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]

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?

Sorry, but his view isn’t wrong because: “obviously not”. That’s just not a rational response. He considers suffering X to be bad/evil by him because it happens to him and suffering Y is good because it happens to someone else and benefits him. Why is he objectively wrong? You’ve obviously got nothing because you keep just saying things like he’s obviously wrong. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here and listening to mine, but you seem tapped out in the thoughts you have to share here.

[boatsnguitars]

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?

Where else do you know of personhood? The only persons we know of are animals on Earth - which evolved. If you contest that, then we really don't have anything to discuss.

[alexxcJRO]

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?

Sorry, but his view isn’t wrong because: “obviously not”. That’s just not a rational response. He considers suffering X to be bad/evil by him because it happens to him and suffering Y is good because it happens to someone else and benefits him. Why is he objectively wrong? You’ve obviously got nothing because you keep just saying things like he’s obviously wrong. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here and listening to mine, but you seem tapped out in the thoughts you have to share here.

Nonsense.

The logic that something is bad/evil because it happens to him is stupid for other things happen to him "Someone comes and offers him a chocolate which he eats" and clearly he does not deems them bad/evil.
Ergo pointing to the actual reason why he deems it bad/evil: the fact he is experiences excruciating pain. Which objectively happens to others. Ergo if it happens to others these things should also be bad/evil according to his logic. But he does not view it like this. Ergo not a consistent morality system.

[The Tanager]

Where else do you know of personhood? The only persons we know of are animals on Earth - which evolved. If you contest that, then we really don't have anything to discuss.

If you don’t want to share how you’ve solved the hard problem of consciousness via evolution, then, I agree, we don’t have anything to discuss.

[The Tanager]

Nonsense.

The logic that something is bad/evil because it happens to him is stupid for other things happen to him "Someone comes and offers him a chocolate which he eats" and clearly he does not deems them bad/evil.
Ergo pointing to the actual reason why he deems it bad/evil: the fact he is experiences excruciating pain. Which objectively happens to others. Ergo if it happens to others these things should also be bad/evil according to his logic. But he does not view it like this. Ergo not a consistent morality system.

I didn’t say his logic was that anything that happens to him is bad/evil, but that things that cause him suffering are bad/evil. Things that benefit him, those happen to him as well, and he deems them good. Suffering of others that benefit him, under his logic, are good. Again, you haven’t shown him inconsistent or stupid.

[boatsnguitars]

Where else do you know of personhood? The only persons we know of are animals on Earth - which evolved. If you contest that, then we really don't have anything to discuss.

If you don’t want to share how you’ve solved the hard problem of consciousness via evolution, then, I agree, we don’t have anything to discuss.

Argument from ignorance. You don't get to claim you have an answer.
Consciousness is an emergent property; its what brains do.
Problem solved.

Now, show consciousness and personhood can exist without a brain. I'll expect you to waffle, and do everything you can to avoid answering the question.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #440]

Philosopher 3. 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.

Philosopher 1. What is the evidence that personhood comes from evolution?

Philosopher 2. What? Do you mean "other than" minds within The Universe?


Philosopher 1. Yes, I mean something that is actual evidence for the claim. That minds exist within reality is not evidence that minds come from evolution.

Philosopher 2. And by "evolution" are you referring to biology or a process re The Universe itself?

Philosopher 1. I believe that Philosopher 3 was referring to biological evolution being the cause of minds/personhood arising in reality.

Philosopher 3. Where else do you know of personhood? The only persons we know of are animals on Earth - which evolved. If you contest that, then we really don't have anything to discuss.

Philosopher 1. If you don’t want to share how you’ve solved the hard problem of consciousness via evolution, then, I agree, we don’t have anything to discuss.

Philosopher 3. Argument from ignorance. You don't get to claim you have an answer.
Consciousness is an emergent property; its what brains do.
Problem solved.

Now, show consciousness and personhood can exist without a brain. I'll expect you to waffle, and do everything you can to avoid answering the question.


