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 Purple Knight in post #110]



Calling "the unknown" "supernatural" implies unknown things may have unnatural explainations.

It is better to have it that the unknown is simply that which we do not yet understand about the universe.
There is no logical requirement to believe in an unknown "something" outside of the universe, which is the reason why our universe exists. (The "only reason" for why our universe exists.)

[The Tanager]

This ruins the argument. If we (inside Nature) have souls that are supernatural, then the universe needs no specific, unified, vastly singularly powerful first cause. We each have a potential cause within us that needs no cause because it is supernatural. Even accepting every premise of the Kalam totally, that which is natural must begin to exist, but that which is supernatural does not need to, and since something supernatural needs no cause, but can cause natural things, for all you know, matter just grew around each of our souls, and each one is a first cause of the matter that grew up around it.

Now, you can think God made other supernatural things (our souls) but if there is more than one supernatural thing, we can't know which one did what, and it may be that all of them did some. This is accepting every premise of the argument as truth. The conclusion demonstrably does not follow, even according to the rules the argument lays out.

That is not what the Kalam says or implies. The Kalam says there must be an uncaused supernatural cause to the natural universe. It doesn’t say other supernatural beings, if they exist, must be uncaused. The supernatural is not defined to include ‘uncaused’. The Kalam doesn’t address whether other supernatural things are caused or not. The Kalam leads us to posit a supernatural cause that has particular characteristics. If you want to make an argument that our souls fit those characteristics, then you can try, but I don’t see how you are going to do it.

This is just about where you draw the line between natural and supernatural. Nature is what needs a cause, and supernatural does not. So, how do you say that our souls are supernatural? Were they brought into being? I mean, they don't need causes, being supernatural. But if they do have a cause, then how can you say whether they are natural or not?

The natural isn’t defined as needing a cause. The supernatural isn’t defined as not needing a cause. We get to the natural needing a cause through rational arguments. I don’t see any rational argument getting us to the supernatural not needing a cause. The Kalam is one that gets us to at least one supernatural being, the ultimate cause of the natural universe, not needing a cause but doesn’t address other possible supernatural beings.

I agree it's not a perfect way to conceive things but it seems to be the way people do conceive things, and since language is defined by usage - it flows into the dictionary and not out of the dictionary - this bad understanding would nevertheless be the correct one. We do have other words that work like this, for example: The unknown. It's not a sin to have a definition work this way. And it is useful: Things that are well-explained are natural and things we can't explain without adding a new natural law are supernatural. It's useful it's just sub-ideal. And sometimes common usage is sub-ideal.

No, it wouldn’t be correct at all. That’s not at all what supernaturalists believe about the supernatural. They believe it is different ontological ‘stuff’. ‘Unknown’ means we don’t know if it is natural or supernatural stuff yet. Calling something that we don’t know if it is supernatural yet supernatural is begging the question.

[Purple Knight]

That is not what the Kalam says or implies. The Kalam says there must be an uncaused supernatural cause to the natural universe. It doesn’t say other supernatural beings, if they exist, must be uncaused. The supernatural is not defined to include ‘uncaused’. The Kalam doesn’t address whether other supernatural things are caused or not. The Kalam leads us to posit a supernatural cause that has particular characteristics. If you want to make an argument that our souls fit those characteristics, then you can try, but I don’t see how you are going to do it.

But the supernatural can be uncaused. This means we now have no proof of a singular First Cause. There may be many. You've said souls are supernatural and they fit the bill.

This is just about where you draw the line between natural and supernatural. Nature is what needs a cause, and supernatural does not. So, how do you say that our souls are supernatural? Were they brought into being? I mean, they don't need causes, being supernatural. But if they do have a cause, then how can you say whether they are natural or not?

The natural isn’t defined as needing a cause. The supernatural isn’t defined as not needing a cause. We get to the natural needing a cause through rational arguments. I don’t see any rational argument getting us to the supernatural not needing a cause. The Kalam is one that gets us to at least one supernatural being, the ultimate cause of the natural universe, not needing a cause but doesn’t address other possible supernatural beings.

You just said the supernatural needs no cause and that's why you say it must be outside Nature. You keep saying you know the natural needs a cause through rational argument. The argument simply draws the line so that the natural needs a cause and that cause must be supernatural. That's defining one thing as needing a cause, and the other thing as not.

That's why the Kalam doesn't prove a singular First Cause if our souls are supernatural. The material universe may have simply grown up around each of our souls like bacterial plaques in a petri dish.

