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]

I'm saying you have made a claim, and without evidence that this can happen, it seems you'd be wrong to believe it until you have evidence of it.

I'm saying I don't believe something can come from nothing - if you expect me to believe you, provide evidence. It's no different than what I'd ask from a person who believes in Allah, or ESP, or any other supernatural thing.

My argument is the Kalam. Critique specific premises or the overall form and I’ll be able to respond.

[The Tanager]

Q: But what if my previous choices are plagued by the same problems as moment X?

Then the responsibility lay in more previous choices, then. At some point, if libertarian free will is true, then there is some choice you’ve made that isn’t plagued by those problems. This, of course, is not a reason to believe in free will, but simply a defeater of your attempt to show free will is illogical. Of course it is illogical if determinism is true, but it isn’t logically inconsistent within itself.

I don't care what your hypothesis is.
We were talking of what I used-> hypothesis X: Free will-Incompatibilism-uncaused.
Sir it clearly says: "One question that divides them concerns which type of indeterminism—uncaused events, non-deterministically caused events, or agent caused events—is required"
You said: "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused" while talking of my argument which used hypothesis X. Ergo you were talking nonsense.

My critique of your hypothesis was that it could be confusing since there are different senses of indeterminism.

Q: Compelling means 100%?
Religion has really broken people minds.

And apparently Oxford Languages…

We could have omniverse or omnibeing.
Saying therefore omnibeing where it could be omniverse is wrong.
Therefore nothing.

If the ‘personal’ part makes it an omnibeing, then it isn’t wrong to say ‘omnibeing’ unless you can defeat those 3 arguments for it being personal. You shared a few critiques and I responded to them, so unless you have something else, this part of the discussion can’t move forward rationally.

Plus we have a history of failed "therefore omnibeing". Like I showed before.

You did claim that. I responded. If you have nothing else, this part of the discussion can’t move forward rationally.

Dont straw man please.
I said clearly that this :"The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects" is the assertion and not "The only abstract objects are numbers and mind".
There could be that there are out there things that are not part of our 4-dimensional manifold and are not abstract objects but material objects components of the omniverse where our 4-dimensional manifold lies.
Positing false dichotomies only reveals a lack of imagination and a bad argument from ignorance.

I think it’s actually definitional. In this sense, abstract objects are non-physical objects and the abstract concepts we have are those like mind and those like numbers. Again, this just looks like blind faith that there has to be something else to avoid the conclusion, rather than having any rational reason for thinking there is another category.

Q: If the eternal omnibeing can cause a temporal and not a eternal effect though indeterminate process: free will why can't a eternal omniverse can't cause a temporal and not a eternal effect through some indeterminate mindless process?

Because the will is able to explain how that occurs; which is absent in the impersonal omniverse. Again, this sounds like blind faith that there has to be something else to avoid the conclusion.

Claiming to know what we can't know.
Some humility is needed.
Our ignorance could be great. What we think is only posible and our capabilities to understand could be pretty smaller in scope.

No, claiming that one ought to follow where reason lies since 100% isn’t a good standard. Hold that tentatively because of humility, but don’t hide in the uncertainty to avoid a conclusion.

1.
Things done where good is greatly outpaced by the evil cannot be done for a morally good reason. Cannot be morally justified as good moral actions. Unnecessary, unjustified Evil.
Small amount of pleasure(small good) experienced by the psychopath(CJNG member) is greatly outpaced by the evil(torture + rape + death) experienced by the non-moral agent which is completely innocent.

Things done where good greatly outpacing the evil can be said were done for a morally good reason. Can be morally justified as good moral actions. Necessary, justified Evil.
Saving +6.000.000 Jews(including countless non-moral agents) from torture, great suffering and death greatly outpacing the evil(killing Hitler when baby painlessly or prevent his existence).

Now you have to support why things done where subjective good is greatly outpaced by subjective evil cannot be done for a morally good reason. Why is this kind of utilitarianism what is objectively good?

