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]

This is where you're establishing a definition. This is not reasoning. It's classification. Classification is part of reasoning and reasoning cannot proceed without classification, but classification is all that has been done here. You've just drawn a line between what you will call natural and what you will not. Nothing is wrong with doing this, if it is useful.

The Kalam uses the classification (natural/non-natural) and reasons to the existence of the non-natural.

For the moment I'll just grant that there cannot be infinite regress, though I actually have no problem with it being turtles all the way down. I don't think that's any weirder or more intuitively false than a first cause that existed in a state of timelessness. But the second idea does deserve to be explored equally so I'll just grant there can't be infinite regress

Noted. We can always return to this later, if you want.

If so, yes, the universe had to start. I just don't see the value in drawing a line between what existed at the beginning, and what came after, and calling that first thing supernatural.

What do you mean by ‘universe’ because I mean all of spatio-temporal matter/energy. It had to begin. The thing that caused that could not be natural. Logically could not in any way. Do you agree?

The Kalam's basis is that in nature, things don't pop into being. That right there suggests it's just turtles all the way down. But if it's not - if the nature started up at some point - who's to say it had to have a cause? Remember, the law of nature that things have causes, did not exist yet. The law of nature that things don't pop into being, did not exist yet, because nature did not exist yet. That's just what happens when you say nature itself must have a beginning: You end up conceding that things might pop into being, because if nature started, then the laws of nature (including: things don't pop into being) started. And before that it's anyone's guess.

No, the basis isn’t just that natural things that begin to exist must have causes, but all things that exist. It’s not natural, but logical. That means it’s not just anyone’s guess.

In other words, nature might easily be the first cause of itself, because if it started up at some point, at the instant before that point, the law that things don't pop into being didn't exist yet.

Self-causation (if you mean that) is logically impossible. A thing would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself, which is logical nonsense. You probably mean uncaused, though. If so, it’s analogical to believing that it is just as likely (or moreso) for magic to occur without a magician as it is with a magician. There is absolutely no reason to believe that things can begin to exist uncaused. All experience we’ve ever had shows this isn’t the case.

I don't agree that simplicity points to something singular when we're talking about something that, because it is supernatural, does not have to have a cause. If I find one watch on the ground, I'm not going to paw through nearby bushes looking for more, because a watch is difficult to make. It requires effort to come into being. If I find a certain kind of plant, I might root around for more because I know plants of a certain kind make more of that kind. And if I find a discarded soul, which needs no cause at all, and may never have come into being, there's absolutely no reason to prefer either assumption. One, or more than one, are equally likely without more information.

Scientific theories that posit less unknown entities to make sense of the observed phenomena are preferred, unless there is evidence to the contrary, which is what your analogies show. What we know about watches and how they are used leads you to this conclusion. What we know about plants leads you to that conclusion. With the cause of the natural universe, it would be added assumptions that need explaining (which there isn’t for them) to say a thousand supernatural beings are responsible for different parts of it versus just one. It could be the case, but there is no reason to prefer that and there is simplicity to prefer the other.

And if I find a discarded soul, which needs no cause at all, and may never have come into being, there's absolutely no reason to prefer either assumption. One, or more than one, are equally likely without more information.

But we do have more information and that's that souls are supposedly eternal. That implies not having an end, but it also implies not having a beginning. Any one soul that says it created and has righteous dominion over all the rest, in a cosmology with eternal souls, is just a liar.

Why do you think souls are eternal in the sense that they’ve always existed? If they are, then you’ve got to explain why our souls don’t have a memory of what precedes birth in our bodies. It’s much simpler that we don’t have such memories because we began to exist at some point.

There's no begging the question in establishing a definition. And I don't mean for supernatural and unknown to be synonyms. I mean for supernatural to be a distinct category that we would have to add to our understanding of how nature works, to explain. In other words, something that can't be explained by our current understanding of natural law.

If we are asking what category X fits into, we can say it is in category A, category non-A, or it is unknown. It sounds like you are saying that if it is unknown to be in category A (i.e., ‘natural), then we put it in category non-A (i.e., ‘supernatural’). Why not in the category ‘unknown’? That is why it looks to me like you are treating ‘supernatural’ and ‘unknown’ as synonyms.

I mean, accepted and proven laws of the universe.