No, it wouldn’t be correct at all. That’s not at all what supernaturalists believe about the supernatural. They believe it is different ontological ‘stuff’. ‘Unknown’ means we don’t know if it is natural or supernatural stuff yet. Calling something that we don’t know if it is supernatural yet supernatural is begging the question.

It's no more begging the question than calling something unknown until it is known. And you might be right about religious people believing in different ontological stuff, but people who believe in ghosts, psychic powers, unexplained phenomena, are more or less saying, these things happen, our understanding doesn't explain it, therefore there are laws of the universe we don't know yet. Those who doubt them are saying, we don't know of a mechanism for a consciousness to continue after death, therefore it doesn't and there can't be ghosts.

[Purple Knight]

Calling "the unknown" "supernatural" implies unknown things may have unnatural explanations.

It is better to have it that the unknown is simply that which we do not yet understand about the universe.
There is no logical requirement to believe in an unknown "something" outside of the universe, which is the reason why our universe exists. (The "only reason" for why our universe exists.)

I agree; there is not such a logical requirement. That division between the universe, which is natural and needs a cause, and something which does not, exists solely for the purpose of the Kalam cosmological argument to successfully prove a supernatural First Cause.

I don't mean supernatural to just mean unknown and unexplained. I mean it to be different from things which are merely unknown because the supernatural can't be explained with only the natural laws we have now - things for which we would have to add to our understanding of how the universe works, to explain.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #114]

I don't mean supernatural to just mean unknown and unexplained. I mean it to be different from things which are merely unknown because the supernatural can't be explained with only the natural laws we have now - things for which we would have to add to our understanding of how the universe works, to explain.

The idea of supernatural things is a concept which came through animalism and paganism and has been carried on with through religious instruction, throughout human development and into modern times where Christianity (as one example) produces individuals like Tanager who unnecessarily argue for something which doesn't exist in order to explain - not really the existence of the universe - but rather, the existence of The Creator. ("God").

[The Tanager]

But the supernatural can be uncaused. This means we now have no proof of a singular First Cause. There may be many. You've said souls are supernatural and they fit the bill.

Let me try to clarify what I mean. You seem to be treating this all as one string of reasoning, but there are two lines of reasoning converging here. First, the cause of the natural universe must be supernatural. Second (and separately), there must be a first uncaused cause to avoid an infinite regress. Those two things come together to show at least one supernatural thing must be uncaused.

As to whether there is one or many, I think simplicity causes us to lean towards there being one ultimate cause since there are no other arguments as to why there are actually many. I don’t think souls fit all the characteristics the Kalam leads us to.

It's no more begging the question than calling something unknown until it is known.

I think it is different. Calling things that are not known ‘unknown’ is simply using logic to categorize reality. Something is A or non-A. But when you try to fit X into one category or the other, one can’t beg that question. That is what you are doing here through your definition. You are fitting ‘supernatural’ into (or as a synonym of) ‘unknown’ without justification. With known/unknown it was pure logic that justified that distinction. Whereas my definition is akin to how known/unknown are logical antonyms.

And you might be right about religious people believing in different ontological stuff, but people who believe in ghosts, psychic powers, unexplained phenomena, are more or less saying, these things happen, our understanding doesn't explain it, therefore there are laws of the universe we don't know yet.

What do you mean “laws of the universe”? There is a difference between ones who say these are supernatural because we don’t know what explains it (that’s supernaturalism of the gaps, and illogical), those who believe they must be natural phenomena (that’s probably blind faith in naturalism, and illogical), those who are agnostic because we don’t know enough about it yet, those who think they have sound arguments for naturalism or supernaturalism.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #116]

Let me try to clarify what I mean. You seem to be treating this all as one string of reasoning, but there are two lines of reasoning converging here. First, the cause of the natural universe must be supernatural. Second (and separately), there must be a first uncaused cause to avoid an infinite regress. Those two things come together to show at least one supernatural thing must be uncaused.

As to whether there is one or many, I think simplicity causes us to lean towards there being one ultimate cause since there are no other arguments as to why there are actually many. I don’t think souls fit all the characteristics the Kalam leads us to.

The problem with this reasoning is that it supposed the Kalam is speaking of a supernatural thing, when all it is saying is that there must be an uncaused cause.
It is not making that assertion or any assertion about the nature of said uncaused, except to say that it was the cause of the universe.

