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]

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 !".

Assuming this, this would be true of every single worldview, not just religious folk's views. So, I guess you are arguing for agnosticism on the supernaturalism vs. naturalism question. But that seems to assume that one should be an agnostic unless one has 100% certainty on an issue. Why should that be the standard?

[Diogenes]

Perhaps the reason theists work so hard to reject their burden of proof for their claim a God exists, is because they know they cannot sustain their burden. Their 'God' concept is not falsifiable. It's just an empty claim that can never be proved. It is in the same category as the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, a product of a fanciful imagination, wrought when ancient cultures knew little about natural phenomena. Now that we can explain weather, tides, earthquakes, lightning, floods and drought, the need for a magical explanation has evaporated.

'When we were a young culture possessed of magical thinking we spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when our knowledge grew we put away childish things.' * As a modern, scientific, knowledge based culture it long past time to put to bed those magical myths of ancient times.

___________________________
*1 Corinthians 13:11 (RDV)

[The Tanager]

Perhaps the reason theists work so hard to reject their burden of proof for their claim a God exists, is because they know they cannot sustain their burden. Their 'God' concept is not falsifiable. It's just an empty claim that can never be proved. It is in the same category as the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, a product of a fanciful imagination, wrought when ancient cultures knew little about natural phenomena. Now that we can explain weather, tides, earthquakes, lightning, floods and drought, the need for a magical explanation has evaporated.

While some theists may work hard to reject their burden of proof, many don't. I haven't here. I think the burden can absolutely be sustained. The arguments I think hold that burden are falsifiable and have nothing to do with some silly god of the gaps. To return to the crux of what I last responded to you which you haven't answered, why, if it were true, would a first cause argument not be good evidence for God being the mechanism/explanation of the beginning of the natural universe? I'm not asking you to assume it is true. I haven't offered reasons to think it is true, yet. Right now I'm simply asking why it wouldn't be good evidence.

[Purple Knight]

So what's a good example of a well-supported supernatural claim (I'm not going to just dismiss it; this is not about that), and why is it not natural if it is true?

I think the Kalam cosmological argument is a well-supported conclusion for the existence of at least the beginnings of what we usually mean by the term “God” (at least in it’s classical theist sense). If true, logically there must be something non-natural that is responsible for the existence of all natural stuff. Such a thing could not, if true, be considered “natural”.

But isn't that just definitional? In other words, there's no necessary qualitative difference between a natural phenomenon and a supernatural one. In this context, it's just defining the whole of everything natural as needing a cause that is outside of the natural. If it turned out that I did it, you would say I was supernatural. Whereas I can have the same powers, and not have caused the universe into being, and I would not necessarily be categorised as supernatural. For example, if I go and start a universe over there.

[William]

So what's a good example of a well-supported supernatural claim (I'm not going to just dismiss it; this is not about that), and why is it not natural if it is true?

I think the Kalam cosmological argument is a well-supported conclusion for the existence of at least the beginnings of what we usually mean by the term “God” (at least in it’s classical theist sense). If true, logically there must be something non-natural that is responsible for the existence of all natural stuff. Such a thing could not, if true, be considered “natural”.

But isn't that just definitional? In other words, there's no necessary qualitative difference between a natural phenomenon and a supernatural one. In this context, it's just defining the whole of everything natural as needing a cause that is outside of the natural. If it turned out that I did it, you would say I was supernatural. Whereas I can have the same powers, and not have caused the universe into being, and I would not necessarily be categorised as supernatural. For example, if I go and start a universe over there.

Indeed.

It should also be noted that if it is as Tanager's beliefs would have it, then the "God" would be natural anyway, and thus anything the God created would also be natural.
Either that, or claim that all things (like this universe) are "supernatural", whether they are referred to as natural/nature or not.
This idea of there being a "supernatural" possibility alongside belief in an unnatural God is the same as belief in a made-up or false God.

I would say that supernaturalism (with accompanying superstition) is sourced in Paganism which used peoples ignorance as a means of instilling fear into them for the purpose of controlling and influencing those who believed the stories told to them.

