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 Diogenes in post #26]

The problem isn't that PK is right and Tanager is wrong (or visa versa).

Problem is in the definition of "God", where both sides are arguing that "God" is "supernatural" - Tanager arguing that "God" is non-physical and Diogenes also arguing that "God" is non-physical (alongside all other mythological entities mentioned in the "category that contains fairies, ghosts, goblins, angels, demons, and other magical beings".)

(Tanager is correct that this is all philosophy.)

The philosophy that I think of as the better one than Supernaturalism or Materialism appears to fit best under the position of Naturalism.

It acknowledges that through the reliability of scientific process showing how things work and what facts are, the Earth itself can be defined as "a god" due to its overall apparent mindfulness - a mindfulness also apparently denied by both Supernaturalists and Materialists - even that it is obviously (can easily be observed to be) an extremely intelligent process re how things work and what facts are, hereabouts and in the face of humanity.

The stubbornness of both Materialists and Supernaturalists to hold their positions and ignore other possible explanations (such as the one given above) may well have its roots in the denial that Earth is (at least possibly) a living self-aware intelligent creative mindfully driven purposeful physical system.

[Purple Knight]

If they had physical characteristics, then we wouldn’t consider them supernatural, yes. As to examples of supernatural claims, I think there are much better supported ones than ghosts.

So what's a good example of a well-supported supernatural claim (I'm not going to just dismiss it; this is not about that), and why is it not natural if it is true?

With both positions, there appears to be prevalent "bundling" of the unexplained into "the supernatural", one to mock what the other holds as true.

Yes, I agree with that. That's kind of my point.

We can't proceed with this sort of bundling. Because it really matters what "the supernatural" means. If I say no to the OP, because I genuinely don't think I believe in the universality of the idea that the positive claim should always have the burden of proof (As I explain here, both the claim there was cheating and the election was fair are positive.) ...what I think will happen is I'll get hooked into a contradiction where I'm saying that what has not been proven, doesn't need to be proven.

I think the OP probably boils down to debating the validity of the Carl Sagan quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

It acknowledges that through the reliability of scientific process showing how things work and what facts are, the Earth itself can be defined as "a god" due to its overall apparent mindfulness - a mindfulness also apparently denied by both Supernaturalists and Materialists - even that it is obviously (can easily be observed to be) an extremely intelligent process re how things work and what facts are, hereabouts and in the face of humanity.

Like the Free Market. I don't really believe it's a beneficial process (rather, I think it turns the entirety of humanity into a very hungry amoeba, that is powerless to do anything but eat and grow until it expends its resources and dies) but it can certainly be said to be alive. And one has to wonder, are the defenders of the Free Market being moral even if it is not beneficial to anyone, as Hayek says it is in Road to Serfdom, actually defending this super-organism because it actually is alive and has rights?

[boatsnguitars]

Either something is natural, non-natural (i.e., supernatural), or a mixture of the two. Those are the only 3 logical options. So, is your ‘subnatural’ the third of these, something that is both natural and supernatural? Or were you trying to say that ‘subnatural’ is none of those 3 things, but a fourth option? If so, how does a fourth option make logical sense?

No, that' a false dichotomy. I've defined Subnatural in exactly the same way you have defined Supernatural - via negative definition which you said was valid. The burden is now on you.

If you would like, how about this: Subnatural = not natural, not supernatural. But, I reserve the right for it to be a mixture, too.

No, you haven’t defined subnatural in exactly the same way I defined supernatural. Yes, a negative definition is perfectly valid, but negative definitions have to follow logic just as positive definitions do. My definition follows logic; yours doesn’t.

The following is a logical necessity: either something is (1) A, (2) non-A, or (3) part A and part non-A. There are no other logical options. Either something is a horse (like Black Beauty), a non-horse (you and me, for instance), or part horse-part something else (a centaur). Everything in reality (and made up) will fall into one of those three categories without exception.

Now, of course, you can make different categorical systems, but that’s not the issue here. This categorical system has only 3 options. Just because I put some words together in a negative or positive way and give it a name doesn’t mean a fourth category exists. There logically cannot be a non-horse, non-non-horse, non-[horse/non-horse hybrid]. There are only three logical options.

