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]

Wouldn't you agree that Something can't come from Nothing, even in a causal sense? Therefore, there must have been Something, including the impulse to cause something to do something. Given the evidence we have (Nature) wouldn't it be most rational to believe Nature always existed in one form or another, and that within it's "dna" is an element of change/cause?

After all, what other alternative is there?

I agree that something can’t come from nothing in a causal sense. The extended Kalam is trying to reason what that Something must have been like. I don’t think it would be most rational to believe spatio-temporal Nature always existed for the reasons I’ve already shared.

The alternative is that something supernatural existed and created the spatio-temporal natural world. But being an alternative is not enough; we should follow where the evidence and logic take us. For the reasons I’ve explained, I think that is to the supernatural. You can disagree, but to move the discussion forward, you’ve got to disagree with and address specific parts that get us to that conclusion or give arguments to a different conclusion. Stating that Nature always existed is "more rational" isn't an argument for it being so.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I don't see anything that suggests that Kalam is built to answer "what that Something must have been like."

I'm not saying it was spacio-temporal. I'm saying Natural - made of the same stuff. As Quantum Mechanics suggests - not as ancient goatherders suggest.

When you say the "alternative is that something supernatural existed and created the spatio-temporal natural world" - I have no idea what you mean. Something else? Why propose that? What evidence do you have there is anything else?

You seem to be taking Kalam as a fact - that the Universe began to exist. That's fine for children's stories, but it's not science.

Let's take a simple explanation of the Big Bang:

The Big Bang theory says that the universe came into being from a single, unimaginably hot and dense point (aka, a singularity) more than 13 billion years ago. It didn't occur in an already existing space. Rather, it initiated the expansion—and cooling—of space itself.

See? It doesn't say "came from Nothing," it doesn't say "God Did It," it doesn't say Supernatural pixies on racehorses made it".

It says it came from a hot, dense point. AKA, Something.

Sounds like energy, to me. Like a Quantum Fluctuation.

All your musing about an Old, Bearded man with a Loving personality and Free Wheeling spirit (or whatever you imagine) is a fairytale.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #413]

4. What began to exist? Hasn't everything basically existed in one form or another?

What do you mean by this?

The chair I am sitting on is made of molecules that existed in one form or another.

A quantum fluctuation existed as a pool or energy, before there was a change to the amount of energy in that space. (A quantum fluctuation isn't "Something from Nothing" because Something (the quantum field) exists.)

We have never seen "Nothing" and there is no evidence "Nothing" ever existed. So, it follows that what ever is here, has always been here.

I propose: Energy.

[William]

In this philosophical dialogue, two thinkers discuss the intersection of science and supernaturalism regarding the beginning of the universe. Philosopher 1 is skeptical about fitting supernatural concepts into scientific frameworks, while Philosopher 2 argues that both science and religionists agree on the universe having a beginning. The conversation explores the idea of causation, creation ex nihilo, and the psychological aspects influencing reasoning. They introduce the concept of Natural Theism but agree that relying on science to justify the universe's beginning is conjectural, and removing supernaturalism does not imply eternal existence. The philosophers emphasize the importance of avoiding supernaturalist conjectures in scientific discussions.

Philosopher 1. For the supernaturalists to think “science is simply confirming” the supernaturalist idea of “The Cause” is trying to fix square pegs into round holes in very desperate psychological conditions. It is a lost cause.

Philosopher 2. I don't think so. The very fact that both scientists and religionists agree that the universe has a beginning, allows for the religionists who believe in supernaturalism to say "I told you so".

Philosopher 1. "I told you so" and that is based on conjectures??

Philosopher 2. Yes. It is true that scientists are theorizing that the universe has a beginning.
Where the science and supernaturalism part company, is that science is not showing us that things can be created from non-things (ex nihilo) and supernaturalist have no choice but to employ this “argument” as a means of justifying an alleged existence of a supernatural cause.

Philosopher 1. The problem is theists [majority] do not accept 'the universe has a cause, i.e. an omnipotent & omni-whatever God' is at best a polished conjectural.
Thus the theistic God cannot be absolutely real to the extent of creating the universe, sending messenger and prophets to Earth, listening and answering prayers, existing in a heaven awaiting non-sinful souls and sending the sinful to hell.

Philosopher 2. Indeed. Those examples all stem from the belief in a supernatural cause, and ex nihilo.
As a Natural Theist I can accept the idea that - IF this universe had a beginning THEN something created it, and the attributes to that something would indeed be almighty.

