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]

The definition you offer is itself problematic and potentially begs questions. Since you define "The Universe" as including its entire history but leave the content of that history unspecified, this lack of specificity introduces ambiguity and opens the door to assumptions or implicit biases in discussions about the beginning of the universe.
In essence your argument allows for a double standard and as such must be rejected as sound and logical.
I contend that we should only work with what is available to us as clear evidence and define “The Universe” as that bubble mentioned and leave aside any of those notions you have mentioned which cannot be directly evidenced.

We are asking a question about the history of the universe (concerning whether that history had a beginning or not) so we cannot specify that content in the definition we then use to argue about the history of the universe. I don't see why you don't see how that begs the question. But you don't see it, so let's pursue your way. Now we aren't really doing the Kalam I set out, so don't call it that, but you agreed that everything that begins to exist has a cause already and I am keeping that premise for this new argument. Now premise 2. This "bubble" (which is made up of spatio-temporal matter) had a beginning. Agree, disagree, or clarification needed?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #211]

The definition you offer is itself problematic and potentially begs questions. Since you define "The Universe" as including its entire history but leave the content of that history unspecified, this lack of specificity introduces ambiguity and opens the door to assumptions or implicit biases in discussions about the beginning of the universe.
In essence your argument allows for a double standard and as such must be rejected as sound and logical.
I contend that we should only work with what is available to us as clear evidence and define “The Universe” as that bubble mentioned and leave aside any of those notions you have mentioned which cannot be directly evidenced.

We are asking a question about the history of the universe (concerning whether that history had a beginning or not) so we cannot specify that content in the definition we then use to argue about the history of the universe. I don't see why you don't see how that begs the question.

No. The question being asked re coming to an agreement on a definition has to do with "The Universe" not a definition of "The history of The Universe".

But you don't see it, so let's pursue your way. Now we aren't really doing the Kalam I set out, so don't call it that, but you agreed that everything that begins to exist has a cause already and I am keeping that premise for this new argument. Now premise 2. This "bubble" (which is made up of spatio-temporal matter) had a beginning. Agree, disagree, or clarification needed?

As far as the science can tell, yes - this bubble which is being defined as "The Universe" appears to have had a beginning.
The "spatio-temporal matter" you refer to, now needs to be clarified as to how you are defining that.

My own current definition is the understanding that this implies that all organized physical matter, within the framework of space and time, had a starting point and that energy (all types)produced is a manifestation of matter organizing in it's various ways, all of which define The Universe we are experiencing. It is "The Bubble" expanding through what appears to be an initial energetic pulse which is referred to as it's (specific) "beginning".

[boatsnguitars]

I believe Kalam and the Cause of the current Space-Time Universe we live in is a Red Herring if we are talking about the Supernatural.

The assumption must be: whatever caused the universe would be made of the same 'building blocks' of the universe - whether energy, matter, time, speed, etc.

It's irrational to believe there is something completely different that made something completely different. We don't see atoms creating things that aren't made of atoms.

Until someone can show there is a Supernatural, and how it can Cause things to happen, we have no choice but to assume the basic building blocks have always existed. We can discuss what those building blocks are, but we can't just invent things to fill in the gaps: supernatural, magic, gods, pixies, whatever...

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #213]

Until someone can show there is a Supernatural, and how it can Cause things to happen, we have no choice but to assume the basic building blocks have always existed. We can discuss what those building blocks are, but we can't just invent things to fill in the gaps: supernatural, magic, gods, pixies, whatever...

The problem with even expecting anyone can show there is a supernatural and how it caused this universe to happen, is that it opens a door for useless discussion down unnecessary tangents.

"magic, gods, pixies, whatever..." are fine and, as long as they can be explained in natural terms such can remain on the table of discussion without tangent and therefore would have to be defined as possible in an all natural world, which means that their assumed possible existence requires logical rational explanation.

[The Tanager]

No. The question being asked re coming to an agreement on a definition has to do with "The Universe" not a definition of "The history of The Universe".

But we are using this definition to address a question about the history of the universe (if it began to exist or is eternal).

As far as the science can tell, yes - this bubble which is being defined as "The Universe" appears to have had a beginning.
The "spatio-temporal matter" you refer to, now needs to be clarified as to how you are defining that.

