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]

Philosopher 1. Science also doesn’t say “it was always there”. We don’t have evidence that the molecules in that chair always existed.

Philosopher 3. Nor do we have evidence that they didn’t, as if they were within the thoughts of an eternal mind (the cause-mind) then they at least existed as potential, and if so, then they must have also been known by said mind to be able to be manifested into what we call solid objects (The Universe.)

Philosopher 1. The quantum energy still involves change/movement and, therefore, passage of time, showing that energy to be temporal.

Philosopher 3. It is only the energy which is temporal in that sense. Not the particles themselves, nor the underlying cause-thought.
In that we encounter an interesting dynamic which should have us all asking, “is mind the same as energy?” for if we are conflating, should we be?

Philosopher 1. We all have to go beyond the science into philosophy. To think one isn’t doing philosophy, but only science, results in doing very bad philosophy.

Philosopher 3. Yet excellent science. Or is it really? If the philosophy is “bad” then the science after it, will also be “bad”.

We get bad science in the real world, but how is supernaturalism helping solve that problem?

Philosopher 1.. I’m not taking the Kalam as fact, but arguing for every premise and following where I see the reasoning going. If you reject it, then you have to reject the reasons offered.

Philosopher 3. For me personally, it isn’t a case of rejecting/rejection but of observing that neither Materialism nor Supernaturalism (in all their many centuries of human interaction) have got us anywhere close to solving the mystery before us.

My non-accepting half-baked explanations while having my own spurned by “ones whom worships the Kalam” leaves me in a position of having to appear to be talking to myself.

Philosopher 1. And about the “Nothing,” it is logically impossible for nothing to have existed because something can’t come from nothing. Something has to be eternal. The extended Kalam helps us see what that eternal Something must be like. Energy is ruled out because the cause must be personal.

Philosopher 3. The cause must be mindful. Why don’t you trying changing “personal” to “mindful, if for no other reason than it helps avoid any confusion between thinking one can be personal with the cause-mind or one cannot be (personal with the cause-mind).

Philosopher 2. (To Philosopher 1) Yeah, see what you did there. You say it must be personal. It gives you away. You are shoe-horning God into it. It's what WLC does. He tries to say the only thing that could decide to act - to cause - is a person. Bull!
That's not what science or philosophy says.
And, we have no knowledge of perons until after life evolved. It's just wishful thinking.

I swear "Philosophy" means "how to wedge God into every conversation" to theists.

Philosopher 3. When it is put “He tries to say the only thing that could decide to act - to cause - is a person.” The confusion becomes obvious.
If it were changed-out “Person” for “Mind” then we get “He tries to say the only thing that could decide to act - to cause - is a mind.”
Then (clearly), we have a very different perspective to examine, because we all should be able to agree that “mind” is the only thing that could “decide to act/to cause”.

[The Tanager]

Your basically saying your only speculation is possible in the realms of speculations. I am saying this is not the case.
I am saying there could be countless speculations.
Made one. Its pretty concise. Don't know what your problem is.

I don’t think mine is ‘speculation’ (i.e., the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence), but a theory with firm evidence behind it. I’ve proposed the theory, explained misunderstandings, and given what I think is the evidence and reasoning. You simply said this two dimensions of time theory might work against that without explaining what it exactly says or why we should entertain it as reasonable.

So from the many combinations you happen to believe the exact combination that does not poses problems for KALAM.
That the elements in the specified combination all have the best evidence-compelling evidence, have the best explanation.

And this apparent dishonest cherry picking process is not happening in this case neither when it comes to believing which parts of the Bible being literal or metaphorical, which religion is true and so on ad nauseam.

All this is just pure coincidence. Common I was not born yesterday.

You can continue to pop pyschologize or deal with the evidence and reasoning. Only one of those is a rational response.

Notation:
Suffering X: having one's head/face being burn alive with alcohol for 10 min.

Suffering X is deemed bad/evil by the psychopath thing because when going through it he is experiencing excruciating pain.

Answer:
Q: Why is Suffering X that happens to the psychopath considered as bad/evil by him?

Because it is happening to him. You and I disagree, but Peter’s view is still consistent.

