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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #370]

Why do you think this was part of my argument? There is a big disconnect here, if you think I used that to argue for an immaterial, timeless cause.

Since that is the laser focus of our difference in theistic philosophy, we should address that.

Okay, so why do you think I’ve argued that scientists believe the universe has completely stopped moving or ceased to exist?

1. You claimed that science seems to show that the universe is made of moving matter (temporal)
2. I pointed out that science isn't saying that because quantum string theory suggests that what brings particles into formation are vibrating strings. Thus the strings will still be moving even if particles which make up The Universe (temporal matter) cease to be.
3. This reduces matter to vibrating strings which produce no particles (thus no Universe bubble)
4. You claim the cause of the universe is an eternal immaterial entity (mind) This means that your cause is not the same as what science is saying is the cause of The Universe because quantum strings are still material.
5. I think that the cause of the universe is mindful matter, thus quantum strings would represent that mindful matter.

I don’t understand your argument. You will have to clarify.

Your argument seems to be that we have a cause (premise 3), then you posit one candidate for X that is that cause (premise 4) and then explain how there isn’t a contradiction. I agree there is no apparent contradiction because your 4-6 doesn’t lay out why the cause has to have certain characteristics that would be contradicted.

My approach is very different. I don’t jump to positing one possible candidate. In premise 4, I think we need to analyze what characteristics we can glean of this cause. Then, we can start whittling down the candidate list.

And I think the characteristics that emerge include it being immaterial for the reasons I’ve stated. If that is a characteristic found in premise 4, then your candidate doesn’t qualify, but we don’t see that because you don’t have arguments for the characteristics. You are missing that vital step.

Okay. I think the Eternal cause would have to be mindful. Do you think so? If we agree the we can make that 4. and flesh out why this would have to be a necessity.

After this we can move to 5. etc...

I am not saying science recognizes an immaterial cause. I’ve said that science CANNOT do such because science studies the material. I'm saying science shows matter to be temporal and, therefore, the cause of spatio-temporal matter must be immaterial for the philosophical reasons I've given.

We will cross that bridge in due course. First lets agree with whether the cause has to be mindful and why.

[William]

1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.
5. The EEMM was able to cause The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Matter which eternally vibrates (thus moves) and it is the movement in relation to the varying vibrations caused through mindfulness which causes particles to form from the eternal matter.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

[boatsnguitars]

You must be joking. Kalam doesn't address that kind of thing - unless you baldly assert it in your syllogism, which is meaningless.

Not the Kalam proper (the first 3 premises) but the extended analysis I've talked about in this thread. And I haven't just asserted it. I've given arguments for all the characteristics. That the cause is immaterial and the effect is material and temporal directly implies the creation of matter "from" nothing.

The extended analysis - you mean your opinion?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #373]

No, not just an opinion, but reasoned arguments that give us the inference to the best explanation.

[The Tanager]

1. You claimed that science seems to show that the universe is made of moving matter (temporal)
2. I pointed out that science isn't saying that because quantum string theory suggests that what brings particles into formation are vibrating strings. Thus the strings will still be moving even if particles which make up The Universe (temporal matter) cease to be.
3. This reduces matter to vibrating strings which produce no particles (thus no Universe bubble)
4. You claim the cause of the universe is an eternal immaterial entity (mind) This means that your cause is not the same as what science is saying is the cause of The Universe because quantum strings are still material.
5. I think that the cause of the universe is mindful matter, thus quantum strings would represent that mindful matter.

I must have missed the detail of that earlier, because the bit about string theory and its relation to the particles is new to my eyes from this thread. I apologize for that oversight. But I don’t understand how that theory would go against what I’m claiming. As I understand it, strings are still physical things, being the foundation of matter. These vibrating strings seems like an example of matter being in constant motion, which would mean they are necessarily temporal. Again, you shouldn’t be separating possible various forms in what I include in spatio-temporal matter; if string theory is true, they are the more fundamental layer of matter, but still material and still temporal, which calls out for a cause.

Okay. I think the Eternal cause would have to be mindful. Do you think so? If we agree the we can make that 4. and flesh out why this would have to be a necessity.

I agree it is mindful, but this would be like 4a, and we need to move to 4b, 4c, 4d, etc., before moving on to number 5. Everything I think that must be included in 4 are:

Uncaused, immaterial, timeless (at least prior to creating the ‘Universe’ which isn’t just this bubble), unimaginably powerful, and personal (which I think is your ‘mindful’).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #375]

I must have missed the detail of that earlier, because the bit about string theory and its relation to the particles is new to my eyes from this thread. I apologize for that oversight.

