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 William in post #489]

Yes, material and immaterial are the only logically possible categories (even when something fits in both). I'm not sure how that is one being the exception to the rule. This is just the logic of antonymical(?) categories.

I explained the exception to the rule so am not sure why you went on that tangent.
The exception mentioned was to do with your definition of supernatural "Outside of nature, non-natural, these things are not under the laws of nature."
So essentially, "anything a mind can experience" except for the physical universe". You do not considered the universe to being supernatural, right?

I think humans are a hybrid of the two.

Whereas I think there is really only The One and that is why there is no necessity to believe immaterial actually exists.

I don't understand why Christians (in general) think it has to be the case.

[The Tanager]

Yes, material and immaterial are the only logically possible categories (even when something fits in both). I'm not sure how that is one being the exception to the rule. This is just the logic of antonymical(?) categories.

I explained the exception to the rule so am not sure why you went on that tangent.
The exception mentioned was to do with your definition of supernatural "Outside of nature, non-natural, these things are not under the laws of nature."
So essentially, "anything a mind can experience" except for the physical universe". You do not considered the universe to being supernatural, right?

Perhaps it is the language you used. I don’t think the natural category should be called the ‘rule’ and the non-natural the ‘exception’ as that seems to beg the question in favor of the natural, when, logically, they are both definite categories (even if one or the other doesn't have any actual members in it). If you are just saying what's the evidence that any immaterial thing actually exists, then I misunderstood you.

I think humans are a hybrid of the two.

Whereas I think there is really only The One and that is why there is no necessity to believe immaterial actually exists.

I don't understand why Christians (in general) think it has to be the case.

Christians don’t think it has to be the case, but that it is the case. Some because their parents or friends think so. Some because their church thinks it. Some only because they want it to be true. Some because they believe they have met God and He has revealed it to them. Some because there are good rational reasons to accept that the immaterial exists.

[William]