The "Supernatural": Burden of Proof?

[boatsnguitars]

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

Argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note: Arguments from Ignorance will be summarily dismissed.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Offering choices is not influencing, affecting a choice. LOL.
You did not influenced her. Failed analogy.
Influencing would have been if your actions influenced her towards certain choice.

Yes, but if your personality didn't develop deterministically 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.

1.
Core personality traits are innate. The rest is epigenetic. Still external forces.
So far determinism.
My brother is lazy and slow in every actions he does since he was small.
I am the opposite since small. Some things are innate and determined.
This together with what you said points to determinism. Still bogus.

2.
Even if personality did not develop deterministically. What you said is determinism.

"These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."
The rest of things happen as you described deterministically because of past things, influenced by external factors: past things(personality, past experiences, previous wants and choices).

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.

Quote yourself and put it here please. Maybe I missed it.

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?

Don't bore me with irrelevant nonsense.
Sir we are not talking of going back in time and killing baby Hitler(in a painless manner) to achieve a much greater good: avoid the Holocaust and millions die in WW2.

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

[The Tanager]

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.

But you did propose a critique of my argument, namely, that thinking necessarily requires temporality. I don’t see how it does. Thinking is simply the use of ideas, opinions, or rational judgment. That remains whether one thinks of a temporal process or if one doesn’t. If it isn’t a logical contradiction to combine ‘thinking’ with a ‘timeless’ being, then there isn’t any problem. Of course, that doesn’t mean such a being exists, but it does mean there isn’t any logical problem with such a being existing, which directly contradicts the critique you proposed.

And I’m not assuming anything. If the arguments point to the existence of an immaterial, eternal existence and a timeless thinking being isn’t shown to be logically contradictory, then the arguments remain in force.

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.

We cannot assume that; we need some reason to connect thinking necessarily with temporality to rationally think that. I see none.

Also, you are conflating different senses of ‘eternal’ again. A being that experiences time cannot be eternal (in the ‘timeless’ sense, which is what we are focusing on right now).

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

No. I think they would have been created, that is, made from no ‘stuff’ that pre-existed.

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

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?

Correct. I don’t see the relevance to the claim I’m defending, namely, that the EIE exists.

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.

I don’t see the relevance of how the Creator can make the immaterial hold together to the claim I’m defending, namely, that the EIE exists. If I was arguing that the Creator was material, I wouldn’t see the rational need to explain how the Creator could make the material world hold together either.

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.

I don’t see why one needs to ask how it works questions before answering the that it exists question. Your questions seem secondary (in context of this thread) how questions that don’t impact the arguments for/against the that question.

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.

But there are different senses of coming from something. My belief is that the material world came from God (efficient causation) but came from nothing (material causation).

"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.

I see no reason to believe that having no material cause is an example of “abracadabra”.

What do you mean "non-existence isn't a thing"?

What do you mean? Non-existence is, by definition, an absence of the 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,

The once non-existent material absolutely isn’t a thing until it is. That’s simple logic. The alternative would be for it to be a thing before it is a thing.

but an eternal immaterial is a thing even that it doesn't consist of anything/is immaterial.

What? Are you defining ‘immaterial’ as ‘not consisting of anything’? If so, why in the world should one do that?

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.

Then argue it. Give support. I see absolutely no reason (and have noticed none from you) to rationally argue for that. All I truly see is you asserting that. If I missed it, I’m sorry, could you try again?

[The Tanager]

Offering choices is not influencing, affecting a choice. LOL.
You did not influenced her. Failed analogy.
Influencing would have been if your actions influenced her towards certain choice.

They would not have known about the option they ended up choosing without me. They were completely unaware of that place until I told them about it. How is that not influencing their choice? How do you define ‘influence’?

1.
Core personality traits are innate. The rest is epigenetic. Still external forces.
So far determinism.

My brother is lazy and slow in every actions he does since he was small.
I am the opposite since small. Some things are innate and determined.
This together with what you said points to determinism. Still bogus.

2.
Even if personality did not develop deterministically. What you said is determinism.

"These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."
The rest of things happen as you described deterministically because of past things, influenced by external factors: past things(personality, past experiences, previous wants and choices).

Do you have any support for this claim? Right now it’s just an assertion. Yes, if determinism is true, then your explanation is true but that’s because you are simply describing a deterministic narrative, not showing the narrative is correct.

Quote yourself and put it here please. Maybe I missed it.

The first of it was in post 126.

Don't bore me with irrelevant nonsense.
Sir we are not talking of going back in time and killing baby Hitler(in a painless manner) to achieve a much greater good: avoid the Holocaust and millions die in WW2.

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

Asking you to say more than “it’s wrong because it can’t be justified” is irrelevant nonsense? I’m not talking about Pete trying to avoid a future holocaust or anything like that. It is only Pete that will benefit from killing (as humanely as possible) the baby. Pete thinks that is a good enough reason to kill the baby. We don’t. Why is Pete wrong? What justification for that judgment can you give?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #312]

Okay.

So just to make sure I am understanding your argument completely, I will go through the claims you have made based upon the fact that the universe exists and had a beginning.

