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]

[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?

My focus is on our unanswered question "What is The Universe?" re an agreed on definition.

Until we can agree with the definition, only premise 1. has been satisfied. Alone as a premise, it is simply a statement of fact.

1. The Universe exists.

What is meant by "The Universe" determines how premise 2. is then worded.

So far "The Universe began to exist" is more a statement made "matter-of-factly" rather than to have already being shown to being true.

The true answer is that we do not know.

I brought in the EMDT as a means of showing another point of view which supports that matter must have existed before the Big Bang because everything since then (information about the stuff we have eventually gathered) leads us to understand that "energy" when mentioned alongside matter is not a thing in and of itself (as is Matter) but rather energy is the result of the different forms of matter which interact with each other and results in those types of energies mentioned in our recent posts.

Since it is the case that Matter must have pre-existed the Big Bang, we have things to consider when trying to come to an agreement re premise 2.

Because the Big Bang happened and because it shows clearly that it is the product of Matter reacting with itself we have to question what we mean by "beginning", which often refers to what is known as "The Singularity" - indicating from our perspective that there is only one such Singularity in our existence.

So we can agree that a singularity can be considered a "Beginning" therefore we can also agree that whatever resulted in that singularity had a beginning, but we remain in disagreement because there appears to be a significant difference in our background theories.

Yours has a supernatural element and mine does not, re "the cause" and thus the nature of the uncaused is also different, for yours is without substance and mine is made of Matter (re the EMDT) because energy is the behavior of Matter and these should not be regarded as separate things but as the one thing - Matter - doing its thing.

So, I agree that we observe the nature of Matter changing and that it has extension into a space which also reacted to/with the energy - thus space has to be made of Matter too and thus is to be treated as such.

But I cannot altogether agree that the whole bubble created through the interaction of Matter itself can be consigned the grandiose title of "THE UNIVERSE!" without also ignoring the Matter which it bubbled out from. That would be like calling the flea "The Dog".

So, here we are.

[The Tanager]

My focus is on our unanswered question "What is The Universe?" re an agreed on definition.

If that is your focus and it hasn’t been satisfactorily agreed upon yet, then you shouldn’t be talking about the EMDT yet. What is wrong with the definition of the ‘universe’ being spatio-temporal matter in the way I’ve described it?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #192]

If that is your focus and it hasn’t been satisfactorily agreed upon yet, then you shouldn’t be talking about the EMDT yet.

You mean - specifically I shouldn't be talking about it with you?

Okay.

What is wrong with the definition of the ‘universe’ being spatio-temporal matter in the way I’ve described it?

There is nothing right or wrong therein. Rather it is significant re the differences in our understanding of what "The Universe" actually consists of. The differences are noted in what we have not agreed upon as yet.
In order to agree on the question we have to agree to include possible notions.

We can discuss the notion to agree for arguments sake that "The Universe" only refers to the bubble we are experiencing, but sooner or later we are going to have to cross the bridge together re premise 3. "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence." and this occurs either way in relation to our different views (Natural/Supernatural.)

So, if I am to agree that we are only talking of "The Universe" from our position within it (which cannot see beyond the horizon of the Singularity) premise 3. leads us to question premise 2.

That is why I mention the significance of the EMDT because it goes further than the BBT and the limitations of scientific exploration beyond the singularity-horizon without resorting to the belief that the uncaused-cause is necessarily supernatural as in opposition to the Natural explanation EMDT provides.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #193]

I’m saying the ‘universe’ only refers to spatio-temporal matter. If there are things outside of that, it’s not part of the ‘universe’; there would need to be a higher category (like ‘all of reality’ or something else, it doesn’t matter). If this spatio-temporal matter used to look different, it’s part of the ‘universe’. If it has always existed, it’s still the ‘universe’. If it hasn’t always existed, it’s still the ‘universe’. BBT or EMDT or some other theory is a secondary question that comes later. So, do you agree that the ‘universe’ refers to the spatio-temporal matter, not as it appears now or used to (if it ever appeared differently) or whatever, but it’s just talking about spatio-temporal matter devoid of all these other (important but secondary for this purpose) questions?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #193]

I’m saying the ‘universe’ only refers to spatio-temporal matter. If there are things outside of that, it’s not part of the ‘universe’; there would need to be a higher category (like ‘all of reality’ or something else, it doesn’t matter). If this spatio-temporal matter used to look different, it’s part of the ‘universe’. If it has always existed, it’s still the ‘universe’. If it hasn’t always existed, it’s still the ‘universe’. BBT or EMDT or some other theory is a secondary question that comes later. So, do you agree that the ‘universe’ refers to the spatio-temporal matter, not as it appears now or used to (if it ever appeared differently) or whatever, but it’s just talking about spatio-temporal matter devoid of all these other (important but secondary for this purpose) questions?