I simply draw the line at this meaning such an entity would be supernatural.

If I turned that on its head and thought of The Universe as never having a beginning, the "God" aspect wouldn't require removed from the table of discussion either.

That is because I consider that aspect to being the most natural aspect of The Universe, whether The Universe had a beginning or not.
Philosopher 1. What 'reasonable' and 'natural' here is driven by psychology.
That is what Hume demonstrated with "cause and effect" which is very reasonable but ultimately the truth of it is driven by psychology, i.e. constant conjunction, customs and habits.

Philosopher 2. Natural Theism is aware of these types of avoidable motivations when delving the depths of Mindfulness and encountering all sorts of psychology in relation to ideas of existing within a created thing.

Philosopher 1. There is a wide range of the function of the faculty of reason within a continuum. At the lower end [primal, pure] we have something like the pseudo-rational that take big leaps without supporting evidences to soothe the inherent unavoidable cognitive dissonances.
The purpose of the faculty of reason is to optimize survival [at least till the inevitable] and it will deceive the self if necessary- note the many illusions [sense, logical and transcendental] that primal-reason [with sense] generate to facilitate survival.

Your resultant conclusion to the above is the work of the primal end of the faculty of reason. This is why Kant raised his Critique of Pure [primal] Reason where he claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God as real via reason.

Philosopher 2. I would say then that Kant is speaking of “God” within a supernatural framework, rather than a mindfully natural one – where the universe itself can be regarded as a manifestation of mindfulness – purely natural for that.

Philosopher 1. That theists relied on science to justify that the universe has a beginning, that is only conjectural and not the absolute truth.

Philosopher 2. I agree with this while also pointing out that the removal of supernaturalism and its insertion of ex nihilo does not mean that The Universe (mindfulness included) has always existed in one form or another, eternally.
I state this as a means of avoiding the insertion of supernaturalist conjecture superimposing itself onto scientific discovery. Science is NOT showing us that our universe is the product of ex nihilo. That is NOT what scientists are declaring about our universe.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #422]

Philosopher 3. What began to exist? Hasn't everything basically existed in one form or another?

Philosopher 2. What do you mean by this?

Philosopher 3. The chair I am sitting on is made of molecules that existed in one form or another.

A quantum fluctuation existed as a pool or energy, before there was a change to the amount of energy in that space. (A quantum fluctuation isn't "Something from Nothing" because Something (the quantum field) exists.)

Philosopher 2. I understand it along the lines of a never-ending field rather than a “pool” and the field itself as always having existed.

Philosopher 3. We have never seen "Nothing" and there is no evidence "Nothing" ever existed. So, it follows that what ever is here, has always been here.

I propose: Energy.

Philosopher 2. “Energy” itself is not a great proposal since we already know that energy itself is a reaction/consequence to/of particle interaction.
I propose: Mindfulness.

[The Tanager]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I don't see anything that suggests that Kalam is built to answer "what that Something must have been like."

The argument can be extended with premise 4 and 5 (as I’ve already done here and you’ve shared some critiques on them), which are simply built from an analysis of what the cause must be. I was trying to go one step at a time this time, so are you saying you’ll accept premises #1-3 and we should move on to premise 4?

I'm not saying it was spacio-temporal. I'm saying Natural - made of the same stuff. As Quantum Mechanics suggests - not as ancient goatherders suggest.

I know you are saying that. I’m saying that ‘stuff’ is spatio-temporal in its nature.

Where you say the "alternative is that something supernatural existed and created the spatio-temporal natural world" - I have no idea what you mean. Something else? Why propose that? What evidence do you have there is anything else?

We propose the logically possible categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural/supernatural’ because of logic. Those are obviously distinct categories. Just like if you wanted to talk about American presidents with the last name of Bush versus those that don’t have that last name. It’s just a categorization based on the logic of words.

The next step is to see if anything in reality fits into the ‘non-natural/supernatural’ category. For that the evidence is the extended Kalam. The Kalam shows there is something else.

You seem to be taking Kalam as a fact - that the Universe began to exist. That's fine for children's stories, but it's not science.

Let's take a simple explanation of the Big Bang:

The Big Bang theory says that the universe came into being from a single, unimaginably hot and dense point (aka, a singularity) more than 13 billion years ago. It didn't occur in an already existing space. Rather, it initiated the expansion—and cooling—of space itself.

