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]

No. There is no reason why something which moves but doesn't move at frequencies which cause particles to come from itself until it does so, should not be regarded as a cause of The Universe.

I’m saying that if that is a direct cause of this bubble, it is still part of what the Kalam means by the ‘Universe’ because it is still material, still temporal (you admit it is moving itself, regardless of how that affects other things or not) and, therefore, still needs a cause for its existence.

I think of this along the lines of when the vibrating of the quantum field where no particle emerges from its vibration, that is the "thinking" aspect of the mindfulness and when the decision to "do" the creating happens, that is when the vibrating changes in order that the doing can be done - which is - the particles come forth and are built upon through the various vibrations which take place in order to create various particles which build upon and interact with each other, causing The Universe to begin through being organised into various objects made of condensed particles.

In that way, one does not have to speculate that particles were created out of nothing.

Calling this vibrating “thinking” just confuses things. It is not what we mean when we talk about a personal agent thinking; it is a metaphorical description of a material process. There may be thinking behind it, but the material vibrations would be the result of that. Hence, all you’ve done is kick the can down the street a little and we still need a cause for this string vibration.

Which - as I have pointed out a couple of times, is where we branch away from the 3 points of the Kalam.

The Kalam.
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Natural Theism.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.

But I don’t think your 4 is complete. I think it must include immaterial and timeless (at least prior to creation). That is where we differ. If I am correct, then your above “therefore” wouldn’t follow because of your second M of the EEMM; it couldn’t be “Matter”.

The Kalam.
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Christian Theism?
4.Uncaused, immaterial, timeless unimaginably powerful, and personal.
5.?
6.?
7.?
8...?

I am unsure as to why Christianity (or any other religion) has to have a belief that the cause needs to be all of those things you mention in your item 4. but clearly the Kalam itself does not imply this belief is necessary. It is just how Christians (and other religions) have felt it necessary to superimpose the belief onto the Kalam.

That is simply not true. I’ve given arguments that provide those conclusions as the best inference. I understand if you disagree with them, but you should be able to see that they aren’t just superimposed. You can share why you disagree, but you can’t just dismiss them as assumptions when the arguments have been given.

The Kalam does not mention what it means by "The Universe" (as being anything but this bubble) and furthermore, we have already agreed that we are specifically talking about this Universe bubble.

We did and then we moved on when we talked about the ultimate cause if there are intermediate causes between the First Cause and this universe bubble.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #381]

No. There is no reason why something which moves but doesn't move at frequencies which cause particles to come from itself until it does so, should not be regarded as a cause of The Universe.

I’m saying that if that is a direct cause of this bubble, it is still part of what the Kalam means by the ‘Universe’ because it is still material, still temporal (you admit it is moving itself, regardless of how that affects other things or not) and, therefore, still needs a cause for its existence.

Then we have pinpointed what is wrong with either the Kalam or with religious interpretation of the Kalam.

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Therein it is specifically talking about everything which begins to exist, having a cause.
We know this about things we observe about existence...that things do begin to exist and have a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

We can assume by this that "The Universe" is meant to mean "that which is observed to begin to exist" (the Big Bang) and the resulting thing which began to exist is what is being referred to as "The Universe."

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This has to be saying "The Big Bang" (which resulted in The Universe) had a cause.

Therefore, the Kalam cannot be saying (as you are arguing) "everything which is The Universe (which began to exist) is made of material, therefore anything that moves (including that which causes Big Bangs and particles to form from that consequence) are what is meant by "The Universe."

I think of this along the lines of when the vibrating of the quantum field where no particle emerges from its vibration, that is the "thinking" aspect of the mindfulness and when the decision to "do" the creating happens, that is when the vibrating changes in order that the doing can be done - which is - the particles come forth and are built upon through the various vibrations which take place in order to create various particles which build upon and interact with each other, causing The Universe to begin through being organised into various objects made of condensed particles.

In that way, one does not have to speculate that particles were created out of nothing.

Calling this vibrating “thinking” just confuses things.