For example the Kalam is not saying that what was caused, is (or is not) happening within the mind of the uncaused.

Thus, supernaturalism is hijacking the Kalam by superimposing its own beliefs onto what the Kalam is actually pointing out.

"Yes" there is an uncaused cause (Primary Creator Mind) and "No" - this does not mean we have to therefore believe said cause is "supernatural".

1. The Uncaused Cause of the universe, does not lead to the conclusion
2. "Therefore, the Uncaused Cause of the universe must be "supernatural".

And analogy which comes to mind re that has to do with the experience of Lucid Dreams.

When one realizes that they are within their dream this realization allows them some power to shape the experience to suit their particular desires and while they may regard their power as being "superhuman" primarily because the dream is no less real than the experience of being awake in their "normal" or "dominant" reality is, but within the Lucid Dream their abilities to shape their reality take on a superhuman quality.

However, within that state, such is "normal" and would not be regarded as "super" anything, but simply natural.

Key to this analogy, is the consciousness itself...that which is doing the experiencing.

Because of the added experience - something different is had but the difference need not be attributed to anything "supernatural" because consciousness need not be regarded (or regard itself) as being supernatural. It is the most natural thing which exists, and even whatever it creates for itself to experience, cannot be regarded as "supernatural", since the Uncaused Cause could only ever create natural things.

If we consider the Uncaused Cause to being "supernatural", we would have to consider anything it creates as also being "Supernatural".

So the argument is reduced to "what to call it" either "natural" or "supernatural" but certainly not both.

_______
Uncaused Cause: Room to Explore “Absolutely Perfectly Beautiful.”

Me: Created that way…

Uncaused Cause: Innermost Within Carry


Me: The link information states:
"At a very young age Steve was struck by a motor vehicle and this event bio electrically connected him to the quantum field. During Steve’s near death experience he experienced sitting with a being comprised solely of light. The being of light revealed to Steve the quantum field and its connection to humanities healing contained in their divine blueprint. Steve’s gift enables him to stimulate emotional and physical healing from any distance through quantum entanglement and photonics. Every living being emits Biophotons or weak radiation generated as a bio electrical field and this is what links all living beings to collective consciousness. By using his unique gifts he is able to create a zero point field or ground state for the bio electrical nervous system and open pathways for healing. Steve began using his gifts to give back to humanity over ten years ago and has only grown from there. He now teaches heals and coaches clients from around the world. Steve works with hundreds of clients of all ages and backgrounds, guiding them on their journey of freedom from pain and trauma. Steve has a wide range of experience healing both spiritual and physical ailments from cancerous tumors to common injuries."

Uncaused Cause: About face Science of Truth Adjustment.

Me: Steve – in this case – is like the Lucid Dreamer, able to be “superhuman” in his dominant reality, but this is still a natural enough thing, even if it is not a widespread practice.

Uncaused Cause: Most folk need moderating. The “Clamp”

Me: Yes. The rule-set. It does not prevent such from happening, but is not something which should be mis-used which is why it is not available for misuse.

Uncaused Cause: The blurry line of the neutral zone.

The Uncaused Cause of the universe, does not lead to the conclusion "Therefore, the Uncaused Cause of the universe must be "supernatural”.

Ok... well “fire away”.
Insignificant.
Pusillanimous.
Extrapolate.
(Human Imagination Has Consequences)


Me: Always on the lookout…

Uncaused Cause:

Me: The link information states:
GHOST DESCRIBES THE AFTERLIFE | What Happens To Wealthy People?
“The following is an edited conversation that took place on April 29th 1963 with Elizabeth Fry who was born in 1780 in Norwich, UK and was a prison reformer, social reformer and Quaker. Fry passed away in 1845. She is in conversation with George Woods and Betty Greene and the medium was Leslie Flint. Special thanks to the Leslie Flint Trust.”

Uncaused Cause: "Dark" It is a mystery which must be solved that the Human becomes true.
Be.
“Does the possibility that being unable to detect something as existing, allow for the right to include zero as representing something real, which is not?”
(The Akashic Records ...because death comes a-knockin' eventually...)

Me: “Soul Storage – where data of experience is saved”

Uncaused Cause: ♫We’ve been an island of our own - we’ve been a cosmic rolling stone Now’s the time to spread our wings - and fly! ♫
Challenging Supernaturalism in the Cosmological Argument. Concision. It is up to the individual to work with the evidence as it is made available.
“Born. Live the experience. Die.”
The Development of…

Me: Human Personalities.

