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]

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.

Free will disproves the whole new idea of Hell as in eternal separation from God(Yahweh-Jesus) where funny free will is involved.

Let's say that when Jesus returns 20 billions people have lived on the Earth in its entire history.

To be fair let's say that:
Group 1: 50% of the 20 billions people meaning 10 billion will be saved and will experience an eternity of joy, bliss and fellowship with God(Yahweh-Jesus) and the angels.
Group 2: 50% of the 20 billions people meaning 10 billion will not be saved and will experience an eternity of torment together with Satan, Anti-Christ and the fallen angels.

All 10 billion people from Group 2 have an infinite number of opportunities to change, sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness.
Many people in their finite lives have changed, sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness.
So its unlikely that not one individual from Group 2, not a single one from 10 billion people will change, sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness , while every single one of them having an infinite number of opportunities to change, sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness.

It's like we have for example 10 billions of fair coins.
We toss each fair coin in the air an infinite numbers of times, and never, not one single time a fair coin will land heads up.

Q:It is logically possible that 10 billions of fair coins would never land heads up, not even once in an infinite number of tosses?

Such an eventuality is so incredibly improbable and so close to an impossibility that no one need to consider it actually happening.

[The Tanager]

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.

No, for something to not be deterministic, it needs to have some element that is uncaused by causes external to the human will. In libertarian free will, the will is the element uncaused by causes external to the human will.

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.

“It might” isn’t good enough for me. If you have reasons to share, please share them.

The "omniverse" contains maybe more then the 4 dimensional manifold that makes our local universe.

More than would still include the spatio-temporal dimensions, which would speak to a necessary beginning.

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.

That is ruled out when considering the reasoning that speaks to the need for the ultimate cause being personal.

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.

This sounds like some Christians who resort to “God’s ways are higher than ours”.

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.

I already agreed with that point and shared it here before you made it. I never said simplicity is anything like a trump card. If everything else is equal, then and only then, should simplicity come into play in our rational beliefs.

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.

But your critique isn’t just saying that, it’s not saying it’s possible for Pete to be punishing yet deny it; you are saying Pete absolutely is punishing, no matter what Pete says. For your critique to be anything, you’ve got to be saying it is impossible for Pete to not be punishing in that situation. Why do you think that?

Everything else you wrote in that last post that I didn't quote and respond to is because I've already responded to from previous posts. If you don't think so and don't want to rephrase your points to help me see how I didn't, then you can accuse me of whatever and I'll let my posts stand that I did actually already respond to those points.

[The Tanager]

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

I agree. But since we know we are proceeding to that step, we need to make sure we don’t define the word in a way that will beg that step when we take it. Putting into the definition what we think the history of the universe is would do exactly that. So, we need to leave it out of the definition.

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

Okay. So, then the universe (this bubble) had a cause for its existence. That simply necessarily follows, so you agree with that, right?

[William]

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

I agree. But since we know we are proceeding to that step, we need to make sure we don’t define the word in a way that will beg that step when we take it. Putting into the definition what we think the history of the universe is would do exactly that. So, we need to leave it out of the definition.

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

Okay. So, then the universe (this bubble) had a cause for its existence. That simply necessarily follows, so you agree with that, right?

Indeed. I do agree with that.

[The Tanager]

Indeed. I do agree with that.

Okay, so then that cause either had a beginning (and the argument would run the same way to where it would need a cause) or it has existed forever, without a beginning, correct? Eventually, we would be focusing on an ultimate cause that has existed forever. Do you agree?

[William]

Indeed. I do agree with that.

Okay, so then that cause either had a beginning (and the argument would run the same way to where it would need a cause) or it has existed forever, without a beginning, correct? Eventually, we would be focusing on an ultimate cause that has existed forever. Do you agree?

Yes. I agree with this logic.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #226]

Okay. So the next point is whether that ultimate cause is itself caused or uncaused. I think an infinite regression of causes is impossible. Agree, disagree, clarification needed?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to William in post #226]

Okay. So the next point is whether that ultimate cause is itself caused or uncaused. I think an infinite regression of causes is impossible. Agree, disagree, clarification needed?

Clarification: if we all agree that it's impossible, does that mean it is?
I mean, we're really getting a lot of decisions made here, and I think Reality is going to be super psyched when it hears what we have planned for it, but I'm a little worried Reality might not play along? Do we have any plan for that? To make Reality conform to our Great Ape level of understanding?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #226]

Okay. So the next point is whether that ultimate cause is itself caused or uncaused. I think an infinite regression of causes is impossible. Agree, disagree, clarification needed?

I think it may be possible (I haven't ruled out) that an exceedingly large even almost infinite set of causes could have occurred/continue to occur.
However, any ultimate cause would indeed have to have always existed.

I think that we have now reached that "next point" as we appear to agree that something had to have always existed in order for anything then to have been able to be caused.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #228]

I'm a little worried

Indeed - that is the second time in as many days you have mentioned that.