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 #359]

ChatGPT is built on information and content that has been written by humans in a way programmed by humans. All of that affects what ChatGPT will say. The scholars of the field aren’t going to ChatGPT to write their books; it’s the other way around.

As far as the quantum post goes, I’m not sure what you are arguing. No scientists thinks the universe has completely stopped moving or ceased to exist.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #359]

ChatGPT is built on information and content that has been written by humans in a way programmed by humans. All of that affects what ChatGPT will say. The scholars of the field aren’t going to ChatGPT to write their books; it’s the other way around.

How does this align with or justify your statement that GPTs information is regurgitate what people have said with no expertise on the matter?
Did you mean to say that GPT has no expertise? That goes without saying.
However what you wrote implies that the information itself is not gained from experts.

As far as the quantum post goes, I’m not sure what you are arguing. No scientists thinks the universe has completely stopped moving or ceased to exist.

Then why did you bring it up as part of your argument for an immaterial timeless cause?

[William]

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. It is the Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter which caused The Universe bubble.
5. 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.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

[The Tanager]

How does this align with or justify your statement that GPTs information is regurgitate what people have said with no expertise on the matter?
Did you mean to say that GPT has no expertise? That goes without saying.
However what you wrote implies that the information itself is not gained from experts.

That was not what I was implying. I'm saying the GPT summary only notes (rightly) that there is debate, not that my claim isn't (or is) true. For that, we'd have to look at arguments on both sides and if you want to provide the arguments from the other side, please do.

As far as the quantum post goes, I’m not sure what you are arguing. No scientists thinks the universe has completely stopped moving or ceased to exist.

Then why did you bring it up as part of your argument for an immaterial timeless cause?

Why do you think this was part of my argument? There is a big disconnect here, if you think I used that to argue for an immaterial, timeless cause.

[The Tanager]

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. It is the Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter which caused The Universe bubble.
5. 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.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

Why do you think this is a sound argument? If you think it is identical to mine (but with different content), it isn't (unless the phrasing is confusing me). My argument goes like this:

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. The cause of the universe is A, B, C, ...
5. A thing that has characteristics A, B, C, ... can be called an X
6. Therefore, X exists.

The characteristics that come in 4 (as far as I can tell) rule out eternal matter (unless your Matter is an equivocation on that), which if that is the case, doesn't allow for your EEMM to fit in the place of X.

[William]

How does this align with or justify your statement that GPTs information is regurgitate what people have said with no expertise on the matter?
Did you mean to say that GPT has no expertise? That goes without saying.
However what you wrote implies that the information itself is not gained from experts.

That was not what I was implying. I'm saying the GPT summary only notes (rightly) that there is debate, not that my claim isn't (or is) true. For that, we'd have to look at arguments on both sides and if you want to provide the arguments from the other side, please do.

I have asked you already for that information re why you believe what you believe. I cannot look at it if you don't supply it.
Re that, not sure if it would help, but should we create a thread for this purpose rather than continue in this one?

As far as the quantum post goes, I’m not sure what you are arguing. No scientists thinks the universe has completely stopped moving or ceased to exist.

Then why did you bring it up as part of your argument for an immaterial timeless cause?

Why do you think this was part of my argument? There is a big disconnect here, if you think I used that to argue for an immaterial, timeless cause.

Since that is the laser focus of our difference in theistic philosophy, we should address that.

[William]

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. It is the Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter which caused The Universe bubble.
5. 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.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

Why do you think this is a sound argument? If you think it is identical to mine (but with different content), it isn't (unless the phrasing is confusing me).

As I have already mentioned, I think we agree on the first three points and branch away from there. The points after that have to do with where my branch goes.

My argument goes like this:

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. The cause of the universe is A, B, C, ...
5. A thing that has characteristics A, B, C, ... can be called an X
6. Therefore, X exists.

The characteristics that come in 4 (as far as I can tell) rule out eternal matter (unless your Matter is an equivocation on that), which if that is the case, doesn't allow for your EEMM to fit in the place of X.

I don’t understand your argument. You will have to clarify.

“Specific” characteristics need go no further (at this particular point) than what the Cause consists of, and both agree that the cause is mindful.
The parting of the ways has to do with whether the cause mindful material or mindful immaterial.
Science itself does not recognise an immaterial cause, yet you appear to be arguing that it does, so you are required to explain how science agrees with your theistic philosophy. I have already explained how science agrees with my Theistic Philosophy.

[boatsnguitars]

[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?

You must be joking. Kalam doesn't address that kind of thing - unless you baldly assert it in your syllogism, which is meaningless.

[The Tanager]

You must be joking. Kalam doesn't address that kind of thing - unless you baldly assert it in your syllogism, which is meaningless.

Not the Kalam proper (the first 3 premises) but the extended analysis I've talked about in this thread. And I haven't just asserted it. I've given arguments for all the characteristics. That the cause is immaterial and the effect is material and temporal directly implies the creation of matter "from" nothing.

[The Tanager]

That was not what I was implying. I'm saying the GPT summary only notes (rightly) that there is debate, not that my claim isn't (or is) true. For that, we'd have to look at arguments on both sides and if you want to provide the arguments from the other side, please do.

I have asked you already for that information re why you believe what you believe. I cannot look at it if you don't supply it.
Re that, not sure if it would help, but should we create a thread for this purpose rather than continue in this one?

Asked me for arguments that ChatGPT isn’t an expert source we should be appealing to? If so, then I have no desire to start a thread on that and discuss that topic.

Or asked me for arguments as to why I think science teaches that matter is inherently temporal? If so, I’ve given my thoughts there already.

As far as the quantum post goes, I’m not sure what you are arguing. No scientists thinks the universe has completely stopped moving or ceased to exist.

Then why did you bring it up as part of your argument for an immaterial timeless cause?

Why do you think this was part of my argument? There is a big disconnect here, if you think I used that to argue for an immaterial, timeless cause.

Since that is the laser focus of our difference in theistic philosophy, we should address that.

Okay, so why do you think I’ve argued that scientists believe the universe has completely stopped moving or ceased to exist?

I don’t understand your argument. You will have to clarify.

Your argument seems to be that we have a cause (premise 3), then you posit one candidate for X that is that cause (premise 4) and then explain how there isn’t a contradiction. I agree there is no apparent contradiction because your 4-6 doesn’t lay out why the cause has to have certain characteristics that would be contradicted.

My approach is very different. I don’t jump to positing one possible candidate. In premise 4, I think we need to analyze what characteristics we can glean of this cause. Then, we can start whittling down the candidate list.

And I think the characteristics that emerge include it being immaterial for the reasons I’ve stated. If that is a characteristic found in premise 4, then your candidate doesn’t qualify, but we don’t see that because you don’t have arguments for the characteristics. You are missing that vital step.

“Specific” characteristics need go no further (at this particular point) than what the Cause consists of, and both agree that the cause is mindful.
The parting of the ways has to do with whether the cause mindful material or mindful immaterial.
Science itself does not recognise an immaterial cause, yet you appear to be arguing that it does, so you are required to explain how science agrees with your theistic philosophy. I have already explained how science agrees with my Theistic Philosophy.

I am not saying science recognizes an immaterial cause. I’ve said that science CANNOT do such because science studies the material. I'm saying science shows matter to be temporal and, therefore, the cause of spatio-temporal matter must be immaterial for the philosophical reasons I've given.