But do you mean natural laws of the universe? If so, they would be assuming there is a natural explanation that we just haven’t found yet. I’d question why they assume that because the question is whether there even could be a natural explanation. Logically, there can’t be a natural explanation of something non-natural. That doesn’t mean the non-natural exists, I’m not saying that, but just trying to understand your point.

This is the fallacy both religious and nonreligious people commit when attacking the other side. Atheists don't think there's absolutely definitely no god. And many religious people understand that they can't prove, absolutely, that god does exist. Reducing people who think there are ghosts - and people who think there are not - to fervent idiots who were born convinced and remained convinced without any sort of observation, is unfair.

If some provably trustworthy omniscient being popped up in front of them and asked them to bet on it, the alarmingly vast majority of the people in both categories (excluding gambling addicts) would bet some amount that was less than everything they own and additionally would not bet their lives. And that shows you that they do not possess the degree of certainty you're arguing is illogical.

This is complicated by common knowledge. We're expected to say there are definitely no unicorns. Definitely no fairies. Adolf Hitler was definitely not a Skynet-issue terminator and Abraham Lincoln was definitely not a vampire slayer. If someone has an epistemological objection something like, "Well, but you can't absolutely know that," then in common understanding, they're the idiot. But we really can't know that, and suddenly, when used against atheists, this epistemological nitpicking is considered valid. Really it was valid all along, but nobody applies it in common understanding.

Everyone is agnostic in the way you make that case. It's just, some people tend to think one or the other is more probably true. Unless they'd bet their lives (and only crazy people would) they don't fit into the categories you define as illogical.

I’m sorry for this confusion, because that is not what I meant at all. I completely agree with you here. I was saying ghosts:

(1) aren’t supernatural because we don’t have a natural explanation for them yet and I want to fit my supernaturalism in somewhere (that’s akin to God-of-the gaps, which I don’t think is a rational move)

Or (2) natural because everything has to have a natural answer (that’s begging the question, which I don’t think is a rational move)

But that one needs rational reasons to be a naturalist, supernaturalist, or an agnostic.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #121]

The Kalam uses the classification (natural/non-natural) and reasons to the existence of the non-natural.

Ghazali’s reasoning involves three simple steps:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

There is no natural/non-natural classification in the above.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #122]

I've said multiple times that it comes from the reasoning that extends beyond the 3 major premises, that logically follow about what we could know about the cause talked about in the conclusion of premise 3.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #122]

I've said multiple times that it comes from the reasoning that extends beyond the 3 major premises, that logically follow about what we could know about the cause talked about in the conclusion of premise 3.

It has also been pointed out multiple times that the reasoning is faulty. The reasoning has been shown to have faults.

[alexxcJRO]

I’m not claiming all of those were interpreted as non-literal. I was specifically talking about the beginning chapters of Genesis. Concerning Adam and Eve, for instance, Origen says it’s obvious that God didn’t actually plant a tree of life in Eden, among other things in De Principiis 4.1.16.

1. Please provide the evidence for your positive claim with links.

2.
I said: "If you read the Exodus or Noah story or Samson story or Adam and Eve story or Joshua story is clear as day if not biased and known something about literature and poetry or methaphor, that the stories were meant to be literal and were believed to be so."
My point was about all those stories.

3.
"These stories were widely believed in Europe until early modern times. Regarding the real existence of the progenitors – as of other narratives contained in Genesis – the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were historical humans, personally responsible for the original sin."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_ ... inal%20sin.

C: It's clear as day people in medieval times and in the ancient past viewed the story of Adam, Eve and original sin, Noah and global flood, Samson magic hair, Moses and Insraelites exodus as real.

We don't just say if there is a cause, it must be God. There are actual arguments (as an extension to the Kalam proper, but coming directly out of it) given as to why it is a personal creator. That’s what I’m asking you about. Are you aware of the arguments theists use to point to the cause being personal? There are at least three arguments for the cause being personal. If you are aware of them, why do you reject those 3 arguments?

Again
"Form of the argument
The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:[4]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]

If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful."

Statement X: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Again:
Ancient religious people:
If the thunder, sun has a cause, then Thor, Ra.
Wrong!
It's possible some other causes(natural) are responsible for thunder, sun.

Current religious people:
If the universe has a cause, then personal Creator-God: Statement X.
Wrong!
It's possible some other cause(natural) is responsible for the expansion of the universe.
It's possible a caused, personal being(alien) who has a beginning, did change, is material and very powerful is responsible for the expansion of the universe(experiment).

