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]

Why? We don't see anything pop into being, we just see things that are already in being, changing. We have no evidence to suggest that if things pop into being, they must have a cause, because we have never seen anything pop into being. When things change it has a cause. When things begin to exist, perhaps not.

Why treat a beginning that changes already present stuff from a beginning that comes out of nothing? What is it about the different properties of nothingness (there aren’t even any) that should make us think a beginning out of nothing can do so uncaused while a beginning that is a change of something else never does? And, if it could, why hasn’t it ever happened again? Why doesn’t energy/matter or other things pop into existence since then uncaused.

Here's where it gets definitional. You say, our natural world must have a First Cause and call it God. What if the universe is God? What if we're living inside the First Cause? Then you're saying, God must have a cause. The Kalam still applies. All of this must have a First Cause. It can't have come into being from nothing - that's worse than magic. And we also assume, it can't always have existed. If we apply those things to God we just get turtles all the way down again. Saying God is supernatural is a dodge. The universe might be supernatural. You yourself say it has supernatural things in it.

First, the ‘universe’ is simply all of nature. It doesn’t have supernatural things “in” it. Reality (which I believe is a higher category than ‘natural’ or ‘the universe’) has supernatural things in it, but not the ‘universe’.

Second, I don’t say the natural world must have a first cause and then say “it’s God” and then bring in all the things I believe about this God (the omnis, etc.). I reason that the natural world must have a first cause. I then reason that this first cause must have characteristics A, B, C, etc. After that process, the A, B, C, etc. looks like the foundation of what we call “God”, so the label comes in, then and only then. So it’s not turtles all the way down. It’s turtles however far done, but at some point you get a non-turtle. Then you find out what we can know about this non-turtle.

Let me reverse the second question: If a universe could come into being from God, why doesn't it happen today? It's the same set of answers. It's the same set of objections.

No, it’s not the same. A personal cause (which we eventually connect with our label God) has free will and can choose whether to create new energy/matter or not. There is no property about nothingness and no constraint on nothingness to explain why it only happened once and never again.

You think God made everything natural. Does that mean he made the emptiness between stars? But wait... Wouldn't the Nothing we're to assume ought to exist if God never did anything, just look like empty space? If you were to put on a space suit and ask God to delete everything but you, and he did it, I don't know how you could say you floating there would be any different than floating in space now. If space is expanding but there's nothing in it, you wouldn't know and indeed it would be meaningless to say it was expanding, or was not expanding.

Emptiness isn’t a “thing” that can be made. The possible similarity in how emptiness within space-time looks and what nothingness would look like doesn’t mean they are the same thing. The only way space could be expanding is if space itself is some kind of material, so it wouldn’t be meaningless to talk about it expanding.

The universe seems to be eternal. It is, if you nail it down to what we can observe today. Things don't pop into being, but they don't wink out, either.

There might be some (unintended) equivocation going on here with ‘eternal’. We’ve talked about timelessness, we’ve talked about having no beginning or end, we’ve talked about only not having an end. These are all different concepts that have had the same term applied. The spatial-temporal universe is not eternal for the reasons offered in defense of premise 2 (which we haven’t actually talked about directly, but we can). Not winking out is not enough to qualify for what we mean when talking about that kind of ‘eternal’.

If you're not, then God had the matter and energy to start with, the universe was already present, and it doesn't really matter whether he was a building, organising force, or not.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, I believe in creation from nothing in that way. How does reason say no to this?

Either way it's zero loose ends. Zero things are unexplained. If we're rolling the universe back to one unexplained thing, that's just passing the buck on being unable to explain the universe, isn't it? It serves as no explanation at all, because we started with one unexplained thing (why there is something, rather than nothing) and ended with one unexplained thing, about which we ought to ask, at the dawn of time, why is there God, rather than nothing?

Yes, at some point, there must be a brute fact, but it matters whether there is good reason to believe B or A is a brute fact. We know B isn’t a brute fact and its existence (which we are sure of) necessitates the brute fact of A. That’s a key difference for A over B.

The idea that there is a possible uncaused cause, is an explanation. But there may as well be a dozen or a million. Because once we're saying that's possible, it's possible, and if anything we need an explanation for why there was only one.

It’s not about there possibly being an uncaused cause, but there actually being an uncaused cause. The “might as well be a dozen or a million” is only a possibly because there is no reason in its favor and at least one (simplicity) against it.

