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 it doesn't say anything about the characteristics of this supernatural cause. They could be a regular person or a star-nosed mole, exactly like a star-nosed mole is, in our reality. They would just have to be (according to the argument) not included in our reality in order to start up our reality. That's why I say this view of supernatural is definitional. It simply defines what brought everything about that we see as Nature, as supernatural, regardless of the characteristics it has.

It does say quite a few things about the characteristics of this supernatural cause. The ultimate cause of the natural universe would be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal. These characteristics rule out that it could be a regular person or a star-nosed mole.

You say it could start up in a reality different than our own, but realize what “reality” refers to. It refers to any state of the matter/energy that makes up the space-time universe. Reality is all matter in every state it’s ever been in. There aren’t different space-time realities; there is just one reality of it.

This definition of ‘supernatural’ doesn’t define the cause of nature as supernatural in any way. That is no part of the definition. The definition is about logically distinguishing it, as a category, from the category of ‘natural’. The definition may then be part of arguments, but it’s not designed for any argument.

So can you construct a scenario where ghosts definitely exist and you would say they were at least very, very probably supernatural?

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue for ghosts but if the scenario involved evidence for some characteristic like immateriality. If there was good logical evidence (because it couldn't, by the definition of science, be scientific) for ghosts being immaterial, then we would need to call ghosts supernatural (or at least part supernatural).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #66]

If you treat all religious views as one thing, then you’ve got to do the same with science and then all the scientific views, including ridiculous ones, that have failed would be reason to doubt any scientific view. No, the rational person takes each case by its own merit.

You also don’t get to just keep asserting this is a God of the gaps. Show how the best version of the Kalam is putting God in a scientific gap.

[Purple Knight]

It does say quite a few things about the characteristics of this supernatural cause. The ultimate cause of the natural universe would be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal. These characteristics rule out that it could be a regular person or a star-nosed mole.

I don't think many of those follow. Could it be uncaused? Yes. Does it absolutely have to be? No. It could be a star-nosed mole that violates the first law of thermodynamics based on where it is sitting: Where those laws do not apply. Sparking a universe into being may be very easy, there.

You say it could start up in a reality different than our own, but realize what “reality” refers to. It refers to any state of the matter/energy that makes up the space-time universe. Reality is all matter in every state it’s ever been in. There aren’t different space-time realities; there is just one reality of it.

There still may be places our laws don't apply. It doesn't matter to my case whether you say this is rightly called a different reality or not.

This definition of ‘supernatural’ doesn’t define the cause of nature as supernatural in any way. That is no part of the definition. The definition is about logically distinguishing it, as a category, from the category of ‘natural’. The definition may then be part of arguments, but it’s not designed for any argument.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue for ghosts but if the scenario involved evidence for some characteristic like immateriality. If there was good logical evidence (because it couldn't, by the definition of science, be scientific) for ghosts being immaterial, then we would need to call ghosts supernatural (or at least part supernatural).

So what you're saying, if I understand you right, is if ghosts definitely exist, and there is a ton of rock-solid, recorded, well-documented evidence that they slide through walls, without that being explained by science, you're saying that they're supernatural?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #66]

If you treat all religious views as one thing, then you’ve got to do the same with science and then all the scientific views, including ridiculous ones, that have failed would be reason to doubt any scientific view. No, the rational person takes each case by its own merit.

Wrong analogy.

1. Its funny how religious people embarrass themselves equating science with religion.
The tree of religion hypotheses is full of failed ponderings. Even today's most prolific religions: Christianity and Islam are embarrassingly wrong on so many things and full of barbaric reprehensible things that the dishonest mechanism of cherry-picking and metaphorical metamorphosis needs to be engaged ad nauseam by billions of believers in order to reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance.
On the other hand the tree of scientific hypotheses is mostly full of successful ponderings.
I myself have used in the last 10 min the Internet and an Internet connection on a top of the line PC which was using power from the electric grid in a heated house full of all the necessities.
We are surrounded by things that prove 24/7 how many of this scientific hypotheses are indeed successful. The whole thing is mind boggling when one starts to actually think about it. How many scientific discoveries went into making the every day items we used to make our life enjoyable.