Why can’t one punish a being that does not have the free will in an instance X to not do the wrong thing Y?
Let's say Pete, who has all the mental capacities and free will you and I have, disagrees and says it is morally right to punish a being that doesn't have free will in instance X because it serves his interests and ethical egoism is the guiding principle of objective morality. Why is Pete wrong?

I could say the sun is green because it serves my interests but I would be wrong.
Any philosopher and logician knows from logical analysis its wrong to punish a being that is not able to differentiate between right and wrong.
Tell me why the logic is wrong. Not that some person might say it not wrong.

If Tanager or Pete says is morally right to punish a being that does not have the free will in an instance X to not do the wrong thing Y does not make it so.

Baseless statements without any argument or evidence are nothing.
That need to show it to be true. Saying so does not make it so.
One need to prove what they say using logic, arguments or evidence.

Please do so.

[The Tanager]

1. Please provide the evidence for your positive claim with links.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

C: It's clear as day people in medieval times and in the ancient past viewed the story of Adam, Eve and original sin, Noah and global flood, Samson magic hair, Moses and Insraelites exodus as real.

The majority did, it seems. A minority didn’t. Now present reasons why we should side with the majority. Quoting wikipedia, much less even a scholarly source, that simply asserts the same conclusion isn’t presenting the reasons we should side with that view.

Again
"Form of the argument
The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:[4]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]

If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful."

But you realize there are arguments behind these premises that aren’t a part of the short form, right? You seem unaware of the 3 arguments Craig has offered for the ‘personal’ bit. Or, if you are, at least we can get them out here and talk directly about them. Here are quick jots of them:

1. An explanation for the cause is either scientific or personal, but the cause of the universe must be beyond science (since science studies the natural world and the natural world didn’t exist until it was caused by this explanation). Therefore, the cause must be personal.

2. The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds, but abstract objects like numbers have no causal powers. Therefore the cause must be an abstract mind (and therefore personal).

3. An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect. For example (for simplicity) water freezes when the temperature is below 0 degrees centigrade. So, if the cause (temperature below 0) is eternal, then the effect (frozen water) would also have always been the case. Impersonal temperatures of below 0 don’t choose when the water will freeze; it simultaneously happens. It would be impossible for water to begin to freeze a finite time ago, if the temperature has always, eternally been below 0. But personal causes can freely choose to use their power or not, choosing to bring about an effect, which would be an effect that is temporal and not eternal.

If the universe has a cause, then personal Creator-God: Statement X.
Wrong!

Why are all 3 of those arguments wrong?

It's possible some other cause(natural) is responsible for the expansion of the universe.

We are talking about all of space-time matter/energy, all of ‘nature’. Self-causation is illogical. Nature cannot be the cause of all of nature coming into existence.

It's possible a caused, personal being(alien) who has a beginning, did change, is material and very powerful is responsible for the expansion of the universe(experiment).

If the direct cause of the natural world is itself caused, then it must have a cause, so that is just pushing the question back. We are talking about the need for an ultimate cause that must be uncaused. As uncaused, it can’t have a beginning.

If the direct cause of the natural world underwent changes, then those events need an explanation, again just pushing the question back and we are getting at the ultimate cause, which can’t have undergone prior changes.

And the material bit is the illogical self-causation. We are talking about all of matter; matter can’t be the cause of all matter that exists.

I could say the sun is green because it serves my interests but I would be wrong.
Any philosopher and logician knows from logical analysis its wrong to punish a being that is not able to differentiate between right and wrong.
Tell me why the logic is wrong. Not that some person might say it not wrong.

You’ve got to give me the logic first. Lay it out in step by step form. If you think you have already done it, then it went over my head, so please do it again. Previously this is what I saw:

1. You need to be able to differentiate between right and wrong to be a moral agent.
2. You need to be a moral agent to have moral accountability.

I agree, but that says nothing about what is right and wrong in this case. Why is it wrong to punish non moral agents (or moral agents for that matter)?

Then you said it’s like with free will:

1. One needs free will to be a moral agent.
2. One cannot punish a being that doesn’t have free will…

I agree one needs free will to be a moral agent. But why is it wrong to punish a being that doesn’t have free will?

If Tanager or Pete says is morally right to punish a being that does not have the free will in an instance X to not do the wrong thing Y does not make it so.