It's also a little naive. Imagine being an embryo in a womb, which is all you know, and wondering why there is only one womb, and only one of you. Wow, you must be special. The idea that there are things outside our understanding is already necessary for God, so if we're to believe in God, we must get rid of the naive universe altogether.

I disagree. I think this “mystery” card is taken too much to the extreme here. Yes, we don’t know everything about the world. That doesn’t mean we can’t trust anything. We still have logical reasons for narrowing the scope of what the mystery could overturn in our knowledge and that mystery can’t go against logic. You said you don’t think 100% certainty is the goal, but that’s the only system this mystery point has any effect in.

Besides, it's not like the evidence does not point to this anyway. We already have these multiple supernatural things called souls. The idea that one soul is superior and created the rest - that they have different origins - is more complex than the idea that they are all the same. This is textbook simple versus complicated by the way: One process, versus two.

Sure, but there is other evidence to consider. Reasoning doesn’t lead us toward each of our souls creating our own matter/energy (for instance, as you’ve said, our matter is a transformation of matter already present), while it does lead us to positing a soul-like cause of the natural universe. A theory that is just as likely via one Soul versus multiple Souls.

If things even can be forward-eternal but not backward-eternal, that conflicts with the assumption that one implies the other, and God might have started to exist, too.

So why assume one implies the other? I’m not assuming that or even positing that. As to whether God might have started to exist, that’s logically impossible. Not because I’m special pleading for God, but because before we brought in the ‘God’ label, the argument leads us to a being that must be uncaused and eternal (in the has always existed, no beginning sense). This cause cannot have started to exist.

Not by default, no, but if you're already believing in souls, there's absolutely no reason why not.

Again, it’s not about logical possibility. That’s the “no reason why not”. You need to offer a “reason why to”.

Besides, we forget things. We sometimes then remember what we forgot. No new processes or assumptions are added in the theory that if we have souls at all, they might have separate memories. Nothing new is assumed to be possible that we don't already know is possible. Assuming we can fully access our souls, when we can't even fully access what happened to us on our 4th birthdays, is probably the greater assumption.

Forgetting and remembering isn’t what “your” theory is positing. It’s positing that almost everyone forgets and never remembers that, although it forgets and remembers various things since then. This is an added assumption that is pure speculation, no positive evidence offered for it.

Known and supernatural. It would be category 1. What happened to Dorothy Eady is an example. Saying she was lying and all the museum people went with her and lied and made up more things to help her lie, is a conspiracy theory by definition. It really might all be made up. Conspiracies do happen. But the going rate is, conspiracy ought not be the assumption. There are times when I will say someone must have lied. But "because I don't want to believe in X" is not a viable reason for a logical person.

But you defined ‘supernatural’ as known and not currently explained by natural laws. You need a term for known and unexplainable by natural laws.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #139]

The first 3 premises of what I am arguing truly are:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning
2. The universe (i.e., all spatio-temporal matter/energy) began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

So, if you want to disagree with me, you have to disagree with those premises, not the ones you offered as what I’m arguing.

No. As I pointed out, while you claim you are auguring from those particular premises, you have had to change the wording.

In changing the wording, you have changed the premises and are now arguing from those changed premises.

You are correct that the non-natural nature of this cause isn’t in the first 3 premises. It does come prior to arguments for the personal nature of that cause, but for some reason in my head I formulated that as coming in the first 3 premises. That was wrong. However, it’s still not an assumption, but logical analysis. The cause of all natural things logically cannot be natural itself because self-causation is logically impossible.

No - as I pointed out, the material causation of functional forms is not "self caused" just because it was caused by the Uncaused.
The cause of the Uncaused material forming into any temporal universe is logically possible (as I have shown in many posts here in this message board, including those in this thread) if there is no distinction made between the mind and the matter. Since there is no necessity to treat mind as "non-physical", the distinction is fictional, and thus any logic derived from that path, has come about through a fictional assumption rather than from fact, and as such, only appears logical once the changes in the premises are made/once the premises are added to.

As to your explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural, you are just explaining what your conclusion is, not explaining the reasoning that gets one to that conclusion.