That is part of the challenge for all thinking minds. There will be confusion which is best logically and rationally worked through - for clarity.

The explanation I gave works to that end. The act of thinking causes movement in the string field. That is the mindful matter (MM) of the Eternal Entity. We have found our "God" and been shown that is how The Cause begins things - with a thought which then transmutes into an action which then creates the thing (through thinking about that thing until it exists (making that thing happen.)

It is not what we mean when we talk about a personal agent thinking;

"We" mean different things here. That is what I mean about "personal agent thinking" and how such an almighty being can achieve such an almighty thing as The Universe.

What You mean, differs to what I mean and the question is "why?" You mean something different (re interpreting the Kalam) and this is a question which We are currently attempting to work out an answer for.

it is a metaphorical description of a material process.

And my question is "why do religious folk want to remain metaphorical about something which can be shown to be a perfectly reasonable explanation?"

What is it about The Cause (3.) being a mind which is acceptable but being mindful matter as being unacceptable?

When did that notion begin to exist and what is the cause of that notion? Why do people believe that notion is true and correct?

Asked another way, "Why can't the Theists idea of The Cause be the vibrating quantum string field underlying anything which from it, can have a beginning?"

There may be thinking behind it,

Replace the word "may" with "must". Replace the word "behind" with "involved with". There MUST be thinking involved WITH it.

but the material vibrations would be the result of that.

There is no necessity for the word "but" to proceed "The material vibration would be the result of that thinking" Remove the "but" and what is left is precisely what I have been saying which is;

There MUST be thinking involved WITH it and material vibration of a thing that then begins, would be the result of that thinking becoming a decision to create something.

Hence, all you’ve done is kick the can down the street a little and we still need a cause for this string vibration.

Given how you start of with the assumption that The Cause must be immaterial, I can appreciate this is how you see my argument.

However, one cannot presume anything about The Cause and then proceed with the Kalam.

The Kalam does not begin with the premise "The Cause must be immaterial". Nor does it make any conclusion about The Cause. It only says that The Universe has a cause.

It is you who decided to make that to mean that The Cause must be "immaterial".

This is based on the idea that everything which is made of matter (including the quantum string field) is "The Universe" - but that only serves to cut out other sound ideas (those which are not a logical contradiction) which could contradict your position on the subject (The Cause) and appear to you to be a can being kicked down the street.

Natural Theism.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.

But I don’t think your 4 is complete. I think it must include immaterial and timeless (at least prior to creation). That is where we differ. If I am correct, then your above “therefore” wouldn’t follow because of your second M of the EEMM; it couldn’t be “Matter”.

This is a conundrum for Q-String-Theory which isn't allowing for the idea to come right out and say "the field is mindful".
Given that it "could" be mindful (as this would explain a lot) identifying the QField as "The Mindful Cause" solves a lot of problems (answers a lot of questions.)

"4. Therefore this Almighty Quantum Field (Eternal Entity) of Mindful Matter caused The Universe Big Bang and eventual bubble"

Alongside that observation, Q-String-Theory - observing the behaviours of particles at Q-levels and coming up with a theory to explain the existence of particles - presented a string-field (almighty by all accounts and unknown as to how big it is) which vibrated The Universe into existence from that initial huge event.

However, the string field behaves strangely and presented physicists with a problem as to how to refer to this string- field since the behaviour couldn't be explained the way particles are - because the behaviour was different.

Therefore, the string-field wasn't "material" in the sense that particles are understood as being material, but niether were they immaterial.

Thus "the mystery" remains and probably will continue that way until folk start thinking about the field as being mindful and convert their thoughts and subsequent actions accordingly... ("Therefore this Almighty Quantum Field (Eternal Entity) of Mindful Matter caused The Universe Big Bang and eventual bubble")

I am unsure as to why Christianity (or any other religion) has to have a belief that the cause needs to be all of those things you mention in your item 4. but clearly the Kalam itself does not imply this belief is necessary. It is just how Christians (and other religions) have felt it necessary to superimpose the belief onto the Kalam.

