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 #179]

I understand (1) to be correct, where matter is the ‘stuff’ and energy is a property of that stuff.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #179]

I understand (1) to be correct, where matter is the ‘stuff’ and energy is a property of that stuff.

Okay - going with that understanding, is the energy of the matter, matter (stuff) itself, or something else?

[boatsnguitars]

Right, like the Supernatural claim in unsupported.

[The Tanager]

Okay - going with that understanding, is the energy of the matter, matter (stuff) itself, or something else?

I don't understand the difference since the second option can't be just another way to say energy is matter (because we already made that distinction by going with the previous understanding).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #183]

Except the Kalam is a support offered. Feel free to engage with that argument.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #183]

Except the Kalam is a support offered. Feel free to engage with that argument.

I've responded to the Kalam in this thread, and many other places.

However, the Kalam doesn't support - or even mention - the Supernatural.

Feel free to engage with that glaring fact.

[William]

Okay - going with that understanding, is the energy of the matter, matter (stuff) itself, or something else?

I don't understand the difference since the second option can't be just another way to say energy is matter (because we already made that distinction by going with the previous understanding).

Then we can say that the understanding is faulty, because it doesn't account for itself as it is presented.

If energy is not matter, then what is it?

To claim that energy is a property of matter and yet not be able to explain what the property is, one is not really understanding, but guessing/presuming.

[The Tanager]

Then we can say that the understanding is faulty, because it doesn't account for itself as it is presented.

If energy is not matter, then what is it?

To claim that energy is a property of matter and yet not be able to explain what the property is, one is not really understanding, but guessing/presuming.

(I think) I did explain what the property energy is. It is the capacity for doing work. It takes different forms (heat, kinetic, potential, magnetic, etc.).

[William]

Then we can say that the understanding is faulty, because it doesn't account for itself as it is presented.

If energy is not matter, then what is it?

To claim that energy is a property of matter and yet not be able to explain what the property is, one is not really understanding, but guessing/presuming.

(I think) I did explain what the property energy is. It is the capacity for doing work. It takes different forms (heat, kinetic, potential, magnetic, etc.).

Okay - so now we can examine these properties of Matter associated with Energy, to see what they are made of. (1.Energy is the behavior of Matter) rather than matter itself.

1. Kinetic Energy: This is the energy of motion. Any object that is in motion has kinetic energy. The amount of kinetic energy depends on the mass of the object and its velocity.
2. Potential Energy: This is stored energy that an object possesses due to its position or condition. For example, an object lifted above the ground has gravitational potential energy.
3. Thermal (Heat) Energy: This is the internal energy in a substance due to the vibration and movement of its atoms and molecules. The higher the temperature, the more thermal energy a substance possesses.
4. Chemical Energy: This is the energy stored in the bonds between atoms and molecules. It is released or absorbed during chemical reactions.
5. Electrical Energy: This is the energy associated with the movement of electrons. It can be generated by the flow of electric charge through a conductor.
6. Electromagnetic (Light) Energy: This form of energy is carried by electromagnetic waves, including visible light, radio waves, microwaves, and X-rays.
7. Nuclear Energy: This is the energy released during nuclear reactions, such as those that occur in the sun or in nuclear power plants.
8. Sound Energy: This is the energy associated with the vibrations of particles in a medium, usually air, water, or solids. Sound energy travels in waves.
9. Elastic (Mechanical) Energy: This is the energy stored in an object when it is compressed or stretched, such as in a spring or a stretched rubber band.

_____________

Eternal Matter Dynamics Theory.

1. Energy is the behavior of Matter
2. The Big Bang Theory (BBT) describes the behavior of Matter rather than the beginning of matter:
3. The Classical Steady State Theory (CSST) does not include anything prior to the BB event:
4. The BBT acknowledges that Matter existed before the BB event:
5. The Eternal Matter Dynamics Theory (EMDT) explains that Matter has always existed, and that this Matter has to be included in the overall description of “The Universe”.

EMDT posits that energy is an expression of the dynamic behavior of matter, emphasizing their inseparable connection. The theory interprets the Big Bang Theory as describing the ongoing behavior of matter in the part of the universe observable by human beings, rejecting the notion of a distinct beginning of all matter. EMDT acknowledges the classical Steady State Theory's lack of a specific event before the observable part of The Universe, proposing a universe without a defined beginning or end. In alignment with the Big Bang Theory, EMDT recognizes that matter existed before the specific event of the Big Bang. The core proposition of EMDT is that matter has always existed, playing an eternal and integral role in the continuous and dynamic processes shaping the observable part of the universe.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #189]

Okay, so do you agree that we observe the nature of matter changing and that it has extension in space? If so, then do you agree or disagree with premise 2: the universe began to exist? Did you bring up EMDT as proof that it isn’t true? Or to point out that some scientists don’t think it is true?