2. Scientific method by nature goes in hand in hand with revisionism. We revise as we expand on your knowledge about reality. This is an honest mechanism.
On the other hand religious belief/dogma is permanent. Religious people bend the reality around their preconceived notions and dogma. This is a dishonest mechanism.

You also don’t get to just keep asserting this is a God of the gaps. Show how the best version of the Kalam is putting God in a scientific gap.

We have a history of people putting God in the gaps of our knowledge long since Animism was around 100 000 years ago:

We did not knew how rock, rivers, plants came to be, their intricate workings. We put gods in the gap and made deities out of them.
We did not knew how The Earth revolves around the Sun and how day-night cycle works. We put gods is the gap and said Ex: God(Ra) moves the sun across the sky.
We did not knew how thunder-lightning works. We put gods is the gap and made deities(Thor, Zeus) which are responsible for thunder-lightning.
We did not knew about mental, psychological disorders. We put supernatural beings(evil spirits, demons, djinns) in the gap which are responsible for the mentioned disorders.
We did not knew how natural disasters happen. We put our gods in the gap. Gods are mad and are punishing the humans for something.
We did not knew how Stars and Earth formed . We put our gods in the gap. Gods made the stars and Earth through words alone: magical incantations.
We did not knew how humans(ourselves) appeared on Earth. We put gods in our gap. God made two earth golems into which he spelled through incantation life.
We do not know now what happened before the Big Bang and how life started. We put gods in our gap. God made the whole universe and life through words alone: magical incantation.

The obvious pattern in clear as day.

Off course bias religious folks believe they are not like the rest of previous wrong religious folk.
Every simpleton in the last hundred of thousand of years since Animism was a thing, believed he was right about some magical reality. That his insertion of God in the gap is not a God of the gaps fallacy.
Off course your special. You got it right. Lucky you. Poor billions of other Homo Sapiens Sapiens. They were not so lucky.

[The Tanager]

I don't think many of those follow. Could it be uncaused? Yes. Does it absolutely have to be? No. It could be a star-nosed mole that violates the first law of thermodynamics based on where it is sitting: Where those laws do not apply. Sparking a universe into being may be very easy, there.

I think they all clearly, necessarily, absolutely, logically follow. I think if one is going to reject that conclusion, they are going to have to reject an earlier premise about causation or that the universe begins because they so clearly follow.

You are right, though, that the natural laws do not apply but that is because the natural doesn’t exist “there” at all. They logically can’t apply. There can’t be a star-nosed mole sitting “there” at all because that would be illogical. We aren’t just talking about more nature over there, but all of nature itself.

So what you're saying, if I understand you right, is if ghosts definitely exist, and there is a ton of rock-solid, recorded, well-documented evidence that they slide through walls, without that being explained by science, you're saying that they're supernatural?

No, I’m not saying that. It could be that the ability to slide through walls (as far as I can tell) is possible for material beings, maybe due to quantum features or something.

[The Tanager]

Wrong analogy.

1. Its funny how religious people embarrass themselves equating science with religion.
The tree of religion hypotheses is full of failed ponderings. Even today's most prolific religions: Christianity and Islam are embarrassingly wrong on so many things and full of barbaric reprehensible things that the dishonest mechanism of cherry-picking and metaphorical metamorphosis needs to be engaged ad nauseam by billions of believers in order to reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance.
On the other hand the tree of scientific hypotheses is mostly full of successful ponderings.
I myself have used in the last 10 min the Internet and an Internet connection on a top of the line PC which was using power from the electric grid in a heated house full of all the necessities.
We are surrounded by things that prove 24/7 how many of this scientific hypotheses are indeed successful. The whole thing is mind boggling when one starts to actually think about it. How many scientific discoveries went into making the every day items we used to make our life enjoyable.

You talked about the clear pattern of moronic and stupid beliefs when it comes to religion explaining certain phenomena. The explanations you are talking about are one type of religious expression. To think it is then irrational to trust any type of religious expression is a type of hasty generalization. If you are going to do that with religion, then do it with scientific explanations and historical explanations as well, focus on the ones that are obviously silly and distrust all scientific and all historical explanations. Or, be rational, and take each one on its own merits.

Show how Christianity is “embarrassingly wrong on so many things” instead of these vague accusations. Show how it is full of barbaric reprehensible things. Right now you are just blowing empty rhetoric.