That is simply not true. I’ve given arguments that provide those conclusions as the best inference.

And I have shown that your arguments are coming from the premise that "The Cause must be immaterial" before the Kalam, rather than after it.

I understand if you disagree with them, but you should be able to see that they aren’t just superimposed.

You should be able to see that you have placed the importance of having an immaterial Cause in front of instead of behind the three points of the Kalam.

You can share why you disagree, but you can’t just dismiss them as assumptions when the arguments have been given.

I have shown the necessity of dismissing your assumption that The Cause MUST have to be immaterial.

In doing so, I am not dismissing the mindful cause, but regard your version of it to being irrelevant (another meaning for immaterial) .

The Kalam does not mention what it means by "The Universe" (as being anything but this bubble) and furthermore, we have already agreed that we are specifically talking about this Universe bubble.

We did and then we moved on when we talked about the ultimate cause if there are intermediate causes between the First Cause and this universe bubble.

Tangents (branches) ...

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #382]

I'm not sure there is any reason to go further. You simply have not understood the way my argument flows. You keep claiming that my conclusion of the cause being immaterial comes prior to the Kalam or is assumed. It absolutely is not. I've tried to show you that in various ways. If you still think this, then you simply don't understand the argument and we've reached our usual kind of impasse. For the life of me, I don't understand how you aren't seeing the flow correctly, but I don't know how else to try to explain that, so our posts can stand as is. I could understand you getting the flow right and just disagreeing with the arguments that I think get one there, but that isn't your understanding. So, thanks for sharing your thoughts and listening to mine.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #383]

As I noted a few days ago, our philosophies simply branch away at 4. That is not the same thing as my "not having understood the way your argument flows", as I clearly have noted why your argument does not require the idea of an immaterial cause and instead of trying to critique my view, you simply blame me for "not understanding" you.

[alexxcJRO]

And your definitions still have phrases like “powerfully irresistible,” “not able to be resisted,” so it sounds like 100% to me, but that doesn’t really matter. We agree that we aren’t talking about 100%.

Dude I said what I meant by compelling, supplied the definition which support this and you come with that nonsense. Such poor debate form.

I haven’t assumed that. I haven’t ruled out other material existences, but they would still be material and the being-material is the part that leads to needing a cause.

Q: What is happening?
Q: You did not said: "The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects"?
There may be other material things that transcend our space-time local universe.

But you are critiquing a believer in libertarian free will.

There are more Free Will hypothesis. The subject is heavily debated.

We are talking about being counterintuitive to our usual reasoning process. Not all QM theories are counterintuitive in that way.

Again with the dishonest process of cherry picking things to suit one preconceived ideas.
My argument is not that there should be one combinations of hypothesis regarding QM interpretation, Free Will, Theory of time.
There could multiple variants.
You need a specific one combination for which you use this dishonest process of cherry picking.

What is the inconsistency? Don’t just say it is; show it. Calling it a disease simply assumes it is a malfunction; show that it is a malfunction.

Already did.
Cenobites logic: extremes of pain and/or pleasure are of equivalent value even if it happens to them or others. Consistency.
Psychopathic logic: consider suffering and pain as bad, evil if it happens to them. But suffering and pain of other as good. We have a hypocritical situation. A inconsistency.

Analogy:
It's like USA condemns certain aspects X found in Eastern countries but its guilty of certain aspects X itself which off course its ignored. We have a hypocritical situation. A inconsistency in morality.
The morality is non-existent.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #378]

Yes, you and others have offered this quite a bit. The thing is, experts don't agree on much. Experts in most fields disagree on just about everything and that should be expected. It would be irrational to conclude that there aren't better arguments because people, including experts, believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps a discussion forum like this isn't the place for you because by your own admission you are adding nothing of substance to the discussion. But if you want to try to access these ideas with others who are trying to access these ideas, which is doable even if you don't have a PhD, then some of us are here. These arguments are plentiful and accessible if we try.