My own current definition is the understanding that this implies that all organized physical matter, within the framework of space and time, had a starting point and that energy (all types)produced is a manifestation of matter organizing in it's various ways, all of which define The Universe we are experiencing. It is "The Bubble" expanding through what appears to be an initial energetic pulse which is referred to as it's (specific) "beginning".

I think I’m in agreement, if I understand you correctly. I’d say it as the spatio-temporal matter is the stuff that constitutes up this “bubble”. Okay, so you agree with premise 1 and this premise 2. So, you agree that this “bubble” had a cause for its beginning, right?

[alexxcJRO]

Yes, I can. You said you disbelieve the Kalam, right? Why? One reason you offered is your lack of belief about the nature of time. That’s not a rational reason for disbelieving the Kalam.

I lack a belief in nature of time and KALAM.
My point was that everybody should lack a belief in nature of time and KALAM for there is no rational and/or comppelling reasons to believe in the affirmative way.

A: The choice appears to be freely chosen.
A: Your will triggered the choice

That can be said about the deterministic varient.
Claims mean nothing sir.
Baseless assertions are just that empty of any value.

What is the uncaused, non-deterministic element in Libertarian free will?

I am not very convinced we have free will. Problem of luck and all.
It's the idea that for something to not be deterministic(indeterminism) in needs to have some elements that are uncaused.

This confuses efficient cause and material cause. No one is claiming the material cause (the medium) is the efficient cause (which determines the timing). Current scientific understanding isn’t clear on if there is efficient causation, but there is clearly a material cause (the medium).

It is not given that the vaccum is the material cause sir. It may be that virtual particles do not have both material and efficient causes.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. Are you referring to A-theory here? If so, I think there is very good reason to believe A-theory is the proper nature of time. If I didn’t, I’d reject the Kalam.

"The B-theory of time has received support from physicists.[17][18] This is likely due to its compatibility with physics and the fact that many theories such as special relativity, the ADD model, and brane cosmology, point to a theory of time similar to B-theory.

In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there is no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.

Many of special relativity's now-proven counterintuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity is often taken to imply eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four-dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk–Putnam argument and in Roger Penrose's advanced form of this argument, the Andromeda paradox.[19]

It is therefore common (though not universal) for B-theorists to be four-dimensionalists, that is, to believe that objects are extended in time as well as in space and therefore have temporal as well as spatial parts. This is sometimes called a time-slice ontology.[20]

Opposition
In 'Presentism and the Space-Time Manifold', Dean Zimmerman notes that A-theory is 'almost certainly a minority view among philosophers', while B-theory has 'achieved broad acceptance'; despite this there are still a number of philosophers who oppose B-theory.[6][1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_ ... 20speaking.

Prediction: Moving the goal post.

It is not an equivocation. In the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause”, what is being claimed is that there is at least an efficient or material cause always present for things that begin to exist. Your statement above supports that being true.

1.
Disingenuous.
The is not true. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” clearly refers to both efficient cause/non-efficient causation + material cause because we have no example with only efficient cause.
And in "the universe has a cause" it refers to only efficient cause. Ergo the logical fallacy.

2. Please do not avoid again:
We have a non-sequitur logical fallacy.
We only have examples of causation in the manner: efficient cause/non-efficient causation + material cause. Therefore one cannot make the leap to there being possible to have only efficient causes.

That coupled with spatio-temporal matter having a beginning means that there is at least an efficient or material cause for spatio-temporal matter. But, logically, it can’t have a material cause because that would mean matter would be pre-existing the existence of matter, which is obviously illogical.
The ‘universe began to exist’ doesn’t answer the question of when the ‘universe’ (spatio-temporal matter) began. It could have begun at the Big Bang. It could have preceded the Big Bang within some multiverse.

Are you proposing an omniverse that houses our universe is made up of spatio-temporal matter or that it’s not made up of that?

The "omniverse" contains maybe more then the 4 dimensional manifold that makes our local universe.
There are maybe parts of the "omniverse" which are not temporal and gave rise to our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe.
There could be countless explanations. Some so complicated that a 120 digit IQ being could not be able to comprehend.
Ultimately its irrelevant.
The explanations could escape both of us even if we think for 1 billion years.
The omniverse might ultimately not suffer from this problems, ultimately being uncaused and beginningless.
You cannot claim monopoly on the idea of uncaused and beginningless omnithingy.