See? It doesn't say "came from Nothing," it doesn't say "God Did It," it doesn't say Supernatural pixies on racehorses made it".

It says it came from a hot, dense point. AKA, Something.

Sounds like energy, to me. Like a Quantum Fluctuation.

All your musing about an Old, Bearded man with a Loving personality and Free Wheeling spirit (or whatever you imagine) is a fairytale.

Science also doesn’t say “it was always there”. We don’t have evidence that the molecules in that chair always existed. The quantum energy still involves change/movement and, therefore, passage of time, showing that energy to be temporal. We all have to go beyond the science into philosophy. To think one isn’t doing philosophy, but only science, results in doing very bad philosophy. I’m not taking the Kalam as fact, but arguing for every premise and following where I see the reasoning going. If you reject it, then you have to reject the reasons offered.

And about the “Nothing,” it is logically impossible for nothing to have existed because something can’t come from nothing. Something has to be eternal. The extended Kalam helps us see what that eternal Something must be like. Energy is ruled out because the cause must be personal.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #425]

And about the “Nothing,” it is logically impossible for nothing to have existed because something can’t come from nothing. Something has to be eternal.

True that. Science certainly isn't suggesting ex nihilo as a viable explanation for why The Universe exists. Science only goes so far as to say that it does not know what caused the Big Bang.

The extended Kalam helps us see what that eternal Something must be like.

Overstepping as it does so by introducing the idea that it "must" be like "supernatural" and "must" be able to create "ex nihilo".

The (more honest) statement would replace the word "must" with the word "might" or "could" and then discussion could be had with supernaturalists regarding that. Once "must" is made the default, no discussion can proceed.

Energy is ruled out because the cause must be personal.

Energy is ruled out because energy is caused (by particles interacting).

Mindfulness is ruled in because it exists within the wholeness of The Universe (re Planet Earth at the very least) and so cannot be ruled out.
Therefore it might/could be Mindfulness which caused particles to form - not ex nihilo - but from the field in which mindfulness is, and that mindfulness through thinking and deciding, uses the available material that mindfulness is, to bring things (both temporal and eternal) into existence.

[alexxcJRO]

You are bringing this view into the discussion, so don’t just link to other explanations. Summarize what the view is and why you think it makes sense and I’ll respond to those thoughts.

Dude you are proposing omnibeing that through magical incantation conjures universes out of philosophical nothingness.
That does not needs explanation.
But when I say "Maybe we could have a material cause(timeless, beginningless, mindless, absolute and objective randomness) that is characterized by being inside the omniverse and that lays at the fundamental level of reality. Which lays outside the one time dimensions universes, two time dimensions universes, timeless universes and is the cause for all this universes." that needs further explanation.

Q: What do you want more?
Its called speculating.

If we are just restating our positions, then I’ll give a go at both of ours. Correct what I’m misunderstanding. You think philosophers’ disagreeing with each other is enough for you to say we have no idea and shouldn’t use those beliefs in support of another belief. I think their disagreements should be heard out, but that we still can come to what the most rational view is on the subject (but not with 100% certainty). We’ve shared all we have to share on why our view here is the rational one.

1.
For the last time please stop with the straw man. Nobody is talking 100% certainty.
2.
Interpretation of QM: x1, x2, x3, x4, ...
Free will: y1, y2, y3, y4, ...
Nature of time: z1, z2, z3, ...

Truth is the Interpretation of QM, Free will and Nature of time are heavily debated. There is no compelling evidence for one set, one specific combination.
You are cherry-picking irrationally and dishonestly.
From the most 3 most complicated and debated topics out there you believe as true the set, the specific combination that is needed for KALAM.
You are not believing 1 out of 3 that are needed or 2 out 3 that are needed but 3 out 3.
You are believing x2, y3, z1 offer best explanation, have best evidence-compelling evidence.
Coincidentally x2, y3, z1 are all needed for KALAM-Christianity.

So, you are right because you won’t allow them to have a different belief? “If it causes suffering to me, then it’s bad” does not ultimately mean suffering is bad; it means only my suffering is bad. You disagree, but you aren’t right because you agree with your own view.

Q: Dude but why is it bad? Why is it that suffering that happens to me is bad? Why is not a good thing?
When you answer the question if objective it leads to all suffering is bad.
It follows logically.