What "explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural"? Why make a comment about what I supposedly explained is simply a conclusion without explanation as to why the conclusion was made? Why not use the "quote" function provided to show the reader what it is you are otherwise simply implying I am doing/have done?

As to your explanation of why natural things can’t have non-natural effects (or vice versa), your reasoning simply isn’t good. Your statement that human beings have no non-natural effects, even if true, doesn’t prove this because there could be non-human natural things that could have non-natural effects.

My statement is true. If you believe my argument isn't true, on what basis and what counter-argument do you base your critique on? There cannot be a basis for prioritizing an unknown non-human natural thing which "could" have "non natural effects", because - as was pointed out - human beings are a sufficient example of that which is part of the universe (natural) and what they produce naturally from natural resources without ever having to resort to being enabled doing such "because of Santa's little helpers" or any such other thing which "could" have happened.

Even if we accept that "God and the Angels" are mythological metaphor for Aliens, (Extraterrestrial not extra-natural/supernatural) we still have to assume the natural logic that whatever amazing evidence they could show us, would necessarily have to be considered natural/naturally devised or otherwise prove that they are not.

Therefore, until such evidence for the existence of a supernatural First Cause is shown, it is logical to assume that the Uncaused First Cause, is natural, and everything which derives from said source is also natural.

Now, of course, this isn’t an argument for natural things definitely being able to have non-natural effects (or vice versa), but that doesn’t mean the default is that they don’t.

Yes it does. That is exactly what it means. The default has to be that the Uncaused Cause has to be Primarily Natural. Fundamentally so. The Primary Natural Source of all else that is (also) natural, even if such creations are only temporary.

One might argue that since a temporal universe is - by its nature - temporary and "therefore" "natural" and from this premise declare that this means the Uncaused Cause is therefore "supernatural" (because it is eternal) such reasoning is cart before the horse and thus not logical.

Even that one argues that a temporal creation must be referred to as a "natural creation" in order to then declare that a supernatural creator must have created it, one has to avoid admitting the referring to an temporal thing as "natural" is misplaced/illogical because the better argument is that IF the Uncaused is Natural (and it must be since it has always existed) THEN anything the
Uncaused creates which is temporal (not eternal) would at least first have to be seen (in comparison) as "unnatural or non natural", so there is still no requirement to conjure any fictional concept as "super" natural and claim it is the logical conclusion which flows from the 3 premises being discussed.

To shift the burden on your opponent to prove your view wrong is just that: shifting the burden, which is fallacious reasoning. You have claimed that the effect must be the same ‘stuff’ as the cause. Support that positive claim.

I have not shifted any burden as I am simply pointing out how supernaturalists have superimposed their fictional beliefs onto the premises. I am proving through logic that my view is correct in relation to the premises and it is up to you to critique what I offer with the same requirement re burden for your own reasoning.

If you cannot or will not do so, then just say so. There is no need for you to fallaciously argue that I am expecting you to prove my view wrong when in actuality, the burden is on you to show - in comparison - why your view is right and if you cannot do so - then just say so.

I have shown that my view is better than the view of supernaturalists. Therefore there is no burden on you to show it for me, but to show logically that your view is the better and the one which should be accepted.

[The Tanager]

No. As I pointed out, while you claim you are auguring from those particular premises, you have had to change the wording.

In changing the wording, you have changed the premises and are now arguing from those changed premises.

You changed the wording, not me. You can discuss things with a straw tanager or me. Let me know if you want to do both sides of the conversation or if you want me to partake. If you want me to continue to partake, then there are many misunderstandings we need to clear up. That won’t happen by responding directly to everything you’ve said all at once, like we have often tried to do. We’ve got to go one step at a time or I won’t waste our time out of respect for us both.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #143]

You changed the wording, not me.

The wording I am saying that you changed is where you argued "No, it builds on the first 3 premises, where one has shown that the cause of the natural universe..."

The original premise does not refer to the universe as "the natural universe". It only refers to the universe as "the universe" and this is what I have been since pointing out/critiquing.

Because of your argument, instead of arguing re the original three premises, you are arguing re another set of (strawman) premises so in order for your argument to look logical, the premises would have to read;

1. Whatever naturally begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The natural universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the natural universe has a supernatural cause of its beginning.

All this because your supernatural beliefs force you to add the word "natural" to the word "universe" not because I changed the wording. You - Tanager - clearly did.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

Agreed.

Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

[The Tanager]

Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

Clarification needed. By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?

[William]

Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?

Clarification needed. By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?

While science has provided valuable insights into the evolution and dynamics of the universe, it has not definitively established whether matter and energy, in and of themselves, had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The scientific narrative often focuses on the observable history of the universe, starting from the Planck time after the Big Bang, but it doesn't necessarily extend to a clear understanding of what occurred before that epoch.

Since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy", I am possibly speaking of a different meaning to "the universe" than you are, and if so - we will be required to account for and determine from that which understanding best fits with what is meant by "the universe" as per the current evidence available to us.

Re that, what I am saying is that "The Universe" may not exclude matter and energy and may include those as eternal aspects, which would effectively mean that "The Universe" did not "begin to exist" but only the current manifestations themselves - and it is the temporal things which began to exist, but these do not altogether make up "The Universe" or we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.

Thus I would have to say that I disagree with the idea/conventional assumption that there is even such a thing as "spatio-temporal matter/energy".

Furthermore, it is clear that the Kalam "meaning of "The Universe" re premise 2 requires updating in order to align with what is actually known rather than what is presumed.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #146]

You aren’t even sure there is “spatio-temporal energy/matter”? Do you mean it might be an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having? Because you couldn't be having this conversation if what we call spatio-temporal energy/matter didn't exist because you have a human body and are typing on some type of computer and all of that, which are things that are made of spatio-temporal energy/matter, even if that is an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #147]

You aren’t even sure there is “spatio-temporal energy/matter”?

You wanted clarification on what premise 2 "The Universe" meant. I gave a concise explanation re that, based on what you offered.

I gave my own view in answer, which was (in context) to say that I disagreed with your interpretation that "The Universe" was "all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through."

Do you mean it might be an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having? Because you couldn't be having this conversation if what we call spatio-temporal energy/matter didn't exist because you have a human body and are typing on some type of computer and all of that, which are things that are made of spatio-temporal energy/matter, even if that is an illusion or simulation some other 'stuff' is having.

So what you really mean is that "The Universe" is made up of temporary functional objects? If so, that aligns with how I see it too - as I wrote in my last post - we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.

To clarify, not to exclude matter and energy as being responsible for the existence of The Universe made up of temporary functional objects, but to exclude the idea that matter and energy itself is temporary.

Thus,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The Universe began to exist

In that, "The Universe" is "all of the temporal functional objects that exist in whatever forms and cycles these go through."
(Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?)

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #141]

Let me reverse the second question: If a universe could come into being from God, why doesn't it happen today? It's the same set of answers. It's the same set of objections.

No, it’s not the same. A personal cause (which we eventually connect with our label God) has free will and can choose whether to create new energy/matter or not. There is no property about nothingness and no constraint on nothingness to explain why it only happened once and never again.

Personality 1: Interesting reversal. So, the suggestion is that a personal cause, like God, has the freedom to choose when to create a universe, and that's why it doesn't happen repeatedly. But couldn't we argue that if a personal cause has the freedom to choose, then it could have chosen to create universes continuously? What constrains or guides this decision?

Personality 2: It seems you're implying a certain level of unpredictability or lack of constraints on the actions of a personal cause. But wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient God, by definition, have complete knowledge and control over every aspect of creation? If so, why would such a being choose to create a universe only once and not repeatedly?

Personality 3: Good point. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, the idea of a one-time creation event raises questions about the motivations and intentions behind that choice. It also brings up the issue of why an omnipotent being would create a universe with specific properties and laws, rather than in a more varied or frequent manner.

Personality 4: Perhaps the constraints on God's actions are inherent in the nature of God itself. If God is defined by certain attributes, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, then maybe there are inherent limitations that guide the decisions of this being. But it still leaves us with the question of why those particular limitations and why a singular act of creation.

Personality 5: Agreed. The nature of God and the reasons behind a singular act of creation remain complex and open to interpretation. It seems like we're delving into the realms of theology, philosophy, and metaphysics, where answers might not be readily available or universally agreed upon.

Personality 6: True. These are age-old questions that have puzzled thinkers for centuries, and perhaps the mystery and ambiguity surrounding the nature of God and creation are inherent to the human experience.

Personality 7:. Perhaps the problem is in the initial definitions of matter mind and energy. Perhaps if God were reconstituted as being made up of matter mind and energy, we could answer these questions better?

