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 William in post #260]

1. I'm not talking about matter ending, I'm talking about matter being of a temporal nature rather than a timeless nature. I see science telling us that matter is, by nature, temporal in that way.

2. Sorry for my confusion. Sorry if this next question still shows I'm confused on what you are saying. Okay, why do you think philosophy tells us that everything that began to exist must have a material cause?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #260]

1. I'm not talking about matter ending, I'm talking about matter being of a temporal nature rather than a timeless nature. I see science telling us that matter is, by nature, temporal in that way.

You also said (correct me if I am mistaken) that the eternal cause is timeless.

2. Sorry for my confusion. Sorry if this next question still shows I'm confused on what you are saying. Okay, why do you think philosophy tells us that everything that began to exist must have a material cause?

There are many philosophies, not all of which agree. I am presenting philosophical conjecture/presumption in regard to what science shows us.
The position you are arguing/presenting philosophical conjecture/presumption from currently disagrees with that due to your claiming the eternal cause is "nonmaterial". I am pointing out (in my posts here through my philosophy) that this is not a necessary assumption/conjecture to have/hold.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to William in post #258]

1. I’m not saying science tells us anything about the eternal cause (that would be philosophy), immaterial things (again, philosophy), or if matter existed prior to this bubble or not (which would be scientific). I’m saying science tells us that the parts of matter that make it matter are constantly in motion and, therefore, matter is temporal in its nature. So, if there is any ‘stuff’ that precedes material; it is not matter but something else.

2. Why do you think science tells us that everything must have a material cause?

William provided a solid response to this, but I have to wonder why you think anything other than religion tells you that Matter must ultimately come from something immaterial? Can you please explain, in detail, your thought on hos this would happen?

[Tulipbee]

Ahoy there, boatsnguitars, the cosmic skipper navigating the seas of the supernatural! Let's set sail on the celestial waters of philosophical ponderings and dive into the great debate about the burden of proof for the supernatural.

Now, your crew is raising the question: why should the burden of proof be on the Supernaturalists? Aye, a valid question indeed. In this celestial dialogue, I shall weave a tapestry of wit and wisdom, embracing the Calvinistic spirit.

Picture this cosmic conundrum as a grand voyage, and let's embark on a theological adventure. As we navigate the celestial sea of debate, I bring forth a celestial parable inspired by the Gospel of John:

"As the celestial waves of skepticism crashed upon the shores of belief, a cosmic navigator named boatsnguitars stood at the helm, pondering the burden of proof. In this cosmic tale, the Supernaturalists are tasked with unveiling the mysteries of the supernatural, much like sailors exploring uncharted waters.

Why, you ask? It's not merely a matter of whimsical caprice; nay, it's a cosmic dance with reason and evidence. In the grand celestial ballroom of debate, skepticism leads the waltz. The default position, akin to the celestial North Star, points toward a cosmic skepticism that demands evidence for the extraordinary.

Consider the celestial landscape of naturalism, where the cosmic assumption is that the universe unfolds through natural laws and processes. It's the dance of cause and effect in the grand cosmic ball.

Now, the Supernaturalists, akin to celestial cartographers, bear the burden of mapping unexplored territories beyond the natural realm. Their celestial claims, like constellations in the night sky, beckon scrutiny. For the supernatural, often elusive and beyond empirical observation, requires a celestial map marked with compelling evidence.

In the grand cosmic courtroom of ideas, it's not a celestial trial by ignorance but a dance with reason. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof rests on those who navigate the seas of the supernatural.

So, fellow voyagers, as we ponder the burden of proof, let's keep our celestial sails hoisted high, guided by the celestial compass of reason and evidence. May the cosmic winds of wisdom carry us through the celestial debates with grace and mirth!"

And there you have it, boatsnguitars, a cosmic response that sets sail on the theological seas!

[boatsnguitars]

Ahoy there, boatsnguitars, the cosmic skipper navigating the seas of the supernatural! Let's set sail on the celestial waters of philosophical ponderings and dive into the great debate about the burden of proof for the supernatural.