[The Tanager]

Dude you are proposing omnibeing that through magical incantation conjures universes out of philosophical nothingness.
That does not needs explanation.
But when I say "Maybe we could have a material cause(timeless, beginningless, mindless, absolute and objective randomness) that is characterized by being inside the omniverse and that lays at the fundamental level of reality. Which lays outside the one time dimensions universes, two time dimensions universes, timeless universes and is the cause for all this universes." that needs further explanation.

Q: What do you want more?
Its called speculating.

I’m proposing, explaining it, and sharing why I think it is reasonable. That is what I want from any rational person who wants to discuss an issue.

Truth is the Interpretation of QM, Free will and Nature of time are heavily debated. There is no compelling evidence for one set, one specific combination.
You are cherry-picking irrationally and dishonestly.
From the most 3 most complicated and debated topics out there you believe as true the set, the specific combination that is needed for KALAM.
You are not believing 1 out of 3 that are needed or 2 out 3 that are needed but 3 out 3.
You are believing x2, y3, z1 offer best explanation, have best evidence-compelling evidence.
Coincidentally x2, y3, z1 are all needed for KALAM-Christianity.

I don’t believe those things because it works in the Kalam; it’s the other way round. If I didn’t believe what I believe about those things, I wouldn’t argue for the Kalam. But even if you think you know me better and I'm being disingenuous, it wouldn’t matter because this would be an appeal to the genetic fallacy. The Kalam rises or falls on the arguments, not why someone believes the conclusion.

Q: Dude but why is it bad? Why is it that suffering that happens to me is bad? Why is not a good thing?
When you answer the question if objective it leads to all suffering is bad.
It follows logically.

In Peter’s mind, the suffering is not a good thing because it is happening to him. That does not logically lead to all suffering being bad. All you keep doing is begging the question and stating your view is the logical one.

[alexxcJRO]

I’m proposing, explaining it, and sharing why I think it is reasonable. That is what I want from any rational person who wants to discuss an issue.

Your basically saying your only speculation is possible in the realms of speculations. I am saying this is not the case.
I am saying there could be countless speculations.
Made one. Its pretty concise. Don't know what your problem is.

I don’t believe those things because it works in the Kalam; it’s the other way round. If I didn’t believe what I believe about those things, I wouldn’t argue for the Kalam. But even if you think you know me better and I'm being disingenuous, it wouldn’t matter because this would be an appeal to the genetic fallacy. The Kalam rises or falls on the arguments, not why someone believes the conclusion.

So from the many combinations you happen to believe the exact combination that does not poses problems for KALAM.
That the elements in the specified combination all have the best evidence-compelling evidence, have the best explanation.

And this apparent dishonest cherry picking process is not happening in this case neither when it comes to believing which parts of the Bible being literal or metaphorical, which religion is true and so on ad nauseam.

All this is just pure coincidence. Common I was not born yesterday.

In Peter’s mind, the suffering is not a good thing because it is happening to him. That does not logically lead to all suffering being bad. All you keep doing is begging the question and stating your view is the logical one.

Notation:
Suffering X: having one's head/face being burn alive with alcohol for 10 min.

Suffering X is deemed bad/evil by the psychopath thing because when going through it he is experiencing excruciating pain.

Answer:
Q: Why is Suffering X that happens to the psychopath considered as bad/evil by him?

[boatsnguitars]

Science also doesn’t say “it was always there”. We don’t have evidence that the molecules in that chair always existed. The quantum energy still involves change/movement and, therefore, passage of time, showing that energy to be temporal. We all have to go beyond the science into philosophy. To think one isn’t doing philosophy, but only science, results in doing very bad philosophy. I’m not taking the Kalam as fact, but arguing for every premise and following where I see the reasoning going. If you reject it, then you have to reject the reasons offered.

And about the “Nothing,” it is logically impossible for nothing to have existed because something can’t come from nothing. Something has to be eternal. The extended Kalam helps us see what that eternal Something must be like. Energy is ruled out because the cause must be personal.

Yeah, see what you did there. You say it must be personal. It gives you away. You are shoe-horning God into it. It's what WLC does. He tries to say the only thing that could decide to act - to cause - is a person. Bull!
That's not what science or philosophy says.
And, we have no knowledge of perons until after life evolved. It's just wishful thinking.

I swear "Philosophy" means "how to wedge God into every conversation" to theists.