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 The Tanager in post #270]
(NOTE: Because you have not been using the quote function in your recent replies, I think at this point I will post the narration of our interaction so we can better refer to what has been discussed.)

Philosopher 2: I am saying matter is matter whether it is moving or not, whether it is visible to our human senses or not, whether it is earth, air, fire, solid liquid or however one cares to identify objects, they are all made of matter...and matter logically must be eternal, having always existed and always will exist, even that this universe had a beginning and even if this universe is to end.
In that I am saying that the eternal cause is material (eternal matter) and the creation of the universe bubble is made of said eternal matter organised in its particular way with its particular rule sets.
We can call it the same "stuff" because the difference between a universe which began as compared to a conceptual universe which didn't is not about different matter but different ways the matter behaves, the behaviour of our universe being due to its design and rule sets.
That is my take/critique on the presumption that the eternal cause necessarily immaterial.
Why do you believe that presumption? You have yet to explain in any detail.

Philosopher 1: I’m not talking about matter moving or not, I’m talking about how science seems to tell us that matter is temporal by its nature, that its parts are constantly in motion. If matter is temporal by nature, then it can’t be eternal. The eternal thing that causes matter would have to be immaterial.
Philosopher 2: What does science tell us about the eternal cause?
What does science tell us of "immaterial" "things"?
Science isn't telling us that matter did not exist before the beginning of this universe. It is not assumed that a nessasary immaterial thing existed before the universe.
What science tells us is that something cannot come from nothing.
This means that material cannot come from immaterial.
What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.
Presently you and I disagree as to what the science is revealing about the nature of the eternal cause is.
We can focus on unpacking that.
Therein, where I think we agree, is that the eternal cause is mindful.
Philosopher 1: 1. I’m not saying science tells us anything about the eternal cause (that would be philosophy), immaterial things (again, philosophy), or if matter existed prior to this bubble or not (which would be scientific). I’m saying science tells us that the parts of matter that make it matter are constantly in motion and, therefore, matter is temporal in its nature. So, if there is any ‘stuff’ that precedes material; it is not matter but something else.
Philosopher 2: Science doesn't tell us that at all. Science tells us that the universe began and may end (not will end) and what does end are objects (made of matter), not the matter itself.
We observe matter transforming into other things - so a Star (for example) can have an end, but not the matter the Star was made of. That continues to exist.
Philosopher 1: 2. Why do you think science tells us that everything must have a material cause?
Philosopher 2: I am not saying that.
I am saying what we can gain (philosophically) from what science has shown us, is the understanding that this universe must have a material cause.
Science is not telling us "everything" must have a material cause (because science is not telling us there is an eternal cause and the eternal cause counts as part of "everything") but since we agree (philosophically) there must be an eternal cause, while said eternal cause would have to be material, it did not have to have had a cause, therefore we should be able to agree that material did not have a cause (is eternal) while that which is made up from (eternal) material (this universe bubble) did have a cause.
Philosopher 1: 1. I'm not talking about matter ending, I'm talking about matter being of a temporal nature rather than a timeless nature. I see science telling us that matter is, by nature, temporal in that way.
Philosopher 2: You also said (correct me if I am mistaken) that the eternal cause is timeless.
Philosopher 1: 2. Sorry for my confusion. Sorry if this next question still shows I'm confused on what you are saying. Okay, why do you think philosophy tells us that everything that began to exist must have a material cause?
Philosopher 2: There are many philosophies, not all of which agree. I am presenting philosophical conjecture/presumption in regard to what science shows us.
The position you are arguing/presenting philosophical conjecture/presumption from currently disagrees with that due to your claiming the eternal cause is "nonmaterial". I am pointing out (in my posts here through my philosophy) that this is not a necessary assumption/conjecture to have/hold.
Philosopher 1: Yes, I also said the eternal cause is timeless.
Philosopher 2: What so you mean by timeless?
What I mean is that something which has always existed (is eternal) is timeless in the sense that it neither had a beginning nor will have an end.
Philosopher 1: That, coupled with matter being temporal (or at least what it sounds like science is teaching us) is why I’m saying the eternal cause must be immaterial.
Philosopher 2: What I mean is that the material which made up the objects still exists even that the objects no longer do.
From what I gather you are arguing is that "if it moves" it is still counted as being in "time" rather than in "timelessness"
Philosopher 1: You said “What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.” I’m asking what science do those conjecturing that point to.
Philosopher 2: I think I have already answered that. Perhaps even with the above clarification, depending on what you reply regarding the use of the word "timeless".

[boatsnguitars]

What science tells us is that something cannot come from nothing.

Where has science told us this?

[The Tanager]

Why do you believe that presumption? You have yet to explain in any detail.

I think I have explained it. You seem to be misunderstanding that explanation (I’m not blaming you, it could be my lack of clarity), so I’m trying to get us on the same page, so that you can then critique the explanation instead of what you think I’m saying that I’m not.

Depending on one’s definition of matter, there could be eternal matter that then becomes organized matter. I’m saying that science seems to point us towards defining matter as necessarily temporal because its parts are constantly in motion and motion can only happen in time. So, yes, if it moves, it must be in time because time is a measurement of change and movement is a change in location.