Baseless statements without any argument or evidence are nothing.
That need to show it to be true. Saying so does not make it so.
One need to prove what they say using logic, arguments or evidence.

Please do so.

I agree. But don’t shift the burden. You made a claim about something being objectively moral. You need to provide the argument or evidence showing it to be true, not assert it and ask me to prove you wrong.

[alexxcJRO]

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

Q: Can you point were it says Adam and Eve, original sin are not taken literally?
Quote only the significant part.

The majority did, it seems. A minority didn’t. Now present reasons why we should side with the majority. Quoting wikipedia, much less even a scholarly source, that simply asserts the same conclusion isn’t presenting the reasons we should side with that view.

We are still analysing the evidence. You have no showed anything significant so far.
Funny how you haven't mention anything about the rest of the stories.

Q: Were the rest viewed as literal?

But you realize there are arguments behind these premises that aren’t a part of the short form, right? You seem unaware of the 3 arguments Craig has offered for the ‘personal’ bit. Or, if you are, at least we can get them out here and talk directly about them. Here are quick jots of them:
1. An explanation for the cause is either scientific or personal, but the cause of the universe must be beyond science (since science studies the natural world and the natural world didn’t exist until it was caused by this explanation). Therefore, the cause must be personal.
2. The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds, but abstract objects like numbers have no causal powers. Therefore the cause must be an abstract mind (and therefore personal).
3. An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect. For example (for simplicity) water freezes when the temperature is below 0 degrees centigrade. So, if the cause (temperature below 0) is eternal, then the effect (frozen water) would also have always been the case. Impersonal temperatures of below 0 don’t choose when the water will freeze; it simultaneously happens. It would be impossible for water to begin to freeze a finite time ago, if the temperature has always, eternally been below 0. But personal causes can freely choose to use their power or not, choosing to bring about an effect, which would be an effect that is temporal and not eternal.
Why are all 3 of those arguments wrong?

If the direct cause of the natural world is itself caused, then it must have a cause, so that is just pushing the question back. We are talking about the need for an ultimate cause that must be uncaused. As uncaused, it can’t have a beginning.
If the direct cause of the natural world underwent changes, then those events need an explanation, again just pushing the question back and we are getting at the ultimate cause, which can’t have undergone prior changes.
And the material bit is the illogical self-causation. We are talking about all of matter; matter can’t be the cause of all matter that exists.

Sir we are talking of the expansion of the universe.
That's what prompted this kind of argument: KALAM.
"Our universe" could be just a part of a bigger reality, a part of a bigger natural world.
Like people in the ancient times believed that the flat earth and the dome encompassed all the natural world.
Go figures they were wrong. There is huge part of the natural world beyond that.

Observation: Please don't bore me with equivocation tactics.

We are talking about all of space-time matter/energy, all of ‘nature’. Self-causation is illogical. Nature cannot be the cause of all of nature coming into existence.

"all of ‘nature’" aka "our universe" maybe its not all nature.
Ancient people: We are talking about all of flat Earth and the dome. Self-causation is illogical. Nature cannot be the cause of all of nature coming into existence.

You’ve got to give me the logic first. Lay it out in step by step form. If you think you have already done it, then it went over my head, so please do it again. Previously this is what I saw:
1. You need to be able to differentiate between right and wrong to be a moral agent.
2. You need to be a moral agent to have moral accountability.
I agree, but that says nothing about what is right and wrong in this case. Why is it wrong to punish non moral agents (or moral agents for that matter)?
Then you said it’s like with free will:
1. One needs free will to be a moral agent.
2. One cannot punish a being that doesn’t have free will…
I agree one needs free will to be a moral agent. But why is it wrong to punish a being that doesn’t have free will?

You need explanation why punishing the blameless, the innocent is wrong or illogical.
You need explanation why punishing a person that cannot choose to not do a wrong action X in an instant Y is wrong or illogical.
Q: WTF?
This forum is gold for comedy.
Q: You need explanation why I cannot both exist and not exist?

I agree. But don’t shift the burden. You made a claim about something being objectively moral. You need to provide the argument or evidence showing it to be true, not assert it and ask me to prove you wrong.

I already provide an argument. You choose to ignore it.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #126]

1. An explanation for the cause is either scientific or personal, but the cause of the universe must be beyond science (since science studies the natural world and the natural world didn’t exist until it was caused by this explanation). Therefore, the cause must be personal.

