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.

[alexxcJRO]

I’m not talking about things that transcend our local bubble of spatio-temporal matter, but any bubble of spatio-temporal matter. The things that are not spatial and temporal are abstract objects. There are the numbers kind of abstract objects and there are the mind kind of abstract objects.

You always strawman what I say.
I did not said other material things outside our space-time local universe are similar as our local part.
Like the void outside the planet Earth is not similar with planet Earth yet it is material.

Imagine ancient people who believed that all reality consists of the flat earth with a dome where stars are lights on the firmament.
They made the same bad conclusion that what lay beyond what they believed of all reality is non-material things.
They were wrong. What lays beyond planet Earth is the void that fills the universe. Is different from the agglomerations of matter(planets, stars, black holes, asteroids, comets) but is still a material thingy.

Agreed. But you are critiquing a believer in libertarian free will; critiquing a view I don’t hold doesn’t accomplish anything against my view.

I used one Free Will hypothesis for my argumentation. You were the one saying stupid things like "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused" when such ideas do exist in Free will philosophy.

As I’ve said before, we are talking about inference to the best explanation. Throwing out logically possible ideas as though that cuts down the argued for best inference isn’t rational. If I was arguing it was 100% certain, that would be a rational move, but not if we are talking about what is the most reasonable view to hold. That debate exists is not a rational defeater of “this view on issue X is the most rational”.

Nobody is arguing 100 % certainty.
Neither I am not throwing out logically possible ideas.
Stop with the straw-mans.
I am saying you do not have compelling reasons to go with certain, specific combinations of hypothesis being true regarding: QM interpretation, Free Will, Theory of time. Therefore do have any food for "therefore God" in KALAM.
These complicated subjects are heavily debated still.
If one is honest we do know if we have free will let alone which Free Will hypothesis works.
Same with the rest of the above subjects.

You are misunderstanding my point (it’s my fault because I was unintentionally equivocating on inconsistency there). Yes, one view thinks we should treat everybody by the same rules, while the other doesn’t. I’m asking you why treating everybody by the same rules is good and that treating myself differently from others is bad. Justify that. Justify why it is wrong to be hypocritical in this way

Nonsense.
If the psychopath views his suffering(being burned alive, skinned alive, boiled alive) as bad that it follows it is bad for others.
Both the psychopath and the victim suffer the same when the same torture is applied.
Consistency is necessary to have a moral system.
Everybody knows this. It must be free of contradictions.
You cannot say the suffering is bad and suffering is not bad.
Your basically saying the sun is yellow and not yellow. That's psychopathic logic. Bad logic.
My point remains.

[boatsnguitars]

That's quite a statement: "Experts don't agree on much." - Yet, they are able to land a robot on Mars... They must agree on a great number of things!

But, I'll bend. You are right - Experts don't agree on much - like whether Jesus was real, whether the books of the Bible were written by the alleged authors, whether there was an Exodus or not, etc...

Bites both ways, no?

For example, if the experts don't agree on Radio Carbon Dating, then we don't even know if the Bible was written before 1920.

They agree on some kinds of things, but not others. They agree that science is useful (and most agree with us that it is also true), for things like the above. They agree on basic math facts and how definitions work. But there are many other areas that this kind of agreement cannot be found. This includes history, philosophy, and even philosophy of science. Of course it "bites both ways". My point is: so what? Disagreement doesn't mean there isn't a most rational view in all of those areas of disagreement.

So, when the critique of a view (against Christianity or Materialism or whatever) is "yeah, but experts don't agree on that, so we can dismiss it and maintain our current belief," I'm not going to care because the reasons for an argument are what determines its rationality, not that some people (even those who study it for a living) disagree.

The experts do agree on quite a bit, don't they? And, it seems the most agreement is in the Natural Sciences - not religion - because the Natural Sciences can be verified.

[The Tanager]

The experts do agree on quite a bit, don't they? And, it seems the most agreement is in the Natural Sciences - not religion - because the Natural Sciences can be verified.

Well, most agreement will be in math and logic, but the natural sciences are next on that list, absolutely. But the only reason that we can trust natural sciences is because of philosophical commitments. So, while philosophy will have more disagreement, that doesn't make it that anything goes, and if we aren't to trust philosophy then we won't be able to trust the natural sciences. This "experts don't agree on much" tact cuts the feet from everything else you say, including about the natural sciences. Yet, you will only use it with those things you disagree with.