And, since you seemed to jump to a wrong conclusion about what I was saying about science, I’m not claiming scientific inquiry is not to be trusted. All I said was your hasty generalization about religion as this monolithic thing is not to be trusted.

2. Scientific method by nature goes in hand in hand with revisionism. We revise as we expand on your knowledge about reality. This is an honest mechanism.
On the other hand religious belief/dogma is permanent. Religious people bend the reality around their preconceived notions and dogma. This is a dishonest mechanism.

I’m not speaking against science, but the philosophies behind your use of scientific information. Naturalism does not go hand in hand with revisionism any more than any other worldview. All people have to fight bending reality around their preconceived notions and dogma, religious and secular. The dangerous person is the one who doesn’t think their worldview is capable of that.

We have a history of people putting God in the gaps of our knowledge long since Animism was around 100 000 years ago:

We also have a long history of people coming up with religious expressions that do not put God in the gaps of our knowledge. The Kalam is part of that history, not the God of the gaps history. If you think differently, then actually show it instead of just claiming it is so. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, let’s have it without all the empty rhetoric.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #73]

It does say quite a few things about the characteristics of this supernatural cause. The ultimate cause of the natural universe would be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal. These characteristics rule out that it could be a regular person or a star-nosed mole.

I don't think many of those follow. Could it be uncaused? Yes. Does it absolutely have to be? No. It could be a star-nosed mole that violates the first law of thermodynamics based on where it is sitting: Where those laws do not apply. Sparking a universe into being may be very easy, there.

I lean toward Tanagers reasoning here.

1:It does say quite a few things about the characteristics of this supernatural cause.

I disagree with this only re the belief that such "has" to be regarded as "supernatural". The cause (of the natural universe) is natural enough when thought about.

2: The ultimate cause of the natural universe would be uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal.

I disagree with the "immaterial" attribute, on the grounds that the human experience is quite narrow re the frequencies which exist compared with the frequencies which the human form is able to provide its wearer (Human consciousness) with (the experience of).

Such as is the case, our human experience is limited in scope and that which we attribute to being "immaterial" (such as 'the mind') most likely has its own unique frequency signature which - while undetectable as a "physical thing" may well vibrate at a frequency we cannot detect but is physical nonetheless.

The other attributes Tanager mentions, I agree with as descriptive attributes of a supposed creator (of this universe-experience) mind would most likely be.

Uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal.

3: These characteristics rule out that it could be a regular person or a star-nosed mole.

These are more foundational attributes than "characteristics" (character-based creations built upon the foundational attributes (FAs).
Thus, I would add to the FA's "imageless" and would tack onto "personal" as an ability which bridges/connects/allows for characterisms to be built upon.

In the foundational state, there is no image which can be produced which we could point to as a Character Reference and any image one could think of (regular person, star-nosed mole et al) won't cut it, although I would argue that the universe itself would be "the best" image to "mirror" what this mindful enormously powerful pure physical frequency might "look" like if we put clothes on it.
I don't think that image would be too far wrong either, since that appears to be the image this
uncaused,
beginningless,
changeless,
timeless,
spaceless,
enormously powerful,
mindful,
imageless
personal (knows itself as it is and can build character into its creations)
physical frequency chose to cloth Itself within.

[alexxcJRO]

Wrong analogy.

1. Its funny how religious people embarrass themselves equating science with religion.
The tree of religion hypotheses is full of failed ponderings. Even today's most prolific religions: Christianity and Islam are embarrassingly wrong on so many things and full of barbaric reprehensible things that the dishonest mechanism of cherry-picking and metaphorical metamorphosis needs to be engaged ad nauseam by billions of believers in order to reconcile the obvious cognitive dissonance.
On the other hand the tree of scientific hypotheses is mostly full of successful ponderings.
I myself have used in the last 10 min the Internet and an Internet connection on a top of the line PC which was using power from the electric grid in a heated house full of all the necessities.
We are surrounded by things that prove 24/7 how many of this scientific hypotheses are indeed successful. The whole thing is mind boggling when one starts to actually think about it. How many scientific discoveries went into making the every day items we used to make our life enjoyable.

You talked about the clear pattern of moronic and stupid beliefs when it comes to religion explaining certain phenomena. The explanations you are talking about are one type of religious expression. To think it is then irrational to trust any type of religious expression is a type of hasty generalization. If you are going to do that with religion, then do it with scientific explanations and historical explanations as well, focus on the ones that are obviously silly and distrust all scientific and all historical explanations. Or, be rational, and take each one on its own merits.

