Henke 2022ad

Why Can’t Mr. Lundahl Comprehend My Essays? Lundahl (2022e), (2022f), (2022i), (2022j), (2022k), (2022L) and (2022m) Keep Mistakenly Discussing “Proof” and “Proving” When I Only Asked Him to Provide Demonstrable Evidence

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In his essays, Mr. Lundahl often mistakenly talks about “proof” and “proving” something as if he believes that I expect him to provide a 100% level of confidence in his arguments or that he can provide that level of confidence about historical events. No! If Mr. Lundahl had even superficially read Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), he would have realized that I’m not calling for anyone to “prove” something in history or provide “proof.” Investigations are a matter of probabilities, as discussed in Strahler (1999, chapter 5). Proof belongs in mathematics and logic, but not history and science, and Mr. Lundahl does not understand that (Albert 1986). This is why my probability scale on past events in Henke (2022b) never reaches 100, but can only achieve 99+ out of a 100 for such events as WWII.

There are numerous statements in Mr. Lundahl’s essays, where he invokes “proof” or “proving” to mistakenly argue that I’m claiming that level of confidence or that I’m expecting him to actually provide that level of confidence. Here are just a few examples from his essays with my emphasis in black, where Mr. Lundahl has completely misunderstood what “proof” really means. Lundahl (2022e) states:

“So, this kind of proof is not the most decisive, and not lacking for the "talking snake" of Genesis 3.”

Lundahl (2022f) says:

“The Shroud of Turin is better proof of Christ, in this case.”

“As I believe Arrian, I also believe Abdalonymus was installed by Alexander. But neither McDaniel or Henke can yse that argument, their position being the five 1st C. Historians are inadequate proof of Alexander's carreer.” [sic, spelling]

Lundahl (2022i) states:

“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. [new paragraph] 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.” – also Henke (2022ab) refutes Mr. Lundahl’s nonsense in this paragraph on “proof”, the first known audience, circular reasoning, and miracles.

“The problem is, Mr. Henke has made up his mind on what the presence of "imaginary forces" would imply, and when I try to correct this as a logical non-sequitur, he complains I haven't proven the historicity. So, he gets to reason before analysing historicity and I do not get to do so. Quod licet Ioui, non licet boui. I refuse to bow down to his presumption that he as natural scientist and as philosophical naturalist (which are two different things) is the equivalent of Jove, and myself as only amateur in natural science and as supranaturalist, the equivalent of a bull.” – Henke (2022ak) also discusses Mr. Lundahl’s nonsense in this paragraph.

“Break a piece of bread in two. Watch each half refill the lacking parts, as God's omnipotence makes a creation out of nothing. You have not watched the laws involving bakery to be broken, you have watched an agent other than a baker produce more bread by creation out of nothing. Which therefore is clearly not contradicting the laws of bakery. [new paragraph] Perhaps Mr. Henke is referring to "law of conservation of mass" and "law of conservation of energy" - but each of them was at least apparently broken by nuclear power and by Hiroshima. You can obviously fix this by imagining "mass and energy are the same" or "mass is a species of energy" - but that is very clearly going beyond observational proof. [new paragraph] Believing the Gospels got the credibility among Christians that normal processes of observation and of narrating the observed would warrant is in this sense NOT going beyond observational proof.” – Henke (2022an) also discusses Mr. Lundahl’s nonsense in this paragraph.

Also in Lundahl (2022j):

“I can now with some confidence add David Copperfield to the list too, but simply having sat on the fence about it (which was the case) involves no burden of proof on my part, relating to Copperfield.”

“In a debate with a man like Henke, I am constantly being forced to step away from actually proving what I need to prove in order to counter some misunderstanding or simply provide for his lack of understanding. The explanations of the doctrine the Church and I have about demons should not be confused with my arguing these doctrines true, which I actually do argue. Like, you know, referring to historic texts known to be such by "first known audience" taking them for that. [new paragraph] Henke keeps up a fiction, very awkward for Christians, that they are all the time engaging in proving their belief, and people like himself just asking questions about the proof. In fact they are also giving objections, and the answering of objections falls under explanation, not under proof.”

Mr. Lundahl obviously does not understand the difference between proof and evidence. Also, the argument strategy in Lundahl (2022j) is completely out of order. Mr. Lundahl totally fails to understand that before he can start talking about demons, angels and other supernatural beings, and anything that they supposedly could do, he needs to first demonstrate (not prove) that they even exist with good evidence. In his debates, Mr. Lundahl is making a series of unjustified presumptions that the Gospels are historical, his “first audience” scam is reliable, demons and angels are real, his Church doctrines are right, Moses actually lived and wrote the Pentateuch, etc. He just expects his readers to blindly accept whatever he presumes. This is a totally irrational demand. He has not justified any of his presumptions with good evidence and no one should blindly accept them as fact.

Continuing with more misconceptions in Lundahl (2022j):

“Since Henke has so far failed to understand how chapter three links reason to something beyond nature, I do not feel inclined to take his word for it. Yes, we have made discoveries. But this does not prove that the we - plural instances of I - doing discoveries is brain chemistry. The question is not whether the supernatural is in the explanation, but whether it is required to explain the explainer's ability to make even a completely naturalistic explanation.”

Again in Lundahl (2022k):

“I was already saying, more than once, the proof for which I am arguing in this instance, is the historic proof of miracles.”

“The fact that some supernatural claims are based on misunderstood natural events doesn't in any way shape or form prove this is always the case, rather each case should be judged on its merits.”

“Mr. Henke has here the burden of evidence to prove at least plausibility of either:

· changing the genre attribution from fictional entertainment to historic narrative

· or plausible misunderstanding or fraud behind a specific claim in spite of historic genre of the text.”

