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.

[boatsnguitars]

OK, let me be very clear (again, as I feel I've covered this):
Philosophy is a process of investigating and trying to rephrase questions to ask the right questions and to try to understand complex issues - which doesn't mean come to an answer (necessarily) but to be able to see the whole problem laid bare - to learn how little you actually know.

Apologetics is a form of argumentation and debate that attempts to use Philosophy (and other tools) as a weapon to defend a fixed position.

You keep doing the latter - as if your questions to non-experts will arrive at some form of truth.

Why do you think philosophy is about learning how little you actually know? That is, itself, a philosophical belief. And a self-defeating one because if philosophy is about learning how little you actually know instead of also including things you do actually know (in the “beyond reasonable doubt” sense rather than 100% certainty), then there is no reason to think that belief is true.

I suppose you are welcome to believe that of the trillions of things to be known, you - a mere mortal with a life span of about 80 years - can know them all.... I question your reasoning skills.

I suppose what I am hoping from you is that you simply pull back from trying to arrive at a solution (as, you appear to force all unknowns to your favor) and simply tell us all what you feel the entire discussion entails - with or without God, since, as you must agree: One possible truth is that we live in a Universe in which there is no God, so why try to discount it?

At no time have I tried to force an unknown (in the sense I just talked about in the last bit) to my favor. I believe there are knowns that point to the belief in the supernatural and I’m going to lay that out for people to consider and critique. Any unknowns point nowhere and I won’t use any I am aware of. If you want to show it is an ‘unknown’ then I’m listening. My goal here is truth, whatever follows from that. I’m after truth, not trying to discount any particular thought because I don’t like it or whatever.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[The Tanager]

Why do you think philosophy is about learning how little you actually know? That is, itself, a philosophical belief. And a self-defeating one because if philosophy is about learning how little you actually know instead of also including things you do actually know (in the “beyond reasonable doubt” sense rather than 100% certainty), then there is no reason to think that belief is true.

I suppose you are welcome to believe that of the trillions of things to be known, you - a mere mortal with a life span of about 80 years - can know them all.... I question your reasoning skills.[/quote]

And I question yours. But I won't stop there because this is a forum to discuss reasons for one's beliefs. I'll actually point out specifically why I question it, like your continual self-defeating claim to know that we can't know things.

[boatsnguitars]

And because its a forum, I'll continue to point out that you are doing apologetics, not philosophy.

[William]

I am saying matter is matter whether it is moving or not, whether it is visible to our human senses or not, wether it is earth, air, fire, solid liquid or however one cares to identify objects, they are all made of matter...and matter logically must be eternal, having always existed and always will exist, even that this universe had a beginning and even if this universe is to end.

In that I am saying that the eternal cause is material (eternal matter) and the creation of the universe bubble is made of said eternal matter organised in its particular way with its particular rule sets.

We can call it the same "stuff" because the difference between a universe which began as compared to a conceptual universe which didn't is not about different matter but different ways the matter behaves, the behaviour of our universe being due to its design and rule sets.

That is my take/critique on the presumption that the eternal cause nessasarily immaterial.

Why do you believe that presumption? You have yet to explain in any detail.

[alexxcJRO]

The will is just another name for the agent’s wants. These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants.
I’m not sure I understand the question, if it’s disconnected from what I just said.

That sounds deterministic. LOL.

Yes, but we must still get to an ultimate cause. In analyzing what this cause must be like, this “omniverse,” if it is a term to pick out the cause, isn’t material or impersonal (and the other characteristics I’ve listed). If we agree on the characteristics, you can give it any title you want as long as one doesn’t then equivocate on the term. I did already give some thoughts as to why it is personal and you didn't respond. Feel free to do so or wait until William and I reach that part of the conversation.

Omniverse is as omnibeing the ultimate cause.
Forgot about "the omniverse might ultimatelly not suffer from this problems, ultimatelly being uncaused and begginless.
You cannot claim monopoly on the idea of uncaused and begginless omnithingy."