As I wrote "We can discuss the notion to agree for arguments sake that "The Universe" only refers to the bubble we are experiencing" and I agree that this appears to have had a beginning.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #195]

If you think I'm only talking about "the bubble we are experiencing," then you aren't understanding what I'm saying. My definition is not limited to the form of spatio-temporal matter that we are currently experiencing, but all of spatio-temporal matter in its entire history.

[alexxcJRO]

Just because there are different theories of time doesn’t mean we are ignorant about the nature of time. B-theory has to be more than just a logical possibility to rationally turn someone away from the Kalam; otherwise it is an irrational attempt to solve a problem (I don’t want to believe the conclusion and this gives me an out, so I’m taking it with no support for doing so).

I am not believing A theory or B theory sir.
The problem is using supposed problems which arise from ignorance to put God there is not very rational where there might be explanations for the supposed problems when ignorance no longer exist. In this case explanation1: B theory or explanation2 or explanation3 or ... or explanation n or ... ad infinitum.
The same way ancient people solved supposed problems which arise from ignorance and put God there.

Those decisions aren’t uncaused; they are caused by the human will, so premise 1 is false, negating the rest of your case there.

Nonsense.
In determinism decisions also are caused by the human will but all elements are ultimately deterministic. Can be causally linked to something.
In order for those decisions to arive non-deterministic there needs to be some elements to it that are uncaused by anything.
There is no way out of this.

Efficient causation is uncertain, but there is still the material cause of the atom or virtual particles, that have some kind of conditions being met for the decay to happen.

Dear sir there is some uncertainty to whether virtual particles have any (material) causes for their beginning. So claiming "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is bogus.

You have to be omniscient to claim anything is the absolute truth (beyond pure math and definitions), but 100% certainty shouldn’t be the standard. You don’t have to be omniscient for this premise to be the most reasonable position to take.

But sir we have the use of "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence".
If its not everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence that it implies there may be somethings that can begin to exist that do not have a cause for their existence.
The argument is defeated.

No, the Kalam uses ‘cause’ to cover both senses consistently.

Saying so does not make it so.

Q: Do you not know this sir?
One has to prove either by argument or evidence.
Baseless assertions mean nothing.

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Here the proponent of the arguement refers to material cause recombination of pre-existing stuff.
"The universe has a cause." Here he refers to divine creation-ex nihilo: efficient cause.

The universe isn’t a thing that houses all of the material stuff, but is the collection of all material stuff, including any “fabric”.

Dear sir if things inside the universe(multiverse or cacaverse or ... or omniverse) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or cacaverse or ... omniverse) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The above means that even if our universe->pocket universe began it does not mean that the omniverse which is ultimately a part of began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The omniverse may well be uncaused and beginningless as the proposed omni-being.

Appealing to the simplicity of one over multiple causes is not a fallacy; science appeals to simplicity in all sorts of ways.

Says so the believer in Trinity. Funny.
You mean: Occam razor “The simplest explanation is usually the best one. “

Its funny how believers in Christianity(triune god) argue for one being better then 3 or 4 or 5 or …

If one says simplicity is a maximally great making attribute then it follows because it is simpler to be a oneness of self, one rational faculty instead of a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties; God would have to be one person, one rational faculty: Unitarian God.(God would also would not have to share the other maximally great properties).

On the other hand if one says that complexity is a great making attribute then it follows because it is more complex, greater to be a multi-personal self, multiple rational faculties instead of a oneness of self, God would have to be multi-person. But 4 is greater the 3, 5 greater then 6, 1000 greater then 999, ...; therefore God would have to be of infinite persons(Hive mind- Swarm Intelligence).

Q: What does reality has to do with subjective thoughs of simplicity?

No, your analogy had the state punishing you for being guilty of murder. That wasn’t my logic. My logic would be the state harming you even though it thinks you are innocent of the murder. So, why would the state be wrong to do that?

Dear sir you literally said: "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."

Q: Are you trolling me?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #195]

If you think I'm only talking about "the bubble we are experiencing," then you aren't understanding what I'm saying. My definition is not limited to the form of spatio-temporal matter that we are currently experiencing, but all of spatio-temporal matter in its entire history.