And making or even plausibly arguing a claim that such and such a Biblical claim is impossible does not fulfil that onus probandi. While, if totally logically argued from totally good facts (won't happen, I'm confident), it would prove that for instance Genesis 3 must involve a non-fact, it doesn't show how it specifically could do so.” (also see Henke 2022br for additional rebuttals]

There’s more in Lundahl (2022L):

“Or if it is about prophecies Joseph Smith was making about the future. In that case, it is very significant that they are usually not remembered by Mormons even (or, if ever recalled by someone else, explained away, very discretely, with a kind of gatekeeping attitude about it). Very far from proving anything near Henke's scepticism on history involving at least seemingly supernatural events, it basically proves the opposite.”

“Now Henke likes to quizz me on my stating my sources, but he gives this sweeping statement without either source or proof. Here is how I would analyse it:”

Again, Lundahl (2022m) keeps mistakenly talking about proof and proving when 100% certainty does not exist in history:

“The chapters named The Grand Miracle, Miracles of the Old Creation, Miracles of the New Creation deal with providing historic proof accompanied with metaphysic discussion of propriety (within general Theism) of the miracle of God become man, born in Bethlehem, of the miracles He worked that shortcut natural processes, and of the miracles involving reversal of death. In other words, in the end CSL is providing at once historic proof and metaphysical answer to objections, for Christianity. Did Henke even arrive at those chapters? Because, his distaste for what he considers as "vague rambling" seems to have been a possible obstacle against his actually arriving there. In the 2012 paperback (translated to French 2018) they are on the pages 173 to 275.”

“But I never speculated that talking snakes are naturally possible. I ironised over Henke's demand of showing that natural possibility. It is not setting a high standard for evidence to demand proof to substantiate a total strawman on the claim someone is actually making.”

“And precisely so, the point on demanding proof for talking snakes is not a high standard in science, but a strawman in history and metaphysics.”

“Henke pretended I, by responding in more than one single page, in separately conceived and therefore separately presented essays, was dispersing the debate, here is a prime example of his doing so, by giving parallel examples as "proof" against my principle, and I am forced to discuss it - or leave the arguments unanswered. AND as at least two of the arguments are presented with links and each link provides arguments, that gives me more arguments to respond to than Henke is pretending to actually make.”

“It seems, Henke can't see that a point has been already answered. He's content to repeat, rather than try to show despite my answer how popular beliefs about Columbus or in the Force still prove his point despite my answers.”

“Sure "past history" is a thing they can and do fake, as freemasons and Joseph Smith prove.”

“And again, when I say "history" I don't mean it is immediately proven accurate, I mean the potential sources for non-factual statements are fewer than with fiction presented as fiction.”

Mr. Lundahl fully admits that he cannot provide the level of “proof” that I supposedly expect of him. However, I never asked him or expected him to “prove” anything. I’m never asked him for “proof.” Here, he is erecting numerous strawman fallacies in his essays. I made it quite clear in my essays, which Mr. Lundahl obviously doesn’t understand, that I don’t expect him to prove anything unless it’s in mathematics. In Henke (2022a), I said:

“I recognize that past events really can’t be proven. Proof is more in the realm of mathematics rather than history or science. Nevertheless, I tend to rank claims about historical events as: 1) highly probable or beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) probable, 3) plausible, 4) unlikely or 5) highly unlikely (probably false or myth). My level of skepticism of events and individuals varies and would be classified in the categories of plausible, unlikely or highly unlikely. In these situations, I tend to ask myself: which is more probable that the event actually occurred or that someone just made it up?” [my emphasis]

“Again, I don’t expect to “prove” these statements, but only show that they are either probable or beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, as a scientist, I don’t claim ultimate proof. However, some claims are so well verified that I would identify them as demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. If these two claims are demonstrated to be probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt, then I could look at other claims made about Alexander in the works of Arrian, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, etc. and possibly test them with external evidence. I also fully recognize that my very conservative and cautious approach will at least initially overlook many of his detailed accomplishments and underestimate Alexander the Great’s influence in his society. But, I want to be slow and cautious.” [my emphasis]

Again, I made this quite clear in Henke (2022b):

“In response to this, Lundahl (2022a) makes some ambiguous reference to Enoch and Elijah showing up in the modern world:

‘If Enoch and Elijah turn up in our time, take it up with them. I'm here to argue historic facts, how likely they are in a world view where miracles and the supernatural are in principle possible, not to prove miracles natural events.’

Besides mentioning a couple more characters from the Bible without giving any evidence that they ever existed, Lundahl (2022a) further claims that he is not trying to prove that miracles are natural events, but that they are possible in principle. 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. It’s now obvious that he can’t do that and he needs to admit it. It's not good enough to say that “miracles and the supernatural are in principle possible” when there is no evidence at all for them. Again, people’s imaginations are quite capable of inventing a lot of stories, it’s an entirely different issue to demonstrate that the stories actually happened.” [my emphasis]

I asked him for demonstrable evidence and not proof. How often do I have to repeat to him that I want evidence from him and NOT PROOF? Mr. Lundahl completely misunderstands the nature of the scientific method and what is meant by “proof” and “proving.” If you look at Henke (2022a), Henke (2022b) and my other essays, you will also see that I didn’t even use the popular expression “burden of proof.” Instead, I use the phrase “burden of evidence” and state that this is his burden.

References

Albert, L.H. 1986. “’Scientific’ Creationism as a Pseudoscience”, Creation/Evolution Journal, v. 6, no. 2, pp. 25-34.

Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2^nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.