[The Tanager]

You always strawman what I say.
I did not said other material things outside our space-time local universe are similar as our local part.
Like the void outside the planet Earth is not similar with planet Earth yet it is material.

Imagine ancient people who believed that all reality consists of the flat earth with a dome where stars are lights on the firmament.
They made the same bad conclusion that what lay beyond what they believed of all reality is non-material things.
They were wrong. What lays beyond planet Earth is the void that fills the universe. Is different from the agglomerations of matter(planets, stars, black holes, asteroids, comets) but is still a material thingy.

I didn’t say you said they were similar to our local part except in the sense of being material which you’ve just agreed with. That’s the important bit. I’m talking about the things that lay beyond all material things (those we know about and those we don’t know about yet). Things that aren’t material (i.e., spatio-temporal) are abstract objects. There seem to be two kinds of abstract objects (those like numbers and those like minds).

I used one Free Will hypothesis for my argumentation. You were the one saying stupid things like "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused" when such ideas do exist in Free will philosophy.

How does using that Free Will hypothesis help your argument against my version of the Kalam?

Nobody is arguing 100 % certainty.
Neither I am not throwing out logically possible ideas.
Stop with the straw-mans.
I am saying you do not have compelling reasons to go with certain, specific combinations of hypothesis being true regarding: QM interpretation, Free Will, Theory of time. Therefore do have any food for "therefore God" in KALAM.
These complicated subjects are heavily debated still.
If one is honest we do know if we have free will let alone which Free Will hypothesis works.
Same with the rest of the above subjects.

How are you not arguing that since we don’t have certainty on these issues, therefore the Kalam fails? Yes, there is disagreement but I think there are compelling reasons to go with certain beliefs on such things. If you aren’t arguing that these are just logically possible and therefore the Kalam fails, then show how a certain interpretation is more than just logically possible.

Nonsense.
If the psychopath views his suffering(being burned alive, skinned alive, boiled alive) as bad that it follows it is bad for others.
Both the psychopath and the victim suffer the same when the same torture is applied.
Consistency is necessary to have a moral system.
Everybody knows this. It must be free of contradictions.
You cannot say the suffering is bad and suffering is not bad.
Your basically saying the sun is yellow and not yellow. That's psychopathic logic. Bad logic.
My point remains.

No, it doesn’t logically follow. I agree the suffering is the same, but it doesn’t follow that all suffering is bad. The questions are whether all suffering is equally bad and consistency is necessary for morality, so this is just begging those questions. Analogically, I’m not saying the sun is yellow and not yellow; I’m saying one sun is yellow and then a different star is red and then a different star is orange and so forth. And that, therefore, when Pete says a yellow sun is the best and you say a red sun is the best, neither is objectively correct. That’s not contradictory. You still have no objective foundation for your moral claim.

[boatsnguitars]

The experts do agree on quite a bit, don't they? And, it seems the most agreement is in the Natural Sciences - not religion - because the Natural Sciences can be verified.

Well, most agreement will be in math and logic, but the natural sciences are next on that list, absolutely. But the only reason that we can trust natural sciences is because of philosophical commitments. So, while philosophy will have more disagreement, that doesn't make it that anything goes, and if we aren't to trust philosophy then we won't be able to trust the natural sciences. This "experts don't agree on much" tact cuts the feet from everything else you say, including about the natural sciences. Yet, you will only use it with those things you disagree with.

Because of Philosophy? Is that what make science so good?

The phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called phlogiston (/flɒˈdʒɪstən, floʊ-, -ɒn/) contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The name comes from the Ancient Greek φλογιστόν phlogistón (burning up), from φλόξ phlóx (flame).

[otseng]

you come with that nonsense. Such poor debate form.

Moderator Comment

Please debate respectfully.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[alexxcJRO]

I didn’t say you said they were similar to our local part except in the sense of being material which you’ve just agreed with. That’s the important bit. I’m talking about the things that lay beyond all material things (those we know about and those we don’t know about yet). Things that aren’t material (i.e., spatio-temporal) are abstract objects. There seem to be two kinds of abstract objects (those like numbers and those like minds).