String theory has been around since 1968. You have not factored this into the Kalam?

But I don’t understand how that theory would go against what I’m claiming.

What you are claiming appears to be based upon religious belief, rather than those three items...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Again, you shouldn’t be separating possible various forms in what I include in spatio-temporal matter; if string theory is true, they are the more fundamental layer of matter, but still material and still temporal, which calls out for a cause.

No. There is no reason why something which moves but doesn't move at frequencies which cause particles to come from itself until it does so, should not be regarded as a cause of The Universe.

I think of this along the lines of when the vibrating of the quantum field where no particle emerges from its vibration, that is the "thinking" aspect of the mindfulness and when the decision to "do" the creating happens, that is when the vibrating changes in order that the doing can be done - which is - the particles come forth and are built upon through the various vibrations which take place in order to create various particles which build upon and interact with each other, causing The Universe to begin through being organised into various objects made of condensed particles.

In that way, one does not have to speculate that particles were created out of nothing.

I think the Eternal cause would have to be mindful. Do you think so? If we agree the we can make that 4. and flesh out why this would have to be a necessity.

I agree it is mindful, but this would be like 4a, and we need to move to 4b, 4c, 4d, etc., before moving on to number 5.

I would either make that 4 outright or 3a, (therefore the universe has a cause) therefore 3a. The cause must be mindful.

Everything I think that must be included in 4 are:

Uncaused, immaterial, timeless (at least prior to creating the ‘Universe’ which isn’t just this bubble), unimaginably powerful, and personal (which I think is your ‘mindful’).

Which - as I have pointed out a couple of times, is where we branch away from the 3 points of the Kalam.

The Kalam.
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Natural Theism.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused creator of the universe existed before the universe and is eternal, mindful, and enormously powerful.
Therefore this Eternal Entity of Mindful Matter caused The Universe bubble.
5. The EEMM was able to cause The Universe bubble from its own makeup, because the makeup of the entity is (consists of) Eternal Matter which eternally vibrates (thus moves) and it is the movement in relation to the varying vibrations caused through mindfulness which causes particles to form from the eternal matter.
6. The EEMM has never been "timeless" in any way except in the sense of being eternal.

The Kalam.
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Christian Theism?
4.Uncaused, immaterial, timeless unimaginably powerful, and personal.
5.?
6.?
7.?
8...?

I am unsure as to why Christianity (or any other religion) has to have a belief that the cause needs to be all of those things you mention in your item 4. but clearly the Kalam itself does not imply this belief is necessary. It is just how Christians (and other religions) have felt it necessary to superimpose the belief onto the Kalam.

So where we do agree with 4. are uncaused, unimaginably powerful, and personal. (or mindful as I refer to it.)

Where we disagree, (branch away) is that the cause is "immaterial and timeless" (although, as I said, if by "timeless" one means "eternal", then okay....) let's call it "eternal" rather than "timeless" (as I have done in my 4.)

(...prior to creating the ‘Universe’ which isn’t just this bubble)

The Kalam does not mention what it means by "The Universe" (as being anything but this bubble) and furthermore, we have already agreed that we are specifically talking about this Universe bubble.

[alexxcJRO]

I agree you were doing that and my response doesn’t change.

Q: Then what was with that response which betray otherwise?

Type in “compel definition” and you get: “force or oblige (someone) to do something. That is what I said and what you called religion breaking people’s minds.

I was talking of compelling: convincing, overwhelming (evidence).


compelling
/kəmˈpɛlɪŋ/
adjective
adjective: compelling
evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.
"his eyes were strangely compelling"
Similar:
enthralling
captivating
gripping
engrossing
riveting
spellbinding
entrancing
transfixing
mesmerizing
hypnotic
mesmeric
absorbing
fascinating
thrilling
irresistible
addictive
unputdownable
Opposite:
boring
not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction.
"there is compelling evidence that the recession is ending"
Similar:
convincing
persuasive
cogent
irresistible
forceful
powerful
potent
strong
weighty
plausible
credible
effective
efficacious
sound
valid
reasonable
reasoned
well reasoned
rational
well founded
telling
conclusive
irrefutable
unanswerable
authoritative
influential
Opposite:
weak
not able to be resisted; overwhelming.

compelling
adjective
com·​pel·​ling kəm-ˈpe-liŋ
Synonyms of compelling
: that compels: such as
a
: FORCEFUL
a compelling personality
a compelling desire
b
: demanding attention
for compelling reasons
The novel was so compelling that I couldn't put it down.
c
: CONVINCING
no compelling evidence

How am I assuming the 4-dimensional manifold?