That's quite a statement: "Experts don't agree on much." - Yet, they are able to land a robot on Mars... They must agree on a great number of things!

But, I'll bend. You are right - Experts don't agree on much - like whether Jesus was real, whether the books of the Bible were written by the alleged authors, whether there was an Exodus or not, etc...

Bites both ways, no?

For example, if the experts don't agree on Radio Carbon Dating, then we don't even know if the Bible was written before 1920.

[The Tanager]

That's quite a statement: "Experts don't agree on much." - Yet, they are able to land a robot on Mars... They must agree on a great number of things!

But, I'll bend. You are right - Experts don't agree on much - like whether Jesus was real, whether the books of the Bible were written by the alleged authors, whether there was an Exodus or not, etc...

Bites both ways, no?

For example, if the experts don't agree on Radio Carbon Dating, then we don't even know if the Bible was written before 1920.

They agree on some kinds of things, but not others. They agree that science is useful (and most agree with us that it is also true), for things like the above. They agree on basic math facts and how definitions work. But there are many other areas that this kind of agreement cannot be found. This includes history, philosophy, and even philosophy of science. Of course it "bites both ways". My point is: so what? Disagreement doesn't mean there isn't a most rational view in all of those areas of disagreement.

So, when the critique of a view (against Christianity or Materialism or whatever) is "yeah, but experts don't agree on that, so we can dismiss it and maintain our current belief," I'm not going to care because the reasons for an argument are what determines its rationality, not that some people (even those who study it for a living) disagree.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #384]

There is no animosity or blame from me; it very well could be that I have been unclear. But that means I don’t know how to make things clearer, so that we are on the same page, and so I don’t see how we can move forward. Yes, you’ve shared why you think the way you do about what I’ve argued and I’ve critiqued that understanding and you still hold that critiqued understanding. That’s fine. Again, it just means we are at an impasse. I’m sorry if I sounded uncordial about that impasses; that was not my intention.

[The Tanager]

Q: What is happening?
Q: You did not said: "The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects"?
There may be other material things that transcend our space-time local universe.

I’m not talking about things that transcend our local bubble of spatio-temporal matter, but any bubble of spatio-temporal matter. The things that are not spatial and temporal are abstract objects. There are the numbers kind of abstract objects and there are the mind kind of abstract objects.

There are more Free Will hypothesis. The subject is heavily debated.

Agreed. But you are critiquing a believer in libertarian free will; critiquing a view I don’t hold doesn’t accomplish anything against my view.

Again with the dishonest process of cherry picking things to suit one preconceived ideas.
My argument is not that there should be one combinations of hypothesis regarding QM interpretation, Free Will, Theory of time.
There could multiple variants.
You need a specific one combination for which you use this dishonest process of cherry picking.

As I’ve said before, we are talking about inference to the best explanation. Throwing out logically possible ideas as though that cuts down the argued for best inference isn’t rational. If I was arguing it was 100% certain, that would be a rational move, but not if we are talking about what is the most reasonable view to hold. That debate exists is not a rational defeater of “this view on issue X is the most rational”.

Already did.
Cenobites logic: extremes of pain and/or pleasure are of equivalent value even if it happens to them or others. Consistency.
Psychopathic logic: consider suffering and pain as bad, evil if it happens to them. But suffering and pain of other as good. We have a hypocritical situation. A inconsistency.

You are misunderstanding my point (it’s my fault because I was unintentionally equivocating on inconsistency there). Yes, one view thinks we should treat everybody by the same rules, while the other doesn’t. I’m asking you why treating everybody by the same rules is good and that treating myself differently from others is bad. Justify that. Justify why it is wrong to be hypocritical in this way?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #384]

There is no animosity or blame from me; it very well could be that I have been unclear. But that means I don’t know how to make things clearer, so that we are on the same page, and so I don’t see how we can move forward. Yes, you’ve shared why you think the way you do about what I’ve argued and I’ve critiqued that understanding and you still hold that critiqued understanding. That’s fine. Again, it just means we are at an impasse. I’m sorry if I sounded uncordial about that impasses; that was not my intention.

