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]

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

If your choice is determined/caused, then it is determinism. If your choice is simply affected/influenced then it is not determinism. I helped influence my daughter's choice on getting an apartment with some college roommates for next Fall. I gave her various options that they hadn't found yet. I helped her think through pros and cons. I didn't determine that choice for her.

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.

Yes, but if your personality didn't develop determinstically and..., then what I said wasn't bogus. I'm saying your free choices help determine your personality (along with external factors) and that then your free-will influenced personality, environment, etc., continues to influence your free will decisions.

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

I already have. With you specifically. On this thread. So, if you don't want to wait for me to rehearse the same thing, then look back in the thread for when I did it already.

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.

Okay, so is your thought here that Pete could still harm that small child or young man in a way that benefitted him (Pete) without going to such extremes? Or that any type of harming that innocent person would be gratuitous?

[William]

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.

This answer does 2 specific things.
1. It implies static as opposite of temporal
2. It implies a past condition.

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.

By movement I mean causes change in any way.
Apparently your answer is signifying that you believe it is not possible that the eternal cause can create immaterial entities and place them within a creation to experience movement therein, but that these entities can somehow experience change.

Is this what you are saying with your reply?

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?

Please list the various senses of eternal.

To exist forever more? If so, then yes for all created entities.

I was being specific to immaterial entities.

[The Tanager]

This answer does 2 specific things.
1. It implies static as opposite of temporal

In replying to my talk about temporality versus timelessness, you brought back in the word 'static,' so I was assuming that was your implication. If it's not, then please clarify.

2. It implies a past condition.

Yes, once there is a second, later condition, then this becomes a past condition, but without that second condition, there is no temporality.

Apparently your answer is signifying that you believe it is not possible that the eternal cause can create immaterial entities and place them within a creation to experience movement therein, but that these entities can somehow experience change.

Is this what you are saying with your reply?

I am not saying that. I think it is possible for the eternal cause to create immaterial entities that can experience change.

Please list the various senses of eternal.

The ones which I've seen people use for 'eternal' that come to my mind are:

1. having always existed
2. having a beginning to their existence, but then existing forever more
3. experiencing reality timelessly

I was being specific to immaterial entities.

I think created immaterial beings can't be eternal (1), but can be eternal (2), and I'm undecided about eternal (3) because I haven't really thought it through yet.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #303]

In replying to my talk about temporality versus timelessness, you brought back in the word 'static,' so I was assuming that was your implication. If it's not, then please clarify.

I see.
I used the word static in acknowledgment of your use of the word - timeless - meaning (for you) "something which has no movement".

The opposite of temporal is permanent and what is permanent is eternal.

The opposite of movement is static.

It implies a past condition.

Yes, once there is a second, later condition, then this becomes a past condition, but without that second condition, there is no temporality.

In this case, your belief is that the prior condition did not move and was immaterial and a later (implying time) condition allowed for static immaterial entity to change from an eternal state to a temporary state.

(the above is how I am currently interpreting your shared beliefs)

I think it is possible for the eternal cause to create immaterial entities that can experience change.

Okay - we can place that idea to one side and retrieve it later if it is needed.

The ones which I've seen people use for 'eternal' that come to my mind are:

1. having always existed
2. having a beginning to their existence, but then existing forever more
3. experiencing reality timelessly

Okay - we can examine where these fit in the overall scheme of things if/when the discussion unfolds.

I think created immaterial beings can't be eternal (1), but can be eternal (2), and I'm undecided about eternal (3) because I haven't really thought it through yet.

I agree that 1. is a rational conclusion.
I agree that 2. is a rational conclusion.

Re 3. this has identified a possible subject that warrants further investigation and discussion and a place in the overall development of philosophical ideas which develop into beliefs.

The question can be framed along the lines of:
Q: How do Created Immaterial Eternal Entities Interact With and Experience Time-based Creations?"

[The Tanager]

In this case, your belief is that the prior condition did not move and was immaterial and a later (implying time) condition allowed for static immaterial entity to change from an eternal state to a temporary state.

(the above is how I am currently interpreting your shared beliefs)

When the eternal cause is by itself, with no creation, it did not 'move' and was immaterial. But this cause decided to create and, in that moment, time came into existence not as a pre condition to allow the static immaterial to change but as a logically necessary consequence, as a result, of that decision to create. Time is the by-product, not a precondition.

Re 3. this has identified a possible subject that warrants further investigation and discussion and a place in the overall development of philosophical ideas which develop into beliefs.

The question can be framed along the lines of:
Q: How do Created Immaterial Eternal Entities Interact With and Experience Time-based Creations?"

