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]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The default is agnosticism. Then when someone makes a claim, the burden is on them. If it’s “the supernatural exists,” then the burden is on the supernaturalist. If the claim is “the supernatural doesn’t exist,” then it is on the non-supernaturalist. That’s because in debates about anything (not just the supernatural), skepticism is the rational place to start and the one making a claim one way or the other has the burden to back up their claim.

The presumption of naturalism is not a rational move in the supernaturalism vs. naturalism debate because it’s obviously presuming/assuming/begging the answer of naturalism. Naturalism as the presumption for doing scientific inquiry is, of course, what is needed since that is what science studies: the natural. But if one is going beyond the scientific inquiry into knowledge more general, then this presumption is philosophical question begging.

As to an absence of empirical evidence, is that just a synonym for ‘natural evidence’? It often is, which would also be an obvious case of begging this question in favor of naturalism and, therefore, irrational. If you mean something else, could you clarify your definition?

The existence of the supernatural as a category of reality that has at least one member in it that actually exists is as falsifiable as any philosophical claim (such as naturalism).

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The default is agnosticism.

You lost me.

Material exists. Are we agnostic about this?

Magical hairy goldfish on mars exist. Are you really agnostic about this? Do you really think if you say "No they don't exist" the burden is on you?

I'm sorry, agnosticism is appropriate when someone presents a reasonable option like "I have $50 in my pocket."

Then when someone makes a claim, the burden is on them. If it’s “the supernatural exists,” then the burden is on the supernaturalist. If the claim is “the supernatural doesn’t exist,” then it is on the non-supernaturalist. That’s because in debates about anything (not just the supernatural), skepticism is the rational place to start and the one making a claim one way or the other has the burden to back up their claim.

The presumption of naturalism is not a rational move in the supernaturalism vs. naturalism debate because it’s obviously presuming/assuming/begging the answer of naturalism. Naturalism as the presumption for doing scientific inquiry is, of course, what is needed since that is what science studies: the natural. But if one is going beyond the scientific inquiry into knowledge more general, then this presumption is philosophical question begging.

As to an absence of empirical evidence, is that just a synonym for ‘natural evidence’? It often is, which would also be an obvious case of begging this question in favor of naturalism and, therefore, irrational. If you mean something else, could you clarify your definition?

The existence of the supernatural as a category of reality that has at least one member in it that actually exists is as falsifiable as any philosophical claim (such as naturalism).

Saying "Supernatural" is the same as saying "hairy magic goldfish on mars." It has not been defined - as we have firmly established.

To drive the point home. Are you agnostic about the Subnatural? If you suddenly feel that you need to be agnostic about it. How about the Hypernatural? How about the Hyponatural? The Basonatural? The Nanonatural? The Goofynatural? Just because I stick something on the front of "natural" doesn't make one agnostic about it. There actually has to be a reason to believe the word maps to something in reality.

[The Tanager]

You lost me.

Material exists. Are we agnostic about this?

Most people aren’t agnostics on this issue, but one certainly can be and someone somewhere most likely is (or was), although I couldn’t name them off the top of my head.

Magical hairy goldfish on mars exist. Are you really agnostic about this? Do you really think if you say "No they don't exist" the burden is on you?

Yes, the burden is on me to give the reason(s) I’m not an agnostic on that issue. There are absolutely no actual claims of any evidence by anyone whatsoever that such a being exists. Therefore, I’m completely reasonable to believe they don’t exist. If someone claimed there was evidence of such beings and I wanted to claim that such beings don’t exist, then I would need to bear my burden and share the reason(s) I don’t buy that supposed evidence. It’s the same with naturalists.

Saying "Supernatural" is the same as saying "hairy magic goldfish on mars." It has not been defined - as we have firmly established.

Both of those are defined so that we can understand the term. Well, maybe, what “magic” is may need some flushing out, but it’s easily done. To say you “firmly established” that ‘supernatural’ is not defined is empty rhetoric. You argued it wasn't properly defined and I shared why it was. Your case rested on a view that negative definitions aren’t true definitions. I shared why I disagree, even offering common words from the dictionary that are negatively defined and perfectly understandable and used by all people.

To drive the point home. Are you agnostic about the Subnatural? If you suddenly feel that you need to be agnostic about it. How about the Hypernatural? How about the Hyponatural? The Basonatural? The Nanonatural? The Goofynatural? Just because I stick something on the front of "natural" doesn't make one agnostic about it. There actually has to be a reason to believe the word maps to something in reality.

No, definitions aren’t about what maps to something in reality. ‘Unicorn’ is clearly defined, but neither of us thinks that concept actually maps to something in reality. Definitions are conceptual. Questions of existence are separate from that. If you want to define each of these terms, then I would gladly give you my view on them.