2.
We are talking of psychopathy here not normal individuals.
Free will objection does not work for
-psychopathy->harm, suffering to non-moral agents.
-genetic diseases->harm, suffering to non-moral agents
for
Psychopathy and genetic diseases are things that results from the way our universe work.

They are gratuitous evils-natural evils. They cannot be justified.
We can easily imagine a universe where such things do not exist and the world would not be a worse world but by the contrary a better world. Where the universe does not include the above feaatures: psychopathy and genetic diseases.
They are not necessary to exist to achieve a specific moral good. They are completely unnecessary.

Please don't avoid point 2.

You keep asserting that psychopathy is deterministic in that way. I responded to it when you first asserted it, as to why I (and many psychologists) don’t agree with you. On top of that, you have the same grounding problem here with saying such natural evils are gratuitous as you do with Pete’s self-benefit thinking.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #350]

Points re Natural Philosophy/Natural Theism

1. It is the Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter which created The Universe bubble.

2. The EEMM was able to create The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Mindful Matter.

3. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

There has always been movement with the EEMM and opportunities to create spaces where time can be experienced. The Universe was thought about and was designed by the EEMM to achieve this, doing so from the mindful matter the EEMM consists of.

There is no reason to think that it is logical contradiction that The Universe needn't have been created by an immaterial timeless entity.
Therefore, there is no logical need for an immaterial entity having to first exist which never experienced time or material and thus had to create other immaterial entities (Minds) and material entities (The Universe) outside of itself.

Our departure still seems to lay in whether matter is inherently temporal or not. We can have that discussion if you want, but sharing summaries from GPT isn’t enough for that.

Sharing what GPT summaries is enough for us to see that you are basing your beliefs on something which science isn't saying - or as you put it "seems to be saying".

I think all 3 versions of A-theory eliminate the existence of the ultimate cause being material if matter exists within a temporal framework.

Sure. So how are you going to show this theory is true. It is obviously important to your overall beliefs, so perhaps you should start there.

Or you can admit that your beliefs are, based on "if's" or what "seems to be" in order for the supposed logic to be "apparent".

I think at this point we have reached the branching away since niether philosophy is a logical contradiction and present science doesn't show either way to be the correct/true interpretation of reality.

We agree that The Universe Exists.
We agree that The Universe has a beginning.
We agree that There must have been a creator which caused The Universe to begin to exist and that the creator must be eternal.

We disagree as to the fundamental makeup of said creator. You think it is necessary for there to be a immaterial creator, and I see no need to include such a concept because The Universe is logically explainable without said inclusion.

Occam's Razor.
My (natural) theistic philosophy eliminates the need for particles to have to be created, something your (supernatural) theistic philosophy has to include for that theory to work.

Therefore, there must be some other reason as to why you believe it necessary that the creator is immaterial.

[alexxcJRO]

Then the responsibility lay in more previous choices, then. At some point, if libertarian free will is true, then there is some choice you’ve made that isn’t plagued by those problems. This, of course, is not a reason to believe in free will, but simply a defeater of your attempt to show free will is illogical. Of course it is illogical if determinism is true, but it isn’t logically inconsistent within itself.

I was not talking of free will in general only of your phrases.
I never said free will is logically inconsistent within itself in general.
Your phrases and logic sounded as determinism.
No need to straw man again. Your favorite habit.

My critique of your hypothesis was that it could be confusing since there are different senses of indeterminism.

The phrase: "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused" does not mean there are different senses of indeterminism. Stop it. Its a dead end. Pretending its not its ridiculous.
You were the only one confused as is was demonstrated often in our exchange.
Resorting to straw-mans often. Then when cornered, call them talking past each other even when explanations were offered so many times.