Explain that "entire history" you are refferring to.

[The Tanager]

Explain that "entire history" you are refferring to.

I'm not putting any content into what the entire history consists of, if that is what you are asking for. I'm saying anything it actually consists of whether that began at the Big Bang, went on forever before the Big Bang, began at some point prior to the Big Bang, however many stages or cycles it has gone through, etc. "Entire history" just means "whatever it has been".

[The Tanager]

I am not believing A theory or B theory sir. The problem is using supposed problems which arise from ignorance to put God there is not very rational where there might be explanations for the supposed problems when ignorance no longer exist. In this case explanation1: B theory or explanation2 or explanation3 or ... or explanation n or ... ad infinitum.
The same way ancient people solved supposed problems which arise from ignorance and put God there.

You are the one appealing to ignorance here. You are using supposed problems which arise from supposed ignorance about the nature of time to critique the Kalam. You aren’t arguing B-theory is true (which would defeat the Kalam) but arguing that since you don’t know what theory of time is true, you can conclude that the Kalam is false. No, figure out what theory of time is most reasonable to you and then, if that is B-theory, use that to argue against the Kalam.

In determinism decisions also are caused by the human will but all elements are ultimately deterministic. Can be causally linked to something.
In order for those decisions to arive non-deterministic there needs to be some elements to it that are uncaused by anything.
There is no way out of this.

Determinism is the doctrine that all events are ultimately determined by causes external to the human will. Libertarian free will says some events are ultimately determined by the human will. Libertarian free will is non-determinism without some element being uncaused by anything.

Dear sir there is some uncertainty to whether virtual particles have any (material) causes for their beginning. So claiming "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is bogus.

The quantum field is the material cause; without that there are no virtual particles.

But sir we have the use of "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence".
If its not everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence that it implies there may be somethings that can begin to exist that do not have a cause for their existence.
The argument is defeated.

Could you rephrase this because I’m not understanding your point here. It sounds like since an alternative premise could be true, the premise I gave isn’t true.

Saying so does not make it so.

Q: Do you not know this sir?
One has to prove either by argument or evidence.
Baseless assertions mean nothing.

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Here the proponent of the arguement refers to material cause recombination of pre-existing stuff.
"The universe has a cause." Here he refers to divine creation-ex nihilo: efficient cause.

Our understanding of causality includes an efficient cause recombining pre-existing material (like a human…the efficient cause…making a computer out of already existing material...the material cause) and (possibly) non-efficient causation of recombining pre-existing material (like virtual particles in the quantum field having no efficient cause). This is all a part of “everything that begins to exist has a cause”. Then when “the universe has a cause” premise is referred to, it refers to the same. In further analysis of this cause, it is determined that it is has no material cause and, through argument for the cause being personal, excludes non-efficient causation.

Dear sir if things inside the universe(multiverse or cacaverse or ... or omniverse) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or cacaverse or ... omniverse) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The above means that even if our universe->pocket universe began it does not mean that the omniverse which is ultimately a part of began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The omniverse may well be uncaused and beginningless as the proposed omni-being.

The Kalam’s ‘universe’ includes if our observable part of the multiverse is part of a multiverse. ‘Universe’ refers to all spatio-temporal matter, whether the multiverse is true or not.

Says so the believer in Trinity. Funny.
You mean: Occam razor “The simplest explanation is usually the best one. “

Its funny how believers in Christianity(triune god) argue for one being better then 3 or 4 or 5 or …

I didn’t say Occam’s razor trumps all. Simplicity is only valid if there is no other evidence to consider. One ultimate cause of the spatio-temporal universe versus multiple ultimate causes of the spatio-temporal universe is one of those situations.

Simplicity isn’t about what are maximally great making attributes. It’s about explaining some phenomena with the fewest assumptions because more assumptions means more unexplained things one could be wrong about which one’s theory is resting on with no support for that unexplained thing being true.

Dear sir you literally said: "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."

Q: Are you trolling me?

Yes, I said that. And then you gave this 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!”

Are you saying (1) the state is punishing you even though it thinks you are innocent or (2) the state is punishing you because it thinks you are guilty?

If (1), then why are you using the word ‘punishing’ when we’ve agreed that word shouldn’t be used in that situation? The state is harming you even though it thinks you are innocent. That would be a good analogy of my situation with Pete that you quoted above.

If (2), then that is clearly not a good analogy because I said Pete doesn’t think the mentally impaired individual is guilty of anything that deserves punishment.