[boatsnguitars]

You lost me.

Material exists. Are we agnostic about this?

Most people aren’t agnostics on this issue, but one certainly can be and someone somewhere most likely is (or was), although I couldn’t name them off the top of my head.

Magical hairy goldfish on mars exist. Are you really agnostic about this? Do you really think if you say "No they don't exist" the burden is on you?

Yes, the burden is on me to give the reason(s) I’m not an agnostic on that issue. There are absolutely no actual claims of any evidence by anyone whatsoever that such a being exists. Therefore, I’m completely reasonable to believe they don’t exist. If someone claimed there was evidence of such beings and I wanted to claim that such beings don’t exist, then I would need to bear my burden and share the reason(s) I don’t buy that supposed evidence. It’s the same with naturalists.

Goodness! All you need are multiple claims of HGoM and suddenly it's more reasonable!
I guess that makes Krishna really believeable.
And, if I get enough people claiming there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, at some point you have to provide the proof it doesn't exist?
That must be exhausting for you! All those claims of gods, monsters, etc... Such a burden!

Saying "Supernatural" is the same as saying "hairy magic goldfish on mars." It has not been defined - as we have firmly established.

Both of those are defined so that we can understand the term. Well, maybe, what “magic” is may need some flushing out, but it’s easily done. To say you “firmly established” that ‘supernatural’ is not defined is empty rhetoric. You argued it wasn't properly defined and I shared why it was. Your case rested on a view that negative definitions aren’t true definitions. I shared why I disagree, even offering common words from the dictionary that are negatively defined and perfectly understandable and used by all people.

To drive the point home. Are you agnostic about the Subnatural? If you suddenly feel that you need to be agnostic about it. How about the Hypernatural? How about the Hyponatural? The Basonatural? The Nanonatural? The Goofynatural? Just because I stick something on the front of "natural" doesn't make one agnostic about it. There actually has to be a reason to believe the word maps to something in reality.

No, definitions aren’t about what maps to something in reality. ‘Unicorn’ is clearly defined, but neither of us thinks that concept actually maps to something in reality. Definitions are conceptual. Questions of existence are separate from that. If you want to define each of these terms, then I would gladly give you my view on them.

Subnatural: non-natural, non-supernatural.

[The Tanager]

Goodness! All you need are multiple claims of HGoM and suddenly it's more reasonable!

So you think someone who says X exists with no reason (not just none given, but that there is no reason) is just as reasonable as someone who says X exists because of A, B, and C?

I guess that makes Krishna really believeable.

Why would you guess that? How does (1) a claim is more reasonable if there is support of it being true offered than if there is no reason in support of it offered lead to (2) any claim (or specifically, Krishna) is “really believable”? (1) doesn’t say the support makes the claim really believable, it just says that it’s more reasonable to have reasons for one’s belief than not to have them. That includes those arguing for or against the existence of something.

And, if I get enough people claiming there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, at some point you have to provide the proof it doesn't exist?

If I want to reject the existence of something, why shouldn’t I have reasons to reject the arguments for its existence? The alternative is to just beg the question, ignoring any possible evidence. I should do that? No, I should provide the reasons I don’t accept the proofs given and offer positive proofs for my view (if there are any) or be an agnostic.

That must be exhausting for you! All those claims of gods, monsters, etc... Such a burden!

No, I think having a rational basis for one’s beliefs is not an exhausting burden; it’s actually very freeing.

Subnatural: non-natural, non-supernatural.

Either something is natural, non-natural (i.e., supernatural), or a mixture of the two. Those are the only 3 logical options. So, is your ‘subnatural’ the third of these, something that is both natural and supernatural? Or were you trying to say that ‘subnatural’ is none of those 3 things, but a fourth option? If so, how does a fourth option make logical sense?

[William]

Supernaturalism is redundant if naturalism can explain those things supposed to being supernatural.

Materialism is redundant if it cannot regard natural processes as mindful ones.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The silence is sometimes deafening - if it weren't for the sound of crickets. chirping their one-liners.

For example (evidence) and more evidence.

Belief-Claims about the supposed "breath of God" or "being perfect like God" remain mysterious concepts clearly anchored in the wordlessness of supernaturalist philosophy as (apparently) "unexplainable." (even as philosophical concepts.)

The same applies in near-equal measure of absurdity re the belief-claims from Materialism's platform, that the brain creates consciousness or when a body dies, that is the end of the human personality.

[Purple Knight]

Saying "Supernatural" is the same as saying "hairy magic goldfish on mars." It has not been defined - as we have firmly established.

