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.

[William]

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.

In considering the definition of 'The Universe,' I find your caution against including specific characteristics within the definition understandable. However, it's worth noting that seeking clarification on what 'The Universe' entails is not an attempt to impose specific characteristics but rather a means to ensure a common ground for our discussion.

Moreover, I understand that drawing on the insights provided by scientific knowledge is rational and that allowing such to be a part of the definition is not “begging the question”, and thus is not an irrational thing to do, but rather – a necessary (rational) thing to include and re definition -would not cause one to fall into the trap of circular reasoning.

Scientific discoveries about the nature of spatio-temporal objects, (various forms), and cycles (beginnings, beings and endings) can inform our understanding without being deemed as 'begging the question.' In doing so, we can create a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for our discussion that incorporates both philosophical considerations and empirical knowledge.
The Universe does have characteristics and these should be included in any definition of The Universe.

[alexxcJRO]

Yes, what you clearly said was very vague and what you have now clarified you meant wasn’t what I originally talked about, to which you were responding to. So, it looks like we’ve talked past each other a bit. I’ve already shared how my understanding of the Adam and Eve story is not committed to an historical pair from which we all descended.

Q: So did people in ancient times and medieval times believed in Adam and Eve as starting point for humanity as the literal reading sugest? (yes/no)

We were discussing what the interpretation should be, not what the majority view was. Majority view is not a good test of truth.

Irrelevant nonsense.

The overwhelmingly majority of people from the ancient times and medieval times somehow missed these literary devices(metaphorical). Showing its not really about objective analysing of the text, about objective recognizing the literary style but its about saving what cannot be saved.
Q: If it's about objective analysis of the text how come so many people(including very educated ones) missed the literary style?

No, it’s not. Craig doesn’t even put the emphasis for the rationality of the Kalam on the scientific evidence. He thinks the philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe are the stronger line. He does realize many people discount overt philosophy and will only consider the science (unaware of the subvert philosophy going on, but I digress) and appeals to scientific confirmation of the philosophical conclusions. But even there he doesn’t stop at current versions of the standard model, reasoning about various cosmological models, if they end up being true.

Comedy. So the fact that we have the phrase "The universe began to exist" and then the fact that WLC uses the idea that the universe expanded as a cruth is not evidence for my point.

Q: But if we did not had the idea or the evidence that the universe expanded how can one say: "The universe began to exist", huh?

I apologize for glossing over the term being used; we were talking past each other here as well (and this one was completely my fault). I agree it is illogical to punish an innocent person. So, going back to Pete (was it?), he doesn’t think he is punishing an innocent person, but he does think it is okay for him to harm that innocent person. Is he objectively wrong? If so, why?

We are moving in circles.
It's irrelevant what morons and/or psychopaths like Pete believe.
I could say the sun looks green.
Saying so does not make it so. Baseless assertions mean nothing.
It's about demonstrating the truth about a claim either by argumentation or evidence.
Pete could say all day long he is not punishing an innocent person X.
If person X is innocent objectively not because someone says so then it follows that punishing an innocent is both illogical and wrong objectively.
A 5 day basically completely ignorant, nearsighted, helpless and powerless baby, a severely mentally impaired from birth, non human animal(a deer) are innocent objectively.

[The Tanager]

The overwhelmingly majority of people from the ancient times and medieval times somehow missed these literary devices(metaphorical). Showing its not really about objective analysing of the text, about objective recognizing the literary style but its about saving what cannot be saved.
Q: If it's about objective analysis of the text how come so many people(including very educated ones) missed the literary style?

Why is the majority opinion a good test of truth? That isn’t irrelevant nonsense. It’s actually a textbook informal fallacy. People come to their interpretations for all sorts of reasons; it’s the good reasons that need to be pointed to.

Comedy. So the fact that we have the phrase "The universe began to exist" and then the fact that WLC uses the idea that the universe expanded as a cruth is not evidence for my point.

Q: But if we did not had the idea or the evidence that the universe expanded how can one say: "The universe began to exist", huh?

Philosophy.

It's irrelevant what morons and/or psychopaths like Pete believe.
I could say the sun looks green.
Saying so does not make it so. Baseless assertions mean nothing.
It's about demonstrating the truth about a claim either by argumentation or evidence.

