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]

Clarification: if we all agree that it's impossible, does that mean it is?

Of course not.

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?

Was it really psyched when it heard this as well? If you truly think our understanding is too low, then why should we trust your statement that it is too low? Seems self-defeating.

[The Tanager]

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.

Yes, it’s possible that there is an almost infinite series of causes, but I don’t think there could be an infinite series of causes. Which means that this thing that has always existed would have to be uncaused. I think you are agreeing?

[William]

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.

Yes, it’s possible that there is an almost infinite series of causes, but I don’t think there could be an infinite series of causes. Which means that this thing that has always existed would have to be uncaused. I think you are agreeing?

*nods*. Yes I am agreeing.
At this point we have reached agreement re definition of The Universe (bubble) and that it had a beginning event (which has been scientifically verified beyond reasonable doubt) and that this signifies causation and that while there may be untold number of causations (beginnings), we agree that these all must logically and rationally be traced to/attributed to an eternal source which never had a beginning/has always existed.

Do you agree with the above? If so, what now? What is to occur between us re the agreements we have to this point?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #233]

The next step I would take is that this uncaused, eternal, first cause must transcend space and time since it precedes the existence of space and time (whether that comes into existence with this bubble or came into existence in one of the intermediate causes). Do you agree?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #233]

The next step I would take is that this uncaused, eternal, first cause must transcend space and time since it precedes the existence of space and time (whether that comes into existence with this bubble or came into existence in one of the intermediate causes). Do you agree?

If by "transcend" you are meaning it goes beyond the range or limits of anything which has a beginning, (such as The Universe - Bubble) I would agree with that assessment.

[The Tanager]

If by "transcend" you are meaning it goes beyond the range or limits of anything which has a beginning, (such as The Universe - Bubble) I would agree with that assessment.

I mean that (at least at one point) it was immaterial and timeless.

[William]

If by "transcend" you are meaning it goes beyond the range or limits of anything which has a beginning, (such as The Universe - Bubble) I would agree with that assessment.

I mean that (at least at one point) it was immaterial and timeless.

That is too much of a jump of assumption.
I can agree that an eternal cause would have to be timeless, but there is nothing to say it would have to be immaterial.

I will offer critique regarding the idea the eternal cause needn't/shouldn't be regarded as "immaterial".


1. An Immaterial Cause as the Source of Material is a contradiction and also invokes magic thinking by claiming material is able to be produced from nothing whereas a material cause has the material available in and of itself (eternally) and thus there is neither contradiction or magical thinking involved.

2. Transcendence of Immaterial Cause assumes there are limitations re material based only upon what is observed re The Universe through the human mind/sensory system.
However, those limitations can be explained re the design of said Universe and do not have to apply to all material objects which transcend The Universe, including the eternal cause…which is to say, we cannot assume that because this Universe has limitations imposed on it (re its particular ongoing design) that a material designer must also have the same or any limitations.

If one were to argue that material is a creative act of eternal entity which has the ability to bring about the organization and formation of matter from nowhere as the initiation of the universe, such an act has to be regarded as magical thinking and therefore breaches/overreaches beyond logic and rationality.

It is therefore logical and rational to discard the claim that the eternal cause is immaterial. Rather, it is logical and rational to assume that the uncaused cause is made of eternal matter and serves as the source of all material which The Universe consists of. This underscores the idea that The Universe is not a result of creation ex nihilo but rather, the result of an organization of pre-existing eternal matter.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

So the agent personality, wants or past experiences does not cause the choice in a deterministic way.

The free will neither has al least some uncaused elements that are independent of the agent's personality, wants or past experiences to it for would make problems for KALAM.

Q: How exactly does the choice appear?

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

Sir it is not given that the vaccum is the material cause sir.

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

Clearly said :
"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.

Q: Why is it ruled out?

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

Any event or thing can have countless explanations for its existence.
Saying one cannot think of a naturalistic one does not mean there is not one or many.
Look at past ancient people: they could not think of the explanations that science has provided us today and explain how Earth formed, the Sun and stars formed, how the day night cycle works, how storms and rivers work.
I bet they were like you. I am ignorant of things, can't think of explanations. Therefore God.

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.

Choosing Allah would be choosing the simpler choice between competing theories.
Both are on the same footing: written ancient first/second/third/ ... testimonial evidence, claims of miracles, billions of believers.
So much for choosing the simpler choice between competing theories.

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.

Sir if I am doing an exercise that perfectly resembles what is known as squats but I am denying doing them because I am a moron.
Q: Am I doing squats or not?

[boatsnguitars]

Clarification: if we all agree that it's impossible, does that mean it is?

Of course not.

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?

Was it really psyched when it heard this as well? If you truly think our understanding is too low, then why should we trust your statement that it is too low? Seems self-defeating.

OK, let me be very clear (again, as I feel I've covered this):
Philosophy is a process of investigating and trying to rephrase questions to ask the right questions and to try to understand complex issues - which doesn't mean come to an answer (necessarily) but to be able to see the whole problem laid bare - to learn how little you actually know.

Apologetics is a form of argumentation and debate that attempts to use Philosophy (and other tools) as a weapon to defend a fixed position.

You keep doing the latter - as if your questions to non-experts will arrive at some form of truth.

I propose you see the issue as a issue to discuss, not arrive at conclusions. For example, we all understand there are different theories of Time. We all know the implications (or many of them), and instead of deciding which one you prefer, simply acknowledge there are many theories that true experts have sincere, honest and robust disagreements and discussions about.

So, are infinite regressions possible, impossible or other? Yes! No! Maybe! Let's simply acknowledge we aren't going to know by chatting on a religious debate forum in the corner of the internet.

After all, what do Theists have to fear? Can't their God overcome all things? What possible philosophy could make their God disappear?

I suppose what I am hoping from you is that you simply pull back from trying to arrive at a solution (as, you appear to force all unknowns to your favor) and simply tell us all what you feel the entire discussion entails - with or without God, since, as you must agree: One possible truth is that we live in a Universe in which there is no God, so why try to discount it?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #237]

The following aren’t demands, they are questions aimed at communication. Answering them will help me engage with your thoughts. You are free not to, but there isn’t anything further behind these questions, and I don’t think I will be able to engage your thoughts if questions like these aren’t answered.

1. How is there a logical contradiction? Define the words and show the logical contradiction because I don’t see one.

2. What does “magical thinking” mean? I know the immediate reaction people have towards something being called ‘magic’, but we need to make sure we aren’t getting lost in the emotional reaction based off our culture. Could you define magical thinking and tell me why you think it is bad?

3. I’m not sure your point about the limitations part. Could you rephrase that?

4. I think that matter is, by its nature, temporal. Science talks about a space-time continuum.