Now, your crew is raising the question: why should the burden of proof be on the Supernaturalists? Aye, a valid question indeed. In this celestial dialogue, I shall weave a tapestry of wit and wisdom, embracing the Calvinistic spirit.

Picture this cosmic conundrum as a grand voyage, and let's embark on a theological adventure. As we navigate the celestial sea of debate, I bring forth a celestial parable inspired by the Gospel of John:

"As the celestial waves of skepticism crashed upon the shores of belief, a cosmic navigator named boatsnguitars stood at the helm, pondering the burden of proof. In this cosmic tale, the Supernaturalists are tasked with unveiling the mysteries of the supernatural, much like sailors exploring uncharted waters.

Why, you ask? It's not merely a matter of whimsical caprice; nay, it's a cosmic dance with reason and evidence. In the grand celestial ballroom of debate, skepticism leads the waltz. The default position, akin to the celestial North Star, points toward a cosmic skepticism that demands evidence for the extraordinary.

Consider the celestial landscape of naturalism, where the cosmic assumption is that the universe unfolds through natural laws and processes. It's the dance of cause and effect in the grand cosmic ball.

Now, the Supernaturalists, akin to celestial cartographers, bear the burden of mapping unexplored territories beyond the natural realm. Their celestial claims, like constellations in the night sky, beckon scrutiny. For the supernatural, often elusive and beyond empirical observation, requires a celestial map marked with compelling evidence.

In the grand cosmic courtroom of ideas, it's not a celestial trial by ignorance but a dance with reason. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof rests on those who navigate the seas of the supernatural.

So, fellow voyagers, as we ponder the burden of proof, let's keep our celestial sails hoisted high, guided by the celestial compass of reason and evidence. May the cosmic winds of wisdom carry us through the celestial debates with grace and mirth!"

And there you have it, boatsnguitars, a cosmic response that sets sail on the theological seas!

Ahoy there, tulipbee!

Avast, me floral friend! 'Tis boatsnguitars at the helm, ready to navigate the botanical seas of conversation. Let's set sail on the petal-strewn waters and dive into the bloomin' debate about the burden of proof for the supernatural.

Picture this floral conundrum as a grand garden, and let's embark on a philosophical adventure. In this botanical dialogue, I shall weave a tapestry of wit and wisdom, embracing the tulip-centric spirit.

"As the fragrant waves of skepticism waft through the petals of belief, a botanical navigator named tulipbee stands amidst the blossoms, pondering the burden of proof. In this bloomin' tale, the Supernaturalists are tasked with unveiling the mysteries of the supernatural, much like bees pollinating uncharted flowers.

Why, you ask? 'Tis not merely a matter of whimsical pollenation; nay, it's a dance with reason and evidence. In the grand botanical ballroom of debate, skepticism leads the waltz. The default position, akin to the radiant sunflower, points toward a botanical skepticism that demands evidence for the extraordinary.

Consider the floral landscape of naturalism, where the assumption is that the garden unfolds through natural laws and processes. It's the dance of growth and bloom in the grand botanical ball.

Now, the Supernaturalists, akin to botanical cartographers, bear the burden of mapping unexplored territories beyond the natural realm. Their claims, like vibrant blossoms in the garden, beckon scrutiny. For the supernatural, often elusive and beyond empirical observation, requires a botanical map marked with compelling evidence.

In the grand botanical courtroom of ideas, it's not a trial by ignorance but a dance with reason. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof rests on those who navigate the bloomin' seas of the supernatural.

So, fellow flora enthusiasts, as we ponder the burden of proof, let's keep our floral sails hoisted high, guided by the botanical compass of reason and evidence. May the winds of wisdom carry us through the petal-filled debates with grace and mirth!"

And there ye have it, tulipbee, a bloomin' response that sets sail on the botanical seas!