Simplicity isn’t subjective; it’s objective. That reality consists of the natural alone is objectively simpler than that reality consists of a natural world and a supernatural world. And I’ve agreed all along that reality doesn’t have to have the simplest explanations; it often won’t. What I’ve claimed is that if there is no other evidence or all the evidence points to a tie between competing theories, then the rational person will choose the simpler theory because there are less unexplained assumptions that make that theory work. Unexplained assumptions have no rational support for them and, therefore, have a good chance of being wrong. We want less of those in our theories.

Your all over the place.
The application of Occam's Razor can involve some subjectivity.

Using simplicity in a very cherry-picking way/inconsistent way is very dishonest.

You are not believing only in the natural world which is simpler idea the natural + supernatural.
There is no argument around this: one God is simpler then a triune one. Yet you are not an Allah believer. So much for choosing the simpler choice between competing theories.

The important idea is ultimately its irrelevant. Reality does not care to be necessarily simpler.
My point remains.

It looks like you are just wanting to change the argument, so you can defeat it. How would you be practically punishing me? Punishing me for what? What does Pete really think the mentally impaired person did wrong and he’s lying about?

Q: But there is possible to be punishing someone even if one denies doing that, no?
Because stupidity is a thing. Morons do illogical, contradictory things all the time.
Look at you being all over the place.

I already noted that I didn’t initially catch us talking past each other with the term ‘punishing’ and how I should have used ‘harming’ to better reflect what I was asking you about.

I did not knew using a straw-man is called "talking past each other".
You seem to be doing that often.
Q: Why?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #215]

No. The question being asked re coming to an agreement on a definition has to do with "The Universe" not a definition of "The history of The Universe".

But we are using this definition to address a question about the history of the universe (if it began to exist or is eternal).

No. We have yet to agree to the definition before we can proceed on to that step.

As far as the science can tell, yes - this bubble which is being defined as "The Universe" appears to have had a beginning.
The "spatio-temporal matter" you refer to, now needs to be clarified as to how you are defining that.

My own current definition is the understanding that this implies that all organized physical matter, within the framework of space and time, had a starting point and that energy (all types)produced is a manifestation of matter organizing in it's various ways, all of which define The Universe we are experiencing. It is "The Bubble" expanding through what appears to be an initial energetic pulse which is referred to as it's (specific) "beginning".

I think I’m in agreement, if I understand you correctly. I’d say it as the spatio-temporal matter is the stuff that constitutes up this “bubble”. Okay, so you agree with premise 1 and this premise 2. So, you agree that this “bubble” had a cause for its beginning, right?

The Universe (this bubble) exists. I agree.
The Universe (this bubble) had a beginning. I agree.

[boatsnguitars]

I am not very convinced we have free will. Problem of luck and all.
It's the idea that for something to not be deterministic(indeterminism) in needs to have some elements that are uncaused.

For many reasons, I too am skeptical of Free Will. For example, if we believe in Free Will, we have to believe that a vast majority of people choose to live in poverty, make unhealthy and dangerous life choices, and prefer to have too many regrets to name.

The Theistic answer is: well, there is Sin.

OK, but isn't the pull of Sin, then, evidence that we don't have Free Will, but Corrupted Will, Affected Will, or some bastardized version of Free Will?

Then they say, "Shut up and repent, sinner!" Apparently, freely.

[William]

I am not very convinced we have free will. Problem of luck and all.
It's the idea that for something to not be deterministic(indeterminism) in needs to have some elements that are uncaused.

For many reasons, I too am skeptical of Free Will. For example, if we believe in Free Will, we have to believe that a vast majority of people choose to live in poverty, make unhealthy and dangerous life choices, and prefer to have too many regrets to name.

The Theistic answer is: well, there is Sin.

OK, but isn't the pull of Sin, then, evidence that we don't have Free Will, but Corrupted Will, Affected Will, or some bastardized version of Free Will?

Then they say, "Shut up and repent, sinner!" Apparently, freely.

My understanding of the process (re The Universe) is that if it is mindfully engineered, it cannot hope to also be non-deterministic but (in light of it vastness) there are certain levels where it can be experienced as non-deterministic by self conscious beings (humans for specific reference) and this is equally true of the experience of humans having an actual sense of free will (even if in the larger picture, this is inaccurate) as the two are closely related.

[otseng]

Look at you being all over the place.

You seem to be doing that often.
Q: Why?

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.