Uncaused Cause: “But you will know the more you get in touch with your transcendental mind (and therefore truth) that there is no such thing as a “victim”. The negative benefits you more than anything else in your evolution and the evolution of all that is.”
Shamanic.

Me: Yeah. It could be said differently…the “benefit” is ultimately where the negative leads through following the Ruleset (re “getting in touch”.)

Uncaused Cause: Nevertheless, “Love”.
All Information Is Channelled.
viewtopic.php?p=1089091#p1089091
Love Heart.

Me:
xx

[Purple Knight]

Let me try to clarify what I mean. You seem to be treating this all as one string of reasoning, but there are two lines of reasoning converging here. First, the cause of the natural universe must be supernatural.

This is where you're establishing a definition. This is not reasoning. It's classification. Classification is part of reasoning and reasoning cannot proceed without classification, but classification is all that has been done here. You've just drawn a line between what you will call natural and what you will not. Nothing is wrong with doing this, if it is useful.

Second (and separately), there must be a first uncaused cause to avoid an infinite regress. Those two things come together to show at least one supernatural thing must be uncaused.

For the moment I'll just grant that there cannot be infinite regress, though I actually have no problem with it being turtles all the way down. I don't think that's any weirder or more intuitively false than a first cause that existed in a state of timelessness. But the second idea does deserve to be explored equally so I'll just grant there can't be infinite regress. If so, yes, the universe had to start. I just don't see the value in drawing a line between what existed at the beginning, and what came after, and calling that first thing supernatural.

The Kalam's basis is that in nature, things don't pop into being. That right there suggests it's just turtles all the way down. But if it's not - if the nature started up at some point - who's to say it had to have a cause? Remember, the law of nature that things have causes, did not exist yet. The law of nature that things don't pop into being, did not exist yet, because nature did not exist yet. That's just what happens when you say nature itself must have a beginning: You end up conceding that things might pop into being, because if nature started, then the laws of nature (including: things don't pop into being) started. And before that it's anyone's guess.

In other words, nature might easily be the first cause of itself, because if it started up at some point, at the instant before that point, the law that things don't pop into being didn't exist yet.

As to whether there is one or many, I think simplicity causes us to lean towards there being one ultimate cause since there are no other arguments as to why there are actually many. I don’t think souls fit all the characteristics the Kalam leads us to.

I don't agree that simplicity points to something singular when we're talking about something that, because it is supernatural, does not have to have a cause. If I find one watch on the ground, I'm not going to paw through nearby bushes looking for more, because a watch is difficult to make. It requires effort to come into being. If I find a certain kind of plant, I might root around for more because I know plants of a certain kind make more of that kind. And if I find a discarded soul, which needs no cause at all, and may never have come into being, there's absolutely no reason to prefer either assumption. One, or more than one, are equally likely without more information.

But we do have more information and that's that souls are supposedly eternal. That implies not having an end, but it also implies not having a beginning. Any one soul that says it created and has righteous dominion over all the rest, in a cosmology with eternal souls, is just a liar.

I think it is different. Calling things that are not known ‘unknown’ is simply using logic to categorize reality. Something is A or non-A. But when you try to fit X into one category or the other, one can’t beg that question. That is what you are doing here through your definition. You are fitting ‘supernatural’ into (or as a synonym of) ‘unknown’ without justification. With known/unknown it was pure logic that justified that distinction. Whereas my definition is akin to how known/unknown are logical antonyms.

There's no begging the question in establishing a definition. And I don't mean for supernatural and unknown to be synonyms. I mean for supernatural to be a distinct category that we would have to add to our understanding of how nature works, to explain. In other words, something that can't be explained by our current understanding of natural law. If ghosts were floating around, we would have to explain how they maintain themselves against entropy, or what they consume and how. The idea that information is not lost, might end up being that new natural law we would need to add. But maybe they are consuming something somehow, they can be starved and killed, and they are natural after all.

There's no law of logic or nature that one thing can't be a subcategory of another. Classifying it so is not begging the question, nor any other fallacy (because no logic is being done right now) and it's fine as long as it's useful. I argue it is useful because it classifies things commonly understood as being supernatural (ghosts, psychic powers) as supernatural, and finds the best fitting, most relevant distinction.

And you might be right about religious people believing in different ontological stuff, but people who believe in ghosts, psychic powers, unexplained phenomena, are more or less saying, these things happen, our understanding doesn't explain it, therefore there are laws of the universe we don't know yet.