You are doing the same thing they did, just disagreeing on what gets put after the “therefore”. They threw in God(s). You are throwing in your worldview. I think doing this kind of thing, wherever it leads one, is the problem. I'm not doing that. I'm saying there are good reasons to think God explains these things we are not ignorant of.

Nonsense. Usual straw-man born out of desperation.
It's like with nature of time. I don't have any positive beliefs about what gets put after therefore.
It's all about lacking a belief for there not being compelling evidence which would sway me towards an answer.

I do not think they are on the same footing, so it never comes down to simplicity for me on that issue. I could be wrong, but I’m being consistent in my approach to beliefs and the role of simplicity.

Off course you don't. Your biased. Not rational. Not consistent in your beliefs.
From an outsider they are on the same footing. We have with both ancient religious texts which contain first/second/third/ ... testimonial evidence, claims of miracles, billions of followers.

But the question is whether the exercise does perfectly resemble a squat. We don't agree it does, so asking that question just becomes empty rhetoric if continued. Show they resemble a squat instead of just acting like it obviously does.

1.
Observation:
Sir my initial argument was that :
" The morality derived from this mirroring process =affective empathy which is mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself is better then psychopathic tendencies because it matches philosophical and logical analysis which tells us punishing non-moral agents is wrong.
A functioning affective empathy interestingly gives the same result as a careful logical, philosophical analysis: punishing a baby(non-moral agent) is wrong."

After you contested for so long that :"How does philosophical and logical analysis tell us punishing non-moral agents is wrong? What is that reasoning?" because you did not wanted to accept that functioning affective empathy interestingly gives the same result as a careful logical, philosophical analysis: punishing a baby(non-moral agent) is wrong. Psychopaths who do have this intrinsic objective morality do not deem punishing a baby is wrong.
After finally figuring your were wrong that indeed punishing non-moral agents is wrong objectively by logical analysis you have turn the discussion in a irrelevant manner which would mean my point remains.

2.
Nonsense.
Let take these verses:
"16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)

"Now go, attack the Amalekites. Destroy everything that belongs to them as an offering to the Lord. Don’t let anything live. Put to death men and women, children and small babies. Kill the cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”(1 Samuel 15:3)
“13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[a] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[c] high all around.[d] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”(Genesis 6:13-17)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”[a]”(Hosea 13:16)

"For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and fatally strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the human firstborn to animals; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am Yahweh.""(Exodus 12:12)

We have examples where Yahweh punished the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.
Yahweh clearly makes judgements-talks of guilt and then orders Israelites or angels or acts himself to punish the humans: Amalek, Egyptians, people of Samaria and all humans except Noah and his family in the Flood story.
Yahweh punishes the Amalek including the non-moral agents for attacking the Israelites and /or because of " all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods".
Yahweh punishes the non-moral agents together with the moral agents in the Flood story because " for the earth is filled with violence because of them".
Yahweh punishes the non-moral agents together with the moral agents from Samaria because they " have rebelled against their God".
Yahweh punishes the non-moral agents together with the moral agents in the Exodus story because the Egyptians did not let the Israelites go and because "against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments".

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #254]

I’m not talking about matter moving or not, I’m talking about how science seems to tell us that matter is temporal by its nature, that its parts are constantly in motion. If matter is temporal by nature, then it can’t be eternal. The eternal thing that causes matter would have to be immaterial.

[The Tanager]

That sounds deterministic. LOL.

Okay, you think that and I’ve shared why I think it is clearly non-deterministic. Nothing more to say there.

Omniverse is as omnibeing the ultimate cause.
Forgot about "the omniverse might ultimatelly not suffer from this problems, ultimatelly being uncaused and begginless.
You cannot claim monopoly on the idea of uncaused and begginless omnithingy."

The cause is the conclusion to a chain of reasoning. That reasoning says that whatever the cause is it must be caused, beginningless, immaterial, personal, etc. If you want to posit an omniverse as the cause that is uncaused and beginningless, then either this ‘omniverse’ is a misleading title because you are saying it is the immaterial, personal thing and that’s not what most people would immediately think with the term of ‘omniverse’ playing off of our physical universe or you need to argue why the cause isn’t immaterial and personal, defeating those arguments.