Science isn't telling us that matter did not exist before the beginning of this universe. It is not assumed that a nessasary immaterial thing existed before the universe.

I agree.

What science tells us is that something cannot come from nothing.
This means that material cannot come from immaterial.
What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.

I echo boatsnguitars here: where has science told us this? I don’t think you have answered that. What law or discovery are you talking about that shows something cannot come from nothing or that the material cannot come from the immaterial?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #273]

Why do you believe that presumption? You have yet to explain in any detail.

I think I have explained it.

I am sure you have, but not in any detail.

You seem to be misunderstanding that explanation (I’m not blaming you, it could be my lack of clarity), so I’m trying to get us on the same page, so that you can then critique the explanation instead of what you think I’m saying that I’m not.

Are you saying I am critiquing a type of strawman? (its okay if you are, as I feel the same way re your not understanding my (I think more detailed) explanations.
Such a position to be in (re philosophical concepts) is of no particular use to the desire outcome (getting on the same page) so we may have to look for or even create another method which might have a better chance of reaching that outcome.

Depending on one’s definition of matter, there could be eternal matter that then becomes organized matter.

Well that is a step toward the DO. Why don't we go with that idea and flesh it out and critique it if we discover where it would be necessary to do so?

I’m saying that science seems to point us towards defining matter as necessarily temporal because its parts are constantly in motion and motion can only happen in time.

Okay - if we are to accept that science is saying that, then we need to critique what scientists are claiming and defining - because science does not define. Science discovers,

The observation of the universe has not led to any conclusion that time is not an eternal thing.
Indeed, I think I got this idea from you in the first place (If memory serves me correctly.) Something can have a beginning and still be made to last forever. (created to be eternal from that point on).

How do you imagine (re your conceptual assumption about the eternal (timeless) cause being immaterial) this entity being able to cause the universe bubble without itself having the ability to move in time?

So, yes, if it moves, it must be in time because time is a measurement of change and movement is a change in location.

Location too must be an unknown or unreal concept for the eternal cause, because how can this presumed immaterial entity locate itself in relation to whatever it decides to create?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #272]

What science tells us is that something cannot come from nothing.

Where has science told us this?

In the observation of the universe being studied.

Furthermore, science has not shown us that something can come from nothing,

Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

[The Tanager]

I’m saying that science seems to point us towards defining matter as necessarily temporal because its parts are constantly in motion and motion can only happen in time.

Okay - if we are to accept that science is saying that, then we need to critique what scientists are claiming and defining - because science does not define. Science discovers,

That may just be the result of a semantic difference between us. I agree that science discovers, but I think that our definitions of physical things come out of, or are built upon, those discoveries.

I’m saying that science seems to point us towards defining matter as necessarily temporal because its parts are constantly in motion and motion can only happen in time.

The observation of the universe has not led to any conclusion that time is not an eternal thing.
Indeed, I think I got this idea from you in the first place (If memory serves me correctly.) Something can have a beginning and still be made to last forever. (created to be eternal from that point on).

I think this is an (unintended) equivocation. Yes, I agree that matter could be eternal in that sense. But that isn’t the eternal/temporal sense I’m talking about here. Perhaps using just ‘timeless’ instead of ‘eternal’ would be helpful here. I’m saying that science seems to show us that matter is, by nature, temporal rather than non-temporal or ‘timeless’. That matter isn’t the kind of thing that can exist timelessly because of its nature.

How do you imagine (re your conceptual assumption about the eternal (timeless) cause being immaterial) this entity being able to cause the universe bubble without itself having the ability to move in time?

…

Location too must be an unknown or unreal concept for the eternal cause, because how can this presumed immaterial entity locate itself in relation to whatever it decides to create?

I think these warrant different answers. I’m still working through the first issue on where I stand. The question is whether the creator/Being is really changing or not. A common example to get at the difference, and that I’ve reached recently, is my son becoming taller than me. I have moved from being taller than him to being shorter than him, but nothing changed in me for that to truth; he is the one that changed. So, the question is whether becoming “creator” is that kind of change or an essential change to where we must say the Creator is timeless without creation, but necessarily temporal at the moment of creation.

If this is a real change in the Being, then it’s just a logical consequence of creating time. I don’t think it’s a logical consequence of creating location. That’s because time is intrinsically about change, while location is not.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #276]

Philosopher 2: Okay - if we are to accept that science is saying that, then we need to critique what scientists are claiming and defining - because science does not define. Science discovers,

Philosopher 1: That may just be the result of a semantic difference between us. I agree that science discovers, but I think that our definitions of physical things come out of, or are built upon, those discoveries.

Philosopher 2: This in itself does not mean that scientists don’t “get it wrong”. Isn’t that one of the purposes of philosophy? To get things right?
It is not a case of “semantics” because science is clearly defined as a method, not a personality (scientist). We should not conflate the two.

Philosopher 2: The observation of the universe has not led to any conclusion that time is not an eternal thing.
Indeed, I think I got this idea from you in the first place (If memory serves me correctly.) Something can have a beginning and still be made to last forever. (created to be eternal from that point on).