What do you mean “laws of the universe”?

I mean, accepted and proven laws of the universe.

There is a difference between ones who say these are supernatural because we don’t know what explains it (that’s supernaturalism of the gaps, and illogical), those who believe they must be natural phenomena (that’s probably blind faith in naturalism, and illogical), those who are agnostic because we don’t know enough about it yet, those who think they have sound arguments for naturalism or supernaturalism.

This is the fallacy both religious and nonreligious people commit when attacking the other side. Atheists don't think there's absolutely definitely no god. And many religious people understand that they can't prove, absolutely, that god does exist. Reducing people who think there are ghosts - and people who think there are not - to fervent idiots who were born convinced and remained convinced without any sort of observation, is unfair.

If some provably trustworthy omniscient being popped up in front of them and asked them to bet on it, the alarmingly vast majority of the people in both categories (excluding gambling addicts) would bet some amount that was less than everything they own and additionally would not bet their lives. And that shows you that they do not possess the degree of certainty you're arguing is illogical.

This is complicated by common knowledge. We're expected to say there are definitely no unicorns. Definitely no fairies. Adolf Hitler was definitely not a Skynet-issue terminator and Abraham Lincoln was definitely not a vampire slayer. If someone has an epistemological objection something like, "Well, but you can't absolutely know that," then in common understanding, they're the idiot. But we really can't know that, and suddenly, when used against atheists, this epistemological nitpicking is considered valid. Really it was valid all along, but nobody applies it in common understanding.

Everyone is agnostic in the way you make that case. It's just, some people tend to think one or the other is more probably true. Unless they'd bet their lives (and only crazy people would) they don't fit into the categories you define as illogical.

[Purple Knight]

(The Akashic Records ...because death comes a-knockin' eventually...)

This is an example of a posited new law, that is not yet recognised as a natural one. But as I said in my last post, if information is not lost is simply a new law we need to add, we haven't added it yet, especially if we don't know how or where any of this is "stored" and things that occur that are explained only if we do add that, would be considered supernatural according to my definition.

I think it's a good definition because things like ghosts and psychic powers and reincarnation fall here, and they are commonly understood as supernatural.

This gives credit to both sides. People who say, no this does not occur, and people who say, yes this does occur. The line of dispute clearly falls along whether we know every natural law or not.

And maybe we can never explain it and it does verifiably happen and we just need to accept it as something that happens which we cannot explain. Then, it is permanently supernatural.

The idea that we're just going to say all that is natural needs a separate cause, and that cause must be supernatural, is overly definitional.

Let's say this First Cause exists and it really is a star-nosed mole, and we run back in a TARDIS and all three of us get a look at it, at the very beginning. First it seems to be sleeping. Then it awakes and starts that little rolling motion rodents and moles sometimes do, and it rolls into being, a ball of what seems to be a very bright light. It sends off this ball of light, and boom goes the universe.

Tananger is going to say, "aha, I am correct, there is the first cause, causing the universe, that ball of light came from nothing and it proves the mole is supernatural," and you're going to say, "aha, I am correct, there is the start of the universe, that ball of light came from the mole and it proves it is natural," Because we're arguing over only a definition, not what actually happened.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #119]

It is important that the definition is not argued about (is agreed upon).

Re that, if I have been following the conversation correctly, Tanager agrees with your categorizing things such as ghosts, psychic powers and reincarnation (and the Akashic Records) as "supernatural" as you wrote these "are commonly understood as supernatural".

But is has not been established that - should theses things exist - then they should be thought of as non-natural/supernatural - which is the precise point I have been making (trying to make).

We're arguing over only a definition, not what actually happened.

I am arguing that whatever might have happened, (to begin this universe) it can only have a natural cause, even if that cause is itself, Uncaused.

Furthermore, as I pointed out,
1. The Uncaused Cause of the universe, does not lead to the conclusion
2. "Therefore, the Uncaused Cause of the universe must be "supernatural".

You say that it has to be, but your examples are simply an assumption from a particular popular definition - a definition popularized by animalism/paganism and adopted/inserted into religious beliefs as popularity increased.

The definition (in popular terms) has never been questioned by consecutive populations - but having a mind-set which (whether theist or atheist) which believes that supernatural has to exist (even as a concept for the sake of argument) and rejecting an all-natural cause, is surplus to requirement/unnecessary (jumping the gun/cart before horse).