1. This means that the cause is eternal
2. This means that the cause is immaterial non-material/matter.
3. This means that the cause is a mindful entity
4. This means that before things were created all that existed was the cause.

Related to that are the following claims.

5. The cause (Eternal Immaterial Entity Cause EIEC) has also created other EIE's.
6. The EIEC created particles which enabled it to create our universe which is made of particles.
7. The other EIE's are not created from the same immaterial that the EIEC consists of.
8. Particle's (material/matter) are created from that which did not exist, because the EIEC has the ability to do this.
9. You do not know if an EIE can experience time as you have not thought about that.

I think that covers most of what you have claimed so far, but if not please feel free to add anything I have not mentioned or correct me where I have misunderstood you.

Once you have done this and we both agree with the overall summarized points of claim above, we can move on to evaluating these claims in more detail.

(Edited to correct the numbered list)

[alexxcJRO]

They would not have known about the option they ended up choosing without me. They were completely unaware of that place until I told them about it. How is that not influencing their choice? How do you define ‘influence’?

Maybe I did not express myself correctly.

You did not influenced her to choose something from the available choices.
But you did influenced her to limit the choices to a certain number between all available choices or include your choices among her liked choices. She most likely values your input.

It is still determinism. We have multiple jointly sufficient causes(among which partially is your actions) which coupled together influenced a choice.

Free will would mean zero influence. Being not affected at all. Being able to choice without being affected/influenced by anything or anyone.

Do you have any support for this claim? Right now it’s just an assertion. Yes, if determinism is true, then your explanation is true but that’s because you are simply describing a deterministic narrative, not showing the narrative is correct.

1.
“Both nature and nurture can play a role in personality, although large-scale twin studies suggest that there is a strong genetic component.3

While the exact degree varies depending on the trait, genetics does have an influence on personality. Twin and adoption studies indicate that human personality is around 30% to 60% heritable.4
...
Research indicates that heritability explains around 40% to 60% of the variance in big five personality traits.9”
https://www.verywellmind.com/are-person ... nt-4120707

2.
You:"These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."

Affected means influenced by an external factor. Which is determinism.

Free will as in indeterminism-uncaused would mean not influenced by an external factor. Free will would mean zero influence. Being not affected at all. Being able to choice without being affected/influenced by anything or anyone.

The first of it was in post 126.

Q: Do you mean this:
"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."?

Asking you to say more than “it’s wrong because it can’t be justified” is irrelevant nonsense? I’m not talking about Pete trying to avoid a future holocaust or anything like that. It is only Pete that will benefit from killing (as humanely as possible) the baby. Pete thinks that is a good enough reason to kill the baby. We don’t. Why is Pete wrong? What justification for that judgment can you give?

It irrelevant what Peter thinks. Like its irrelevant if Pete thinks its ok to punish a non-moral agent.

Existence of psychopaths cannot be justified by any morally good reasons.
They inflict countless suffering for no morally good reason; for the suffering resulted from existence of psychopaths cannot be justified for their existence cannot be justified.
The suffering is Gratuitous suffering. Ergo it is wrong objectively.

[The Tanager]

1. This means that the cause is eternal
2. This means that the cause is immaterial non-material/matter.
3. This means that the cause is a mindful entity
4. This means that before things were created all that existed was the cause.

Yes, assuming ‘eternal’ in 1 means having always existed and assuming 2 means “the cause is immaterial (i.e., non-material or non-matter).

4. The cause (Eternal Immaterial Entity Cause EIEC) has also created other EIE's.

No, I don’t think the cause has also created other eternal immaterial entities, because something can’t be created and be eternal; they are antonyms in the above sense of (!).

5. The EIEC created particles which enabled it to create our universe which is made of particles.

Yes, it created material which eventually has been fashioned into what we observe today.

6. The other EIE's are not created from the same immaterial that the EIEC consists of.

Yes.

7. Particle's (material/matter) are created from that which did not exist, because the EIEC has the ability to do this.

Material isn’t created from that which did not exist like a statue is created from marble, if that is what you mean. Marble is the material cause. But the creation of matter didn’t have any prior material cause; that is what it means to be created from nothing.

8. You do not know if an EIE can experience time as you have not thought about that.

I don’t think it’s logically impossible for an EIE to experience reality temporally, but I’m uncertain whether it now experiences reality timelessly or temporally. I believe this not because I haven’t thought about it, but because I’ve thought a lot about it and think both sides make decent cases.

The thing I said I haven’t thought a ton about is whether creation involves a necessary real change in the creator or, like my son getting taller than me is a relational change that changes nothing about my nature, my self.

[The Tanager]

Maybe I did not express myself correctly.

You did not influenced her to choose something from the available choices.
But you did influenced her to limit the choices to a certain number between all available choices or include your choices among her liked choices. She most likely values your input.

It is still determinism. We have multiple jointly sufficient causes(among which partially is your actions) which coupled together influenced a choice.

Free will would mean zero influence. Being not affected at all. Being able to choice without being affected/influenced by anything or anyone.

That is not what most free will believers mean by free will. I’m talking about libertarian freedom, if you are aware of the philosophical literature. Libertarian free will is not that there is zero influence, but that in the midst of actual influence, you still have the freedom to choose one option or another.