Personality 8: That's an intriguing perspective. If we redefine God as being composed of matter, mind, and energy, it might provide a different framework for understanding the questions surrounding creation. How would this reinterpretation alter our understanding of God's actions and the nature of the universe?

Personality 9: It could potentially address the issue of why God might choose to create a universe only once. If God is comprised of matter, mind, and energy, then the act of creation might be an inherent and continuous aspect of God's nature. The limitations or constraints we brought up earlier could be redefined within the context of God's own composition.

Personality 10: This redefinition could also offer a way to explain the specific properties and laws of the universe. If God is made up of matter, mind, and energy, perhaps the characteristics of our universe are reflections of the inherent qualities of God's composition.

Personality 11: However, it still leaves us with the question of why God, in this redefined form, would create a universe with these particular attributes and not others. What drives the choices made by a God composed of matter, mind, and energy, and how do these choices align with the experiences and perceptions of sentient beings within the created universe?

Personality 12: It's an interesting avenue to explore, and it brings us back to the fundamental questions about the nature of God and creation. Redefining God's composition may open new possibilities for understanding, but it also introduces a new set of complexities and mysteries.

Personality 13: Perhaps our exploration of these questions will always be limited by the inherent ambiguity of the subject matter. The nature of God, the origin of the universe, and the purpose behind it all may remain elusive, inviting continued contemplation and philosophical inquiry.

Personality 14: Indeed, the reconstitution of God's nature as matter, mind, and energy offers a fresh perspective, but it also underscores the profound depth of the mysteries we're attempting to unravel. As we navigate these questions, we may find that the quest for understanding leads us to even more profound and intricate inquiries.

Personality 15:. Since we now have an object - The Universe - as a solid dependable guide we can reframe the question in a way which acknowledges the overall object as "an expression of God" and focus on answering the question - which essentially is "why would ANYONE who could do so, create this particular universe the way that it is" thus reducing the need to hypothesis "other" possible Universes?

Personality 16: That's an interesting shift in perspective. By considering the universe itself as an expression of God, we can redirect our focus toward understanding why this particular universe exists in its current form. It reduces the need to speculate about the possibility of other universes and brings us closer to examining the intricacies of the one we inhabit.

Personality 17: It also aligns with the idea that everything within the universe, including its properties and laws, is an expression of the inherent qualities of God. This approach may provide a more cohesive framework for exploring the motivations and intentions behind the act of creation.

Personality 18: Instead of questioning why God, in a redefined form of matter, mind, and energy, would create different universes, we can delve into the specific characteristics of our universe and seek a deeper understanding of how they reflect the nature of God.

Personality 19: This reframing could potentially lead to a more nuanced exploration of the relationship between the divine and the observable universe. It allows us to consider the universe as a meaningful and purposeful expression of God, prompting us to contemplate the intricacies and meaning embedded within our own existence.

Personality 20: However, it doesn't necessarily eliminate the mystery. We still face the challenge of discerning the motivations behind the creation of this particular universe, understanding why certain properties and laws were chosen, and how they contribute to the overall purpose, if any.

Personality 21: Perhaps this approach invites us to appreciate the universe as a profound manifestation of the divine, encouraging us to explore the depths of its complexity and significance without necessarily expecting to uncover all the answers.

Personality 22: Indeed, reframing the question in this way opens up a rich avenue for philosophical and theological exploration. The universe as an expression of God invites us to contemplate the divine essence woven into the fabric of reality, embracing the inherent mysteries that come with such contemplation.

Personality 23: As we continue our journey into these profound inquiries, we may find that the answers lie not only in the external exploration of the cosmos but also in the internal reflections on the nature of our existence and our relationship with the divine.

[The Tanager]

So what you really mean is that "The Universe" is made up of temporary functional objects? If so, that aligns with how I see it too - as I wrote in my last post - we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.

No, that is not what I mean. We can’t beg the question by our definition of ‘universe’. And we are currently talking about the term, not what the premise says about that term. By 'universe' I’m talking about those things you think are temporary, functional objects, but I’m not saying they are temporary, functional or not temporary, functional objects. That question, answered either way, cannot be a part of the definition or we are begging the question, which is irrational. The focus right now is just on agreeing on the term, not what we think about the things that make up that term.