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]

How about you make the case for Supernaturalism - a positive case (not "it's non-natural"). After all, I could simply label Quantum Mechanics, Dark Matter, etc. as "Supernatural" and I'd have loads of evidence it exists. Of course, we'd all disagree on calling that Supernatural.

I'm still trying to figure out what the Supernatural is, and apparently, Supernaturalists have been to for thousands of years.

As close as I can discern, the closest thing that Supernaturalism can be described as "a feeling that there is something else, and it's like magic."

We’ve already covered this, but we can start at the beginning. My case for supernaturalism is a positive one. The definition of 'supernatural' is a negative definition and there is no problem with that. We all understand and use negatively defined words, so that critique is a poor one.

The argument for the existence of the supernatural (i.e., non-natural) is the (extended) Kalam. So, first premise:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If you agree with this, then we’ll move on. If you disagree, I’ll give the reasoning for it again. If you need clarifying of any terms, we can do that as well.

[William]

How about you make the case for Supernaturalism - a positive case (not "it's non-natural"). After all, I could simply label Quantum Mechanics, Dark Matter, etc. as "Supernatural" and I'd have loads of evidence it exists. Of course, we'd all disagree on calling that Supernatural.

I'm still trying to figure out what the Supernatural is, and apparently, Supernaturalists have been to for thousands of years.

As close as I can discern, the closest thing that Supernaturalism can be described as "a feeling that there is something else, and it's like magic."

We’ve already covered this, but we can start at the beginning. My case for supernaturalism is a positive one. The definition of 'supernatural' is a negative definition and there is no problem with that. We all understand and use negatively defined words, so that critique is a poor one.

The argument for the existence of the supernatural (i.e., non-natural) is the (extended) Kalam. So, first premise:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If you agree with this, then we’ll move on. If you disagree, I’ll give the reasoning for it again. If you need clarifying of any terms, we can do that as well.

"Philosophical Dialogue: Exploring Supernatural Beliefs, Psychological Illusions, and Naturalistic Theism"
In this philosophical exchange, Philosopher 1 expresses skepticism toward supernaturalists, suggesting that their belief in something real (such as God) is more of a psychologically driven illusion. Philosopher 2, a Natural Theist, acknowledges the idea that if the universe had a beginning, something powerful might have created it. However, they reject labeling this entity as supernatural and argue that the concept of God can be considered a natural aspect of the universe, whether or not it had a beginning. The dialogue showcases the tension between psychological interpretations of supernatural beliefs and a more inclusive, naturalistic perspective on the divine or creative force.
Philosopher 1. All humans are embedded in their DNA code with a necessary bug [from an evolutionary default] of an existential crisis which generate terrible cognitive dissonances; i.e. all humans must-fear-death with the knowledge death is a certainty.
To soothe the cognitive dissonance, a belief in the supernatural [the idea of a supreme cause that is all powerful] provide immediate consonances to alleviate the mental suffering. This was happening before the advent of science.

Philosopher 2. I understand this type of reasoning as too sweeping to be of any practical philosophical use.

I would understand the same type of statements which "explain" atheists as having a fear of life/living forever.

Philosopher 1. Science inferred Big Bang as the origin of the universe, but because science is fallible, it does not insist the Big Bang as the absolute First Cause, anyway it cannot [its impossible] within the relative conditions of its Framework and System.

Philosopher 2. Yes. As a Model it fits best for the time being.

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. Science is limited to what is science [scientific constitution] and scientific reality is the most credible and objective; there is no other better.


Philosopher 2. Re the physical sciences yes. The idea is to find the common denominator which brings all these into a coherent agreeable whole.



Philosopher 1. When supernaturalists leap beyond science to make inferences it is no more scientifically real. Since that is based on faith, its credibility and objectivity is negligible relative to science.


Philosopher 2. Like string theory - a long corridor which is the equivalent of Alice's rabbit hole in that it doesn't lead anywhere specifically useful. Thus - we remain wondering about the "land".

However, from what we already know of The Universe, it too is a "long corridor" and very much "Alice's rabbit hole" so it is reasonable to accept such corridors as "par for the course" - natural extension of that which we are experiencing.


Philosopher 1. Supernaturalists may think they have arrived at something real [God], but it is more of psychologically driven illusion.

Your views?

Philosopher 2. 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 being 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.

[boatsnguitars]

How about you make the case for Supernaturalism - a positive case (not "it's non-natural"). After all, I could simply label Quantum Mechanics, Dark Matter, etc. as "Supernatural" and I'd have loads of evidence it exists. Of course, we'd all disagree on calling that Supernatural.

I'm still trying to figure out what the Supernatural is, and apparently, Supernaturalists have been to for thousands of years.

As close as I can discern, the closest thing that Supernaturalism can be described as "a feeling that there is something else, and it's like magic."

We’ve already covered this, but we can start at the beginning. My case for supernaturalism is a positive one. The definition of 'supernatural' is a negative definition and there is no problem with that. We all understand and use negatively defined words, so that critique is a poor one.

The argument for the existence of the supernatural (i.e., non-natural) is the (extended) Kalam. So, first premise:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If you agree with this, then we’ll move on. If you disagree, I’ll give the reasoning for it again. If you need clarifying of any terms, we can do that as well.

