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]

Science has only shown the existence of something and from that we cannot conclude that there is such a thing as immaterial. We cannot claim from what science has shown us that – even if the universe had a cause, and the cause was eternal (timeless in that sense) that the cause must therefore be immaterial because “timeless” in the sense of being eternal is not the same as timeless in the sense of lacking movement.

I explained/argued this in a previous post. I agree with the idea that the eternal cause must be timeless, in the sense it is eternal, not in the sense that it must be immobile/static/unable to move.

To clarify then, I do not confuse the idea of timelessness with lack of movement and thus immaterialism, but consider being timeless in the same way as being eternal.

I’m talking about a very specific point right now. Forget about all of the other stuff. Just for a moment. We will quickly get back to that, but we need to talk about this very specific point if we want to analyze the claim I am making. This and only this for just one moment, please. Is matter made of static particles or are those particles always in motion? Forget any possible implications and just tell me what is your scientific belief about that question.

[alexxcJRO]

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

You clearly said: "These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."
That is deterministic.
Your describing how something is caused-determined by previous things.
If my personality develops deterministically and that begins to influence my first wants which create experiences which then in a cascade influence future wants and future choices which create other experiences and so on then what you said is bogus.

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.
The first cause could be not-personal, non-deterministic, uncaused and beginningless.
A mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness.
The burden its on you to show how it cannot be not-personal, non-deterministic, uncaused and beginningless.

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.

You are saying: "why causing suffering to non-moral agents is wrong?".

Creating "Gratuitous suffering" is wrong because there no scenario where one can justify such acts.
Inflicting suffering to non-moral agents is an example of "Gratuitous suffering".

You can't say you punished them for a certain wrongdoing for they are by definition innocent of any wrongdoing and not punishable. They neither do not deserve any suffering they experience.
A logical, moral being would neither punish a non-moral agents or cause suffering to non-moral agents.
Surely not a omniperfect being, creator of the reality and omniverse.

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

We were talking of punishing non-moral agents.
I gave example from the Bible were such things occurred. We have examples where Yahweh punished the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.

[The Tanager]

You clearly said: "These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."
That is deterministic.
Your describing how something is caused-determined by previous things.
If my personality develops deterministically and that begins to influence my first wants which create experiences which then in a cascade influence future wants and future choices which create other experiences and so on then what you said is bogus.

Being affected by and being determined by are two different things; I used the former. I also said the affects go both ways, not just one way.

The first cause could be not-personal, non-deterministic, uncaused and beginningless.
A mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness.
The burden its on you to show how it cannot be not-personal, non-deterministic, uncaused and beginningless.

Not if the reasoning I’ve talked about is sound. I have shared reasons to think it was personal. Perhaps I’ll get back to it again, but I’m laser focused, one step at a time, with William right now. If that doesn’t move forward anywhere, I’ll gladly do the same process with you.

You are saying: "why causing suffering to non-moral agents is wrong?".

Creating "Gratuitous suffering" is wrong because there no scenario where one can justify such acts.
Inflicting suffering to non-moral agents is an example of "Gratuitous suffering".

You can't say you punished them for a certain wrongdoing for they are by definition innocent of any wrongdoing and not punishable. They neither do not deserve any suffering they experience.
A logical, moral being would neither punish a non-moral agents or cause suffering to non-moral agents.
Surely not a omniperfect being, creator of the reality and omniverse.

Thank you for that response, I think it helpfully moves our discussion forward. I’ll assume by ‘gratuitous’ you mean something like “uncalled for, lacking good reason, unwarranted.” But please let me know if you don’t like that definition. It’s just the Oxford Languages one that google always pops up.

If you are good with that definition, then why do you think Pete’s action qualifies as gratuitous? What is the objective basis for that judgment? Pete disagrees with you (and me), so let’s show he is wrong. Pete thinks the benefit it will provide to him is what calls for the infliction of the suffering. He thinks his benefit is the good reason. He thinks his benefit warrants the action. If he is correct, then his action would not be ‘gratuitous’. So, why is he not correct?

We were talking of punishing non-moral agents.
I gave example from the Bible were such things occurred. We have examples where Yahweh punished the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.

