge.

[The Tanager]

Q: What if Ultimate reality might be beyond our(yours too) mere two digit IQ comprehension where the hypothesis: a being with a mind started it all is unnecessary and maybe even laughably stupid?
Like the idea that Ra moves the sun cross the sky.
Q: What if these supposed problems are not in fact problems but mere things sprang out in our pathetic attempt to reconcile things because of our ignorance? Ignorance which could unimaginable huge.
Like our knowledge compared to ants knowledge.

I completely agree that we are limited in our knowledge, but that’s not a blank check for anything goes. We know that truth is logical. Even the way you are raising these doubts rely on logic. The hypothesis would be unnecessary and laughably stupid because there is something we are missing that would make it so that it is unnecessary and laughably stupid. What we don’t know won’t contradict that which we can know through the use of logic and the correct observations we do have.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

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.

What exactly is a "supernatural claim"?
What if the claim was not framed in supernaturalism?

I challenge Supernaturalists to defend the single most important aspect at the core of their belief.

What about non-supernaturalists and the single most important aspect at the core of their belief?

For example, I am not a supernaturalist but believe that the earth has to be the body/mechanism of mindful entity and defend it with the knowledge that consciousness interacts with bodies/mechanisms to perform complex, intelligent tasks.

The core of that belief is in equating the Bible God with the Planet Mind to explain why folk connect with an intelligence they understand is real.

The connection is Natural.

[alexxcJRO]

Q: What if Ultimate reality might be beyond our(yours too) mere two digit IQ comprehension where the hypothesis: a being with a mind started it all is unnecessary and maybe even laughably stupid?
Like the idea that Ra moves the sun cross the sky.
Q: What if these supposed problems are not in fact problems but mere things sprang out in our pathetic attempt to reconcile things because of our ignorance? Ignorance which could unimaginable huge.
Like our knowledge compared to ants knowledge.

I completely agree that we are limited in our knowledge, but that’s not a blank check for anything goes. We know that truth is logical. Even the way you are raising these doubts rely on logic. The hypothesis would be unnecessary and laughably stupid because there is something we are missing that would make it so that it is unnecessary and laughably stupid. What we don’t know won’t contradict that which we can know through the use of logic and the correct observations we do have.

But the hypothesis: "A being with a mind started it all" might be as stupid and as laughable "Ra moves the sun cross the sky" or other moronic hypothesis(which have not been few) humans have concocted during our history.
We laugh and wonder at the stupidity and primitivism of our ancestors.

You might be laughed at by the members of type 3/4 human civilization few million years in the future where they have all internet archived in each individual memory bank and augmented IQ of 400 or more. One day one stumbles upon your comment or another religious folk comment from our time.
And says: "Look at these primitives morons. These evolved worms believed the most outrageous things !".