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.

[William]

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.

Okay so in that you are saying that you might not agree but you cannot disagree?

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 difficulty is in doing so...
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 and difficult to accomplish.

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 now exists. 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.

[boatsnguitars]

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?

Yes, I'd like you to explain how an unembodied mind can create Matter.

I propose Matter always existed, and only a few physical properties, like gravity, etc. explain Life, The Universe and Everything.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

But this analogy does not work with your initial phrases: "These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."
Saying past experiences influences future actions, choices is not choosing something between limited available choices, its not freedom within constrained options.

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.

You said: "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused".

Changing like the weather.
It can be a form of indeterminism used in Free Will philosophy as shown.
I used the form of indeterminism-uncaused for my logical argument.
It's like with the theory of time, interpretation of quantum mechanics which are very heavy debated subjects where there is no conclusive answer of what is the reality.
Posing a problem for the KALAM because there is no rational and compelling reason for affirming in the positive that certain hypothesis is true.

Observation:
I do not have any positive belief for any interpretation of quantum mechanics, for any theory of time, for any free will hypothesis

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.

Q: Am I speaking Chinesse?

Did I not said: "maybe parts of the "omniverse" which are not temporal and gave rise to our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe.”
The omniverse maybe is uncaused and beginningless. Only some parts are temporal and caused and have beginnings.

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

Q: Where in that: “maybe parts of the "omniverse" which are not temporal and gave rise to our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe.” is saying the omniverse is an abstract object, does not have any physicality?

An assertion that was then followed up by reasoning.

Giving an example from our local universe and concluding everywhere in the omniverse things are similar.
Laughable. Non-sequitur.
Look at quantum mechanics how counterintuitive it is.

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

Q: How is it not clear?

The suffering that results from Psychopathy and Genetics diseases is Gratuitous Suffering for it cannot be justified by any morally good reasons.

[The Tanager]

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.

Okay so in that you are saying that you might not agree but you cannot disagree?

I’m saying that it isn’t logically impossible that there are intermediate causes, but I believe God is the direct cause because of a chain of reasoning (which stems from the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus into various Christian claims, one of which is God as the direct cause).

The difficulty is in doing so...
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 and difficult to accomplish.

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 now exists. 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.

Yes, I'd like you to explain how an unembodied mind can create Matter.

I just don’t see any logical difficulty here. What kind of explanation are you expecting? How would you two describe anything creating something? Perhaps that could help me see the problem you are raising.

[The Tanager]

But this analogy does not work with your initial phrases: "These wants are affected by their personality and past experiences, but those two things were also previously affected by their previous will/wants."
Saying past experiences influences future actions, choices is not choosing something between limited available choices, its not freedom within constrained options.

I don’t understand why you think it doesn’t work. I’m exactly saying that those past experiences limit the available choices, but still allows freedom within the constrained options. Analogically, the numbers I can tell you have been limited (or even broadened) by my genes, environment, and previous choices within that situation.

You said: "Free will is not indeterminism-uncaused".

Changing like the weather.
It can be a form of indeterminism used in Free Will philosophy as shown.
I used the form of indeterminism-uncaused for my logical argument.

I clarified two senses of indeterminism that are pertinent to this discussion; that’s not changing what I said. If you don’t keep the context clear, your conclusions will not be rational.

It's like with the theory of time, interpretation of quantum mechanics which are very heavy debated subjects where there is no conclusive answer of what is the reality.
Posing a problem for the KALAM because there is no rational and compelling reason for affirming in the positive that certain hypothesis is true.

Observation:
I do not have any positive belief for any interpretation of quantum mechanics, for any theory of time, for any free will hypothesis

If one is arguing for 100% certainty, I agree, but I’m not. I’m going for what is the best, most rational inference. Logically possible interpretations aren’t enough to knock the Kalam’s conclusion from being the best inference.

Q: Am I speaking Chinesse?

Did I not said: "maybe parts of the "omniverse" which are not temporal and gave rise to our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe.”
The omniverse maybe is uncaused and beginningless. Only some parts are temporal and caused and have beginnings.

I have no idea what your “omniverse” is. The cause, already argued for, is not temporal…not just parts wasn’t temporal, but the whole wasn’t temporal. So, if the omniverse is part temporal, then it has already been ruled out.

