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.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

How has science demonstrated this? Remember, we consider the energy that creates quantum particles, etc. as material. Energy as in E=MC^2, not energy as in "My Chakra energy is all Fung Shuied up because I got the wrong crystal from my Psychic."

So he existed eternally, timelessly with the idea that he'd create something from nothing?

[The Tanager]

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?

It is a logical contradiction for an EIE to be created if the ‘eternal’ part refers to it having always existed (i.e., whether it had a beginning or not). If you mean ‘eternal’ in will exist forevermore sense, then I agree there is no logical contradiction.

As to whether the EIEC is the direct, immediate cause of the spatio-temporal universe, I am not making that claim one way or the other. I am simply saying it must be the ultimate cause, no matter if it is the direct, immediate cause or not.

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.

Your phrasing was that particles are created from that which did not exist. I agree, if understood properly. In other words, that is my belief if you aren’t considering the italicized concept of being some kind of ‘stuff’ that constitutes a prior material cause for matter, like marble constitutes a prior positive material out of which a statue could be made.

[The Tanager]

How has science demonstrated this? Remember, we consider the energy that creates quantum particles, etc. as material. Energy as in E=MC^2, not energy as in "My Chakra energy is all Fung Shuied up because I got the wrong crystal from my Psychic."

I definitely could be understanding it wrong, but it seems to me that the energy is still particles that are in constant motion, not a static thing.

So he existed eternally, timelessly with the idea that he'd create something from nothing?

As long as the time-based language doesn’t fool us. “That he’d create” notes something he would do in the future, which is temporal language.

[William]

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?

It is a logical contradiction for an EIE to be created if the ‘eternal’ part refers to it having always existed (i.e., whether it had a beginning or not). If you mean ‘eternal’ in will exist forevermore sense, then I agree there is no logical contradiction.

As to whether the EIEC is the direct, immediate cause of the spatio-temporal universe, I am not making that claim one way or the other. I am simply saying it must be the ultimate cause, no matter if it is the direct, immediate cause or not.

Yes we agree on that point that it is eternal in the sense that it was created to be eternal so it had a beginning.
On the 2nd Point attached to that one we need to work it out to a point of agreement which I don't think we have quite reached but perhaps we have and you can tell me if you agree with the following.

Are you saying that the EIEC exists as the cause of all things created, even if not directly or is not the cause of the universe being created and we are experiencing, since a fundamentally different being to itself could have created the universe?

(I say fundamentally different to acknowledge your argument that EIE are made of the immaterial not sourced directly with the EIEC .)

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.

Your phrasing was that particles are created from that which did not exist. I agree, if understood properly. In other words, that is my belief if you aren’t considering the italicized concept of being some kind of ‘stuff’ that constitutes a prior material cause for matter, like marble constitutes a prior positive material out of which a statue could be made.

Perhaps the problem with that is the word "from"?

[alexxcJRO]

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.

But it is not influence then.
If the choice is tied or chained in some way it is not free. If the choice is not tied or chained in some way then it is not influenced and ergo free.
You cannot have influence by external things and free will. You cannot have it both way.

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.

That does not make any sense. I don't understand.

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.

“Incompatibilists hold that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive and, consequently, that we act freely (i.e., with free will) only if determinism is false. However, they disagree amongst themselves about what else, besides indeterminism, is required for free will. One question that divides them concerns which type of indeterminism—uncaused events, nondeterministically caused events, or agent caused events—is required. Another concerns where in the processes leading to action indeterminism must be located in order for an action to be free. Different answers to these questions yield different incompatibilist theories of free will.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/inco ... -theories/

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.

Tanager: “An explanation for the cause is either scientific or personal. ... the natural world didn’t exist until it was caused by this explanation”

False dichotomy.
There is only the natural world. Although some parts of the natural world are caused and had a beginning(our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe) the omniverse does not have a cause or beginning.
The first cause is a mindless, natural force of Chaos-objective randomness and rests in the uncaused and beginningless omniverse.

Tanager: “The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds”

False dichotomy.
Previously on alexxcJRO: “maybe parts of the "omniverse" which are not temporal and gave rise to our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe.”

Tanager: “An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect. “
Assertion.

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?

Psychopathy is innate(genetically linked, herritable) as I shown before.
Psychopathy like genetics diseases leads to Gratuitous suffering for they cannot be justified by any morally good reasons.
If psychopathy or genetics diseases would not exist the world would would be an objectively better world in the good sense.
The non-existence of psychopathy or genetics diseases would not make the world an objectively worse world in the bad-evil sense.

[boatsnguitars]

How has science demonstrated this? Remember, we consider the energy that creates quantum particles, etc. as material. Energy as in E=MC^2, not energy as in "My Chakra energy is all Fung Shuied up because I got the wrong crystal from my Psychic."

I definitely could be understanding it wrong, but it seems to me that the energy is still particles that are in constant motion, not a static thing.

So he existed eternally, timelessly with the idea that he'd create something from nothing?

As long as the time-based language doesn’t fool us. “That he’d create” notes something he would do in the future, which is temporal language.

I think the key problem you have is that "making something from nothing." No?

[William]

How has science demonstrated this? Remember, we consider the energy that creates quantum particles, etc. as material. Energy as in E=MC^2, not energy as in "My Chakra energy is all Fung Shuied up because I got the wrong crystal from my Psychic."

I definitely could be understanding it wrong, but it seems to me that the energy is still particles that are in constant motion, not a static thing.

