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]

[Replying to William in post #60]

Step 1 - define supernatural - "something that is non-natural". Step 2 - argue that the supernatural exists. In doing step 2, things the supernatural is allegedly able to accomplish or characteristics it has would be seen, but we don't change the definition of the term because those things aren't the definition.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #60]

Step 1 - define supernatural - "something that is non-natural".

One is assuming re supernaturalism that "not natural" things exist, perhaps not even as objects which could be defined physical.

The assumption re the definition (not-natural) is illogical - or at least, no Supernaturalist has graced the table with evidence supporting it is a logical assumption which should be entertained as arguable.

A simply enough question re that would be "what does anything supernatural look like?" to which the answer offered might be "God has no form which one can observe.", which then places under question any claim that anyone has ever "seen" God, which in turn places under question every belief which includes claims that a supernatural God can be seen/observed/described et al.

Step 2 - argue that the supernatural exists. In doing step 2, things the supernatural is allegedly able to accomplish or characteristics it has would be seen, but we don't change the definition of the term because those things aren't the definition.

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"?

If the definition of supernatural is that it cannot be defined other than "something that is not natural" the answer to the above question would have to be along the lines of.

A: There is no burden of proof required by either Materialists or Supernaturalists.

However, what then has to be defined is whatever is "not natural" and what evidence can one provide which would show that anything anyone can think of as "not natural" cannot naturally exist within this Almighty Universe (AU) and therefore actually be natural?

We do not know, so we simply cannot say.

What we can say however, is that anything which is thought to be mythological (like your centaur example a few posts back) can be thought about as being "real" - but only in relation to this universe (in relationship to what is being described or otherwise defined as "supernatural".)

Which is to say, we do not know that supposed mythological critters don't exist in this AU in some Planet, Star or Galaxy, but they could do.

Since such are logically plausible in this universe, Supernaturalism is unnecessary to explain anything humans can think up and philosophize about, including an unseen/unseeable God.

[Purple Knight]

There is only one logical option. (1) All things, even the unexplained, are - and can only ever be "natural".

But this also simply defines the supernatural out of being, instead of defining it into being. We need a fair definition. It has to be fair to those who believe in the supernatural, and not define them into being idiots who believe a contradiction. It must also be fair to those who do not believe in the supernatural. What, exactly, are they saying does not exist in this universe?

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.

So if ghosts were demonstrated to exist, in what circumstances would you say they were probably natural and we just haven't discovered the kind of energy that makes them tick, and in what circumstances would you say they were more probably supernatural?

I prefer discussing a phenomenon rather than an argument. Switch ghosts to something else if you like.

[The Tanager]

So if ghosts were demonstrated to exist, in what circumstances would you say they were probably natural and we just haven't discovered the kind of energy that makes them tick, and in what circumstances would you say they were more probably supernatural?

I prefer discussing a phenomenon rather than an argument. Switch ghosts to something else if you like.

It would depend on what characteristics we can know about these ghosts. If all we knew was that they exist, not any distinguishing characteristics, then we would be agnostic about whether they are natural or supernatural. If we have observations and premises that lead ghosts having certain characteristics that make them natural or definitely not natural (i.e., supernatural), then we put them in those categories.

Now take the kalam, which is discussing a phenomenon and arguing to what brings about that phenomenon. The observations and premises (if sound) lead one to the logical conclusion that the natural universe has a cause. Further reasoning then logically leads to how the cause of all nature cannot itself be natural (i.e., it must be supernatural). The observations and reasoning lead us directly to the existence of the supernatural as a necessary conclusion. It's not leading us to conclusion X and then we postulate as to why X is probably supernatural, although it could be natural. Being natural has been ruled out by the reasoning that started with sound observations. The very reasoning itself necessitates that X has to be supernatural.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #63]

But this also simply defines the supernatural out of being, instead of defining it into being.

Out of being/ into being "what"?
"It is being "supernatural" " is how much more informative than "it is being "non natural"?

The current definition being critiqed is that it is "non-natural" but that means what?

We need a fair definition. It has to be fair to those who believe in the supernatural, and not
define them into being idiots who believe a contradiction.

There would be no need to define Supernaturalists in that way.

