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]

Sir Pete considers Suffering X bad because of the excruciating pain he is experiencing. There is no higher benefit. The benefit is not experiencing the excruciating pain.
Pete: Experiencing excruciating pain because of physical torture: bad.
Pete: Experiencing excruciating psychological pain because of psychological torture: bad.
Pete: Experiencing excruciating pain because of cancer: bad.

You are not accurately portraying Pete's view here. Pete says "ME EXPERIENCING EXCRUCIATING PAIN because of physical torture: bad". And Pete says "ME EXPERIENCING PLEASURE because of someone else undergoing physical torture: good".

[The Tanager]

Are you arguing then that the idea of objective morality is separate from the idea of a supernatural cause?

No. I’m saying that I wasn’t arguing for the supernatural from objective morality. While I think it is more rational to believe in objective morality than subjective morality, I think the Kalam’s case is stronger than that, so I chose to argue for the supernatural via the Kalam.

I did not say that. I said that the (supernatural) Cause couldn't interact with us without somehow changing which would contradict the unchanging (Timeless) attribute you have proposed re the Cause.

What change do you see happening in the Cause here?

My question to you had to do with why you think it can be both things, and the solution to the contradiction I gave was the suggestion that God (The mind which created the universe we are experiencing and personally engages with human personalities) was created by The Cause.

Re that, I just had this interaction "Bridging the Concept of a Caused Universe Creator" which expands upon the idea of God (The creator of and engager with our universe) being created by The Cause.

And my response is that I don’t think there is a contradiction to begin with.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #462]

Are you arguing then that the idea of objective morality is separate from the idea of a supernatural cause?

No. I’m saying that I wasn’t arguing for the supernatural from objective morality. While I think it is more rational to believe in objective morality than subjective morality, I think the Kalam’s case is stronger than that, so I chose to argue for the supernatural via the Kalam.

Okay. I am curious then as to why you have allowed argument re morality to distract from the main focus. I can understand why one would do so being that there is a connect to argue which would support both (from your perspective) and wonder why the time is invested to go down that circular tangent with an atheist.

I did not say that. I said that the (supernatural) Cause couldn't interact with us without somehow changing which would contradict the unchanging (Timeless) attribute you have proposed re the Cause.

What change do you see happening in the Cause here?

None, if I were to accept that the Cause remains unchanged. Which is why I offered an explanation/solution to the contradiction, allowing for both to happen.

My question to you had to do with why you think it can be both things, and the solution to the contradiction I gave was the suggestion that God (The mind which created the universe we are experiencing and personally engages with human personalities) was created by The Cause.

Re that, I just had this interaction "Bridging the Concept of a Caused Universe Creator" which expands upon the idea of God (The creator of and engager with our universe) being created by The Cause.

And my response is that I don’t think there is a contradiction to begin with.

Yes I understand your ongoing response hasn't changed. You "don't think" there is a contradiction. I think that there is. I give reason for why I think what I think. You have not given reason for why you think what you think.

[The Tanager]

Okay. I am curious then as to why you have allowed argument re morality to distract from the main focus. I can understand why one would do so being that there is a connect to argue which would support both (from your perspective) and wonder why the time is invested to go down that circular tangent with an atheist.

Some atheists felt it was pertinent to the discussion and, like you say, there is a connection to the supernatural which is what this thread is about, so I have shared my thoughts.

None, if I were to accept that the Cause remains unchanged. Which is why I offered an explanation/solution to the contradiction, allowing for both to happen.

Let me rephrase my question. What change do you think my view shows to be happening in the Cause here that would produce a contradiction?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #464]

None, if I were to accept that the Cause remains unchanged. Which is why I offered an explanation/solution to the contradiction, allowing for both to happen.

What change do you think my view shows to be happening in the Cause here that would produce a contradiction?

I already mentioned that.

I said that the (supernatural) Cause couldn't interact with us without somehow changing which would contradict the unchanging (Timeless) attribute you have proposed re the Cause.

I understand your ongoing response hasn't changed. You "don't think" there is a contradiction. I think that there is. I give reason for why I think what I think.. and provide an alternate in order to deal with the contradiction (that the Cause created God) You have not given reason for why you think what you think.

[alexxcJRO]

Sir Pete considers Suffering X bad because of the excruciating pain he is experiencing. There is no higher benefit. The benefit is not experiencing the excruciating pain.
Pete: Experiencing excruciating pain because of physical torture: bad.
Pete: Experiencing excruciating psychological pain because of psychological torture: bad.
Pete: Experiencing excruciating pain because of cancer: bad.

You are not accurately portraying Pete's view here. Pete says "ME EXPERIENCING EXCRUCIATING PAIN because of physical torture: bad". And Pete says "ME EXPERIENCING PLEASURE because of someone else undergoing physical torture: good".

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.

[The Tanager]

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.

[The Tanager]

I already mentioned that.