So he existed eternally, timelessly with the idea that he'd create something from nothing?

As long as the time-based language doesn’t fool us. “That he’d create” notes something he would do in the future, which is temporal language.

I think the key problem you have is that "making something from nothing." No?

Perhaps explaining how something immaterial can create particles (that which is material) and have these make there own space outside of an eternal immaterial non-substance non-thing is necessary but also difficult?

Part of the solution is in giving the EIEC a mind/mindfulness which is perhaps an explanation of sorts re its property of immateriality. Perhaps it is only mind? THat appears to be the argument.

Assuming then that this mind has always existed and behaves as a mind does (thinks and makes decisions) it is in the deciding phase of the minds goings-on which is perplexing.

How does a decided mind go about creating a material which previously did not exist? Obviously the material exists, so we are asking for an explanation of how the mind would have achieved creating the universe and make it so the universe is also in a space of it own outside of said mind which created it?

[The Tanager]

Yes we agree on that point that it is eternal in the sense that it was created to be eternal so it had a beginning.
On the 2nd Point attached to that one we need to work it out to a point of agreement which I don't think we have quite reached but perhaps we have and you can tell me if you agree with the following.

Are you saying that the EIEC exists as the cause of all things created, even if not directly or is not the cause of the universe being created and we are experiencing, since a fundamentally different being to itself could have created the universe?

I’m saying it is definitely the First Cause. I think it could be the direct cause or there could be an intermediate cause that is directly responsible for creating spatio-temporal matter. I think it is the direct cause, but I don’t think the reasoning around the Kalam shows that and, so, it hasn’t been a part of my claims here.

Perhaps the problem with that is the word "from"?

I do think that is a cause of confusion for many. I’m open to better phrasings that would avoid that or other confusions.

[The Tanager]

But it is not influence then.
If the choice is tied or chained in some way it is not free. If the choice is not tied or chained in some way then it is not influenced and ergo free.
You cannot have influence by external things and free will. You cannot have it both way.

I think that is a false dichotomy. I think there are three options: complete freedom, freedom within constrained options, and complete determinism. To me ‘influence’ describes the second one, but I’m open to a better word.

I’m trying to think of an analogy and not coming up with a good one off the top of my head. Let’s say I ask you to tell me a number and if you do so, I’ll give you $1000 dollars. You have complete freedom to give me any number you want. That’s one option. Another option is that I ask you to tell me a number, but require that you tell me the number 62. That’s like determinism. But there is a third option. I want you to tell me a number between 1 and 10. I’m constraining the number you can give me, so you don’t have complete freedom. I would say I’m influencing the number you give me, but not determining it.

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.

That does not make any sense. I don't understand.

I think our genes, our social environment constrain the choices open to us, but that there are still limited options we can freely choose from. So, the resulting decision is built upon nature, nurture, and our own will.

”Incompatibilists hold that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive and, consequently, that we act freely (i.e., with free will) only if determinism is false. However, they disagree amongst themselves about what else, besides indeterminism, is required for free will. One question that divides them concerns which type of indeterminism—uncaused events, nondeterministically caused events, or agent caused events—is required. Another concerns where in the processes leading to action indeterminism must be located in order for an action to be free. Different answers to these questions yield different incompatibilist theories of free will.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/inco ... -theories/

I think there might be an (unintended) equivocation on ‘indeterminism’. Indeterminism is often taken to mean “the doctrine that not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes” but notice what the question says above in this quote (bolded above). One of the options named is “agent caused events”. That wouldn’t fit the Oxford Languages definition of ‘indeterminism’ I just gave because the agent would be the antecedent cause. So, yes, it is non-deterministic (or the first use of ‘indeterminism’) but not this second one.

Tanager: “An explanation for the cause is either scientific or personal. ... the natural world didn’t exist until it was caused by this explanation”

False dichotomy.
There is only the natural world. Although some parts of the natural world are caused and had a beginning(our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe) the omniverse does not have a cause or beginning.
The first cause is a mindless, natural force of Chaos-objective randomness and rests in the uncaused and beginningless omniverse.

Realize that these arguments for the Cause being personal follow various arguments already given. It builds upon a conclusion that the natural world (even in an omniverse sense) is temporal and, therefore, must have had a beginning and, therefore, must have a cause that is outside of the natural world. So, your disagreement is earlier in the argument, not here.

Tanager: “The only sorts of entities that transcend space-time are abstract objects like numbers and minds”

False dichotomy.
Previously on alexxcJRO: “maybe parts of the "omniverse" which are not temporal and gave rise to our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe.”

Are you saying this ‘omniverse’ is an abstract object? I thought you were saying it was physical.

Tanager: “An eternal impersonal cause would have to produce an eternal effect. “
Assertion.

An assertion that was then followed up by reasoning.

Psychopathy is innate(genetically linked, herritable) as I shown before.
Psychopathy like genetics diseases leads to Gratuitous suffering for they cannot be justified by any morally good reasons.
If psychopathy or genetics diseases would not exist the world would would be an objectively better world in the good sense.
The non-existence of psychopathy or genetics diseases would not make the world an objectively worse world in the bad-evil sense.

I asked why psychopathy is gratuitous; you’ve simply responded that it leads to it. Why?

[The Tanager]

I think the key problem you have is that "making something from nothing." No?

I’m not sure what you are asking here. Are you saying I see a problem with it and that’s why I hold my belief? Are you saying my belief that one can make something from nothing is the problem? Something else?