Show how Christianity is “embarrassingly wrong on so many things” instead of these vague accusations. Show how it is full of barbaric reprehensible things. Right now you are just blowing empty rhetoric.

And, since you seemed to jump to a wrong conclusion about what I was saying about science, I’m not claiming scientific inquiry is not to be trusted. All I said was your hasty generalization about religion as this monolithic thing is not to be trusted.

1. Dear sir please stop equating science with religion. Its not a the same footing no matter how desperately religious people want them to be. It like equating an ant with Goddzilla.
Science works. Millions of things are working everyday proving how reliable it is.

One cannot just ignore the clear pattern of using gods to satisfy ignorance, overwhelming number of false hypotheses since Animism was a thing.

2. Christianity is full of embarrassingly wrong things from creation story which is not compatible with cosmology; the magical Adam and Eve story which is disproven by Evolution; the Noah magical story which is disproven by many scientific fields; the exodus of Moses and company which did not happen; the magical story of Jonah and fish, the magical hair of Samson which are off course made up; the magical talking snake, donkey, giants, dragons and Nephilim which off course do not exist. And plenty of other things.
Christianity is full of embarrassingly despicable things from laws of rape, slavery, bigotry against homosexuals to outright genocides/commands of genocides of entire nations of people: Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites which includes clear commands to not spare non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals).

2. Scientific method by nature goes in hand in hand with revisionism. We revise as we expand on your knowledge about reality. This is an honest mechanism.
On the other hand religious belief/dogma is permanent. Religious people bend the reality around their preconceived notions and dogma. This is a dishonest mechanism.

I’m not speaking against science, but the philosophies behind your use of scientific information. Naturalism does not go hand in hand with revisionism any more than any other worldview. All people have to fight bending reality around their preconceived notions and dogma, religious and secular. The dangerous person is the one who doesn’t think their worldview is capable of that.

I am not speaking of Naturalism the philosophical position. Please don't be sneaky and slip a straw-man.
I am speaking of the scientific process which simply works. Nobody rational can deny that. No matter the level of desperation.
That's it.
Scientific process is defined by revisionism. Nothing is permanent. Nothing is immune to critique or possible change.
Religious process is the opposite defined by bending the reality to permanent dogma. This includes condemning scientists that contradict it, spread false information that harm people and so on.

We have a history of people putting God in the gaps of our knowledge long since Animism was around 100 000 years ago:

We also have a long history of people coming up with religious expressions that do not put God in the gaps of our knowledge. The Kalam is part of that history, not the God of the gaps history. If you think differently, then actually show it instead of just claiming it is so. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, let’s have it without all the empty rhetoric.

Off course you would think your special then the rest of billions of religious morons that obviously got it wrong since Animism was a thing. Poor souls. They were not as lucky.
They could not help but explains gaps of knowledge with gods for hundreds of thousands of years.
Off course you would think your not as dumb as the poor souls that though it make perfect rational sense to believe that Ra moves the sun across the sky as to explain their gap in their knowledge: how day and night cycle works.
Interestingly what happened before the Big Bang is a gap our knowledge.
And coincidently enough there rest several gods of our time: Yahweh, Allah, Brahma and so on.

[The Tanager]

1. Dear sir please stop equating science with religion. Its not a the same footing no matter how desperately religious people want them to be. It like equating an ant with Goddzilla.
Science works. Millions of things are working everyday proving how reliable it is.

One cannot just ignore the clear pattern of using gods to satisfy ignorance, overwhelming number of false hypotheses since Animism was a thing.

I will not stop equating science with religion in any way that they do equate. I think you misunderstand how I’m equating them, however. They are not opposing views. In that sense, I’d probably contrast the religious with the secular, if I wanted to talk about that.

The only way I’ve said science and religion equate is in your hastily generalized principle. If you are going to lump all religious views together and then reject it because of how SOME of those views have been debunked, even if it is the majority, then you need to do so with history and science as well.

There are a dozen or two scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics. Let’s say that eventually we get that straightened out. That would mean, if it doesn’t end up being some new theory, that science was 1 for 20 (or so) there. That’s not a good probability. This is the history of a lot of scientific issues, where there were multiple scientific views and eventually we see why one is better than the others.

