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 #470]

Here is what I'm seeing. (1) You believe that my view leads to a contradiction between transcendence and immanence. You believe that my Cause/God can't be (or at least isn't) both transcendent and immanent. You believe my Cause/God can't be both because the Cause (at the least) was (but may still be) changeless and you think for this Cause to be immanent in this world necessitates a change in the Cause/God. (2) As one way to solve that supposed contradiction you have proposed a separate (at least in some sense) transcendent Cause that creates the immanent, actively engaging God.

I'm not trying to understand (2); I feel that I understand that. And we can talk about that more if you want. But right now I'm trying to understand why you think (1) is true. I see no contradiction between this Cause's transcendence and immanence. I don't understand what change in my view of the Cause/God you see as happening.

Your understanding has it that I think that your view leads to a contradiction between transcendence and immanence.

I think that the Cause as you present/argue for can't be both transcendent and immanent which is why I have been asking you to explain how it could be both.

I think that your Cause as you present/argue for can't be both because the Cause
requires being changeless in order to remain the supernatural (super-to nature/transcendent) being you have argued for (the existence of) and I think for this Cause to be immanent in this universe necessitates a change in the supernatural attribute you believe of the Cause.

As one definition of Transcendence puts it... "beyond ordinary limitations (of the physical)" which is how you described the Cause (not consisting of particles/anything to do with physical nature. Timeless et al).

Whereas, the definition of immanent is "existing or operating within; inherent." - as in "part of the overall makeup of the physical universe" and in the case of God - the inherent Mind and creative force of said Universe.

IF it is as you say, that you understand (2) ("As a way to solve that supposed contradiction I have proposed a separate (at least in some sense) transcendent Cause that creates the immanent, actively engaging God") THEN you should be able to understand (1).

Where the problem (of understanding) might be sourced would be in the changes to how we each wrote (1) where you wrote "Cause/God" and I simply wrote "Cause" (as per the God was caused and through that, "The Universe was then created" - because "the Universe had a beginning").
My proposed solution to the contradiction is to say that IF the transcendent Cause is to be included, (in the overall cosmology et al) then it would have to be necessary for the Cause to first create an immanent (existing/operating inherent within) means by which the Universe could be created and able to mindfully shape and form the things which exist as the Universe.

The contradiction (as I see it) is in attempting to conflate two concepts (transcendence and immanence/supernatural and natural) as if they were the same thing (Cause/God as you put it.)

This is why I have asked you for an explanation as to why you think this should be the case - why the conflation should be accepted.

[The Tanager]

I think that your Cause as you present/argue for can't be both because the Cause
requires being changeless in order to remain the supernatural

Why do you think this? I never stated it and don’t believe it (that it must remain changeless to remain the supernatural) to be the case. Supernatural things can be changing things.

As one definition of Transcendence puts it... "beyond ordinary limitations (of the physical)" which is how you described the Cause (not consisting of particles/anything to do with physical nature. Timeless et al).

Whereas, the definition of immanent is "existing or operating within; inherent." - as in "part of the overall makeup of the physical universe" and in the case of God - the inherent Mind and creative force of said Universe.

Those are not good definitions; those words should be defined apart from the physical because those concepts could still exist within a non-natural realm, where something transcends something non-physical or is immanent within a non-natural realm. Transcend means to go beyond the limits of X (whether that is physical or non-physical). Immanent means operating within X (whatever X is). I see no problem with the Cause transcending the physical nature of its creation while also then operating within that new creation.

My proposed solution to the contradiction is to say that IF the transcendent Cause is to be included, (in the overall cosmology et al) then it would have to be necessary for the Cause to first create an immanent (existing/operating inherent within) means by which the Universe could be created and able to mindfully shape and form the things which exist as the Universe.

And I don’t see why it “would have to be necessary for the Cause to first create an immanent means to…”. It isn’t necessary, as far as I can see. Why can't the Cause be immanently involved versus creating some other thing to do it?

The contradiction (as I see it) is in attempting to conflate two concepts (transcendence and immanence/supernatural and natural) as if they were the same thing (Cause/God as you put it.)

This is why I have asked you for an explanation as to why you think this should be the case - why the conflation should be accepted.