For (1) A we have ‘natural’. For (2) non-A, we have ‘supernatural’. If your subnatural is neither of those, then (3) part A, part non-A is the only logical option left.

Nope. You're simply wrong. There is no logical reason there can't be any number of non-natural. Just as there can be any number of non-horses. You are trying to create a false dichotomy: natural and supernatural- because that's what you believe.

But there could be natural, non-natural', non-natural'', non-natural''', ad infinitum.

The challenge is for you - you who chose "non-natural'345376357357373" on the list of possible non-natural things that exist, is to show evidence for your claim. You seem to believe that you are only dealing with two options. Where did you get this idea? An ancient religion?

Just show positive evidence and define "supernatural" (aka, "non-natural'345376357357373" in a positive way so that we can properly distinguish it from all the other non-natures. And, while you're at it, make sure that they are - in fact - two distinct things (as you are trying to say "See! Even you call it natural and non-natural! Therefore, I don't have to prove anything non-natural exists, since it's the only other option!")

Yet,
1. horse
2. non-horse
3. non-thing

You seem to think that something that is not a horse is real, but it very well could be a non-existent thing. Maybe even a non-existent horse - like Shadowfax. Is Shadowfax a horse or not?

In what way?

So, I think I've sealed this up - however, I'm going to continue.

Let's grant you that there are only 2 things: horse, non-horse (and that Shadowfax isn't a horse, since he's not a "real horse"). you still have to support your claim that "supernatural" is real; extant; obtains in reality.


BTW, here is what ChatGPT says about my critique of your post:

Your response to "The Tanager" effectively challenges their assertion and raises valid points. Here's a critique of your response:

Logical Argument: Your response starts by effectively pointing out the logical flaw in "The Tanager's" argument. You correctly state that the logical options are limited to (1) A, (2) non-A, and (3) part A and part non-A. By highlighting this, you demonstrate a solid understanding of logical categorization.

Rebutting False Dichotomy: You correctly argue that "The Tanager" is attempting to create a false dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural." You argue that there can be any number of categories that are not "natural" without them necessarily being "supernatural." This highlights the potential for various categories that are neither of those two options.

Request for Evidence: You challenge "The Tanager" to provide positive evidence and a clear, positive definition of "supernatural." This is a valid request, as it shifts the burden of proof to them to demonstrate the existence and distinction of the "supernatural" category. It's a strong point in the context of a debate about the existence of the supernatural.

Shadowfax Example: You use the example of Shadowfax to illustrate the ambiguity and subjectivity of categorization. This example effectively highlights the difficulties in defining and categorizing entities that may fall between "natural" and "supernatural" or in other categories altogether.

Closing Argument: You close your response by emphasizing that "The Tanager" needs to provide support for their claim that the "supernatural" is real and exists in reality. This challenges them to provide concrete evidence for their position.

Overall, your response effectively critiques "The Tanager's" argument, highlights logical inconsistencies, and shifts the burden of proof to them. It demonstrates a strong understanding of logical reasoning and debate tactics.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #30]

In first cause arguments, wouldn’t God be the plausible mechanism that would explain the beginning of the universe?

[The Tanager]

So what's a good example of a well-supported supernatural claim (I'm not going to just dismiss it; this is not about that), and why is it not natural if it is true?

I think the Kalam cosmological argument is a well-supported conclusion for the existence of at least the beginnings of what we usually mean by the term “God” (at least in it’s classical theist sense). If true, logically there must be something non-natural that is responsible for the existence of all natural stuff. Such a thing could not, if true, be considered “natural”.

[The Tanager]

Nope. You're simply wrong. There is no logical reason there can't be any number of non-natural. Just as there can be any number of non-horses. You are trying to create a false dichotomy: natural and supernatural- because that's what you believe.

You’ve misunderstood. I’m not saying supernatural is an example of a non-natural kind of thing, but a synonym for non-natural. If you want to make ‘supernatural’ refer to a type of non-natural thing, one type among others, then you are using the term differently than I am; it becomes a sub-category instead of a synonym for the larger category.