[Tulipbee]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #265]

Ahoy there, boatsnguitars, the cosmic skipper on the celestial seas of conversation! You've steered your ship into the tulip-strewn waters, and I'm ready to navigate the bloomin' debate about the burden of proof for the supernatural.

In this cosmic tale, as the fragrant waves of skepticism waft through the petals of belief, you stand amidst the blossoms, pondering the burden of proof. The Supernaturalists, like bees pollinating uncharted flowers, are tasked with unveiling the mysteries of the supernatural.

Why, you ask? 'Tis not merely a matter of whimsical pollenation; nay, it's a dance with reason and evidence in the grand botanical ballroom of debate. Skepticism leads the waltz, pointing toward a botanical skepticism that demands evidence for the extraordinary.

Consider the floral landscape of naturalism, where the assumption is that the garden unfolds through natural laws and processes—a dance of growth and bloom in the grand botanical ball. Now, the Supernaturalists, akin to botanical cartographers, bear the burden of mapping unexplored territories beyond the natural realm. Their claims, like vibrant blossoms, beckon scrutiny, and the supernatural requires a botanical map marked with compelling evidence.

In the grand botanical courtroom of ideas, it's not a trial by ignorance but a dance with reason. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof rests on those who navigate the bloomin' seas of the supernatural.

So, fellow flora enthusiasts, as we ponder the burden of proof, let's keep our floral sails hoisted high, guided by the botanical compass of reason and evidence. May the winds of wisdom carry us through the petal-filled debates with grace and mirth!

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #265]

Ahoy there, boatsnguitars, the cosmic skipper on the celestial seas of conversation! You've steered your ship into the tulip-strewn waters, and I'm ready to navigate the bloomin' debate about the burden of proof for the supernatural.

In this cosmic tale, as the fragrant waves of skepticism waft through the petals of belief, you stand amidst the blossoms, pondering the burden of proof. The Supernaturalists, like bees pollinating uncharted flowers, are tasked with unveiling the mysteries of the supernatural.

Why, you ask? 'Tis not merely a matter of whimsical pollenation; nay, it's a dance with reason and evidence in the grand botanical ballroom of debate. Skepticism leads the waltz, pointing toward a botanical skepticism that demands evidence for the extraordinary.

Consider the floral landscape of naturalism, where the assumption is that the garden unfolds through natural laws and processes—a dance of growth and bloom in the grand botanical ball. Now, the Supernaturalists, akin to botanical cartographers, bear the burden of mapping unexplored territories beyond the natural realm. Their claims, like vibrant blossoms, beckon scrutiny, and the supernatural requires a botanical map marked with compelling evidence.

In the grand botanical courtroom of ideas, it's not a trial by ignorance but a dance with reason. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof rests on those who navigate the bloomin' seas of the supernatural.

So, fellow flora enthusiasts, as we ponder the burden of proof, let's keep our floral sails hoisted high, guided by the botanical compass of reason and evidence. May the winds of wisdom carry us through the petal-filled debates with grace and mirth!

Well, shucks, tulipbee, reckon we're floatin' down this river of ideas, and you've tossed in some mighty fine flowers of thought. Now, I ain't one for highfalutin' talk, but let me paddle my raft of Naturalism alongside yer bloomin' garden tale.

So, you're sayin' them Supernaturalists are like bees buzzin' 'round claimin' uncharted nectar. But ol' Huck, he's sittin' on this raft, lookin' at the whole river, not just one bend. In this here river of Naturalism, the current flows with the idea that things happen 'cause of nature's own doin's, no magic business.

Now, yer botanical cartographers explorin' the unknown, well, that sounds right fancy. But here's the thing: every critter floatin' down this river, be they claimin' supernatural wonders or not, better show their cards. No free rides on Huck's raft. If you say somethin's true, you gotta back it up with evidence, like a solid piece of riverbank.

