Henke 2022af

God’s Actions Need Not Always be Miraculous

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I stated the following:

“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? So, how does Mr. Lundahl know that God used “N/m” forces to allow Jesus to walk on water rather than just locally shutting off gravity and the laws of physics? Also, where’s the evidence of invisible support from demons for Mr. Copperfield’s tricks or that demons even exist? Mr. Lundahl just might as well forget about references to newtons and meters and just claim that invisible angels held up Jesus’ feet from going underwater. If Lundahl (2022a) really wants to suggest that demons help Mr. Copperfield do his tricks, why not forget about the newtons and the meters, and just claim that angels kept Jesus’ head above water?” [my emphasis]

As part of his comments on each sentence in this paragraph from Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022i) makes the following response to the bolded section:

“I actually do not know that. I am offering a conjecture that explains the miracle without God simply interrupting a law or contradicting it, it being the normal course of events He interrupts, not the laws. In order to resume the argument from "miracles contradict the laws of nature" Mr. Henke would not have to ask me how I know this conjecture to be fact, which I didn't claim to, but tell us how he knows his own conjecture on the nature of miracles to be the only philosophical option.”

Because Lundahl (2022i) now admits that his statements about “N/m” forces were just speculation, will he now also admit that he is only speculating when he claims that God does not violate any natural law? Nevertheless, in the above paragraph, Lundahl (2022i) again fails to comprehend what I’m saying in Henke (2022b). I agree that God could do an action without “…interrupting a law or contradicting it, it being the normal course of events He interrupts, not the laws”. As I clearly stated with the pool game analogy in Henke (2022b), God could play pool without violating the laws of physics. Without violating the laws of physics, angels could also have elevated Jesus’ feet when he was walking on water or carried him into heaven during the ascension. However, unless a natural law is violated, I would not consider God supposedly walking in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8) or Jesus eating to be a miracle. So, God can do an action without violating the laws of physics. On that, Mr. Lundahl and I both agree. It’s just that under my definition, if no natural law is violated, I would not call the actions of supernatural beings to be miraculous. At the same time, I have no problem with an omnipotent God, if he exists, breaking any natural law to do a miracle. If he exists, he can do anything he wants.