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.

[Purple Knight]

I think you simply use ignorance as your engine to believe in the supernatural.

I don't believe in the supernatural, which to me means I think everything that happens has some logical explanation. I believe the universe works according to rules and is not fundamentally chaos. However, I don't think that the categories of "what happens" and "things we can currently explain" exactly overlap. Ghosts, probably not. When you're dead, you're dead (my opinion). Morphic resonance? Yeah it kind of seems like it. The fact that rats on the other side of the world learn a trick faster because unrelated rats learnt it already, has been documented.

I'm a normal biological being which means that when the unknown can kill me, I'm afraid of it. Quite rationally so. But...

If the unknown can't kill me, I cease to be afraid of it and am fascinated by it instead. I don't feel a need to dismiss what I do not understand. I hope to someday understand it, or that someone will.

The OP is about why the burden of proof should be on those who believe in the supernatural to demonstrate their claims. But supernatural is a category, and a not very well-defined one. Depending on how you view it, supernatural phenomena definitionally do not exist. Should there be any extra burden of proof when someone has demonstrated a phenomenon we can't explain? If they also have an interest in proving "the supernatural is true" (like people who make money if it is, such as Ghost Hunters) then yes. If not then no.

[The Tanager]

I don't believe in the supernatural, which to me means I think everything that happens has some logical explanation. I believe the universe works according to rules and is not fundamentally chaos.

Why does not believing in the supernatural mean that? The supernatural isn't illogical or chaos, it is still under the rules of logic.

The OP is about why the burden of proof should be on those who believe in the supernatural to demonstrate their claims. But supernatural is a category, and a not very well-defined one. Depending on how you view it, supernatural phenomena definitionally do not exist. Should there be any extra burden of proof when someone has demonstrated a phenomenon we can't explain? If they also have an interest in proving "the supernatural is true" (like people who make money if it is, such as Ghost Hunters) then yes. If not then no.

To define the supernatural out of existence would be begging the question, so hopefully no one is viewing it that way. I think 'supernatural' is well-defined. Logic dictates that either something is fully natural, fully non-natural (i.e., supernatural), or some mixture of the two. That's a clear definition. Yes, the possible characteristics of the supernatural isn't clear from that but that's not the job of a definition; we don't get all the possible characteristics of a natural being from a definition of natural either.

The supernaturalist claiming the supernatural exists should seek to carry their burden for the existence of the supernatural (and the naturalist claiming the supernatural doesn't exist should, too). But what do you mean about demonstrating a phenomenon we can't explain? Are you saying the supernatural, by definition, can't be explained at all? It won't be explained naturally (such a thing would be illogical, of course), but that doesn't mean it can't be explained.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11]

Should there be any extra burden of proof when someone has demonstrated a phenomenon we can't explain?

What example can you give that such a phenomenon has been demonstrated?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #11]

Should there be any extra burden of proof when someone has demonstrated a phenomenon we can't explain?

What example can you give that such a phenomenon has been demonstrated?

Morphic resonance. Actually, what's been demonstrated is that rats learn a trick quicker if unrelated rats learnt it.

https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/rat-le ... -resonance

Why does not believing in the supernatural mean that? The supernatural isn't illogical or chaos, it is still under the rules of logic.

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.

Why would gravity be a natural law, and whatever allows ghosts to be a supernatural (but still logical) law?

But what do you mean about demonstrating a phenomenon we can't explain? Are you saying the supernatural, by definition, can't be explained at all? It won't be explained naturally (such a thing would be illogical, of course), but that doesn't mean it can't be explained.

If there was a law that worked logically upon the natural world, most people would probably say it was a law of nature; a natural law.

[William]

The possibility of the existence of the supposed "Supernatural" has not yet been logically established.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #14]

Should there be any extra burden of proof when someone has demonstrated a phenomenon we can't explain?

What example can you give that such a phenomenon has been demonstrated?

Morphic resonance.

Why can't Morphic Resonance be explained Naturally? (Why allocate Morphic Resonance as something which could be "explained" by Supernaturalism?)

Actually, what's been demonstrated is that rats learn a trick quicker if unrelated rats learnt it.

Why would there not be a Natural answer to this phenomena, that we would have to allocate a Supernatural "explanation" to it?

What actual explanations are provided to us through Supernaturalism?

[The Tanager]

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 category they fit in and whether they exist or not are two separate questions.

Why would gravity be a natural law, and whatever allows ghosts to be a supernatural (but still logical) law?

Because gravity is viewed as a force with physical/material characteristics, while ghosts often are thought to not have those kind of characteristics.

If there was a law that worked logically upon the natural world, most people would probably say it was a law of nature; a natural law.

Logical laws apply to all categories of possible reality, not just the natural world. Thus, logic can’t be a natural law. That's true even if the natural is all that exists. Since logic would still apply to non-existent, non-natural things, it's still more than a natural law.