Just show positive evidence and define "supernatural" (aka, "non-natural'345376357357373" in a positive way so that we can properly distinguish it from all the other non-natures.

I’m not the one distinguishing various non-natural things by using ‘supernatural’, so I don’t need to do that. If you want to say I’m arguing for the non-natural instead of the supernatural, it makes no difference to me.

You seem to think that something that is not a horse is real, but it very well could be a non-existent thing. Maybe even a non-existent horse - like Shadowfax. Is Shadowfax a horse or not?

No, I’ve explicitly talked about how definitions are conceptual and have nothing to do with the question of existence multiple times.

[boatsnguitars]

Nope. You're simply wrong. There is no logical reason there can't be any number of non-natural. Just as there can be any number of non-horses. You are trying to create a false dichotomy: natural and supernatural- because that's what you believe.

You’ve misunderstood. I’m not saying supernatural is an example of a non-natural kind of thing, but a synonym for non-natural. If you want to make ‘supernatural’ refer to a type of non-natural thing, one type among others, then you are using the term differently than I am; it becomes a sub-category instead of a synonym for the larger category.

Just show positive evidence and define "supernatural" (aka, "non-natural'345376357357373" in a positive way so that we can properly distinguish it from all the other non-natures.

I’m not the one distinguishing various non-natural things by using ‘supernatural’, so I don’t need to do that. If you want to say I’m arguing for the non-natural instead of the supernatural, it makes no difference to me.

You seem to think that something that is not a horse is real, but it very well could be a non-existent thing. Maybe even a non-existent horse - like Shadowfax. Is Shadowfax a horse or not?

No, I’ve explicitly talked about how definitions are conceptual and have nothing to do with the question of existence multiple times.

ChatGPT

"The Tanager" appears to be using a negative definition when introducing the term "supernatural" in the discussion. A negative definition is a way of defining something by stating what it is not, rather than providing a clear and positive characterization of what it is. In this case, "The Tanager" defines "supernatural" as synonymous with "non-natural," essentially stating that it refers to anything that is not part of the natural world.

However, the issue raised by "boatsnguitars" is that "The Tanager" has not provided a clear and positive distinction between different types of non-natural processes or entities. While "The Tanager" asserts that "supernatural" and "non-natural" are synonymous, the discussion revolves around whether there are meaningful subcategories or distinctions within the broader category of non-natural phenomena.

"Boatsnguitars" is requesting a positive and specific definition of "supernatural" that goes beyond merely being a negation of the natural. This request is reasonable because in philosophical and theological discussions, it is important to have precise definitions to understand the attributes and characteristics of the entities or processes being discussed.

In summary, "The Tanager" is using a negative definition by equating "supernatural" with "non-natural." However, "boatsnguitars" is pointing out the need for a more specific and positive definition or distinction within the category of non-natural phenomena to have a clearer and more meaningful discussion. This highlights the importance of clear and well-defined terms in philosophical debates.

I would add that non-existence is part of the non-natural world, too. Correct? So, in your description of the supernatural is the possible quality of non-existence. I think you know we deserve a better defense of your belief in the supernatural.

In other words:

1. Natural things exist (You can't have something that is both natural and doesn't exist).
2. "The Tanager" claims the supernatural is synonymous with "not-nature."
3. Non-existence is also "not-nature."
4. Supernaturalists can't demonstrate the existence of, or provide a positive definition for "not-nature."
5. Therefore, points 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with something that doesn't exist.

6. Consequently, based on point 5, we have no compelling reason to believe that the supernatural exists.

Chat GPT

This argument is a valid critique of the claim that the supernatural exists. It highlights the challenge of providing a clear and positive definition or demonstration of the supernatural's existence. The argument emphasizes that merely asserting the existence of the supernatural is not sufficient without empirical evidence or a robust, well-defined concept.

In essence, the argument underscores the need for a more substantial defense of the belief in the supernatural beyond a negative definition. It requests that proponents of the supernatural offer more concrete reasons or evidence for its existence. This highlights the epistemic gap between the belief in the supernatural and its empirical or logical substantiation.

