The "Supernatural": Burden of Proof?

[boatsnguitars]

Question:
Why should the burden of proof be placed on Supernaturalists (those who believe in the supernatural) to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural, rather than on Materialists to disprove it, as in "Materialists have to explain why the supernatural can't be the explanation"?

Argument:

Placing the burden of proof on Supernaturalists to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural is a logical and epistemologically sound approach. This perspective aligns with the principles of evidence-based reasoning, the scientific method, and critical thinking. Several key reasons support this stance.

Default Position of Skepticism: In debates about the supernatural, it is rational to start from a position of skepticism. This is in line with the philosophical principle of "nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it) and the scientific principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall on those making the extraordinary claim of the existence of the supernatural.

Presumption of Naturalism: Throughout the history of scientific inquiry, the default assumption has been naturalism. Naturalism posits that the universe and its phenomena can be explained by natural laws and processes without invoking supernatural entities or forces. This presumption is based on the consistent success of naturalistic explanations in understanding the world around us. After all, since both the Naturalist and Supernaturalist believe the Natural exists, we only need to establish the existence of the Supernatural (or, whatever someone decides to posit beyond the Natural.)

Absence of Empirical Evidence: The supernatural, by its very nature, is often described as beyond the realm of empirical observation and measurement. Claims related to the supernatural, such as deities, spirits, or paranormal phenomena, typically lack concrete, testable evidence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those advocating for the supernatural to provide compelling and verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Problem of Unfalsifiability: Many supernatural claims are unfalsifiable: they cannot be tested or disproven. This raises significant epistemological challenges. Demanding that Materialists disprove unfalsifiable supernatural claims places an unreasonable burden on them. Instead, it is more reasonable to require Supernaturalists to provide testable claims and evidence.

In conclusion, the burden of proof should rest on Supernaturalists to provide convincing and verifiable evidence for the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural. This approach respects the principles of skepticism, scientific inquiry, and parsimonious reasoning, ultimately fostering a more rational and evidence-based discussion of the supernatural in the context of understanding our world and its mysteries.

If they can't provide evidence of the supernatural, then there is no reason for Naturalists to take their claims seriously: Any of their claims that include the supernatural. That includes all religious claims that involve supernatural claims.

I challenge Supernaturalists to defend the single most important aspect at the core of their belief. We all know they can't (they would have by now), but the burden is on them, and it's high time they at least give an honest effort.

Please note: Arguments from Ignorance will be summarily dismissed.

[The Tanager]

I think a "change in location" may well necessitate an eternal process but certainly before and after types of relationship which requires the passage of time are not contrary or contradictory to the eternally moving thing in and of itself.

Not being eternal "without requiring the passage of time" but rather, "time does not dictate the terms and conditions of an eternal thing."

I think you are unintentionally slipping back into the equivocation problem here. If movement is a change, then the thing that is changing (because it is made of particles in constant motion) is temporal not timeless (i.e., one sense of eternal), but the temporal thing that is changing could still exist forever (i.e., another sense of eternal). A temporal thing being timeless (i.e., non-temporal) is a logically contradictory notion on par with a square circle. You can’t be temporal and non-temporal in the same sense.

[William]

See my prior comments re timeless as we are using the term differently.

Re that we most likely will continue to do so.

[The Tanager]

See my prior comments re timeless as we are using the term differently.

Re that we most likely will continue to do so.

I did see those. It looks to me like you are basically accepting both points I've made:

1. matter itself is necessarily made up of parts that are in constant motion
2. things in constant motion necessarily involve the passage of time (i.e., they show temporality)

that, when combined, logically lead to:

3. matter itself is necessarily temporal

I have no idea why are seem to accept 1 and 2, but not 3. Matter can't be non-temporal if its parts that constitute what it is are temporal. That would be like saying forming 100 red bricks into a wall could produce a blue wall. Or that the church of all Christians who believe Jesus resurrected results in an official doctrine that Jesus didn't resurrect.

[William]

See my prior comments re timeless as we are using the term differently.

Re that we most likely will continue to do so.