2. The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds, but abstract objects like numbers have no causal powers. Therefore the cause must be an abstract mind (and therefore personal).

3. An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect. For example (for simplicity) water freezes when the temperature is below 0 degrees centigrade. So, if the cause (temperature below 0) is eternal, then the effect (frozen water) would also have always been the case. Impersonal temperatures of below 0 don’t choose when the water will freeze; it simultaneously happens. It would be impossible for water to begin to freeze a finite time ago, if the temperature has always, eternally been below 0. But personal causes can freely choose to use their power or not, choosing to bring about an effect, which would be an effect that is temporal and not eternal.

Why are all 3 of those arguments wrong?

1 - is incorrect, because it assumes the universe is natural while asserting it was created by a supernatural being.

IF the uncaused is natural (as it must be since it was not caused) THEN anything arising from the natural would have to be regarded as a natural extension of a natural thing.

In other words, if the cause of the universe is considered to be uncaused or self-existent, it would be more accurate to characterize it as a natural entity, and anything emanating from it would also be part of that natural order.

That "the cause must be personal", does not take away from this observation as we simply have to include mindfulness as part of that overall nature of the uncaused.
With this view, consciousness/mindfulness would not be something separate or supernatural but rather an inherent aspect included in the fundamental nature of existence.

2 - also attempts to separate numbers and minds from being natural but if all comes from a mindful uncaused being, then numbers and minds must also be fundamental to the fabric of all that exists and traceable to the uncaused mind.

3 - adds to the assertion for an uncaused cause, but in no way supports the assumptions of 1 and 2 (that the uncaused mind is separate from/supernatural to its creation.
It does not matter that the universe may be a temporal creation, as this in itself does not imply that there have not been an eternity of such creations beginning, existing and eventually ceasing because the "stuff" which makes up the objects which are temporal, would have to be regarded as eternal and thus "of the uncaused" (natural).

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #119]

It is important that the definition is not argued about (is agreed upon).

Re that, if I have been following the conversation correctly, Tanager agrees with your categorizing things such as ghosts, psychic powers and reincarnation (and the Akashic Records) as "supernatural" as you wrote these "are commonly understood as supernatural".

No I don't think Tanager does think ghosts, psychic powers, and reincarnation are supernatural. I can't even get them to concoct a scenario in which ghosts are accepted to exist and are definitely supernatural. According to Tanager, they'd have to be made of different ontological stuff. Ghosts existing and having the ability to float through walls is not enough. Us not being able to explain them is not enough.

This is why I say it's pure categorisation and it's not really that useful.

But is has not been established that - should theses things exist - then they should be thought of as non-natural/supernatural - which is the precise point I have been making (trying to make).

Nor has it been established that if God exists, he's supernatural. The only way you can get God to definitely be supernatural is to define him that way, as the Kalam does. The reason the Kalam works so well is that it simply defines a supernatural First Cause into being. It's also arguing from a contradiction if you look closely.

First it says Nature must have started. It can't have existed forever. So be it. This is an assumption we grant for the purposes of the argument. But when it then starts talking about things not popping into being, it's contradicting that initial assumption and arguing from a contradiction.

I am arguing that whatever might have happened, (to begin this universe) it can only have a natural cause, even if that cause is itself, Uncaused.

Furthermore, as I pointed out,
1. The Uncaused Cause of the universe, does not lead to the conclusion
2. "Therefore, the Uncaused Cause of the universe must be "supernatural".

You say that it has to be, but your examples are simply an assumption from a particular popular definition - a definition popularized by animalism/paganism and adopted/inserted into religious beliefs as popularity increased.

The definition (in popular terms) has never been questioned by consecutive populations - but having a mind-set which (whether theist or atheist) which believes that supernatural has to exist (even as a concept for the sake of argument) and rejecting an all-natural cause, is surplus to requirement/unnecessary (jumping the gun/cart before horse).

I neither agree nor disagree with this because it depends on how you define what is natural. Your definition scheme makes more sense to me, but it's not like if someone draws an arbitrary line between the First Cause and everything else, and just calls that supernatural, their definition scheme is invalid. There's no argumentation there, though, it's just defining something to be supernatural and arguing that in your definition scheme, it is supernatural.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #129]

The only way you can get God to definitely be supernatural is to define him that way, as the Kalam does.

See Post #128