I don’t see why you think I’m conflating those concepts by using the term Cause/God. I don’t think your above definitions of transcendence and immanence are good ones; I actually think those definitions conflate these ideas to where something that is transcendent is supernatural (goes beyond the limits of the natural) or something that is immanent is necessarily part of the natural world.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #472]

I think that your Cause as you present/argue for can't be both because the Cause
requires being changeless in order to remain the supernatural

I never stated it and don’t believe it (that it must remain changeless to remain the supernatural) to be the case. Supernatural things can be changing things.

Then you should be able to take me through the logical steps you made in order to have reached this belief.

I see no problem with the Cause transcending the physical nature of its creation while also then operating within that new creation.

Again, point out the logical steps you took to reach this belief that you see such as being "no problem".

And I don’t see why it “would have to be necessary for the Cause to first create an immanent means to…”. It isn’t necessary, as far as I can see.

Then you should be able to point out the logical steps you took to reach this belief.
What is it that you see, which shows you that is "isn't necessary"?

Why can't the Cause be immanently involved versus creating some other thing to do it?

The question is, how can the Cause be both, without it being a logical contradiction?
You appear to either know the answer or are simply protesting that you see no reason why it couldn't and are building your subsequent beliefs on this being the actual case, not through logic but through some other mechanism.

I don’t think your above definitions of transcendence and immanence are good ones

This may have something to do with building your beliefs on something other than logic, but please go ahead and tell me what your definitions of transcendence and immanence are, that they are "good ones" in relation to the ones I have offered.

[alexxcJRO]

That translate to "EXCRUCIATING PAIN" both good and bad. Contradiction. Illogical.
Psychopathy= is a disease resulting from brain functioning differently because of physical differences. Its a pathology.
Pathologies give abnormal behaviour that often leads to illogical and contradictory behaviour.

It would make things easier for us if that is a correct translation, but it's not because it ignores the very principle Pete is offering; who the pain happens to matters in whether it is good or bad.

It does not matter what Pete is offering. It does not matter what Pete is saying. Pete is wrong.
The contradiction does not goes away no matter how many times you put your fingers in ears and head in sand and yell "LALALALA".
The contradiction will be there as long psychopathy is a thing: now, tomorrow, 100 years from now, 500 years from now, thousand of years after Christianity will go extinct and go on the shelf with the other myriad of failed religious hypothesis.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #473]

As I said in the previous post, you just need to take out the ‘physical’ limitation you put on your definitions of transcendence and immanence. Those terms can certainly apply within the physical realm where something can transcend the physical or be immanent within the physical, but the terms can logically fit other contexts as well.

So, I propose the definitions would be something like:

1. Transcendent - going beyond the ordinary limitations of X
2. Immanent - existing or operating or interacting with X

Now to the logic of something transcending X, but also able to be immanent with X. There is nothing logically contradictory about the above definitions. Going beyond the limits of X isn’t an antonym of interacting with X; those are two different ideas that aren’t mutually exclusive. Your human intellect transcends that of a cat, but you are also able to interact with cats. This example shows there is no logical contradiction in general.

But there could still be a specific logical contradiction in my specific case. You seem to be arguing that in my specific case we have the Cause transcending the physical in that it is changeless and the Cause needing to change in order to be immanent. You should be able to point out why the Cause needs to change to do this. There is nothing about the Cause that needs to change to interact with X, which it transcends. It isn’t physical, but interacts with the physical. It has always had the ability to interact with anything logically possible to interact with and once the physical exists, it will use that ability to interact with the physical. Nothing changes in the Cause there. It creates the physical (and thereby transcends it) and then interacts with it (and is thereby immanent). No change seems logically necessary.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #475]

Since supernatural is a concept rather than a real thing, in claiming it exists one isn't transcending naturalism but simply rejecting naturalism.

The "transcending" in the case of supernaturalism isn't based in logic but in concept/belief.

Positing the real existence of a "supernatural" concept - even based on personal experience - (such as NDE's et al) does not mean that the personal experience was supernatural and not simply something natural which presently is unable to be explained. Not being able to explain something does not mean one has to default/resort to belief in supernaturalism.

