Henke 2022ab

Lundahl (2022i) Does not Understand the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning and, Yes, the Wizard of Oz is Fiction

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Lundahl (2022a) and his other works, Mr. Lundahl repeatedly commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. In Henke (2022b), I state:

“Although there’s not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever walked on water, Lundahl (2022a) just assumes that it’s history and then makes up an excuse to fit his biased worldview by speculating on how God could have set up a force to counteract gravity supposedly without contradicting the law of gravity. This is a blatant example of circular reasoning where groundless speculation is used to explain groundless stories from the gospels. This is like trying to argue that the Yellow Brick Road of The Wizard of Oz must have existed. Otherwise, how could Dorothy have gotten to the Emerald City?” [my emphasis]

Lundahl (2022i) then improperly responds to this bolded section of Henke (2022b):

“Hans Georg Lundahl

Henke is not even aware that the rules of logic do not prohibit "circular reasoning" (there is no such thing in logic) but they do prohibit circular proof, circular definition, circular explanation. What I did is none of these.

I use the historicity of the Gospels (established on other grounds, like first known audience of Gospels taking them to be historic) to prove there is an exception to the ordinary course of events to be explained, and I use an explanation from God's omnipotence not breaking any actual law of nature (established by theoretical example of pool table in steamer, and only then tested on the Gospel story) to prove the purported history is not impossible, that is, to explain it.

If anyone is circular in proof it is Henke : he uses impossibility of miracles to prove the Gospel story is un-historic, then non-historicity of story to prove this no verified exception to a rule excluding miracles, from "universal experience" established as such only after thus excluding each exception.” [my emphasis]

This section from Lundahl (2022i) is full of erroneous statements. Circular reasoning is an actual fallacy in logic and even The Oxford English Dictionary, which Mr. Lundahl prefers, uses the phrase “circular reasoning” to either define the terms diallelus, diallelous, circularly, and non-circularly, or in examples of those terms. For diallelus, The Oxford English Dictionary’s definition is “Circular reasoning; the attempt to establish a conclusion by means of a proposition which is itself dependent on the conclusion which the arguer is attempting to prove”. The dictionary then gives examples of how this definition involving “circular reasoning” was used in the 20^th century. Unlike the archaic terms that Mr. Lundahl uses or the words that he simply makes up (e.g., “carreer”, “carreere”, “undecisives”), The Oxford English Dictionary recognizes that the phrase “circular reasoning” is legitimate. If Mr. Lundahl wants to arbitrarily ignore The Oxford English Dictionary in this case and use the terms “circular definition” or “circular explanation”, I’ll tolerate his inconsistency. However, Mr. Lundahl should not use the term “circular proof” when discussing science or history. As I clearly stated in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), which Mr. Lundahl improperly ignores, I NEVER ask for or give “proof” in history or science. Proof is for mathematics. For example, I clearly stated that in Henke (2022b):

“I’m not asking Mr. Lundahl to “prove” anything like one would in mathematics, but to demonstrate with good evidence that the supernatural is just as real as the natural world.”

Yet, notice how often Lundahl (2022i) misuses the term “prove” and improperly assigns that act to me in the following sections:

“I use the historicity of the Gospels (established on other grounds, like first known audience of Gospels taking them to be historic) to prove there is an exception to the ordinary course of events to be explained, and I use an explanation from God's omnipotence not breaking any actual law of nature (established by theoretical example of pool table in steamer, and only then tested on the Gospel story) to prove the purported history is not impossible, that is, to explain it.

If anyone is circular in proof it is Henke : he uses impossibility of miracles to prove the Gospel story is un-historic, then non-historicity of story to prove this no verified exception to a rule excluding miracles, from "universal experience" established as such only after thus excluding each exception.” [my emphasis]

As further discussed in Henke (2022ae), I also NEVER stated that miracles are impossible. I admitted that they were hypothetically possible, but I wanted evidence for them before I would state that they are real.

Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl is frequently guilty of using circular reasoning. As discussed in Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022a) used circular reasoning by quoting Numbers 22 without evidence. Also in Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022c) cites Moses as if it’s been demonstrated that he actually existed and that he did the things that the Bible says that he did. As further discussed in Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022d) cites Moses again, as well as Adam, who also has no evidence of ever existing, in an attempt to justify the existence of another groundless biblical character (i.e., the Talking Snake of Genesis 3). This is additional blatant circular reasoning in Lundahl (2022d).

Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) and other archeologists have found no evidence that Moses ever existed or that the Exodus ever occurred. They used archeology to explain the actual origin of the ancient Israelites and demonstrate that these Old Testament stories are unreliable. So, Mr. Lundahl is absolutely wrong to believe in Moses, Abraham, Adam, the Talking Snake of Genesis 3, and other characters in the Old Testament just because the ancient Israelite “first known audience” may have.

Henke (2022b) further states:

“In yet another example of the circular reasoning fallacy, Lundahl (2022a) uses a groundless act of speculation about God levitating Jesus on water to justify another groundless claim that magic fruit trees existed in the Garden of Eden:

“If God can make the mass in kg have no N/m down to gravity of earth, He can endow biology with such clearly more than biological qualities as well. Again, it is not the chemistry of the fruits that will have these effects.”

Before Mr. Lundahl can argue about what God actually did, he needs to first demonstrate that God exists and after that he needs to demonstrate that God was willing to cause Jesus to walk on water, produce magic fruit trees or do anything supernatural.”

Again, Lundahl (2022i) attempts to excuse his misbehavior by claiming that:

“I use the historicity of the Gospels (established on other grounds, like first known audience of Gospels taking them to be historic) to prove there is an exception to the ordinary course of events to be explained, and I use an explanation from God's omnipotence not breaking any actual law of nature (established by theoretical example of pool table in steamer, and only then tested on the Gospel story) to prove the purported history is not impossible, that is, to explain it.”

As argued in Henke (2022b) and my subsequent essays, Mr. Lundahl also never established the historicity of the Gospels. His “first known audience” and “God’s omnipotence” claims are nothing more than awful and dogmatic proclamations without a shred of evidence.

So, Lundahl (2022a) and Lundahl (2022i) failed to demonstrate with evidence that:

1. God exists,

2. He actually does miracles,

3. That not only can God act without violating the laws of chemistry and physics, but that he never violates natural law, and

4. That the specific miracles of walking on water, changing water into wine, healing people, and multiplying the fish and loaves mentioned in the Gospels actually happened and not that they are simply possible. I agree that they are possible, but I want evidence that they actually did occur.

Mr. Lundahl cannot logically quote the Bible to demonstrate the accuracy of the claims in the Bible unless he first demonstrates that these claims are true anymore than the Mormons cannot logically quote the Book of Mormon to demonstrate the accuracy of the claims in the Book of Mormon. Both he and the Mormons need archeological or other external evidence to support any claim in their holy books. At least, the Mormon archeologists understand this elementary principle.

To further illustrate the nonsensical nature of circular reasoning, I referred to the fictional story, The Wizard of Oz, in Henke (2022b):

“Although there’s not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever walked on water, Lundahl (2022a) just assumes that it’s history and then makes up an excuse to fit his biased worldview by speculating on how God could have set up a force to counteract gravity supposedly without contradicting the law of gravity. This is a blatant example of circular reasoning where groundless speculation is used to explain groundless stories from the gospels. This is like trying to argue that the Yellow Brick Road of The Wizard of Oz must have existed. Otherwise, how could Dorothy have gotten to the Emerald City?” [my emphasis]

Lundahl (2022i) then gives the following flippant response, which indicates that he really doesn’t understand how fallacious the example involving The Wizard of Oz is:

“First known audience of The Wizard of Oz took it as fiction.”

Yes, of course, The Wizard of Oz is a work of fiction! That’s the whole point of the example! Because the story is fiction, it so well illustrates the folly of circular reasoning and Mr. Lundahl completely misses the point with his flippant reply. Because the yellow brick road, Dorothy and the Emerald City don’t exist, the circular reasoning fallacy involving the situations in The Wizard of Oz becomes very obvious. Mr. Lundahl doesn’t need to remind us of that. Mr. Lundahl needs to study Copi and Cohen (1994) or a similar introductory textbook on logic and logical fallacies because he’s oblivious to the Wizard of Oz example and he obviously doesn’t know how faulty and unreliable his circular reasoning is.

References

Copi, I.M. and Cohen, C. 1994. Introduction to Logic, 9^th ed., MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, USA, 729 pp.

Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.