I said that the (supernatural) Cause couldn't interact with us without somehow changing which would contradict the unchanging (Timeless) attribute you have proposed re the Cause.

In trying to understand what you are saying, I’m asking you why you think interacting with us is a change in the Cause. What, specifically, has changed?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #468]

Why couldn’t God be eternally interested in us?

The Cause. I am not arguing that "God" does not interact with us. When did you change from declaring the Cause was "God"? I may have missed that in one of your posts, but have been under the impression that you were not arguing any God created the universe but that the Kalam was arguing the Universe must have an uncaused cause.



What I wrote to begin with was the following.

I have mentioned in passing that the idea of a supernatural creator brings to mind the same type of creator as the idea of the Deist God.

One such example of a description of the deist position I found and use here is that "Deism holds that a god must exist, based on the evidence of reason and nature only, not on supernatural evidence. Some deists believe that a god created the world but is indifferent to it. Theism holds that there is one God who is still actively engaged with the universe in some way."

Now the part that reminds me of your style of argument is worded "based on the evidence of reason and nature" (your having provided reason and nature through the Kalam) yet you also appear to conflate (from a Deist position/view) that evidence as being evidence of "supernaturalism" and express your beliefs in a way that has one thinking that you believe God is not indifferent.

However, your base-argument appears to be that God is unchanging and unmoving and timeless and eternal as necessary things, so how do you explain why such a God would not be indifferent in that it appears to be (by your current ongoing description of It/Him) that It must be indifferent in order to remain those things attributed to Him.

I think that is my underlying concern with a supposed supernatural cause - it remains as it always has - the base reality for all subsequent realities and must stay that way in order for it to be this - what you call "supernatural" position (and what some Deists think of as "a god created the world but is indifferent to it") as one can't be both.

The only logic I can come up with to integrate these two contradictions (a timeless unchanging cause and a God who is actively engaged with the universe (and specifically with human personalities), is that The Cause created the active God which then can do the engaging.

In trying to understand what you are saying, I’m asking you why you think interacting with us is a change in the Cause. What, specifically, has changed?

I will now ask a machine to "help me understand" what the above means. Perhaps in that way, the answer will assist you in your own understanding.

GPT. The information discusses a potential tension between the characteristics of a supernatural creator and the concept of an actively engaged deity. The writer suggests a resolution by proposing that a timeless, unchanging cause (referred to as "The Cause") created an active God who then interacts with the universe.

This idea aligns with attempts in theology to reconcile the transcendence and immanence of an uncaused Cause. Transcendence refers to the Cause's existence beyond or above the world, while immanence refers to a God's active presence and involvement within the world.

In this view, The Cause could represent the transcendent, unchanging force that initiated the creation of the universe. The active God, which engages with the universe and human personalities, is a created manifestation of The Cause's immanence, allowing for interaction while maintaining the timeless and unchanging nature of the initial cause.

This reconciliation is a common theme in theological discussions, where different religious traditions offer diverse perspectives on the nature of God and the relationship between transcendence and immanence. The attempt to harmonize these aspects often involves a combination of reason, faith, and interpretation of religious texts.

If you are still unable to understand what is being pointed out, then I have overestimated your apparent intellectual curiosity and will pursue this with you no further.

Otherwise we can discuss the idea further.

[The Tanager]

The Cause. I am not arguing that "God" does not interact with us. When did you change from declaring the Cause was "God"? I may have missed that in one of your posts, but have been under the impression that you were not arguing any God created the universe but that the Kalam was arguing the Universe must have an uncaused cause.

I have argued that this uncaused cause, when analyzed, also has other characteristics that come out which fit what the term 'God' has generally referred to in history, in it's classical sense.

In trying to understand what you are saying, I’m asking you why you think interacting with us is a change in the Cause. What, specifically, has changed?

I will now ask a machine to "help me understand" what the above means. Perhaps in that way, the answer will assist you in your own understanding.

GPT. The information discusses a potential tension between the characteristics of a supernatural creator and the concept of an actively engaged deity. The writer suggests a resolution by proposing that a timeless, unchanging cause (referred to as "The Cause") created an active God who then interacts with the universe.

This idea aligns with attempts in theology to reconcile the transcendence and immanence of an uncaused Cause. Transcendence refers to the Cause's existence beyond or above the world, while immanence refers to a God's active presence and involvement within the world.

In this view, The Cause could represent the transcendent, unchanging force that initiated the creation of the universe. The active God, which engages with the universe and human personalities, is a created manifestation of The Cause's immanence, allowing for interaction while maintaining the timeless and unchanging nature of the initial cause.

This reconciliation is a common theme in theological discussions, where different religious traditions offer diverse perspectives on the nature of God and the relationship between transcendence and immanence. The attempt to harmonize these aspects often involves a combination of reason, faith, and interpretation of religious texts.

If you are still unable to understand what is being pointed out, then I have overestimated your apparent intellectual curiosity and will pursue this with you no further.

Otherwise we can discuss the idea further.

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.