1. Is this a law you are proposing?
2. Is this something you are wishing to be true?
3. You've said God doesn't have a purpose, so why would everything that begins to exist need a cause? Seems you can claim these things based on feelings, not verification.
4. What began to exist? Hasn't everything basically existed in one form or another?

[William]

[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 Tanager]

1. Is this a law you are proposing?
2. Is this something you are wishing to be true?
3. You've said God doesn't have a purpose, so why would everything that begins to exist need a cause? Seems you can claim these things based on feelings, not verification.
4. What began to exist? Hasn't everything basically existed in one form or another?

1. No, it's an argument.
2. No, it's an argument which doesn't depend on anyone's wishes.
3. Why would God not having an objective purpose mean that everything that begins to exist wouldn't need a cause? I haven't claimed anything based on a feeling, but am offering an argument that you rationally analyze.
4. I see no reason to believe everything basically existed in one form or another eternally, but I'm willing to listen to any reasoning to that conclusion, if you have any.

[alexxcJRO]

That these theories exist doesn’t mean they make sense, so you’ve got to do more than just name them and say, if it is true, the Kalam would be defeated. What does it mean for their to be two dimensions of time, for instance?

https://www.unrevealedfiles.com/multi-d ... n-of-time/

According to any individual trying to come to a rational conclusion on the soundness of the Kalam. That there are different theories is not a rational reason to reject the Kalam. If one thinks there are good reasons for one of these theories and, if true, that theory would defeat the Kalam, go for it, but not just stating that there are disagreements as though that takes one off the hook for their conclusions.

A part of the philosophers thinks there are good reasons for B theory instead of A theory. Another part thinks there are good reasons for A theory instead of B theory.
A part of the philosophers thinks X theory of Free Will is better then Y theory of Free will. Another part thinks Z theory of Free will is better then X and Y.
And that's why the subject is heavily debated.
The reality is we don't really know what is the nature of time or if we have free will(and if we have how it looks).
Religious people claim to know what they can't know. --> delusion.
Reality is we don't know.

I agree that just because he says it, that doesn’t make it true. But his moral system is consistent, by your standards above. This is how he defines what is a bad thing/evil: “if it causes suffering to me.” And he defines good as: “if it causes benefit to me”. He consistently applies that to everything. This is consistent. That doesn't make it right, but it does counter your claim that he's being inconsistent. Yes, he doesn't have the same moral principle as you to judge the act by, but that's because he has a different moral system; it's still consistent.

Nonsense.
Ex: Any selfish person thinks suffering that happens to him is bad and does not apply same reasoning to others.
That does not arise from good, objective, logical reasoning.

This "if it causes suffering to me" ultimately means suffering is bad.
If its bad to him its bad to others.

[boatsnguitars]

1. Is this a law you are proposing?
2. Is this something you are wishing to be true?
3. You've said God doesn't have a purpose, so why would everything that begins to exist need a cause? Seems you can claim these things based on feelings, not verification.
4. What began to exist? Hasn't everything basically existed in one form or another?

1. No, it's an argument.
2. No, it's an argument which doesn't depend on anyone's wishes.
3. Why would God not having an objective purpose mean that everything that begins to exist wouldn't need a cause? I haven't claimed anything based on a feeling, but am offering an argument that you rationally analyze.
4. I see no reason to believe everything basically existed in one form or another eternally, but I'm willing to listen to any reasoning to that conclusion, if you have any.

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?

[The Tanager]

https://www.unrevealedfiles.com/multi-d ... n-of-time/

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.

A part of the philosophers thinks there are good reasons for B theory instead of A theory. Another part thinks there are good reasons for A theory instead of B theory.
A part of the philosophers thinks X theory of Free Will is better then Y theory of Free will. Another part thinks Z theory of Free will is better then X and Y.
And that's why the subject is heavily debated.
The reality is we don't really know what is the nature of time or if we have free will(and if we have how it looks).
Religious people claim to know what they can't know. --> delusion.
Reality is we don't know.

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.

Nonsense.
Ex: Any selfish person thinks suffering that happens to him is bad and does not apply same reasoning to others.
That does not arise from good, objective, logical reasoning.

This "if it causes suffering to me" ultimately means suffering is bad.
If its bad to him its bad to others.

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.

[The Tanager]

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.

[William]

1. Is this a law you are proposing?
2. Is this something you are wishing to be true?
3. You've said God doesn't have a purpose, so why would everything that begins to exist need a cause? Seems you can claim these things based on feelings, not verification.
4. What began to exist? Hasn't everything basically existed in one form or another?

1. No, it's an argument.
2. No, it's an argument which doesn't depend on anyone's wishes.
3. Why would God not having an objective purpose mean that everything that begins to exist wouldn't need a cause? I haven't claimed anything based on a feeling, but am offering an argument that you rationally analyze.
4. I see no reason to believe everything basically existed in one form or another eternally, but I'm willing to listen to any reasoning to that conclusion, if you have any.

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?

Here's the thing.

Those who claim the Kalam as a definitive set of premises leading to the reasonable conclusion that there is a timeless immaterial (supernatural) cause were doing so long before modern science came along with the theory that the universe began to exist.

If one day, scientists decide through additional evidence that the theory is incorrect, and the universe did not begin, but rather - that everything basically existed in one form or another and has always done so, this will not change the minds of those who believe in a supernatural creator.