There is no necessity to conjure the whole of everything natural as "needing a cause that is outside of the natural." Tanagers claim in post#6 that either (1) something is natural, (2) non-natural (i.e., supernatural), or (3) a mixture of the two as "the only 3 logical options", is not true. There is only one logical option. (1) All things, even the unexplained, are - and can only ever be "natural".

[The Tanager]

But isn't that just definitional? In other words, there's no necessary qualitative difference between a natural phenomenon and a supernatural one. In this context, it's just defining the whole of everything natural as needing a cause that is outside of the natural. If it turned out that I did it, you would say I was supernatural. Whereas I can have the same powers, and not have caused the universe into being, and I would not necessarily be categorised as supernatural. For example, if I go and start a universe over there.

No, it's not just definitional. I'm not defining 'supernatural' as "that which creates the natural". The definition and that relation are two distinct things. The definition of 'supernatural' is "that which is not natural". Thus, there are logically necessary qualitative differences between something natural and something supernatural. The natural is made up of matter/energy with physical characteristics like density, plasticity, color, weight, extension in space, etc. The supernatural is not made up of matter/energy with those kind of physical characteristics. You are made up of matter/energy with physical characteristics, so if you, with those characteristics, could be the creator of everything natural, then the cause of the natural would be natural; you would not become 'supernatural' merely by being the cause. Whether something is natural or supernatural has to do with what one's nature is; I'm not defining the supernatural as the cause of the natural.

[William]

I'm not defining the supernatural as the cause of the natural.

Also Tanager:

I think the Kalam cosmological argument is a well-supported conclusion for the existence of at least the beginnings of what we usually mean by the term “God” (at least in it’s classical theist sense). If true, logically there must be something non-natural that is responsible for the existence of all natural stuff. Such a thing could not, if true, be considered “natural”.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

Defend it and win a prize. Until then, would you agree that we only need to think it is yet another person trying to be some sort of prophet? Seriously, where did you get the idea in the first place, and what kind of rigorous tests have you done to try to falsify your brain fart?

[The Tanager]

I'm not defining the supernatural as the cause of the natural.

Also Tanager:

I think the Kalam cosmological argument is a well-supported conclusion for the existence of at least the beginnings of what we usually mean by the term “God” (at least in it’s classical theist sense). If true, logically there must be something non-natural that is responsible for the existence of all natural stuff. Such a thing could not, if true, be considered “natural”.

Pets are the cause of many bouts of happiness in many humans; pets are not defined as "the cause of bouts of happiness in many humans". Definitions of objects and the effects of those objects are two different things. If the difference still isn't clear, I'm not sure how to help you.

[William]

I'm not defining the supernatural as the cause of the natural.

Also Tanager:

I think the Kalam cosmological argument is a well-supported conclusion for the existence of at least the beginnings of what we usually mean by the term “God” (at least in it’s classical theist sense). If true, logically there must be something non-natural that is responsible for the existence of all natural stuff. Such a thing could not, if true, be considered “natural”.

Pets are the cause of many bouts of happiness in many humans; pets are not defined as "the cause of bouts of happiness in many humans". Definitions of objects and the effects of those objects are two different things. If the difference still isn't clear, I'm not sure how to help you.

In that, are you saying this;
The Supernatural is the cause of many bouts of happiness in many humans; Supernatural is not defined as "the cause of bouts of happiness in many humans".

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

Definitions of objects and the effects of those objects are two different things. If the difference still isn't clear, I'm not sure how to help you.

We are speaking of an almighty universe are we not?
We are not defining emotional based beliefs.

Are you defining an object when referring to supernatural/supernatural God? If so, are you not also defining what the supernatural is allegedly able to accomplish re the effects of those natural objects as two different things?

If the difference still isn't clear, I'm not sure how to help you.

Once you actually define what you are referring to as "supernatural/a supernatural God", we readers will then be equipped to understand more clearly what it is you are arguing for/about.

If your argument is that supernatural cannot be defined, and therefore no burden of proof is required, then - fair enough. Supernaturalism can be discounted as logical argument.