[Purple Knight]

Why can't Morphic Resonance be explained Naturally?

I'm not saying it can't. I'm saying it's an example of something we know happens, but we haven't quite figured out how. This leads people to bundle it into "the supernatural" and dismiss it. They don't care what's been demonstrated to happen. They want an explanation, or else it doesn't happen (according to them).

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 category they fit in and whether they exist or not are two separate questions.

By that definition, energy is supernatural. Now, you could say, oh well, I include energy as stuff. But then, it would be incredibly likely that if ghosts were discovered, even if we presuppose they are not made out of any previously discovered type of stuff, they would be made out of a new kind of energy that had not been previously demonstrated.

Why would gravity be a natural law, and whatever allows ghosts to be a supernatural (but still logical) law?

Because gravity is viewed as a force with physical/material characteristics, while ghosts often are thought to not have those kind of characteristics.

Yes, ghosts are a very fluid concept that is shaky, because there actually aren't any. If there were really ghosts, people would study them and find out their characteristics. What can they do? What can they not do? How do they work? Ghosts may, for example, gravitate toward negative energy and enhance it. Emotional energy would then be that newly discovered type of energy, how ghosts act upon it, and how they do not, would be studied, and soon enough, the characteristics of ghosts would be well-defined.

I'm trying to get it across that when people say supernatural, they include in that meaning, stuff that hasn't been proven to exist, so they can feel good about themselves when they say things like, "There is no evidence of the supernatural," which is just definitionally true. Even if we had no idea how ghosts worked, if they had been floating around since anyone could remember and everyone could see them, they never would have been considered supernatural, even though in the world we have, which is one with scant or no evidence ghosts exist, they're probably the best example of a supernatural claim.

If there was a law that worked logically upon the natural world, most people would probably say it was a law of nature; a natural law.

Logical laws apply to all categories of possible reality, not just the natural world. Thus, logic can’t be a natural law. That's true even if the natural is all that exists. Since logic would still apply to non-existent, non-natural things, it's still more than a natural law.

So supernatural would just be something that works logically, but not according to any natural laws? How would that look?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #18]

I'm not saying it can't. I'm saying it's an example of something we know happens, but we haven't quite figured out how. This leads people to bundle it into "the supernatural" and dismiss it. They don't care what's been demonstrated to happen. They want an explanation, or else it doesn't happen (according to them).

Who are "them"?

Supernaturalists often bundle such into "the supernatural" and make claims about it.

Materialists often bundle it into "the supernatural" and dismiss it.

With both positions, there appears to be prevalent "bundling" of the unexplained into "the supernatural", one to mock what the other holds as true.

The possibility of the existence of the supposed "Supernatural" has not yet been logically established.

[The Tanager]

By that definition, energy is supernatural. Now, you could say, oh well, I include energy as stuff.

Why do you think energy is not part of the physical characteristics of an object or a physical object itself?

But then, it would be incredibly likely that if ghosts were discovered, even if we presuppose they are not made out of any previously discovered type of stuff, they would be made out of a new kind of energy that had not been previously demonstrated.

Why would it be likely that ghosts would be made out of a new kind of energy/material stuff? We might want to say 'stuff' if we take out it's natural connotations.

Yes, ghosts are a very fluid concept that is shaky, because there actually aren't any. If there were really ghosts, people would study them and find out their characteristics. What can they do? What can they not do? How do they work? Ghosts may, for example, gravitate toward negative energy and enhance it. Emotional energy would then be that newly discovered type of energy, how ghosts act upon it, and how they do not, would be studied, and soon enough, the characteristics of ghosts would be well-defined.

Just because they would have characteristics, could do stuff, not do other things, how they work, this doesn’t mean they’d be natural. Supernatural beings could have those things as well. Perhaps it would be through something we would deem emotional energy, but that would only be if they were natural (or we wanted to use energy metaphorically).

I'm trying to get it across that when people say supernatural, they include in that meaning, stuff that hasn't been proven to exist, so they can feel good about themselves when they say things like, "There is no evidence of the supernatural," which is just definitionally true.

It’s definitionally true with poor definitions, as you are pointing out, yes. One needs to define the term unrelated to whether something exists, doesn’t exist, possibly could exist, etc. is my point, to avoid such poor definitions that beg other questions.

Even if we had no idea how ghosts worked, if they had been floating around since anyone could remember and everyone could see them, they never would have been considered supernatural, even though in the world we have, which is one with scant or no evidence ghosts exist, they're probably the best example of a supernatural claim.

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.

So supernatural would just be something that works logically, but not according to any natural laws? How would that look?

I’m not sure what you mean by “how would that look?” Logically, the supernatural couldn’t work according to natural laws; that’s a category mistake. How would you answer the question of how something natural looks?