The assumption that 4-dimensional manifold temporal universe is the only thing material.

Indeterminate-uncaused? Because the libertarian will has a cause.

Which is a not a given.
Not according to the Free Will hypothesis I used.

No, some interpretations tell us that, not reason.

I think everyone agree if honest QM is counter-intuitive with things that goes against our intuitions about what should happen.

What is wrong with this kind of hypocrisy? You still haven’t grounded why Pete’s pleasure at the expense of the child is bad; you just keep stating it different ways. Self-pleasure no matter what happens to another can be perfectly consistent.

Nonsense.
There is no consistency. Therefore we cannot have a consistent moral system.
Therefore we cannot have a moral good reason to some certain system of morality.
Cenobites like mentality is consistent. Psychopathy does not give one for its a malfunctioning of the brain. A disease.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #373]

No, not just an opinion, but reasoned arguments that give us the inference to the best explanation.

What are your qualifications to assess the scientific data, perform valid and sound logical arguments; understand and analyze the problem at a level that is beyond mere opinion of a Logic Hobbyist and Google User?

This gets us to a common theme that I notice, and that I've harped on in many forums: the idea that people think they can assess complex issues because they've read things they like. There is no rigor in Home Research. There is no challenge in producing long, feel-good hypotheses about Life, The Universe and Everything without a robust peer review process. (Let's not imagine peers on an internet forum meet the standard).

Look at otseng's lengthy defense of the Shroud of Turin - it will languish and die in this corner of the internet - unless he presents it to Experts, and they come to a consensus. If they don't come to a consensus, he can brag that he's created something that wasn't shot down by everyone, but that's not an endorsement.

In this Age of Information, Information isn't the problem. We've got loads of it. More than we can possibly understand. The true challenge is to be able to assess a portion of that data with rigor and steel-spine analysis. I have not seen Religionists do this when it comes to their Faith - because, lo!, all Religionists somehow come to the same answer: Their religious faith is the most rational!

To me, and this is my ignorant opinion, there is far too little to go on in terms of Evidence for the Supernatural, and the stuff we can investigate is all Natural. Until experts - true experts - conclusively determine the Natural can't explain everything, then there is no need to propose the Supernatural.

Especially amatuers on the intertube.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #378]

Yes, you and others have offered this quite a bit. The thing is, experts don't agree on much. Experts in most fields disagree on just about everything and that should be expected. It would be irrational to conclude that there aren't better arguments because people, including experts, believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps a discussion forum like this isn't the place for you because by your own admission you are adding nothing of substance to the discussion. But if you want to try to access these ideas with others who are trying to access these ideas, which is doable even if you don't have a PhD, then some of us are here. These arguments are plentiful and accessible if we try.

[The Tanager]

Q: Then what was with that response which betray otherwise?

I’m not sure which response of mine you are misunderstanding to where you think it “betrays otherwise”.

I was talking of compelling: convincing, overwhelming (evidence).

And your definitions still have phrases like “powerfully irresistible,” “not able to be resisted,” so it sounds like 100% to me, but that doesn’t really matter. We agree that we aren’t talking about 100%.

The assumption that 4-dimensional manifold temporal universe is the only thing material.

I haven’t assumed that. I haven’t ruled out other material existences, but they would still be material and the being-material is the part that leads to needing a cause.

Which is a not a given.
Not according to the Free Will hypothesis I used.

But you are critiquing a believer in libertarian free will.

I think everyone agree if honest QM is counter-intuitive with things that goes against our intuitions about what should happen.

We are talking about being counterintuitive to our usual reasoning process. Not all QM theories are counterintuitive in that way.

Nonsense.
There is no consistency. Therefore we cannot have a consistent moral system.
Therefore we cannot have a moral good reason to some certain system of morality.
Cenobites like mentality is consistent. Psychopathy does not give one for its a malfunctioning of the brain. A disease.

What is the inconsistency? Don’t just say it is; show it. Calling it a disease simply assumes it is a malfunction; show that it is a malfunction.