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.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings.

My argument is not majority says so therefore they are right. Stop with the strawman.
Listen carefully. Might suggest read it 100 times.

Here it goes:

Somehow over hundreds of years millions if not hundred of millions if not more, including very educated, influent and rich people have missed these literary devices, this literary style.

At first they missed these literary devices, this literary style over some small parts of Genesis story. With times the process of missing of these literary devices, this literary style spread like a virus culminating today with entire stories: Adam and Eve story, Noah story, Tower of Babylon and so on being infected with these supposed literary devices, this literary style.

It almost look like as time goes by and irrefutable things about reality contradicts the Bible these magical literary devices, this literary style suddenly become visible where before where obscure and hidden.

It clear as day a dishonest mechanism of cherry-picking and metaphorical metamorphosis in order to save a failed hypothesis.
There is no objective literary analysis of the text. It about preserving cherished beliefs.

Philosophy.

Let's ignore the fact that WLC uses known facts of science for a moment which proves my point. Let's ignore the equivocation tactics.

Please explain how we can say: "The universe began to exist" if we do not have all the evidence for the expansion of the universe or inflation.

We live in an apparent eternal universe which may well work on a quantum mechanics interpretation which goes well in hand with B theory of time.
We have Eternalism as opposed to Presentism. We have "block time" or "block universe" type situation.

Temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion.
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once. Imagine time like a space dimension.

On B theory, all of the moments of time exist tenselessly at once, so the absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise.
Also the phrase “begins to exist” begs the question on B-theory about what it means for something to begin if the claim is that beginnings only happen on an A-theory.
Craig for example insists upon the A-theory as a necessary part of the kalam cosmological argument.

According to Craig KALAM “presupposes from start to finish an A-theory of time.”
On the B-theory time as I see it, could be infinite without having problems because of infinite regress, because it does not become infinite by successive addition. And as long as we do not “move through” time,
There is no temporal regress going back in time. The various moments of time stand in tenseless relations to all the other moments.

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?

If Pete punishes X individual who is objectively innocent that betrays an intention in his mind to cause someone X who has done something wrong or committed a crime to suffer. But there is zero chance of X being guilty of have committed a single crime.
Punishing a person X for a crime that is imagined and not real cause Pete is a moron is wrong and illogical.

Example:
Let's say I was accused of murder. But I am innocent of this fact. I have in fact not murdering anyone.
The state punishes me with the death penalty. The state benefits in killing me.
The state is wrong in doing so.

You keep saying but how is the state wrong! So dumb!

[boatsnguitars]

"Please explain how we can say: "The universe began to exist" if we do not have all the evidence for the expansion of the universe or inflation."

I'm still waiting for Tanager to explain how the Supernatural can create, out of Nothing, the Natural. Theists love to do this bait and switch. They love to say Atheists believe Something came from Nothing - but then say that God can make something from the Supernatural - as if that answers anything.

(For the record, I believe the Natural has always existed, even if our Universe hasn't.)

The Supernaturalist has the burden of proof to explain the mechanisms of the Supernatural. Since they can't even demonstrate the Supernatural, they find distractions to avoid the burden. They even go so far to say it's our burden to prove them wrong. I'd love to prove them wrong - once they prove me with some solid claim we can test.

As it is, theism might as well be the study of the odor of unicorn farts. They will tell us, in great detail, the sublime bouquet of unicorn farts without ever demonstrating unicorns exist. They believe they are doing Philosophy...

[The Tanager]

Somehow over hundreds of years millions if not hundred of millions if not more, including very educated, influent and rich people have missed these literary devices, this literary style.

At first they missed these literary devices, this literary style over some small parts of Genesis story. With times the process of missing of these literary devices, this literary style spread like a virus culminating today with entire stories: Adam and Eve story, Noah story, Tower of Babylon and so on being infected with these supposed literary devices, this literary style.

No, throughout history people did see these as literary devices. I quoted some of them.

Please explain how we can say: "The universe began to exist" if we do not have all the evidence for the expansion of the universe or inflation.

We live in an apparent eternal universe which may well work on a quantum mechanics interpretation which goes well in hand with B theory of time.
We have Eternalism as opposed to Presentism. We have "block time" or "block universe" type situation.

Temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time is just an illusion.
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once. Imagine time like a space dimension.

On B theory, all of the moments of time exist tenselessly at once, so the absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise.

There are two philosophical arguments given. I agree they would fail if B theory is true. Why do you think B theory is more reasonably true than A-theory?

Also the phrase “begins to exist” begs the question on B-theory about what it means for something to begin if the claim is that beginnings only happen on an A-theory.

I think the phrase “begins to exist” would just mean something different if B-theory is true. It would mean that, say an elephant, is only partially extended within the time block, not fully extended.

If Pete punishes X individual who is objectively innocent that betrays an intention in his mind to cause someone X who has done something wrong or committed a crime to suffer. But there is zero chance of X being guilty of have committed a single crime.
Punishing a person X for a crime that is imagined and not real cause Pete is a moron is wrong and illogical.

Example:
Let's say I was accused of murder. But I am innocent of this fact. I have in fact not murdering anyone.
The state punishes me with the death penalty. The state benefits in killing me.
The state is wrong in doing so.

You keep saying but how is the state wrong! So dumb!

That’s not a good analogy of what I am asking you about. Analogically, you aren’t accused of murder. The state actually thinks you have been an outstanding model citizen. But they want to harm you anyway because they gain some perceived benefit. Why are they wrong in that case?

