Is a supernatural entity or existence constricted by the necessity of evidence?

Question

It's a fact that natural existences are constricted by the necessity of evidence. Meaning evidence is necessary to prove an natural existence or natural occurrence, and if there's is no evidence the necessity of evidence is not met and thus it cannot exist or occur. An example of this Bigfoot, by definition he's a natural existence but since the necessity of sufficient evidence has not been met he has been deemed as "imaginary" and does not exist.

Atheists tend to use the burden of proof on supernatural entities, implying that this entity is constricted by the necessity of evidence. Yet the necessity of evidence is something relative to the material or natural reality. Why would we even assume that the supernatural reality is in concordance with this method? I have three premises that I need to help evauting:

1. Prove that the necessity of evidence applies to the supernatural reality, meaning you need to prove supernatural existences are constricted by necessity of evidence like natural existences are.

2. Prove that the supernatural reality is tangible and observable and thus should have no excuse for not having "evidence" like the natural reality. In other words prove that elements of the supernatural reality are even compatible with the necessity of evidence (tangibility and observation)

3. Prove that the supernatural reality is concordance by the laws of the natural world, and thus should have no reason of incompatibility with our methods and laws (laws of physics etc.)

How would we answer these premises?

Answer 1

You have made a mistake in your initial premise already. Existence is not bound by the availability of evidence, only proof of existence is.

You bigfoot example shows this: you stated that he is deemed to "not exist" due to a lack of evidence, but this is not the case. All we have here is "insufficient evidence", which (ideally) leads to the situation where no claim of existence is made one way or the other.

No entity is bound by the "necessity of evidence". The atheist (well, most) will not use the lack of evidence to claim non-existence of the entity. They will, however, use lack of evidence to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is given. The theist claims knowledge. Knowledge is bound by the existence of evidence, so you should be able to provide said evidence if requested.

As for your premises.

1. It does. In the fields of science and naturalism, evidence is needed to make a legitimate claim about the existence of a thing. Since both science and naturalism describe the natural world, supernatural entities fall outside of their fields, but they still need the same evidence before a claim other than "we do not know" should be made

2. If this supernatural entity does not interact with the natural world, its existence is a moot point, which will often let science to ignore the premise as "irrelevant".

Specifically for god; that entity is said to be able to affect things on earth, so it is able to interact with the natural world. Such interactions leave evidence by definition, so said evidence needs to be provided in the process of proving existence.

3. It doesn't. The current natural laws describe and explain the natural world. Any supernatural entities are not required to adhere to these rules. Moreover since these rules are not binding in the first place.

Answer 2

There is no necessity of evidence for things to exist. Historically, we've found that lots of things exist, and presumably have existed, before we've had evidence for them. If quarks and leptons had not existed from the beginning of the Universe, cosmology would be meaningless, but we've only had evidence of them for a relatively short time.

We need evidence for our own perceptions of the Universe. There's no difference here between the natural and the supernatural, because our beliefs in either are similar.

To talk about observing the supernatural, we need to examine what it needs to observe more. We know there are cats in the world because we all agree that we observe them, and the observations are more or less consistent. Suppose we had what appeared to be a perception of God. It's not nearly as verifiable as perceptions of cats. Most people don't have such a direct perception, and the descriptions from people who claim to have one are considerably different in various ways. This doesn't mean those perceptions are illusions or delusions, or that God doesn't exist (whatever "God" actually means), but it's hard to think of other evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

The supernatural is not definable by the laws of physics. We've seen things that defy the laws of physics over and over, found laws of physics that explain them (and not the next few dozen mysteries we know of), and consider them natural. If we had an explanation for ghosts that was explainable by the laws of physics, we'd consider them natural phenomena. People who have thought telepathy explainable by physics have generally thought it natural, while people who didn't have generally considered it supernatural.

So:

1. There is no difference between belief in natural and supernatural entities as far as the need for evidence goes, because the important word here is "belief", not "supernatural".
2. This really isn't expressed clearly enough for me to evaluate. What do you mean by "reality"? Are you talking about some sort of consensus reality, or a reality we can't necessarily perceive?
3. A "natural" phenomenon is one explained by laws of physics, known or unknown. A "supernatural" phenomenon perforce can't be explained by them.

Answer 3

Any resolution to this question, or any sense of this question, relies irreconcilably on the definition of “supernatural”. I say this for two reasons.

One reason is there are many vague and often incoherent notions of what “supernatural” means, which is useful for a strategy of leapfrogging between different definitions within a single conversation when convenient to do so (motte and bailey arguments, for example). This strategy is common in many relevant conversations.

However, there are conversations on this topic that are in good faith as well, leading me to my second reason. The more concrete notions of “supernatural” I’ve comes across seem to entail something beyond the necessity for evidence. This precludes your three premises. For example, your third premise would be impossible because the supernatural does not abide by the laws of nature by common definitions. I will further illustrate what I mean in the importance of demanding a definition.

“Atheists tend to use the burden of proof on supernatural entities, implying that this entity is constricted by the necessity of evidence. Yet the necessity of evidence is something relative to the material or natural reality. Why would we even assume that the supernatural reality is in concordance with this method?”

Then the relevant question becomes, how is such a supernatural thing detected? If is detected in the natural world, it is natural. If it is not detected in the natural world, how is it detected? If the detector is natural and the detected is supernatural, what is the nature of the measurement?

If the definition of “supernatural” is true to its roots, it entails beyond (super-) nature (-natural). But how can that which is beyond nature be detected by that which is in nature?

This is where burden of proof comes in, as it seems there’s a category error in thinking that which can be detected in nature is beyond nature. If there is no such error, than an explanation as well as an empirical example is rationally expected.

Answer 4

Is a supernatural entity or existence constricted by the necessity of evidence?

If an entity is claimed to have physical effects, then we will require evidence of physical effects and ones that are consistent with what is claimed about the entity.

If you idea of God is that of an entity which does not affect our world, then rational people will just not care one bit. You can believe what you like if that does not affect other people.

If your idea of God is that He can for example punish us for not worshipping Him, then rational people will ask for empirical evidence and abstain from belief in the meantime.

In Abrahamic religions, God is usually presented as all powerful, that is, as maximally (if not infinitely) capable, which therefore includes physical effects. Rational people will ask evidence of that and abstain from belief.