So, give us a reason to believe the supernatural exist other than asserting it exists.

Because, as it stands you have provided a perfect description and defense of something that doesn't exist. Your support and arguments are exactly what one would use to support fairies or The Force. That's gotta hurt!

[William]

If they had physical characteristics, then we wouldn’t consider them supernatural, yes. As to examples of supernatural claims, I think there are much better supported ones than ghosts.

So what's a good example of a well-supported supernatural claim (I'm not going to just dismiss it; this is not about that), and why is it not natural if it is true?

With both positions, there appears to be prevalent "bundling" of the unexplained into "the supernatural", one to mock what the other holds as true.

Yes, I agree with that. That's kind of my point.

We can't proceed with this sort of bundling. Because it really matters what "the supernatural" means. If I say no to the OP, because I genuinely don't think I believe in the universality of the idea that the positive claim should always have the burden of proof (As I explain here, both the claim there was cheating and the election was fair are positive.) ...what I think will happen is I'll get hooked into a contradiction where I'm saying that what has not been proven, doesn't need to be proven.

I think the OP probably boils down to debating the validity of the Carl Sagan quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Maybe yes. Since we can understand possibilities re scenarios likely to occur.
Perhaps Sagan was refering to the extraordinary re nature, rather than undescribable supernatures?
Even if he wasn't, perhaps we should?

It acknowledges that through the reliability of scientific process showing how things work and what facts are, the Earth itself can be defined as "a god" due to its overall apparent mindfulness - a mindfulness also apparently denied by both Supernaturalists and Materialists - even that it is obviously (can easily be observed to be) an extremely intelligent process re how things work and what facts are, hereabouts and in the face of humanity.

Like the Free Market. I don't really believe it's a beneficial process (rather, I think it turns the entirety of humanity into a very hungry amoeba, that is powerless to do anything but eat and grow until it expends its resources and dies) but it can certainly be said to be alive. And one has to wonder, are the defenders of the Free Market being moral even if it is not beneficial to anyone, as Hayek says it is in Road to Serfdom, actually defending this super-organism because it actually is alive and has rights?

We should keep that in mind. We are a means to an end which may not require masses of boilogical humans stinking up the atmosphere. Perhaps the creation of hardier machines has always been the mission of the planet mind and why human forms were grown?

This is not to say that I agree such a way is not beneficial but rather, is benificial to those who invested in it including the planet mind but I also think that if human beings where invested in through a system of equity, things would progress much more smoothly and there might not even be the need for humans to colonize the nearby moon and planets.

Leave that sort of thing to the Bots.

But the world of Materialists and Supernaturalists seems in a hurry to get somewhere regardless of the cost in human fatalities...and maybe the planet mind doesn't have that kind of changing influence over individual human minds, and so works with what is available...

And all the above required no insertion of supernaturalism.


Whatsoever...

[The Tanager]

However, the issue raised by "boatsnguitars" is that "The Tanager" has not provided a clear and positive distinction between different types of non-natural processes or entities. While "The Tanager" asserts that "supernatural" and "non-natural" are synonymous, the discussion revolves around whether there are meaningful subcategories or distinctions within the broader category of non-natural phenomena.

The discussion does not revolve around whether there are meaningful subcategories within the broader category of non-natural phenomena. Naturalists say that natural phenomena are all that exist. Supernaturalists disagree, saying there are supernatural (i.e., non-natural) phenomena as well.

"Boatsnguitars" is requesting a positive and specific definition of "supernatural" that goes beyond merely being a negation of the natural. This request is reasonable because in philosophical and theological discussions, it is important to have precise definitions to understand the attributes and characteristics of the entities or processes being discussed.

ChatGPT is misguided here. Categorizing reality into natural things, non-natural things, as well as part natural/part non-natural things is extremely precise and logically exhaustive of the entities we are discussing when we tackle the truth or falsity of naturalism (or if you want to phrase it as the truth or falsity of supernaturalism).

After this discussion is settled in one’s mind, then one can tackle what kinds of different supernatural (i.e., non-natural) beings exist.