Still straw-man.
Things that aren’t material (i.e., spatio-temporal) ->your straw-man.
Things that aren’t material (no necessarily spatio-temporal)->Me.

How does using that Free Will hypothesis help your argument against my version of the Kalam?

I assumed Free will hypothesis-uncaused is true for the sake of argumentation.
"Everything that begin to exists has cause for its existence." Not true if above.

How are you not arguing that since we don’t have certainty on these issues, therefore the Kalam fails? Yes, there is disagreement but I think there are compelling reasons to go with certain beliefs on such things. If you aren’t arguing that these are just logically possible and therefore the Kalam fails, then show how a certain interpretation is more than just logically possible.

I did not said it fails.
I could be true if the combination of your choosen hypothesis consist of true hypothesis.
If other combination of those hypothesis consist of true hypothesis the KALAM is useless.
But since those things are heavily debated they can't be used yet for other stuff: KALAM.

No, it doesn’t logically follow. I agree the suffering is the same, but it doesn’t follow that all suffering is bad. The questions are whether all suffering is equally bad and consistency is necessary for morality, so this is just begging those questions. Analogically, I’m not saying the sun is yellow and not yellow; I’m saying one sun is yellow and then a different star is red and then a different star is orange and so forth. And that, therefore, when Pete says a yellow sun is the best and you say a red sun is the best, neither is objectively correct. That’s not contradictory. You still have no objective foundation for your moral claim.

Nonsense.

Notation:
Suffering X: having one's head/face being burn alive with alcohol for 10 min.

But the psychopath P is saying suffering X is bad(if it happens to him) and suffering X is good if it happens to others.
But the suffering X is bad for psychopaths for the same objective reason as if it happens to the others.

[The Tanager]

Because of Philosophy? Is that what make science so good?

What I claimed was that good science requires philosophical commitments to be true. Do you disagree?

[The Tanager]

Still straw-man.
Things that aren’t material (i.e., spatio-temporal) ->your straw-man.
Things that aren’t material (no necessarily spatio-temporal)->Me.

So, you are saying there is matter that doesn’t occupy space or doesn’t involve change of any kind?

I assumed Free will hypothesis-uncaused is true for the sake of argumentation.
"Everything that begin to exists has cause for its existence." Not true if above.

But you can’t just assume something, you’ve got to show it to be the best explanation.

How are you not arguing that since we don’t have certainty on these issues, therefore the Kalam fails? Yes, there is disagreement but I think there are compelling reasons to go with certain beliefs on such things. If you aren’t arguing that these are just logically possible and therefore the Kalam fails, then show how a certain interpretation is more than just logically possible.

I did not said it fails.
I could be true if the combination of your choosen hypothesis consist of true hypothesis.
If other combination of those hypothesis consist of true hypothesis the KALAM is useless.
But since those things are heavily debated they can't be used yet for other stuff: KALAM.

How is this any different than what I just said? The Kalam’s conclusion should not be accepted (i.e., the Kalam fails to get us rationally to that conclusion) because there is disagreement on the premises that go into it (i.e., there are various logically possible views on the premises). If there weren’t various logically possible views, then there wouldn’t be disagreement.

Nonsense.

Notation:
Suffering X: having one's head/face being burn alive with alcohol for 10 min.

But the psychopath P is saying suffering X is bad(if it happens to him) and suffering X is good if it happens to others.
But the suffering X is bad for psychopaths for the same objective reason as if it happens to the others.

No, according to the psychopath, suffering X isn’t bad for the same objective reason because the reason comes from this question: “who is undergoing the suffering?” not our question: “what is the experience like for the one undergoing suffering?” The psychopath has a different calculus than us, but he remains consistent with that calculus. You’ve got to show why our calculus is objectively better than his.

[boatsnguitars]

Because of Philosophy? Is that what make science so good?

What I claimed was that good science requires philosophical commitments to be true. Do you disagree?

Sure, would you likewise agree that good philosophy requires scientific commitments to be true?

Seems to me they need each other, equally, and one suffers without concurrence from the other.

While we're on the topic, can you tell me how the Supernatural fits in this calculus?