_________________

I would argue that neither side of the debate offers anything concrete which allows one to dismiss either perspective outrightly.
Essentially the argument is focused upon the question of whether consciousness can exist without a brain, and even that supernaturalism provides an alternative (re “souls” et al) the question remains open as to whether any alternate experience a human personality may have, is actually “supernatural” as that concept in itself does not point conclusively to supernaturalism having to be the next thing the Human Personality experiences..
For example, if The Universe is mindful – or for that matter, just The Planet (“Emergence Theory” can still be relevant therein) then what/who is to say that what a Human Personality experiences going forward (through death of the human instrument) is not itself sourced directly in and of the Planet mind…. And then extending that observation into the concept of The Universe itself being mindful and it is The Universe in which souls “depart” only of course, no “departing” is actually performed…even if it might look that way.

[The Tanager]

Argument from ignorance. You don't get to claim you have an answer.
Consciousness is an emergent property; its what brains do.
Problem solved.

If it’s truly solved, then show the work that consciousness is an emergent property.

Now, show consciousness and personhood can exist without a brain. I'll expect you to waffle, and do everything you can to avoid answering the question.

No, I’ll point to the arguments I gave in that other thread (I’m pretty sure you were a part of) for the soul and the Kalam as evidence for these things. You’ve shared your thoughts on my thoughts for those arguments and I’ve responded to everything you’ve said, so there appears there is nothing else useful for us to share on those things.

[alexxcJRO]

Nonsense.

The logic that something is bad/evil because it happens to him is stupid for other things happen to him "Someone comes and offers him a chocolate which he eats" and clearly he does not deems them bad/evil.
Ergo pointing to the actual reason why he deems it bad/evil: the fact he is experiences excruciating pain. Which objectively happens to others. Ergo if it happens to others these things should also be bad/evil according to his logic. But he does not view it like this. Ergo not a consistent morality system.

I didn’t say his logic was that anything that happens to him is bad/evil, but that things that cause him suffering are bad/evil. Things that benefit him, those happen to him as well, and he deems them good. Suffering of others that benefit him, under his logic, are good. Again, you haven’t shown him inconsistent or stupid.

You keep repeating the same nonsense.

I asked: "Why is Suffering X that happens to the psychopath considered as bad/evil by him?"
You said: "He considers suffering X to be bad/evil by him because it happens to him and suffering Y is good because it happens to someone else and benefits him".
I said: "The logic that something is bad/evil because it happens to him is stupid for other things happen to him "Someone comes and offers him a chocolate which he eats" and clearly he does not deems them bad/evil.
Ergo pointing to the actual reason why he deems it bad/evil: the fact he is experiences excruciating pain."
Now you say: "his logic was that anything that happens to him is bad/evil, but that things that cause him suffering are bad/evil. "

Circular bad logic:
Suffering X is bad/evil because it happens to him.
Other things happen to him which are pleasurable. Ergo the logic is bad.
Anything that happens to him is bad/evil because is causes suffering.

You are done, finished, hasta la vista bye bye baby.

[The Tanager]

You keep repeating the same nonsense.

I asked: "Why is Suffering X that happens to the psychopath considered as bad/evil by him?"
You said: "He considers suffering X to be bad/evil by him because it happens to him and suffering Y is good because it happens to someone else and benefits him".
I said: "The logic that something is bad/evil because it happens to him is stupid for other things happen to him "Someone comes and offers him a chocolate which he eats" and clearly he does not deems them bad/evil.
Ergo pointing to the actual reason why he deems it bad/evil: the fact he is experiences excruciating pain."
Now you say: "his logic was that anything that happens to him is bad/evil, but that things that cause him suffering are bad/evil. "

Circular bad logic:
Suffering X is bad/evil because it happens to him.
Other things happen to him which are pleasurable. Ergo the logic is bad.
Anything that happens to him is bad/evil because is causes suffering.

You are done, finished, hasta la vista bye bye baby.

You got the bolded part wrong. Here is what I actually said: I didn’t say his logic was that anything that happens to him is bad/evil, but that things that cause him suffering are bad/evil.

To translate that for you: I said his logic was not that anything that happens to him is bad/evil; his logic is things that cause him suffering are bad/evil.