I think there are indeed serious issues of definition here and I think materialists have stacked the deck in the definition category, with respect to this issue.

For example, there are phenomena we have both proof and natural explanations for. The carbon-sillicate cycle is a good example. These are things that we document happening, and can explain how they happen.

There are also phenomena we have documentation for, but no explanation for. This category is small and includes fish rain and morphic resonance. How fish fall from the sky, or how rat brains can influence other rat brains on the other side of the planet, is not understood. But these things happen. We don't even fully understand how gravity works, but obviously there is gravity.

The third category is phenomena we have no clear documentation of, and no natural explanation. People who puff themselves up about being rational tend to claim these things don't happen. Before there were videos of fish and frogs falling from the sky, the default was, fish don't fall from the sky, and fish rain was in this category.

When most people say, "supernatural" they mean the third category, but if proof is obtained, the phenomenon is simply chucked into one of the other two bins and the claim reiterated that nothing in the last category actually happens. Well, the materialists of this chicanerous persuasion have definitionally made it so. If something considered supernatural is proven, it simply makes its way into the material category and again, nothing supernatural happens. It reduces to the tautology that we don't have documentation of, what we don't have documentation of.

[boatsnguitars]

Saying "Supernatural" is the same as saying "hairy magic goldfish on mars." It has not been defined - as we have firmly established.

I think there are indeed serious issues of definition here and I think materialists have stacked the deck in the definition category, with respect to this issue.

For example, there are phenomena we have both proof and natural explanations for. The carbon-sillicate cycle is a good example. These are things that we document happening, and can explain how they happen.

There are also phenomena we have documentation for, but no explanation for. This category is small and includes fish rain and morphic resonance. How fish fall from the sky, or how rat brains can influence other rat brains on the other side of the planet, is not understood. But these things happen. We don't even fully understand how gravity works, but obviously there is gravity.

The third category is phenomena we have no clear documentation of, and no natural explanation. People who puff themselves up about being rational tend to claim these things don't happen. Before there were videos of fish and frogs falling from the sky, the default was, fish don't fall from the sky, and fish rain was in this category.

When most people say, "supernatural" they mean the third category, but if proof is obtained, the phenomenon is simply chucked into one of the other two bins and the claim reiterated that nothing in the last category actually happens. Well, the materialists of this chicanerous persuasion have definitionally made it so. If something considered supernatural is proven, it simply makes its way into the material category and again, nothing supernatural happens. It reduces to the tautology that we don't have documentation of, what we don't have documentation of.

I think you simply use ignorance as your engine to believe in the supernatural.

When tornadoes traverse over bodies of water, they become known as waterspouts. Waterspouts suck up lake or ocean water along with the fish or other creatures swimming in the water. The fish are sucked up the tornado's vortex and then blown around in the clouds until the windspeed decreases enough to let them fall back to the ground, perhaps miles away from where they started. According to Bill Evans' meteorology book titled It's Raining Fish and Spiders, creatures fall from the sky about forty times a year. All sorts of creatures have been reported raining down, including snakes, worms, and crabs, but fish and frogs are the most common. Even squid and alligators have been reported to fall from the sky. Often, the process of being swept high into the clouds encases these creatures in a layer of ice or hail that may still remain after they have plummeted back to earth. Raining creatures encased in blocks of ice can be very dangerous and have been known to smash through car windshields. If you see any wildlife falling from the sky, seek shelter indoors immediately.

[William]

The third category is phenomena we have no clear documentation of, and no natural explanation. People who puff themselves up about being rational tend to claim these things don't happen. Before there were videos of fish and frogs falling from the sky, the default was, fish don't fall from the sky, and fish rain was in this category.

When most people say, "supernatural" they mean the third category, but if proof is obtained, the phenomenon is simply chucked into one of the other two bins and the claim reiterated that nothing in the last category actually happens.

It doesn't appear to be the case. Most supernaturalists I have encountered generally deny there could possibly be natural answers to life's ongoing mysteries and perhaps this is largely due to their preference to having a "creator" remain "outside" of "creation" due to other factors involved in their belief systems about the character/personality of a "creator".

Re that, it becomes questionable as to what exactly is the personality/mind of the creator when examining the various epochs of specie development, dominance and eventual extinctions that digging around has uncovered (as physical data) which don't exactly paint the picture of the lovely/loving creator portrayed through popular religious icons and perhaps it is this which prompts those religious folk to make belief-claims that serve to keep a creator distant from the horrors of said creators handiwork....thus the idea of a "super-to-nature" universe was conceived and became the "go-to" position to hold, defend and even die for.