A worthy question for another time. How do you see the state of our discussion of the Kalam, though? Are you still thinking it could be made of matter (i.e., constantly moving particles) and be timeless?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #305]

When the eternal cause is by itself, with no creation, it did not 'move' and was immaterial. But this cause decided to create and, in that moment, time came into existence not as a pre condition to allow the static immaterial to change but as a logically necessary consequence, as a result, of that decision to create. Time is the by-product, not a precondition.

If so, the act of deciding involves time because it points to a specific event (one has decided) implying also that though was involved and thus "an amount of time" was spent.
How can you dovetail the concept "Time is the by-product, not a precondition." with your explanation as worded?

Q: How does an immaterial eternal entity which is static "decide" to create immaterial eternal entitles or material time based universes and place "these" into "them" without also having to have spent time thoughtfully coming to such decision?

A worthy question for another time.

Hopefully it will resurface...in time...

How do you see the state of our discussion of the Kalam, though?

The Kalam is not being discussed (at least not that I am aware of) as I was under the impression you had placed that to one side while we were sorting this concept of a necessary immaterial eternal cause.

Are you still thinking it could be made of matter (i.e., constantly moving particles) and be timeless?

Yes. Presently I have questions which require answers before I can determine whether to change my thinking on that. Once those questions are answered, I will be able to answer you more sufficiently.

For now, I am simply trying to understand why you believe as you do, and so the discussion can continue down that track if you are happy to go so.

Some other questions which develop along that branch and require answers are.

Q: If an eternal immaterial entity (EIE) decides to create the aforementioned other entities, why did it decide those?
Q: How did the EIE make it possible for the immaterial entities to be able to be captured by the material and experience said material in that way?
Q: Where did the EIE get the Material (particles) from in order to create material universes?

[The Tanager]

If so, the act of deciding involves time because it points to a specific event (one has decided) implying also that though was involved and thus "an amount of time" was spent.
How can you dovetail the concept "Time is the by-product, not a precondition." with your explanation as worded?

Q: How does an immaterial eternal entity which is static "decide" to create immaterial eternal entitles or material time based universes and place "these" into "them" without also having to have spent time thoughtfully coming to such decision?

I disagree. You are describing how a temporal being would think/decide. I see nothing logically contradictory about a timeless being also being able to think/decide but to do so without the same implication of time.

The Kalam is not being discussed (at least not that I am aware of) as I was under the impression you had placed that to one side while we were sorting this concept of a necessary immaterial eternal cause.

We are laser focusing in on specific aspect of my defense of that argument. It's only through the reasoning coming with the Kalam that I'm filling out that this is necessarily an immaterial eternal cause.

Yes. Presently I have questions which require answers before I can determine whether to change my thinking on that. Once those questions are answered, I will be able to answer you more sufficiently.

For now, I am simply trying to understand why you believe as you do, and so the discussion can continue down that track if you are happy to go so.

Okay.

Some other questions which develop along that branch and require answers are.

Q: If an eternal immaterial entity (EIE) decides to create the aforementioned other entities, why did it decide those?

It could be for any number of reasons, it seems to me.

Q: How did the EIE make it possible for the immaterial entities to be able to be captured by the material and experience said material in that way?

Are you talking about human souls here? Are you just wondering about my views or want me to take all the steps to defend why I believe that view? If so, I feel like that is far down the road of this discussion; relevant and important in general, but not to the specifics we've been talking about.

Q: Where did the EIE get the Material (particles) from in order to create material universes?

If matter couldn't be eternal (b/c of its very nature, like I've been arguing), then it would have to be created ex nihilo.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #307]

I disagree.

Okay.

You are describing how a temporal being would think/decide.

Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

I see nothing logically contradictory about a timeless being also being able to think/decide

Are you agreeing with me that my assessment of how a temporal being would think/decides?

but to do so without the same implication of time.

The implication is there though. Unless you want to explain how the EIE thinks and comes to a decision outside of time. You should be able to do so, since you have come to this conclusion that there is nothing logically contradictory about a timeless being also being able to think/decide.

We are laser focusing in on specific aspect of my defense of that argument. It's only through the reasoning coming with the Kalam that I'm filling out that this is necessarily an immaterial eternal cause.

We are focused on the 3. If there is more to the Kalam you would like to introduce re the defense of a necessary EIE, then do so.

Q: If an eternal immaterial entity (EIE) decides to create the aforementioned other entities, why did it decide those?

It could be for any number of reasons, it seems to me.

Then present those reasons, or at least the reason you think is most appropriate to this point of the discussion.