Nonsense. Usual straw-man born out of desperation.
It's like with nature of time. I don't have any positive beliefs about what gets put after therefore.
It's all about lacking a belief for there not being compelling evidence which would sway me towards an answer.

My apologies, I didn’t think you were saying that “therefore, God” and “therefore, nature” are equally good/bad answers in your mind.

1.
Observation:
Sir my initial argument was that :
" The morality derived from this mirroring process =affective empathy which is mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself is better then psychopathic tendencies because it matches philosophical and logical analysis which tells us punishing non-moral agents is wrong.
A functioning affective empathy interestingly gives the same result as a careful logical, philosophical analysis: punishing a baby(non-moral agent) is wrong."

After you contested for so long that :"How does philosophical and logical analysis tell us punishing non-moral agents is wrong? What is that reasoning?" because you did not wanted to accept that functioning affective empathy interestingly gives the same result as a careful logical, philosophical analysis: punishing a baby(non-moral agent) is wrong. Psychopaths who do have this intrinsic objective morality do not deem punishing a baby is wrong.
After finally figuring your were wrong that indeed punishing non-moral agents is wrong objectively by logical analysis you have turn the discussion in a irrelevant manner which would mean my point remains.

It’s not irrelevant. The moral question is “should I harm this innocent non-moral agent?” You are saying, well you can’t logically punish them if they are innocent. Agreed. I’m not punishing them because that would be illogical. But I’m talking about what action should I take, not what we should name that action.

2.
Nonsense.
Let take these verses:

I have not appealed to the Bible for anything here. How is this relevant?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #254]

I’m not talking about matter moving or not, I’m talking about how science seems to tell us that matter is temporal by its nature, that its parts are constantly in motion. If matter is temporal by nature, then it can’t be eternal. The eternal thing that causes matter would have to be immaterial.

What does science tell us about the eternal cause?

What does science tell us of "immaterial" "things"?

Science isn't telling us that matter did not exist before the beginning of this universe. It is not assumed that a nessasary immaterial thing existed before the universe.
What science tells us is that somthing cannot come from nothing.
This means that material cannot come from immaterial.

What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.

Presently you and I disagree as to what the science is revealing about the nature of the eternal cause is.

We can focus on unpacking that.

Therein, where I think we agree, is that the eternal cause is mindfull.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #258]

1. I’m not saying science tells us anything about the eternal cause (that would be philosophy), immaterial things (again, philosophy), or if matter existed prior to this bubble or not (which would be scientific). I’m saying science tells us that the parts of matter that make it matter are constantly in motion and, therefore, matter is temporal in its nature. So, if there is any ‘stuff’ that precedes material; it is not matter but something else.

2. Why do you think science tells us that everything must have a material cause?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #259]

I’m not saying science tells us anything about the eternal cause (that would be philosophy), immaterial things (again, philosophy), or if matter existed prior to this bubble or not (which would be scientific). I’m saying science tells us that the parts of matter that make it matter are constantly in motion and, therefore, matter is temporal in its nature.

Science doesn't tell us that at all. Science tells us that the universe began and may end (not will end) and what does end are objects (made of matter), not the matter itself.
We observe matter transforming into other things - so a Star (for example) can have an end, but not the matter the Star was made of. That continues to exist.

2. Why do you think science tells us that everything must have a material cause?

I am not saying that.
I am saying what we can gain (philosophically) from what science has shown us, is the understanding that this universe must have a material cause.
Science is not telling us "everything" must have a material cause (because science is not telling us there is an eternal cause and the eternal cause counts as part of "everything") but since we agree (philosophically) there must be an eternal cause, while said eternal cause would have to be material, it did not have to have had a cause, therefore we should be able to agree that material did not have a cause (is eternal) while that which is made up from (eternal) material (this universe bubble) did have a cause.