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]

[alexxcJRO]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #151]

It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #151]

It is not scientific knowledge that spatio-temporal matter/energy is "temporary, functional objects". There is scientific debate over whether spatio-temporal energy is eternal or temporal. So, our definition of spatio-temporal matter/energy should not include an answer to whether it is eternal or temporal.

Agreed.
Any definition of "The Universe" which is not scientific knowledge - including the one you are using/wanting to use, should thus be placed aside because of that rule-set.

The definition "spatio-temporal matter/energy" is breach of rule-set as it has within it's phrasing the word "temporal" which is an answer to whether The Universe is "eternal" or "temporal" - (in this case the answer being "temporal".)

Since it is the case that such is not scientific knowledge, "The Universe" cannot be further clarified in its meaning, (re the rule-set) and therefore can only be taken at face value (simply referred to as "The Universe") re the 3 premises being discussed.

This being the case, the second premise (2. The Universe began to exist) having not yet been established, is a false premise and thus, the third premise (3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.) cannot be determined as a logical conclusion.

I would say that what is going on here are two distinct philosophical arguments.

On the one hand, the supernaturalist premises;

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

And on the other hand, the following.

1. The Universe exists

2. It is unknown that The Universe began to exist.

3: It is unknown if an uncaused being caused The Universe to exist.

4: Therefore, The Universe can be regarded as The Uncaused Being.

Given that these are philosophical musings, they should hold equally to the same rule-set and therein neither should be granted a double standard pass.

This is to acknowledge that the rule-set should apply to both philosophical positions, rather than favor the one over the other.

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused cause.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]