Q: How did the EIE make it possible for the immaterial entities to be able to be captured by the material and experience said material in that way?

Are you talking about human souls here?

I am talking about Immaterial Entities created be the EIE being able to be captured by a Material Entity (The Universe) and thereby being able to experience said physical environment. (The Universe).

This might include Human Consciousness. I am more interested in what immaterial entities were created (if any) prior to human beings, but the question still remains that if human souls are regarded by you to being immaterial entities, then yes - what enables such to be captured by a material environment?

To (loosely) use an analogy, if water was the "immaterial" aspect, and a wire basket was the material aspect, what allows the wire basket to hold the water that the water can experience the wire basket.

iwo how is the immaterial entity held in place by the material entity?

Are you just wondering about my views or want me to take all the steps to defend why I believe that view? If so, I feel like that is far down the road of this discussion; relevant and important in general, but not to the specifics we've been talking about.

It is simply a case of having to start somewhere re understanding your beliefs and why you have them, and this being a suitable enough point to spring from in (potential) a step by step manner.

Q: Where did the EIE get the Material (particles) from in order to create material universes?

If matter couldn't be eternal (b/c of its very nature, like I've been arguing), then it would have to be created ex nihilo.

Even so, it still had to come from somewhere and since it was created by your immaterial cause, and your immaterial cause is eternal, then either the material also existed (independently of the immaterial,) or comes from the eternal itself, in which case the eternal cannot be only immaterial.

[The Tanager]

Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

Yes. You are describing how a temporal being thinks/decides, not giving us any reason to think any being that thinks/decides must do so in that way.

The implication is there though. Unless you want to explain how the EIE thinks and comes to a decision outside of time. You should be able to do so, since you have come to this conclusion that there is nothing logically contradictory about a timeless being also being able to think/decide.

No, the implication isn't there unless. Temporality isn't the default. I don't have the burden to show why temporality isn't the implication; you have the burden to show it is a necessary piece. I see no reason to think a will deciding to do something must be temporal "before" making that decision.

Then present those reasons, or at least the reason you think is most appropriate to this point of the discussion.

I don't think any is logically more appropriate than another or that anything I've said requires an answer there. Do you think one is more appropriate?

I am talking about Immaterial Entities created be the EIE being able to be captured by a Material Entity (The Universe) and thereby being able to experience said physical environment. (The Universe).

This might include Human Consciousness. I am more interested in what immaterial entities were created (if any) prior to human beings, but the question still remains that if human souls are regarded by you to being immaterial entities, then yes - what enables such to be captured by a material environment?

To (loosely) use an analogy, if water was the "immaterial" aspect, and a wire basket was the material aspect, what allows the wire basket to hold the water that the water can experience the wire basket.

iwo how is the immaterial entity held in place by the material entity?

If the Creator can make particular matter hold together in a material place, why couldn't it make particular immaterial stuff hold together either on its own or connected with material stuff as well?

It is simply a case of having to start somewhere re understanding your beliefs and why you have them, and this being a suitable enough point to spring from in (potential) a step by step manner.

But our discussion was around a reason to believe in the supernatural. I'd like to stick with that.

Even so, it still had to come from somewhere and since it was created by your immaterial cause, and your immaterial cause is eternal, then either the material also existed (independently of the immaterial,) or comes from the eternal itself, in which case the eternal cannot be only immaterial.

Why does it have to come from somewhere? It didn't exist; then it did. But since non-existence isn't a thing, it's not a where that something can come from.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #309]

Are you disagreeing with my assessment?

Yes. You are describing how a temporal being thinks/decides, not giving us any reason to think any being that thinks/decides must do so in that way.

I am not the one proposing/arguing for the existence of any Immaterial Eternal Entity.

What other way there is to think and come to a place of making a decision hasn't been explained, therefore it is best to go with what is known about thinking and making decisions until such alternatives are given.

Simply assuming that a (supposed) EIE thinks and decides differently/outside of time and going along with that isn't enough.

The implication is there though. Unless you want to explain how the EIE thinks and comes to a decision outside of time. You should be able to do so, since you have come to this conclusion that there is nothing logically contradictory about a timeless being also being able to think/decide.

No, the implication isn't there unless. Temporality isn't the default. I don't have the burden to show why temporality isn't the implication; you have the burden to show it is a necessary piece. I see no reason to think a will deciding to do something must be temporal "before" making that decision.

No. Since it has already been agreed by us that the cause must be eternal, eternal is the default. However, we can assume that the moment this eternal entity started thinking it was no longer operating strictly outside of time, without having to think that it was no longer eternal, based on the idea that eternal beings can experience time and still be eternal.