Q: Where in that: “maybe parts of the "omniverse" which are not temporal and gave rise to our temporal 4 dimensional manifold which makes our local universe.” is saying the omniverse is an abstract object, does not have any physicality?

Hence my confusion when you respond to an argument that says the cause must be an abstract object and the only abstract objects we know are like numbers or minds, with those like numbers having no causal powers.

Giving an example from our local universe and concluding everywhere in the omniverse things are similar.
Laughable. Non-sequitur.
Look at quantum mechanics how counterintuitive it is.

We are talking about being rational. Your defense here is that maybe this omniverse goes against all logic we use to think about reality. It’s blind faith. Blind faith isn’t rational, especially faith that goes against logic, which extends to any thoughts we could have. You are even trying to use logic to argue that logic may not apply; it’s self-defeating.

Q: How is it not clear?

The suffering that results from Psychopathy and Genetics diseases is Gratuitous Suffering for it cannot be justified by any morally good reasons.

Why isn’t “I will benefit” a morally good reason? You are just arguing in a circle.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

Okay so in that you are saying that you might not agree but you cannot disagree?

I’m saying that it isn’t logically impossible that there are intermediate causes, but I believe God is the direct cause because of a chain of reasoning (which stems from the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus into various Christian claims, one of which is God as the direct cause).

The difficulty is in doing so...
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 and difficult to accomplish.

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 now exists. 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.

Yes, I'd like you to explain how an unembodied mind can create Matter.

I just don’t see any logical difficulty here. What kind of explanation are you expecting? How would you two describe anything creating something? Perhaps that could help me see the problem you are raising.

I'd describe it as science describes it: existing matter organize into a new form. A table is created from atoms.

I don't see any of this stuff you say created the matter, and I don't see anything that matter has created as outside explanatory power. For example Consciousness, concepts. Etc, all are explainable without inventing some new reality.

I'm rather surprised that you have been on this forum this long and still don't understand materialism.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #334]

I just don’t see any logical difficulty here. What kind of explanation are you expecting?

One that justifies the belief that the EIEC must be necessarily immaterial. An explanation is expected re how how an immaterial mind can create particles (that which is material) and have these make there own space outside of an eternal immaterial non-substance non-thing which is mindful.

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 you are giving.)

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 now exists. 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 its own outside of said mind which created it.

That is what you are claiming isn't it?

[The Tanager]

I'd describe it as science describes it: existing matter organize into a new form. A table is created from atoms.

Okay, then: matter coming into existence where there was nothing. Matter has no material cause (i.e., isn’t created from anything else). Same kind of explanation that you just gave.

I don't see any of this stuff you say created the matter,

It would be illogical to expect to see what created matter since the immaterial isn’t seen in that way.

and I don't see anything that matter has created as outside explanatory power. For example Consciousness, concepts. Etc, all are explainable without inventing some new reality.

I don’t think that is explainable without inventing some new reality. I know materialists try and think they can explain it, but I think their explanations fail. If you want to try the explanation, I’ll engage with it.

[The Tanager]

One that justifies the belief that the EIEC must be necessarily immaterial. An explanation is expected re how how an immaterial mind can create particles (that which is material) and have these make there own space outside of an eternal immaterial non-substance non-thing which is mindful.

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 you are giving.)

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 now exists. 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 its own outside of said mind which created it.

That is what you are claiming isn't it?

Basically, yes. But in responding to my request for the type of explanation you are wanting, all you did is repeat what brought that request from me. That’s not moving the discussion forward rationally. Boatsnguitars was able to answer that to move the discussion forward; please do the same.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #339]

Basically, yes.

Okay.

1. You believe the EIEC is a mind - specifically The Mind which created particles and other EIE's.
2. You have no answer to how said EIEC created matter, or other minds but is is not something your beliefs need an answer for. You don't need to know how (thus explain how) because your beliefs allow for this.

Would you agree then, that you cannot explain how and regardless of your beliefs, (perhaps even because of them) the truth is you have no explanation because your beliefs mean you do not need to have an explanation?

If so, then we can leave your claim as is - unsupported by explanation - but complete as it is, as being an acceptable position as far as you are concerned, and I will offer my own thinking (also not based upon logical contradiction) with the additional explanation as to how the EIEC was able to create The Universe.