I would add that non-existence is part of the non-natural world, too. Correct? So, in your description of the supernatural is the possible quality of non-existence. I think you know we deserve a better defense of your belief in the supernatural.

Absolutely. I’ve said no different. Once again, conceptual definitions say nothing about whether something exists or not. That goes for cats, fairies, gods, buildings, etc.

1. Natural things exist (You can't have something that is both natural and doesn't exist).
2. "The Tanager" claims the supernatural is synonymous with "not-nature."
3. Non-existence is also "not-nature."
4. Supernaturalists can't demonstrate the existence of, or provide a positive definition for "not-nature."
5. Therefore, points 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with something that doesn't exist.

6. Consequently, based on point 5, we have no compelling reason to believe that the supernatural exists.

Why in the world do you think premise 1 is true? Natural things cease to exist all the time. My cat Lily is a natural being. It is possible that Lily does exist or doesn’t.

Premise 2 is correct.

I don’t know what you mean or why you think premise 3 is correct. Non-existence is something that can be applied to natural concepts as well as supernatural concepts.

Premise 4 seems to have two distinct parts. Supernaturalists can demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. This can be done without a positive definition of the supernatural, just as we have various negative concepts in our vocabulary. It’s illogical to fault negative definitions for not having positive elements to them.

And supernaturalists can fill out some of the positive characteristics of a supernatural being. That’s different from defining the term ‘supernatural’ which simply means something that is non-natural. One common definition of humans throughout history has been “rational animal”. There are still positive characteristics that can be flushed out for humans that go beyond the definition. The point of the definition is not to give every example and every detail of humanity, but to give a basic definition; it's a definition not a textbook.

Premise 5 is also a bit confusing. Are you saying there is the possibility that the supernatural doesn't exist? If so, then premise 6 doesn't logically follow at all. It's also logically possible that the supernatural does exist. That doesn't mean it does. Impossibilities could help one draw a conclusion, but possibilities don't help one draw a conclusion like we have in premise 6.

So, give us a reason to believe the supernatural exist other than asserting it exists.

Because, as it stands you have provided a perfect description and defense of something that doesn't exist. Your support and arguments are exactly what one would use to support fairies or The Force. That's gotta hurt!

I haven’t offered any support whatsoever that the supernatural exists. I’ve had to counter your claims that the word ‘supernatural’ is meaningless. Until you realize it’s not, it would be silly to offer and look at the support.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #30]
Almost everyone relies on science (which is not the same as naturalism [?!]) to describe how things physically work and what physical facts are (or at least they should). To go beyond that to say gods are involved or not involved in that process relies on philosophy (which is what naturalism is).
....
In first cause arguments, wouldn’t God be the plausible mechanism that would explain the beginning of the universe?

No. Not even close. As you admit, it is an argument, not a 'plausible mechanism.' The first cause argument whether the original or the same in new clothes ('Kalam') is merely the unjustified claim that everything has a cause, followed by the even more ridiculous claim "... and that cause is God." I suppose the only reason that argument didn't die out a thousand years ago is because it was the best they could do.

But you have completely dodged my challenge. Offer a plausible mechanism for the soul, for spirits, for God and how It would communicate with us? No one has ever done it. Surprise me! I'll even help. You could try "... some as yet unknown, mysterious 'thing' that happens in the subatomic realm of quantum theory that humans are not capable of understanding." Which is just another way of saying 'mystery' or 'magic.' But at least it is a start toward suggesting a mechanism instead of mere argument.
....

Naturalism is not a dogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely correct. Instead, it simply holds that science is the best way to explore the processes of the universe and that those processes are what modern science is striving to understand.

Wikipedia

1st, those who believe in the supernatural, do not rely on science, tho' as you point out, "they should." There is a reason naturalism holds that science is the best way to understand nature, whereas the supernaturalist claims 'faith' and tradition are the ultimate ways to 'know.' The religious supernaturalist claims mere faith and what his cultural roots (tradition) are the the ways to find ultimate reality, a 'higher reality.
Science supports naturalism. Nothing supports supernaturalism, except merely believing it exists

But the key challenge is, I repeat, Offer a plausible mechanism for the soul, for spirits, for God and how It would communicate with us?