I did see those. It looks to me like you are basically accepting both points I've made:

1. matter itself is necessarily made up of parts that are in constant motion
2. things in constant motion necessarily involve the passage of time (i.e., they show temporality)

that, when combined, logically lead to:

3. matter itself is necessarily temporal

There must be a way we can avoid this misunderstanding. I have already explained that temporal are objects made of eternal matter which are seen to come and go but not fade into immaterial/nothing.

About that, I have been consistently running our conversation through the GPT Large Language System and it understands what I am saying so I see no reason as to why you or anyone else would not.

I have no idea why are seem to accept 1 and 2, but not 3. Matter can't be non-temporal if its parts that constitute what it is are temporal.

That you have no idea what it is I have been saying is problematic. We have agreed that the universe bubble is temporal. We disagree that this means the matter it is made of, is eternal. I think there is no reason why it isn't and you think there is.


What I need clarifying from you is whether you are also arguing that the eternal source not only must be immaterial, but apparently unmoving.

[The Tanager]

That you have no idea what it is I have been saying is problematic.

Exactly, but I want to understand it. When you speak of "eternal matter" that becomes this matter that is necessarily temporal, I'm very confused because it seems a misnomer to call both things matter when one is necessarily timeless in its nature (because it has always existed, even prior to time) and the other is necessarily temporal in its nature (because it is composed of parts that are in constant motion).

What I need clarifying from you is whether you are arguing that the eternal source not only must be immaterial, but apparently unmoving.

I think it is unmoving sans creation, but may first become moving at the moment of creation.

[William]

That you have no idea what it is I have been saying is problematic.

Exactly, but I want to understand it.

I can point you to a conversation where there is more information which might assist you with that. The information is rather long which is one reason why I have not placed it in this thread, but I can at least provide the summary of said information as a means of possibly sparking your interest further.

Summary: Embracing the Interconnectedness of Knowledge

In this philosophical exploration, we've delved into the complexities of understanding the universe, consciousness, and the relationship between physical science and the mind. The discussion revolves around the proposition that a more comprehensive understanding requires the integration of multiple disciplines, including physical sciences, philosophy, and considerations of consciousness. The idea that a mindful field of eternal matter forms the basis for the universe's existence, incorporating mindfulness and consciousness, challenges traditional scientific boundaries. The interaction between subjective experiences and objective observations emphasizes the interconnectedness of knowledge, suggesting that a holistic approach is essential for a more profound understanding of the universe and our place within it. This interdisciplinary perspective encourages ongoing exploration and dialogue as we navigate the intricate intersections of science and philosophy. {SOURCE}

From that, you might be able to offer critique of your own, based off your beliefs re the necessity of an immaterial cause to moving particles of matter.

What I need clarifying from you is whether you are arguing that the eternal source not only must be immaterial, but apparently unmoving.

I think it is unmoving sans creation, but may become moving at least at the moment of creation.

Are you meaning creation of this universe or any creation?
Do you mean "creation of matter" or other types of creation as well? If the latter, please provide conceptual examples of an immaterial creation which does not move.

[The Tanager]

I can point you to a conversation where there is more information which might assist you with that. The information is rather long which is one reason why I have not placed it in this thread, but I can at least provide the summary of said information as a means of possibly sparking your interest further.

Thank you for sharing that.

Are you meaning creation of this universe or any creation?
Do you mean "creation of matter" or other types of creation as well? If the latter, please provide conceptual examples of an immaterial creation which does not move.

I think that if creation involves an essential change in the Creator (I earlier said I'm unsure about that), then I think this would be the case for any kind of creation. In other words, creating a separate immaterial entity would also necessitate the existence of time, although I'm not sure that would necessitate that immaterial entity experiencing the passage of time (i.e., being temporal).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #297]

Thank you for sharing that.

No problem. Feel free to ask any questions et al re that data.

Are you meaning creation of this universe or any creation?
Do you mean "creation of matter" or other types of creation as well? If the latter, please provide conceptual examples of an immaterial creation which does not move.