[The Tanager]

I'm still waiting for Tanager to explain how the Supernatural can create, out of Nothing, the Natural. Theists love to do this bait and switch. They love to say Atheists believe Something came from Nothing - but then say that God can make something from the Supernatural - as if that answers anything.

As I say, every time you say this, there is a difference between showing that X exists and showing how that thing all works. Those are two separate questions where knowledge of the second isn’t required for knowledge of the first. You can know that taking an ibuprofen works without knowing how it all works.

[boatsnguitars]

I'm still waiting for Tanager to explain how the Supernatural can create, out of Nothing, the Natural. Theists love to do this bait and switch. They love to say Atheists believe Something came from Nothing - but then say that God can make something from the Supernatural - as if that answers anything.

As I say, every time you say this, there is a difference between showing that X exists and showing how that thing all works. Those are two separate questions where knowledge of the second isn’t required for knowledge of the first. You can know that taking an ibuprofen works without knowing how it all works.

Right, because we know ibuprofen exists, and because of that we know how it works - because we know the difference when it becomes manifest in a system.

You are still talking about the smell of unicorn farts. Show us that Unicorns exists first.

Demonstrate the Supernatural manifests. Then maybe we'll figure out how it works... if it exists. But, we know why you won't - because it doesn't exist, and you'd rather play the game of being an expert on something that no one can challenge you on.

Supernaturalists love to claim unicorns exist, wave their hand that their farts smell divine, and then blame others for not being as educated as they are on the important matter of unicorn farts.

[William]

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.

Let's Unpack that.

Science (as far as I am aware) has not shown that energy and matter are temporal.
Therefore while we can say that there are objects formed through the "apparent" interplay, (which are altogether recognized as "The Universe" and are generally regarded as deriving from a point called the "Big Bang"...

...Scientists (and we) cannot show that the point itself didn't rest upon an eternal field of matter and that the energy which occurred and unfolded into what is currently the universe of formed-objects we are experiencing is not the expression of a mind/mindfulness and is not the same as the matter itself...Is not material...is "immaterial".

(Sure - these things can be said - but cannot be shown to being the case).

For that matter, we cannot determine whether the Point is an exit or an entry.

So - sticking with what we know now, what can we agree with re the definition of "The Universe"?

[The Tanager]

Science (as far as I am aware) has not shown that energy and matter are temporal.
Therefore while we can say that there are objects formed through the "apparent" interplay, (which are altogether recognized as "The Universe" and are generally regarded as deriving from a point called the "Big Bang"...

...Scientists (and we) cannot show that the point itself didn't rest upon an eternal field of matter and that the energy which occurred and unfolded into what is currently the universe of formed-objects we are experiencing is not the expression of a mind/mindfulness and is not the same as the matter itself...Is not material...is "immaterial".

You are (unintentionally) equivocating on “temporal” here. By saying that we can scientifically observe that energy/matter has spatial extension and undergoes changes, we are not saying anything about whether such energy/matter has always existed, in the same or different forms, or began to exist at some point or is all of reality or is an illusion or is an expression of a mind or is caused by the supernatural or any of that. We are simply saying this physical stuff undergoes changes and has spatial extension. That’s it. Do you agree that energy/matter has spatial extension and undergoes changes, whatever it's history has been?

[William]

Science (as far as I am aware) has not shown that energy and matter are temporal.
Therefore while we can say that there are objects formed through the "apparent" interplay, (which are altogether recognized as "The Universe" and are generally regarded as deriving from a point called the "Big Bang"...

...Scientists (and we) cannot show that the point itself didn't rest upon an eternal field of matter and that the energy which occurred and unfolded into what is currently the universe of formed-objects we are experiencing is not the expression of a mind/mindfulness and is not the same as the matter itself...Is not material...is "immaterial".

You are (unintentionally) equivocating on “temporal” here. By saying that we can scientifically observe that energy/matter has spatial extension and undergoes changes, we are not saying anything about whether such energy/matter has always existed, in the same or different forms, or began to exist at some point or is all of reality or is an illusion or is an expression of a mind or is caused by the supernatural or any of that. We are simply saying this physical stuff undergoes changes and has spatial extension. That’s it. Do you agree that energy/matter has spatial extension and undergoes changes, whatever it's history has been?

Okay. Perhaps we are making progress moving toward an agreement.

Clarification required. What do you mean by "energy/matter" and do we treat these as the same thing, or different things?

[The Tanager]

Okay. Perhaps we are making progress moving toward an agreement.

Clarification required. What do you mean by "energy/matter" and do we treat these as the same thing, or different things?

I think the classic definition of matter is a substance that occupies physical space and has mass. Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Together, matter and energy are often viewed as the basis of all objective physical phenomena we observe in the real world. I'm saying energy/matter to try to include all the physical 'stuff'.

[William]

Okay. Perhaps we are making progress moving toward an agreement.

Clarification required. What do you mean by "energy/matter" and do we treat these as the same thing, or different things?

I think the classic definition of matter is a substance that occupies physical space and has mass. Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Together, matter and energy are often viewed as the basis of all objective physical phenomena we observe in the real world. I'm saying energy/matter to try to include all the physical 'stuff'.

I cannot tell by the definition you provided, whether these should be treated as different or same.

For now, how shall we agree to treat energy/matter as of the same (source) or of different sources, perhaps exploring each presentation...