So, is your point that Yahweh, in the Bible, is doing something illogical? Or something else?

[William]

Science has only shown the existence of something and from that we cannot conclude that there is such a thing as immaterial. We cannot claim from what science has shown us that – even if the universe had a cause, and the cause was eternal (timeless in that sense) that the cause must therefore be immaterial because “timeless” in the sense of being eternal is not the same as timeless in the sense of lacking movement.

I explained/argued this in a previous post. I agree with the idea that the eternal cause must be timeless, in the sense it is eternal, not in the sense that it must be immobile/static/unable to move.

To clarify then, I do not confuse the idea of timelessness with lack of movement and thus immaterialism, but consider being timeless in the same way as being eternal.

I’m talking about a very specific point right now. Forget about all of the other stuff. Just for a moment. We will quickly get back to that, but we need to talk about this very specific point if we want to analyze the claim I am making. This and only this for just one moment, please. Is matter made of static particles or are those particles always in motion? Forget any possible implications and just tell me what is your scientific belief about that question.

According to my understanding of current science - particles - appear to always be in a state of movement.

[The Tanager]

According to my understanding of current science - particles - appear to always be in a state of movement.

So then matter, in its nature, contains movement, correct?

[William]

According to my understanding of current science - particles - appear to always be in a state of movement.

So then matter, in its nature, contains movement, correct?

Oddly worded...matter is nature (nature is matter) and it naturally moves as part of its nature. There is no science I am aware of which says matter "contains" movement.

[The Tanager]

According to my understanding of current science - particles - appear to always be in a state of movement.

So then matter, in its nature, contains movement, correct?

Oddly worded...matter is nature (nature is matter) and it naturally moves as part of its nature. There is no science I am aware of which says matter "contains" movement.

That's an equivocation on 'nature'. I wasn't talking about that kind of nature, but the sense of "the basic or inherent features of something." Science tells us a basic or inherent feature of matter is these particles constantly moving. Without that movement, we don't have matter.

[William]

According to my understanding of current science - particles - appear to always be in a state of movement.

So then matter, in its nature, contains movement, correct?

Oddly worded...matter is nature (nature is matter) and it naturally moves as part of its nature. There is no science I am aware of which says matter "contains" movement.

That's an equivocation on 'nature'.

Equivocation typically involves a more intentional use of language to create confusion or deceive

I wasn't talking about that kind of nature, but the sense of "the basic or inherent features of something." Science tells us a basic or inherent feature of matter is these particles constantly moving.

I have agreed with this.

Without that movement, we don't have matter.

You can explain this re the analysis of the claim you are making that the eternal cause is necessarily immaterial.

[The Tanager]

Equivocation typically involves a more intentional use of language to create confusion or deceive

I didn’t mean the negative connotation. I think the word itself is neutral, but perhaps it would have been clearer of me to say something like “that’s unintentionally confusing the different senses of ‘nature’” or something like that. I do not think you were intending to create confusion or deceive.

I wasn't talking about that kind of nature, but the sense of "the basic or inherent features of something." Science tells us a basic or inherent feature of matter is these particles constantly moving.

I have agreed with this.

Okay, so to map out my very specific thinking we are analyzing right now we have A and B that combine to equal C. This above is the A, which you’ve agreed with. Now let’s talk about B.

If something (or one of its parts) moves, does that necessarily mean it is temporal? I think the clear answer is yes because that thing was at location X and then at location Y and that change in location necessitates a before/after type of relationship that requires the passage of time. Do you agree? If not, why not?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #289]

If something (or one of its parts) moves, does that necessarily mean it is temporal?

No. The temporal aspect (part) are generally considered to be formed objects observed not to last, rather than the particles which make up those temporal objects.

I think the clear answer is yes because that thing was at location X and then at location Y and that change in location necessitates a before/after type of relationship that requires the passage of time.

I think a "change in location" may well necessitate an eternal process but certainly before and after types of relationship which requires the passage of time are not contrary or contradictory to the eternally moving thing in and of itself.

Not being eternal "without requiring the passage of time" but rather, "time does not dictate the terms and conditions of an eternal thing."