Philosopher 1: I think this is an (unintended) equivocation. Yes, I agree that matter could be eternal in that sense. But that isn’t the eternal/temporal sense I’m talking about here. Perhaps using just ‘timeless’ instead of ‘eternal’ would be helpful here. I’m saying that science seems to show us that matter is, by nature, temporal rather than non-temporal or ‘timeless’. That matter isn’t the kind of thing that can exist timelessly because of its nature.

Philosopher 2: I know that is what you think the science is showing, but it isn’t what the science is showing. It is what the philosophers are interpreting the science as “saying”.
We are not questioning the science, but the philosophies built upon what the interpretation those philosophical positions say that the science is showing.
Those are two different things.

Philosopher 2: How do you imagine (re your conceptual assumption about the eternal (timeless) cause being immaterial) this entity being able to cause the universe bubble without itself having the ability to move in time?
Location too must be an unknown or unreal concept for the eternal cause, because how can this presumed immaterial entity locate itself in relation to whatever it decides to create?

Philosopher 1: I think these warrant different answers. I’m still working through the first issue on where I stand. The question is whether the creator/Being is really changing or not. A common example to get at the difference, and that I’ve reached recently, is my son becoming taller than me. I have moved from being taller than him to being shorter than him, but nothing changed in me for that to truth; he is the one that changed. So, the question is whether becoming “creator” is that kind of change or an essential change to where we must say the Creator is timeless without creation, but necessarily temporal at the moment of creation.

If this is a real change in the Being, then it’s just a logical consequence of creating time. I don’t think it’s a logical consequence of creating location. That’s because time is intrinsically about change, while location is not.

Philosopher 2: This in itself does not lead to the necessary presumption that the eternal cause is immaterial. So, what is the motivating factor for the belief?
Why I ask, is because location isn’t a factor until something is created which would then give a mind a location in regard to its situation to the created thing.
In our case we are specifically speaking of that thing as “The Universe” and why an eternal-cause entity should – by that – be regarded as immaterial rather than material? What location is this eternal cause situated relation to its creation that would necessitate it being immaterial?

[The Tanager]

Philosopher 2: This in itself does not mean that scientists don’t “get it wrong”. Isn’t that one of the purposes of philosophy? To get things right?
It is not a case of “semantics” because science is clearly defined as a method, not a personality (scientist). We should not conflate the two.

I agree that scientists can get it wrong. I agree that philosophers (and scientists) are trying to get it right. I agree science is a method and scientists (and philosophers) are personalities. I wasn’t using “semantics” in a negative way there. I was simply saying that definitions of physical things are rightly based on good scientific findings.

Philosopher 2: I know that is what you think the science is showing, but it isn’t what the science is showing. It is what the philosophers are interpreting the science as “saying”.
We are not questioning the science, but the philosophies built upon what the interpretation those philosophical positions say that the science is showing.
Those are two different things.

No, I’m actually talking about how scientific discoveries show matter as particles in motion. Do you agree with that or do you think scientific discoveries show matter made of particles that are not moving?

Philosopher 1: I think these warrant different answers. I’m still working through the first issue on where I stand. The question is whether the creator/Being is really changing or not. A common example to get at the difference, and that I’ve reached recently, is my son becoming taller than me. I have moved from being taller than him to being shorter than him, but nothing changed in me for that to truth; he is the one that changed. So, the question is whether becoming “creator” is that kind of change or an essential change to where we must say the Creator is timeless without creation, but necessarily temporal at the moment of creation.

If this is a real change in the Being, then it’s just a logical consequence of creating time. I don’t think it’s a logical consequence of creating location. That’s because time is intrinsically about change, while location is not.

Philosopher 2: This in itself does not lead to the necessary presumption that the eternal cause is immaterial. So, what is the motivating factor for the belief?

I didn’t say it did. I was answering your direct questions about those relationships. Let’s slow it down because I think this kind of thing is causing confusion. I’ll wait for you to respond to what I said about the scientific discoveries.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #272]

What science tells us is that something cannot come from nothing.

Where has science told us this?

In the observation of the universe being studied.

Furthermore, science has not shown us that something can come from nothing,

Do you think otherwise? If so, why?

I'm not aware of any test that had a control for Nothing?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #278]

I’m actually talking about how scientific discoveries show matter as particles in motion. Do you agree with that or do you think scientific discoveries show matter made of particles that are not moving?

Science has only shown the existence of something and from that we cannot conclude that there is such a thing as immaterial. We cannot claim from what science has shown us that – even if the universe had a cause, and the cause was eternal (timeless in that sense) that the cause must therefore be immaterial because “timeless” in the sense of being eternal is not the same as timeless in the sense of lacking movement.

I explained/argued this in a previous post. I agree with the idea that the eternal cause must be timeless, in the sense it is eternal, not in the sense that it must be immobile/static/unable to move.

To clarify then, I do not confuse the idea of timelessness with lack of movement and thus immaterialism, but consider being timeless in the same way as being eternal.