Thanks for your apparently alternate explanation on why you think we are not on the same page.

However, and of course - I see it differently. That isn't the point.

The question is about what the Kalam means by "The Universe" and you (through your support of the cosmological argument William Lane Craig believes in) have extended "The Universe" to mean "everything which moves" and is thus of physical makeup.

And then proceed to place The Cause outside of that.

It appears to be a hijacking by WLC because the basic 3 points clearly enough suggest "The Universe" beginning to exist was from the Big Bang on, rather than from an underlying vibration field of unformed matter.

You did not offer any argument against that because the stance of those who believe as you and Craig and all his followers have made their position on the matter, the default position and therefore blaming others for not agreeing with that position as being the default, by insinuating they lack understanding (perhaps being seen to being too stupid to comprehend) and therefore at fault for not "being on the same page".

The religious belief that The Cause has to be immaterial is a bogus one. Not one member of any of the Abrahamic religions can show me from their holy books where their God is a non-physical entity which also created The Universe out of something He first had to create out of nothing.

At the same time, the various stories - even the one about biblical Jesus resurrecting - do not show or tell us that "God is immaterial".

The reason God (any entity) would be able to interact with human beings is because God is mind.
The reason humans have encounters with God is because God is physical in nature - not an almighty disincarnate mind.

Take the biblical experiences where folk say they were engaged with another type of physical experience. Compare those stories to the modern stories circulating the internet. The common denominator is that the experiences are all reported as being physical ones.

Cue in a possible explanation to said stories, that these are "hallucinations".

If so, then what of your immaterial God? Are such experience all happening in the mind-God? Is this mind-God really just the "immaterial" mind? If so, why do the reports have the element of physicality in them? Can such be called "hallucinations" since they are happening in the mind-God Cause of The Universe"? Why is The Universe considered to be "outside" the mind-God and why is the physical so adamantly portrayed by believers such as yourself, in this manner? What is it about The Universe being physical which is so abhorrent that it cannot possibly be made of the same stuff as God?

Also to note. If we are to take the cosmological argument I am presenting, ad to that your claim that anything which moves is physical and thus not The Cause, then my cosmological argument would have to say therefore, that
Because The Universe (as Tanager believes it to be) includes the thing which vibrates particles into existence, then The Universe (as Tanager believes it to be) never had a beginning, but has always existed.

Therefore,
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe (as Tanager believes it to be) did not begin to exist. (at least there is no evidence to support the belief that The Q-Field itself had a beginning).
3. Therefore, The Universe (as Tanager believes it to be) has no cause. (at least there is no evidence to support the belief that The Q-Field itself had a cause).

The argument WCL presents is solely attempting to insert an immaterial cause where one is not actually required.

The idea of a mind-God which is also physical in nature is equal to the idea that the Q-Field is mindful.

Your comparison between the concept of a mind-God that is also physical in nature and the idea of the quantum field (Q-Field) being mindful is intriguing. It seems you're exploring the possibility of a conscious or intentional aspect within the fundamental nature of reality.
The notion of a mindful Q-Field aligns with some interpretations in quantum physics that propose a more integral role for consciousness in the nature of reality. Some theories suggest that observation or measurement processes in quantum mechanics may be fundamentally tied to consciousness.
On the other hand, traditional religious perspectives often posit a conscious and intentional deity responsible for the creation of the universe. Your suggestion that a mind-God could also be physical challenges the typical understanding of God as an immaterial being.
In both cases, whether considering a mindful Q-Field or a physical, mindful God, the intersection of consciousness and the fundamental nature of reality raises profound questions about the nature of existence, the origins of consciousness, and the relationship between the physical and the mental.

There is no excuse which is honest that would have it that our differing positions and accompanying arguments on cosmology are "not understood" by each other. It is not a lack of understanding which causes this lack of being on the same page.