If you want to argue that the eternal entity is not only immaterial but has always had thoughts leading to decisions, then we can examine ideas as to why it had the thought to create other immaterial beings and have them experience this particular universe it created and why it decided to do so.

Re that.

Q: Would you agree that the EIE created other Immaterial entities from itself?

Q: If an eternal immaterial entity (EIE) decides to create the aforementioned other entities, why did it decide those?

It could be for any number of reasons, it seems to me.

Then present those reasons, or at least the reason you think is most appropriate to this point of the discussion.

I don't think any is logically more appropriate than another or that anything I've said requires an answer there.

You do not think there is any reason for you to give reasons as to why you believe that the eternal cause would decide to create other entities?

Do you think one is more appropriate?

I think offering no reason is inappropriate for a belief to be expressed as a truth.
Without at least two examples from you, I cannot say "one" is more appropriate than "the other" since no reasons have been given at all.

I could give reasons why I think an eternal material cause might create an entity which was material and could exist eternally, so maybe we could offer one at least one reason we could both agree with, regardless of whether the eternal cause was material or immaterial?

Otherwise, we can place the question aside until a more suitable moment in time might present itself.

If the Creator can make particular matter hold together in a material place, why couldn't it make particular immaterial stuff hold together either on its own or connected with material stuff as well?

The question isn't why it couldn't but how it can.
We know how it could be achieved if the eternal entity was material as it would not be an issue. We already know much about how material (particles) interact in order to bring about the result of material objects (stars, planets, galaxies, dark matter antimatter space et al) as the material is available in and of itself, to do so.

Again, if there is no answer to said question right now, we can place it aside to be asked at a possible future time.

But our discussion was around a reason to believe in the supernatural. I'd like to stick with that.

We are sticking with that. We have just been using the word "immaterial" to denote a super-to-natural state of being and poking around in the conceptuality of such in order to ask question which provide logical rational meaningful dialog in the form of questioning your beliefs as a supernaturalist.

My questions re that are an effort to stick with that, but not at the cost of ignoring the elephant in the room (the universe) and the fact that it consists solely of material and has no known immateriality within it, yet it is your belief (or the belief of supernaturalism) that an immaterial entity created it, rather than a material one.

That is why I am asking you if you can answer the natural enough questions which arise from your beliefs. That is why I assume you have asked yourself those questions as part of the process of formulating said beliefs you have.

Even so, it still had to come from somewhere and since it was created by your immaterial cause, and your immaterial cause is eternal, then either the material also existed (independently of the immaterial,) or comes from the eternal itself, in which case the eternal cannot be only immaterial.

Why does it have to come from somewhere?

As my comment infers, it needn't come from somewhere, as it could come from some thing and if that thing is the eternal entity, then the entity must at least also consist of material so cannot be said to be solely immaterial.

It didn't exist; then it did.

"Abracadabra" cannot be accepted at face value. One cannot just claim that an eternal immaterial entity simply thought particles (material) into existence without also supplying a logical rational answers to questions which arise from said belief.

But since non-existence isn't a thing, it's not a where that something can come from.

What do you mean "non-existence isn't a thing"? How can an eternal cause create a material universe by first thinking and then deciding to do so - when the material didn't exist (was non existent/not a thing) and then did begin to exist? It is like declaring the once non existent material isn't a thing until it is, but an eternal immaterial is a thing even that it doesn't consist of anything/is immaterial.

If it is not a "where" that something comes from, we can suppose it is a "what". And if that "what" is as you claim - "an eternal immaterial entity" this allows for me to argue that the entity cannot be solely made of immaterial but (at least) also is made of material.

I am not saying that this is what you are arguing, but rather that you are sparce with your explanations on how such can be achieved re your belief that this is the way things happened.

Also, it underlines why it is far better to think that the eternal cause is material as such provides one with a rational and logical way in which to explain how why material exists and how said material was used to create our universe from/out of. Pre-existing particles which are what make up the eternal entity cause.

Which is also to say it is not a case of "mind AND matter" but "mindful matter"' which also allows for us to explain rationally and logically how something can be mindfully thought about and decided upon, and how the material existed in which to turn the though into reality (make our universe begin to exist and perhaps also designed never to end - be an eternal entity).

So yes indeed, we can continue with your theory of supernaturalism and explore the reasons why you believe in it, but in order to do so, the questions created re the belief would have to be answered - or at the very least attempted to be answered, even if the answer turns out to be a firm "I don't know". (Then we can proceed with exploring an Agnostic view on the idea of a material eternal cause and see if questions which arise from that, can be answered).