They are misinformed and are led to believe the creator has to reside outside of the creation .

It can and is being reasoned that the creator resides within the Almighty Universe. (AU)

It must also be fair to those who do not believe in the supernatural. What, exactly, are they saying does not exist in this universe?

The Materialists appear to be saying the same thing as the Supernaturalists. That "the creator does not exist within the AU..."

Be fair by all means but no philosophy gets a free pass.

[alexxcJRO]

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?

There is clear pattern of moronic and stupid beliefs when it comes of to religion explaining certain phenomena.
There is hundreds of thousands of years of years of nonsensical failed hypothesis since religion entered the scene with Animism.
It is highly likely considering the past evidence the current imagined hypothesis and the current God insertion in the current gap is just as stupid as the rest(ex:"Ra moves the sun across the sky").

Off course you and the rest of the simpletons think your special. You got it right this time. The current imagined hypothesis and current God insertion in the current gap is not as stupid as the rest.
Arrogance is a thing:"Center of the universe". "Special place creature".



I don't have cherished beliefs. I admit I might be right about some things I believe. That I might even believe in very moronic things that would probably be revealed with ease by a being with much higher IQ.

[otseng]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #58]

Moderator Warning



Uncivil comments are not allowed on the forum.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

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?

It is easy to defend that the planet is mindful simply by observing the Planet-Life re the mindfulness.
Also - evidence in support of the assertion being made can be seen in the way some affected by Materialist Philosophy not only attempt to sweep the notion off the table of discussion, but will do in a similar manner as you have shown above.

Granted, the idea tabled appears to be a new one, but the beauty of it is that it does explain why the Bible or its God (and the existence of Abrahamic Religions) are prevalent fixtures on the landscape of Humanity.

PS. Enjoy your suspension and hopefully use the time to quietly evaluate. Perhaps even offer the YHWH-Earth-Mind your genuine attention that it might respond accordingly.

Peace.

[Purple Knight]

Now take the kalam, which is discussing a phenomenon and arguing to what brings about that phenomenon. The observations and premises (if sound) lead one to the logical conclusion that the natural universe has a cause. Further reasoning then logically leads to how the cause of all nature cannot itself be natural (i.e., it must be supernatural). The observations and reasoning lead us directly to the existence of the supernatural as a necessary conclusion. It's not leading us to conclusion X and then we postulate as to why X is probably supernatural, although it could be natural. Being natural has been ruled out by the reasoning that started with sound observations. The very reasoning itself necessitates that X has to be supernatural.

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 would depend on what characteristics we can know about these ghosts. If all we knew was that they exist, not any distinguishing characteristics, then we would be agnostic about whether they are natural or supernatural. If we have observations and premises that lead ghosts having certain characteristics that make them natural or definitely not natural (i.e., supernatural), then we put them in those categories.

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

The Materialists appear to be saying the same thing as the Supernaturalists. That "the creator does not exist within the AU..."

Be fair by all means but no philosophy gets a free pass.

I'm not giving anyone a free pass. I just seek to give people the barest modicum of credit. No one believes a logical contradiction and nobody is definitionally arguing against people who believe exactly the same thing they do. Since these two sides do have some sort of a disagreement, I think we can fine-tune that and at least figure out what that disagreement is.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #69]

The Materialists appear to be saying the same thing as the Supernaturalists. That "the creator does not exist within the AU..."
Be fair by all means but no philosophy gets a free pass.

I'm not giving anyone a free pass. I just seek to give people the barest modicum of credit. No one believes a logical contradiction and nobody is definitionally arguing against people who believe exactly the same thing they do. Since these two sides do have some sort of a disagreement, I think we can fine-tune that and at least figure out what that disagreement is.

The similarity has been noted. (Both sides argue that "the creator does not exist within the AU...")
The difference is that one side agues that God exists "outside" the AU and the other side argues that God doesn't exist at all.

But this also simply defines the supernatural out of being, instead of defining it into being.

Out of being/ into being "what"?
"It is being "supernatural" " is how much more informative than "it is being "non natural"?

The current definition being critiqed is that it is "non-natural" but that means what?

What, exactly, are they saying does not exist in this universe?

The Creator. They are saying the creator "does not exist in this universe."