[The Tanager]

Yeah, see what you did there. You say it must be personal. It gives you away. You are shoe-horning God into it. It's what WLC does. He tries to say the only thing that could decide to act - to cause - is a person. Bull!
That's not what science or philosophy says.
And, we have no knowledge of perons until after life evolved. It's just wishful thinking.

I swear "Philosophy" means "how to wedge God into every conversation" to theists.

You can dismiss it or you can actually show where the arguments for it being personal go wrong. I gave 3 arguments for the cause being personal. If you want to rationally respond to that, then show which premises are false.

[boatsnguitars]

Yeah, see what you did there. You say it must be personal. It gives you away. You are shoe-horning God into it. It's what WLC does. He tries to say the only thing that could decide to act - to cause - is a person. Bull!
That's not what science or philosophy says.
And, we have no knowledge of perons until after life evolved. It's just wishful thinking.

I swear "Philosophy" means "how to wedge God into every conversation" to theists.

You can dismiss it or you can actually show where the arguments for it being personal go wrong. I gave 3 arguments for the cause being personal. If you want to rationally respond to that, then show which premises are false.

I gave you one. The only instance of personhood we know of is AFTER Evolution. Are you suggesting personhood can somehow spontaneously exist - or what ever you believe?

All your arguments are post hoc rationalizations. It's painfully obvious you are trying to create your God.

[The Tanager]

I gave you one. The only instance of personhood we know of is AFTER Evolution. Are you suggesting personhood can somehow spontaneously exist - or what ever you believe?

All your arguments are post hoc rationalizations. It's painfully obvious you are trying to create your God.

What is the evidence that personhood comes from evolution?

[William]

I gave you one. The only instance of personhood we know of is AFTER Evolution. Are you suggesting personhood can somehow spontaneously exist - or what ever you believe?

All your arguments are post hoc rationalizations. It's painfully obvious you are trying to create your God.

What is the evidence that personhood comes from evolution?

What? Do you mean "other than" minds within The Universe?

[The Tanager]

What? Do you mean "other than" minds within The Universe?

Yes, I mean something that is actual evidence for the claim. That minds exist within reality is not evidence that minds come from evolution.

[William]

What? Do you mean "other than" minds within The Universe?

Yes, I mean something that is actual evidence for the claim. That minds exist within reality is not evidence that minds come from evolution.

And by "evolution" are you referring to biology or a process re The Universe itself?

[alexxcJRO]

I don’t think mine is ‘speculation’ (i.e., the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence), but a theory with firm evidence behind it. I’ve proposed the theory, explained misunderstandings, and given what I think is the evidence and reasoning. You simply said this two dimensions of time theory might work against that without explaining what it exactly says or why we should entertain it as reasonable.

This is the proposed explanation: "Maybe we could have a material cause(timeless, beginningless, mindless, absolute and objective randomness) that is characterized by being inside the omniverse and that lays at the fundamental level of reality. Which lays outside the one time dimensions universes, two time dimensions universes, timeless universes and is the cause for all this universes."
Yours: "Omnibeing that through magical incantation conjures universes out of philosophical nothingness. "

Firm evidence. Don't make me laugh. Your whole things rest on unknowns: QM interpretation, Free Will and Theory of time.
Your whole religion rests on 2000 years old bogus testimonial evidence. We have the same evidence for Sathya Say Baba supposed miracles, Alien Abductions, other religions miracles, levitation, ghosts, Yeti.
It's a joke.

You can continue to pop pyschologize or deal with the evidence and reasoning. Only one of those is a rational response.

I don't believe in coincidences. I believe in human fear of death, human psychological disposition for delusions and bias behaviour, in dishonesty.
Don't make me laugh.
The reality is we don't know. You don't know.

Because it is happening to him. You and I disagree, but Peter’s view is still consistent.

Many things happens to the psychopath. Things that are pleasurable.
Someone comes and offers him a chocolate which he eats.

Q: Is that a bad/evil thing because it happens to him?

Obviously not.

Please answer: Q: Why is Suffering X that happens to the psychopath considered as bad/evil by him?

[The Tanager]

And by "evolution" are you referring to biology or a process re The Universe itself?

I believe that boatsnguitars was referring to biological evolution being the cause of minds/personhood arising in reality.