I think that if creation involves an essential change in the Creator (I earlier said I'm unsure about that), then I think this would be the case for any kind of creation. In other words, creating a separate immaterial entity would also necessitate the existence of time, although I'm not sure that would necessitate that immaterial entity experiencing the passage of time (i.e., being temporal).

I appreciate your admitting uncertainty re your belief.
For now, it appears that you believe that the eternal cause is both immaterial and static.
It also appears you believe it possible that the eternal cause can create other immaterial entities which could explore a creation and experience movement therein.
Of these, do you think it possible that such entities engaging with the movement of physical material can be created as eternal beings and even if the creation being experienced is not itself eternal (created to be eternal) that said entities would still be eternal if they are created that way.
(I am asking mainly to get a better understanding of your beliefs about such concepts.)
Re the above questions, do you think it possible that a physical (material) created thing could be made to be eternal?

[The Tanager]

I appreciate your admitting uncertainty re your belief.
For now, it appears that you believe that the eternal cause is both immaterial and static.

I believe it was static (i.e., not temporal) prior to creation.

It also appears you believe it possible that the eternal cause can create other immaterial entities which could explore a creation and experience movement therein.

If by 'movement' you mean change, yes. If by 'movement' you mean changing one's physical location, then no.

Of these, do you think it possible that such entities engaging with the movement of physical material can be created as eternal beings and even if the creation being experienced is not itself eternal (created to be eternal) that said entities would still be eternal if they are created that way.
(I am asking mainly to get a better understanding of your beliefs about such concepts.)
Re the above questions, do you think it possible that a physical (material) created thing could be made to be eternal?

Which sense of 'eternal' are you using here? To exist forever more? If so, then yes for all created entities.

[alexxcJRO]

Being affected by and being determined by are two different things; I used the former. I also said the affects go both ways, not just one way.

affected
/əˈfɛktɪd/
adjective
1.
influenced or touched by an external factor.

determine
/dɪˈtəːmɪn/
verb
past tense: determined; past participle: determined
1.
cause (something) to occur in a particular way or to have a particular nature.

Both words point to determinism.

Q: If I say my choice is determined(caused) or affected(influenced) by external factor is that not determinism?

If my personality develops deterministically and that begins to influence my first wants which create experiences which then in a cascade influence future wants and future choices which create other experiences and so on then what you said is bogus.

Not if the reasoning I’ve talked about is sound. I have shared reasons to think it was personal. Perhaps I’ll get back to it again, but I’m laser focused, one step at a time, with William right now. If that doesn’t move forward anywhere, I’ll gladly do the same process with you.

Please don't postpone or avoid.
Answer now.
Please show how it cannot be not-personal, non-deterministic, uncaused and beginningless first cause.

Thank you for that response, I think it helpfully moves our discussion forward. I’ll assume by ‘gratuitous’ you mean something like “uncalled for, lacking good reason, unwarranted.” But please let me know if you don’t like that definition. It’s just the Oxford Languages one that google always pops up.

If you are good with that definition, then why do you think Pete’s action qualifies as gratuitous? What is the objective basis for that judgment? Pete disagrees with you (and me), so let’s show he is wrong. Pete thinks the benefit it will provide to him is what calls for the infliction of the suffering. He thinks his benefit is the good reason. He thinks his benefit warrants the action. If he is correct, then his action would not be ‘gratuitous’. So, why is he not correct?

This is what I meant:
gratuitous
adjective
gra·​tu·​i·​tous grə-ˈtü-ə-təs -ˈtyü-
Synonyms of gratuitous
1
: not called for by the circumstances : not necessary, appropriate, or justified :

"Gratuitous suffering" is wrong because there no scenario where one can justify such acts as moral good acts.

Lets say Pete(a psychopathic member of CJNG cartel) purposely kidnaps a small child(infant) or young man who is severely mentally impaired from birth(son of a member of a rival cartel: Sinaloa Cartel) and starts inflicting great suffering to the non-moral agent. Skins the non-moral agent alive, and all through out laughs and ridicules him while other member records the whole ordeal.

There is no scenario when such act can be justified as a moral good act ergo it is "Gratuitous suffering". Therefore is wrong in any scenario.

It provides for example food for the Evidential Problem of Evil.