And apparently Oxford Languages…

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
compelling
/kəmˈpɛlɪŋ/
adjective
evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.
"his eyes were strangely compelling"
Similar:
not able to be resisted; overwhelming.
"the temptation to give up was compelling"

compelling
adjective
UK /kəmˈpel.ɪŋ/ US /kəmˈpel.ɪŋ/
compelling adjective (STRONG)
Add to word list
If a reason, argument, etc. is compelling, it makes you believe it or accept it because it is so strong:

compelling
adjective
com·​pel·​ling kəm-ˈpe-liŋ
Synonyms of compelling
: that compels: such as
a
: FORCEFUL
a compelling personality
a compelling desire
b
: demanding attention
for compelling reasons
The novel was so compelling that I couldn't put it down.
c
: CONVINCING
no compelling evidence
compellingly adverb

Synonyms
cogent
conclusive
convincing
decisive
effective
persuasive
satisfying
strong
https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... UTF-8#ip=1

If the ‘personal’ part makes it an omnibeing, then it isn’t wrong to say ‘omnibeing’ unless you can defeat those 3 arguments for it being personal. You shared a few critiques and I responded to them, so unless you have something else, this part of the discussion can’t move forward rationally.
You did claim that. I responded. If you have nothing else, this part of the discussion can’t move forward rationally.

You showed nothing. Only arguments from ignorance, false dichotomies, fallacy of composition.

I think it’s actually definitional. In this sense, abstract objects are non-physical objects and the abstract concepts we have are those like mind and those like numbers. Again, this just looks like blind faith that there has to be something else to avoid the conclusion, rather than having any rational reason for thinking there is another category.

The assumption that there is only the 4-dimensional manifold temporal universe as material thingy is wrong. Therefore saying anything else needs to be abstract things is as useless.
Non-sequitur.

Because the will is able to explain how that occurs; which is absent in the impersonal omniverse. Again, this sounds like blind faith that there has to be something else to avoid the conclusion.

We have in both cases indeterminate process.
Q: Special pleading much?

No, claiming that one ought to follow where reason lies since 100% isn’t a good standard. Hold that tentatively because of humility, but don’t hide in the uncertainty to avoid a conclusion.

Reason tell us the counterintuitive aspects we found in quantum mechanics should not exist yet they do. QED.

Now you have to support why things done where subjective good is greatly outpaced by subjective evil cannot be done for a morally good reason. Why is this kind of utilitarianism what is objectively good?

Psychopath logic is broken for they do not have a cenobites like mentality( extremes of pain and/or pleasure are of equivalent value even if it happens to them or others) which is consistent.
They consider suffering and pain as bad, evil if it happens to them. But suffering and pain of other as good. We have a hypocritical situation. There is no moral good reason which can be imagined or consistent moral logic when dealing with psychopathy.
That's why the example: "Small amount of pleasure(small good) experienced by the psychopath(CJNG member) is greatly outpaced by the evil(torture + rape + death) experienced by the non-moral agent which is completely innocent." is so powerful.

You keep asserting that psychopathy is deterministic in that way. I responded to it when you first asserted it, as to why I (and many psychologists) don’t agree with you. On top of that, you have the same grounding problem here with saying such natural evils are gratuitous as you do with Pete’s self-benefit thinking.

I already debunked that nonsense. You ignored completely my response.
Q: Lapses in memory, huh? I suggest go and take a look.

[boatsnguitars]

I'm saying you have made a claim, and without evidence that this can happen, it seems you'd be wrong to believe it until you have evidence of it.

I'm saying I don't believe something can come from nothing - if you expect me to believe you, provide evidence. It's no different than what I'd ask from a person who believes in Allah, or ESP, or any other supernatural thing.

My argument is the Kalam. Critique specific premises or the overall form and I’ll be able to respond.

Kalam says something must come from nothing? No it doesn't. C'mon, man! You're just making things up now.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #355]

The Kalam argument I’ve given does say something (the spatio-temporal universe) comes “from” nothing material. Why do you not think it does?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #353]

No, sharing a GPT summary isn’t enough to see the science isn’t saying matter is inherently temporal. That summary also said matter is within a temporal framework. What is the difference between being in a temporal framework and being inherently temporal. There may be a good response, but all GPT does is regurgitate what people have said with no expertise on the matter. If you want to share that side of the debate then do so, but just noting that there might be a debate isn’t helpful and neither is using GPT like an expert when it isn’t. If you don’t have the support to share, then we’ve said all we have to say on that matter.