When individuals attribute an experience to the "supernatural", it doesn't necessarily mean that the experience itself was inherently "supernatural". There's an important distinction between the interpretation of an event as supernatural and the inherent nature of the event.



In many cases, experiences that are labeled as" supernatural" might involve phenomena that, at present, lack a comprehensive naturalistic explanation. The inability to explain something does not automatically justify attributing it to the supernatural. It might simply indicate a current limitation in our understanding or the absence of sufficient evidence.

Science (logic) often operates on the principle that phenomena are best explained by natural laws and empirical observations. When faced with unexplained phenomena, the scientific approach typically involves seeking naturalistic explanations, conducting further research, and refining theories.

So, while individuals may interpret certain experiences as "supernatural" based on personal beliefs, cultural influences, or religious teachings, the scientific method encourages the exploration of naturalistic explanations not to supernatural ones.

To note, (for example) there is nothing in the Bible which mandates the existence of a "supernatural" God. Likely the concept derives from pagan ideas which existed long before Christianity, which Christianity has adopted as "truth" and thus teaches supernaturalism as if it were an actual real truth.


I am satisfied that your argument for the existence of "supernatural" is based, not in logic but in belief.
As such, assuming that because phenomena which has yet to be explained scientifically can be referred to as "supernatural", it is a silly thing to do given how many so-called "supernatural" things people believed about which have since been shown through science to being quite natural, to hold such beliefs. Claiming that The Cause is "supernatural" is superfluous, adding nothing worthwhile or necessary to the fact of life..

[The Tanager]

The inability to explain something does not automatically justify attributing it to the supernatural.

…

Science (logic) often operates on the principle that phenomena are best explained by natural laws and empirical observations. When faced with unexplained phenomena, the scientific approach typically involves seeking naturalistic explanations, conducting further research, and refining theories.

I have never argued for it being supernatural because we can’t explain it, but because we can explain it logically only by it being supernatural. Science is not the same thing as logic. Science is the study of the physical so, of course, it will turn to natural laws and empirical observations. There are some truths science cannot touch. Including the truth of science. Logic is not limited to that, but builds off of it and other things. Seeking only natural answers to questions is bad philosophy and not science. You define things in ways, without rational merit, that limit the answers you are open to considering.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #477]

I have never argued for it being supernatural because we can’t explain it, but because we can explain it logically only by it being supernatural.

...

I reject the pagan idea of a supernatural Cause because it places a "God" BEFORE the true natural Cause.
The biblical God is not "supernatural". It is religion which has developed this embellishment to “clothe” the God-Mind in and (whatever the purpose for doing so) it is clearly an unnecessary cloth.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It does not say that first God created the substance from which the universe was then made of. Therefore there is no necessity to assume or infer from the description that God created the universe from some previously non-existent material (re ex nihilo) or that the God-mind itself exists "outside" of the universe.

"Heaven" is (as biblically described) "other than earth" which means it is "the rest of the universe" as observed from a human position on the earth.
It is also an acceptable understanding that the "heavens" were thought of as the sky above the earth.

“And God said” stands as a testament to the eventual discovery (science) that all things vibrate and have unique signatures (re planets as one example) and given that information we can conclude that this is how the God-mind “brings particles together” in order for them to present as the objects human beings can measure and observe (experience).

If The Cause is initially dressed up in the cloth of supernaturalism, every subsequent story is interpreted through that lens of supernaturalism.
This spills over into the real world where unexplained (as yet) phenomena are also dressed in the same cloth.

Thus, supernaturalism is what is biblically referred to as creating “a false image” (of The Cause and everything thereafter) and where the practice of idol worship originates.

The answer is consistency. For example a supernaturalist arguing for kalam points to science "seeming to point that way" and yet the same supernaturalist when cornered, makes the claim that "There are some truths science cannot touch. Including the truth of science." effectively picking and choosing how science is used re method of "verifying" beliefs ...

In the interpretation I've presented, the consistency is apparent in aligning the biblical account with scientific understanding in a way that maintains a coherent and interconnected perspective. By suggesting that the Earth itself serves as the direct source of breath, I've created a narrative that integrates religious symbolism with observable and scientifically grounded processes.