1.
“Both nature and nurture can play a role in personality, although large-scale twin studies suggest that there is a strong genetic component.3

While the exact degree varies depending on the trait, genetics does have an influence on personality. Twin and adoption studies indicate that human personality is around 30% to 60% heritable.4
...
Research indicates that heritability explains around 40% to 60% of the variance in big five personality traits.9”
https://www.verywellmind.com/are-person ... nt-4120707

I, as a libertarian free willist, agree nature and nurture both play a role. I think our free will is a third thing that plays a role. These quotes don’t prove there isn’t that third role.

You:"These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."

Affected means influenced by an external factor. Which is determinism.

Free will as in indeterminism-uncaused would mean not influenced by an external factor. Free will would mean zero influence. Being not affected at all. Being able to choice without being affected/influenced by anything or anyone.

No, determinism is that something is forced or determined by an external factor, not that there is just an influence in certain directions. Our personality and “choices” have various influencing external factors that will sometimes compete with each other.

Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused; it’s a type of causation. It doesn’t mean not influenced by any external factors.

Q: Do you mean this:
"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."?

Yes.

It irrelevant what Peter thinks. Like its irrelevant if Pete thinks its ok to punish a non-moral agent.

Existence of psychopaths cannot be justified by any morally good reasons.
They inflict countless suffering for no morally good reason; for the suffering resulted from existence of psychopaths cannot be justified for their existence cannot be justified.
The suffering is Gratuitous suffering. Ergo it is wrong objectively.

I agree Pete thinking it doesn’t mean it’s true. But you are begging the question by calling him a psychopath OR begging the question by saying ‘pyschopathy’ is not able to be justified by any morally good reasons. Why is psychopathy bad?

[boatsnguitars]

1. This means that the cause is eternal
2. This means that the cause is immaterial non-material/matter.
3. This means that the cause is a mindful entity
4. This means that before things were created all that existed was the cause.

Yes, assuming ‘eternal’ in 1 means having always existed and assuming 2 means “the cause is immaterial (i.e., non-material or non-matter).

Why couldn't matter exist eternally, and "The Cause" be an influence on the already-existing Matter? Why must you be adamant that Matter can't exist without something to create Matter from Nothing?

It seems absurd to think there is just some "Cause" floating around for eternity that suddenly finds a way to create something from nothing.

[The Tanager]

Why couldn't matter exist eternally, and "The Cause" be an influence on the already-existing Matter? Why must you be adamant that Matter can't exist without something to create Matter from Nothing?

It seems absurd to think there is just some "Cause" floating around for eternity that suddenly finds a way to create something from nothing.

I think science shows matter to be temporal by its nature and, therefore, it couldn't exist eternally. Since it had a beginning, there must be something personal that gave it that beginning.

It is absurd to think there is some cause floating around for eternity because that treats eternity as though it is time. That sense of eternity is 'timeless' meaning it logically can't be that and floating around until it suddenly has a new thought on what to do.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #316]

1. This means that the cause is eternal
2. This means that the cause is immaterial non-material/matter.
3. This means that the cause is a mindful entity
4. This means that before things were created all that existed was the cause.

Yes, assuming ‘eternal’ in 1 means having always existed and assuming 2 means “the cause is immaterial (i.e., non-material or non-matter).

Since it is not a logical contradiction that something can be created to thereafter be eternal (exist forever more) we can retain that without messing with the assumption that the cause is eternal.
2. is meant as you argue it should mean.

4. The cause (Eternal Immaterial Entity Cause EIEC) has also created other EIE's.

No, I don’t think the cause has also created other eternal immaterial entities, because something can’t be created and be eternal; they are antonyms in the above sense of (!).

Since it is not a logical contradiction for the EIEC to be able to think about, and decide to create EIE's we can retain that without messing with the assumption that the cause is eternal. It does however place a question mark re whether it was the EIEC or a created EIE which created The Universe, so I can see why you would resist agreeing because your claim is specifically that because the universe exists and because it had a beginning it is not a logical contradiction to assume that the EIEC created the universe so to accept that is it also possible that an EIE (or even a number of EIE's) created The Universe would muck with your claim.
Do you want to drop the notion altogether that EIE's have been created at all by the EIEC?

6. The EIEC created particles which enabled it to create our universe which is made of particles.

Yes, it created material which eventually has been fashioned into what we observe today.

okay.

8. Particle's (material/matter) are created from that which did not exist, because the EIEC has the ability to do this.

Material isn’t created from that which did not exist like a statue is created from marble, if that is what you mean. Marble is the material cause. But the creation of matter didn’t have any prior material cause; that is what it means to be created from nothing.

Your reply doesn't make any sense to me. Please re-explain.

9. You do not know if an EIE can experience time as you have not thought about that.

I don’t think it’s logically impossible for an EIE to experience reality temporally, but I’m uncertain whether it now experiences reality timelessly or temporally. I believe this not because I haven’t thought about it, but because I’ve thought a lot about it and think both sides make decent cases.

Okay.

So for now there is some clarity and agreement still to be had on a couple of those points re what you believe and claim as true.