A-theory vs. B-theory is another important piece to the soundness of the Kalam. We can turn to that, if you want.

[The Tanager]

I was not talking of free will in general only of your phrases.
I never said free will is logically inconsistent within itself in general.
Your phrases and logic sounded as determinism.
No need to straw man again. Your favorite habit.

I agree you were doing that and my response doesn’t change. You are reading determinism into my phrases and logic, not out of them. There isn’t anything new, content-wise, so our posts can speak for themselves without the empty rhetoric.

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
compelling
/kəmˈpɛlɪŋ/
adjective
evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.
"his eyes were strangely compelling"
Similar:
not able to be resisted; overwhelming.
"the temptation to give up was compelling"

compelling
adjective
UK /kəmˈpel.ɪŋ/ US /kəmˈpel.ɪŋ/
compelling adjective (STRONG)
Add to word list
If a reason, argument, etc. is compelling, it makes you believe it or accept it because it is so strong:

compelling
adjective
com·​pel·​ling kəm-ˈpe-liŋ
Synonyms of compelling
: that compels: such as
a
: FORCEFUL
a compelling personality
a compelling desire
b
: demanding attention
for compelling reasons
The novel was so compelling that I couldn't put it down.
c
: CONVINCING
no compelling evidence
compellingly adverb

Synonyms
cogent
conclusive
convincing
decisive
effective
persuasive
satisfying
strong
https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... UTF-8#ip=1

Type in “compel definition” and you get: “force or oblige (someone) to do something. That is what I said and what you called religion breaking people’s minds.

The assumption that there is only the 4-dimensional manifold temporal universe as material thingy is wrong. Therefore saying anything else needs to be abstract things is as useless.
Non-sequitur.

How am I assuming the 4-dimensional manifold?

We have in both cases indeterminate process.
Q: Special pleading much?

Indeterminate-uncaused? Because the libertarian will has a cause.

Reason tell us the counterintuitive aspects we found in quantum mechanics should not exist yet they do. QED.

No, some interpretations tell us that, not reason.

Psychopath logic is broken for they do not have a cenobites like mentality( extremes of pain and/or pleasure are of equivalent value even if it happens to them or others) which is consistent.
They consider suffering and pain as bad, evil if it happens to them. But suffering and pain of other as good. We have a hypocritical situation. There is no moral good reason which can be imagined or consistent moral logic when dealing with psychopathy.
That's why the example: "Small amount of pleasure(small good) experienced by the psychopath(CJNG member) is greatly outpaced by the evil(torture + rape + death) experienced by the non-moral agent which is completely innocent." is so powerful.

What is wrong with this kind of hypocrisy? You still haven’t grounded why Pete’s pleasure at the expense of the child is bad; you just keep stating it different ways. Self-pleasure no matter what happens to another can be perfectly consistent.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #357]

No, sharing a GPT summary isn’t enough to see the science isn’t saying matter is inherently temporal. That summary also said matter is within a temporal framework. What is the difference between being in a temporal framework and being inherently temporal. There may be a good response, but all GPT does is regurgitate what people have said with no expertise on the matter.

I think you are being dishonest but I may be wrong. Can you provide evidence that “all GPT does is regurgitate what people have said with no expertise on the matter.”?
If not, I will discard the critique as beside the point.

[William]

Q: Are quantum particles temporal?"

A: Only when moving.

Q: Are quantum particles matter?

A: Yes.

Science, as currently understood, does not suggest the complete cessation of particle existence if the universe were to cease to exist. Instead, the behavior and fate of particles would depend on the specific conditions and dynamics involved in such a hypothetical scenario.

What scientists are saying is that The Universe is recognised as existing, as long as quantum particles are moving.
If quantum particles ceased to move, then scientist would regard that as the moment the universe ceased to exist.

However, the scientists are not saying therefore, that in order for that to occur, particles would have to cease to exist. Particles would just have to cease movement.