But what makes Pete a moron? He’s not punishing the mentally impaired individual, he thinks that individual is innocent and hasn't done anything to deserve the harm, it's just that harming that individual will benefit Pete and that's why he does it. Why is that wrong?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #151]

It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #151]

It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

Agreed.
Any definition of "The Universe" which is not scientific knowledge - including the one you are using/wanting to use, should thus be placed aside because of that rule-set.

The definition "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is breach of rule-set as it has within it's phrasing the word "temporal" which is an answer to whether The Universe is "eternal" or "temporal" - (in this case the answer being "temporal".)

Since it is the case that such is not scientific knowledge, "The Universe" cannot be further clarified in its meaning, (re the rule-set) and therefore can only be taken at face value (simply referred to as "The Universe") re the 3 premises being discussed.

This being the case, the second premise (2. The Universe began to exist) having not yet been established, is a false premise and thus, the third premise (3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.) cannot be determined as a logical conclusion.

I would say that what is going on here are two distinct philosophical arguments.

On the one hand, the supernaturalist premises;

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

2. The universe began to exist.

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

And on the other hand, the following.

1. The Universe exists

2. It is unknown that The Universe began to exist.

3: It is unknown if an uncaused being caused The Universe to exist.

4: Therefore, The Universe can be regarded as The Uncaused Being.

Given that these are philosophical musings, they should hold equally to the same rule-set and therein neither should be granted a double standard pass.

This is to acknowledge that the rule-set should apply to both philosophical positions, rather than favor the one over the other.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #155]

You are correct that we should be more exact with the terms, since ‘temporal’ has different meanings. The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space. It does not refer to whether it had a beginning or is beginningless (maybe those should be the terms used instead of eternal/temporal in the question we are not trying to beg).

[William]

[Replying to William in post #155]

You are correct that we should be more exact with the terms, since ‘temporal’ has different meanings.

Temporary simply means Temporal/Temporal simply means Temporary.

The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

In what way do we observe this phenomena?

It does not refer to whether it had a beginning or is beginningless (maybe those should be the terms used instead of eternal/temporal in the question we are not trying to beg).

Indeed - it could be argued that the phenomena observed (whatever these might be) consist of beginnings and ends.

For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[The Tanager]

In what way do we observe this phenomena?

How do we observe spatial extension and matter/energy changing (i.e., being temporal)?

For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?

We don’t scientifically observe it, but we can turn to philosophy. When we do, I think it becomes known that the universe (spatio-temporal matter/energy) did have a beginning.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #158]

The “temporal” of spatio-temporal matter/energy is only meant to refer to the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

In what way do we observe this phenomena?

How do we observe spatial extension and matter/energy changing (i.e., being temporal)?

How do we observe the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

For example, we could agree that the phenomena of stars being observed beginning, existing, or ending might be acceptable examples but do we observe the matter or energy associated with that process, as also beginning, existing and then ending?

We don’t scientifically observe it, but we can turn to philosophy. When we do, I think it becomes known that the universe (spatio-temporal matter/energy) did have a beginning.

We have yet to philosophically agree with what "The Universe" is that we are speaking about.
Did you not agree that we should be more exact with any of the terms of clarification we might present in that we should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

Yet here you are still referring to the universe as being "temporal matter/energy."
Is this to say then, that you are arguing when the philosophy one "tursn to" offers such a definition of The Universe, this is an acceptable practice to use to compensate our lack of scientific observation and from this particular philosophy you are arguing for, we are able to declare that "Yes! Matter/energy are "temporary"!?

If so, you would be arguing that the rule-set you brought into your argument, should not apply re your particular philosophical position. That is a double standard and only weakens the overall philosophical argument because in order for it to be seen as strong, it is shown to appear that way due to the double standard/bending of the rule-set to suit/allow the philosophy to provide us with "answers" (re "thinking it becomes known" thinking which is derived from a stacked-deck) - providing "answers" which observational science isn't able to currently give us.

Whereas the premises below, remain true to the rule-set.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[The Tanager]

How do we observe the nature of matter/energy to change and how it has extension in space.

We observe matter/energy through various scientific implements (eyes and technologically advanced equipment) to see that it has length, width, depth (i.e., spatial extension) and that changes occur in the combinations of matter/energy (i.e., it is temporal…which here is not an antonym of eternal). My cat laying on my legs right now takes up space; my hand doesn’t just pass through it, I can measure her with a tape measure and a scale (well, I don’t know how cooperative she’d be, but in theory). At one moment she is very peaceful and a moment later she attacks my leg for some imaginary string or something.