Does that mean we can’t trust science? Absolutely not. But, using your principle, we couldn’t trust science because there are many more failed scientific theories than there are successful ones. I’m not anti-science; your principle is. Now, instead of repeating the refrain that I’ve got this religion vs. science thing, defend your principle against my critique.

I am not speaking of Naturalism the philosophical position. Please don't be sneaky and slip a straw-man.
I am speaking of the scientific process which simply works. Nobody rational can deny that. No matter the level of desperation.
That's it.
Scientific process is defined by revisionism. Nothing is permanent. Nothing is immune to critique or possible change.

It’s confusing because I was talking against naturalism (not science) and you are critiquing those posts of mine. I agree that the scientific process works. But your principle does not. If you want to judge all religious arguments by the aggregate success rate of anything that can be called a “religious” view, then you should do the same with scientific theories and historical theories as well. In that case, nothing survives your principle. The aggregate success rate of all scientific theories isn’t good. Yet, I agree with you that the scientific process still works! We should still trust science. Why? Because each scientific argument rises or falls on its own merits not an aggregate success rates. That is a better principle to judge by, not yours. I’m not going to accept every quantum mechanics theory because science works. At most, one of them is correct. We will decide based on the evidence. It should be the same with religious arguments. Therefore, you have to deal with the actual Kalam, not dismiss it because other religious arguments fail.

2. Christianity is full of embarrassingly wrong things from creation story which is not compatible with cosmology; the magical Adam and Eve story which is disproven by Evolution; the Noah magical story which is disproven by many scientific fields; the exodus of Moses and company which did not happen; the magical story of Jonah and fish, the magical hair of Samson which are off course made up; the magical talking snake, donkey, giants, dragons and Nephilim which off course do not exist. And plenty of other things.

There are two things here, since you seem to want to bear your burden of showing Christianity is embarrassingly and certainly wrong in these areas.

First, you need to prove your interpretation of Christianity’s stories are the correct interpretation. And saying that you are just following Christians’ interpretation isn’t good enough since Christians interpret these stories differently. Second, you then need to show how they are disproven by those things you say they are. You can start with the creation story, take it one at a time, and then we’ll move on to the next one. So, if you are up to the challenge of defending your claims here, give why your interpretation of the creation story is correct and then why it isn’t compatible with cosmology.

Christianity is full of embarrassingly despicable things from laws of rape, slavery, bigotry against homosexuals to outright genocides/commands of genocides of entire nations of people: Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites which includes clear commands to not spare non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals).

How do you know these things are “despicable”? What are you judging that by?

We also have a long history of people coming up with religious expressions that do not put God in the gaps of our knowledge. The Kalam is part of that history, not the God of the gaps history. If you think differently, then actually show it instead of just claiming it is so. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, let’s have it without all the empty rhetoric.

Off course you would think your special then the rest of billions of religious morons that obviously got it wrong since Animism was a thing. Poor souls. They were not as lucky.
They could not help but explains gaps of knowledge with gods for hundreds of thousands of years.
Off course you would think your not as dumb as the poor souls that though it make perfect rational sense to believe that Ra moves the sun across the sky as to explain their gap in their knowledge: how day and night cycle works.
Interestingly what happened before the Big Bang is a gap our knowledge.
And coincidently enough there rest several gods of our time: Yahweh, Allah, Brahma and so on.

Why do you think the Kalam is trying to fill the gap of what happened before the Big Bang with God? Which premise does that?

[Purple Knight]

6

The other attributes Tanager mentions, I agree with as descriptive attributes of a supposed creator (of this universe-experience) mind would most likely be.

Uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and personal.

I think they all clearly, necessarily, absolutely, logically follow. I think if one is going to reject that conclusion, they are going to have to reject an earlier premise about causation or that the universe begins because they so clearly follow.

So where do you get changeless? Is this a package deal with timeless and beginningless where the beginning has to be an instant, before time started turning forward, and whatever was there, was there in a timeless state, and couldn't have changed because this would imply the passage of time?

No, I’m not saying that. It could be that the ability to slide through walls (as far as I can tell) is possible for material beings, maybe due to quantum features or something.

So what could you possibly observe about ghosts (or anything) that would lead you to say it was most probably supernatural?