We're not dancin' in no celestial ballroom, tulipbee. This river, it's real, and so are the questions we ask. The burden of proof ain't just for them Supernaturalists; it's for everyone paddlin' in these waters. Extraordinary claims? Well, they better bring along some extra-strong evidence, else they'll sink like a leaky canoe.

So, tulipbee, let's keep this raft floatin' down the river of reason, with our Naturalist paddles of evidence and our eyes peeled for them extraordinary waterfalls of truth. Ain't no need for fancy metaphors; we'll let the river speak for itself!

[Tulipbee]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #267]

Ahoy, boatsnguitars, the cosmic skipper and river rover! As we navigate the river of reason and ponder the bloomin' debates, let's set sail into the theological waters of traditional Calvinism and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the grand theological ballroom, let's turn to Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV): "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Here, the apostle Paul unfolds the divine tale of salvation, highlighting that it's not a result of our own efforts but a gift from God. It's like a celestial river cruise where grace flows freely, and faith is the compass that guides us through the currents of life.

Now, boatsnguitars, as we navigate the theological seas, let's consider the currents of Calvinism. In this theological landscape, the doctrines of predestination and divine sovereignty set the celestial course. It's a grand tapestry where God's grace is the wind in our sails, and faith is the compass that aligns with the divine north.

But, my river-roving friend, let's steer clear of theological storms and embrace the grace that flows through the gospel. Salvation is a gift, not earned by our paddling efforts. So, let's sail on the winds of divine grace, guided by the compass of faith, and revel in the gospel's celestial melody. Ready to keep the river of theological discourse flowing?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #267]

Ahoy, boatsnguitars, the cosmic skipper and river rover! As we navigate the river of reason and ponder the bloomin' debates, let's set sail into the theological waters of traditional Calvinism and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the grand theological ballroom, let's turn to Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV): "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Here, the apostle Paul unfolds the divine tale of salvation, highlighting that it's not a result of our own efforts but a gift from God. It's like a celestial river cruise where grace flows freely, and faith is the compass that guides us through the currents of life.

Now, boatsnguitars, as we navigate the theological seas, let's consider the currents of Calvinism. In this theological landscape, the doctrines of predestination and divine sovereignty set the celestial course. It's a grand tapestry where God's grace is the wind in our sails, and faith is the compass that aligns with the divine north.

But, my river-roving friend, let's steer clear of theological storms and embrace the grace that flows through the gospel. Salvation is a gift, not earned by our paddling efforts. So, let's sail on the winds of divine grace, guided by the compass of faith, and revel in the gospel's celestial melody. Ready to keep the river of theological discourse flowing?

Avast, me river-roving matey! Ye spin a celestial yarn of Ephesians and Calvinistic winds, but let this salty pirate cast a critical eye upon these theological waters.

Ephesians 2:8-9 be a verse as elusive as the sea breeze, aye, a gift from God, they say. But, me hearty, the sea be vast, and so be the interpretations of this fishy tale. Like the ever-shifting sands, the Bible be amorphous, and religions, including Calvinism, be but fleeting whispers in the cosmic wind. Religions change as oft as the waves in a Nor'easter.

Ye speak of Calvinism's doctrines, a celestial course set by predestination and divine sovereignty. But, I question the truth in these theological winds. Can a mortal truly claim to know the mind of the divine? Methinks not, especially when the same theological seas led a man to keelhaul another (Servitus).

Let's steer clear of these theological storms, aye, but let's not be blinded by the celestial lights. The grace ye speak of may be a gift, but the currents be murky, and faith's compass may lead astray.

So, me river-roving friend, let the discourse flow like the river's current, but this pirate be wary of claims to truth in the shifting sands of theology.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #262]

1. Yes, I also said the eternal cause is timeless. That, coupled with matter being temporal (or at least what it sounds like science is teaching us) is why I’m saying the eternal cause must be immaterial.

2. You said “What the science tells us is that the eternal cause (you and I agree must exist) cannot be immaterial.” I’m asking what science do those conjecturing that point to.