Henke 2022ag

Mr. Lundahl Made a Big Mistake in Even Mentioning David Copperfield in Lundahl (2022a) and He Ignored the Numerous Times I Said that Mr. Lundahl was Only Making a Suggestion that Demons Help David Copperfield Do His Magic Tricks

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

The Title of Henke (2022b) mentions some clams in Mr. Lundahl’s essays about David Copperfield possibly having demonic help with his magic tricks:

Responding to Lundahl (2022a-g): No Evidence for Demons Assisting David Copperfield’s Stage Shows, Nuclear Wars before Noah’s Flood, the Talking Snake of Genesis 3, God Helping Alexander the Great, and Other Claims

Several times in Henke (2022b), I mention and comment on the suggestions in Lundahl (2022a) that Mr. David Copperfield might be getting demonic help in doing his stage tricks:

“In his seven essays, Mr. Lundahl often makes outrageous, bizarre and absolutely baseless claims, such as suggesting that demons help stage illusionist (magician) David Copperfield do his tricks (Lundahl 2022a) and that nuclear wars occurred before Noah’s Flood (Lundahl 2022f).” [my emphasis]

“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? Invoking angels isn’t any worse than the shear speculation and desperation that he offers about invisible “N/m” forces counteracting gravity. Certainly, the human imagination is fertile enough to make up any far-fetched excuse to explain any far-fetched claim in the Bible. However, the ability of Mr. Lundahl to actually obtain any evidence to support these far-fetched ideas is an entirely separate issue.” [my emphasis]

“Lundahl (2022a) initially states that he does not want to get into a debate about whether or not demons help stage illusionists (magicians) walk on water and perform their other illusions. Yet, as shown in the two quotations from Lundahl (2022a) in Section 2.3, Lundahl (2022a) injects the absolutely bizarre and unnecessary suggestion that demons are helping David Copperfield or other stage magicians. I will not allow him to make such blanket and superstitious suggestions without him justifying his speculations. I define superstition as the irrational invoking of demons, angels, God, luck, leprechauns, or other supernatural forces or beings without a shred of evidence to superficially explain away unusual events. This is exactly what Mr. Lundahl does throughout Lundahl (2022a) and his other essays. If he can’t or doesn’t want to provide any evidence about the existence of demons and what they can supposedly do, he should leave his groundless speculation about demonic activity completely out of his essays. They don’t help his arguments at all. Also, if he brings up a topic, he needs to be able to support it with good references or evidence, and not just throw out groundless claim after groundless claim. Groundless claims add up to nothing.

In my February 15, 2022, 8:03 pm US Eastern email to Mr. Lundahl, I said that James Randi, magician and skeptic, used to complain that many people in his audiences thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi . Well, when Mr. Lundahl suggests that David Copperfield and others might have help from demons in doing their tricks, he has joined the same lot of superstitious people that used to be in Mr. Randi’s audiences. With such widespread superstition and gullibility, it’s not surprising that conartists could use magic tricks to start religions and possibly deceive millions for generations to come.

Lundahl (2022a) also speculates that demons can give the false impression of violating the laws of physics. Once more, Mr. Lundahl presents no evidence for the existence of demons or what they supposedly can or cannot do. He simply expects his readers to accept whatever he says about demons just because he, the Bible or the Church says so. Before Mr. Lundahl can make any claim, he has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that the claim is true. Otherwise, it’s just his imagination.” [my emphasis]

“Now, the title of Lundahl (2022a) is “Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories Believed to be True.” However, when his essay is carefully studied there’s absolutely no reason to believe any of the stories that he thinks are true. These stories range from just quoting the Bible to absurd suggestions that demons might assist David Copperfield in his stage shows.” [my emphasis]

Notice that in all of these quotations from Henke (2022b), I was very careful in arguing that Mr. Lundahl was only making a suggestion that Mr. Copperfield was getting help from demons. I never stated that Mr. Lundahl was definitely saying that Mr. Copperfield was getting demonic help.

From all of the above paragraphs in Henke (2022b) that mention David Copperfield and carefully note that Mr. Lundahl was only making a suggestion, Lundahl (2022i) specifically responds to my comment:

“Also, where’s the evidence of invisible support from demons for Mr. Copperfield’s tricks or that demons even exist?”

Lundahl (2022i) then states:

“Hans Georg Lundahl

Let's read what I wrote [in Lundahl 2022a]:

‘Demons and stage magicians can give the impression, falsely, that they break the law of physics. I am not entering into the debate here with the Dimond Brothers whether stage magicians do their thing with demonic aid. For the purpose of the present argument, when David Seth Kotkin, stage name David Copperfield, seems to walk on water, it is one and the same whether he does so with natural or demonic aid. Both ways, something other than the water is keeping him above the water. The surface tension 72.8 millinewtons (mN) per meter at 20 °C - has not been enabled to uphold the 60 - 80 sth N per meter (if we can so convert his kg), which would have been breaking Fick's laws of diffusion.’ [my emphasis]

So, I was not claiming that demons gave David Copperfield / Mr. Kotkin invisible support. I am claiming whatever the visible support was, plexiglass or demons, it was something other than the surface tension of water. In either case, Fick's law of surface tension remains unbroken.

Notice that Lundahl (2022a) never bothers to identify the Dimond Brothers or provide a proper reference for them. Again, Mr. Lundahl is not thinking about the needs of our readers.

Again, I’m not claiming that Mr. Lundahl is saying that David Copperfield has demonic assistance in doing his stage shows. Here, Lundahl (2022i) is ignoring the fact that I repeatedly said that Lundahl (2022a) was only making a suggestion. Nevertheless, that’s not the only statement in Lundahl (2022a) where he brings up the possibility that Mr. Copperfield has demons helping him with his stage shows. Here’s what Lundahl (2022a) also said:

“God and angelic beings can do things with bodies that physics doesn't provide their ability for. Like the example of God turning the N/m away from downward vectoriality and like demons keeping the body of David Copperfield above the water, like an adult holding a doll, just the "adult" isn't using hands but will and has no body and isn't visible. Btw, both good angels and demons can readily consider us "immature" - they were created over 7200 years ago and made their mature decision for eternity right after creation, we were each created less than 130 years ago (I presume) and as long as we live, we have time to change, and some do so in the last moment, for better or for worse.” [my emphasis]

“As explained: levitation does not go against the law of gravity, it either excepts certain matter in and around human bodies from it (in case of God's miracles at walking on water and Ascension) or simply adds an invisible support (cfr the demonic version of how Copperfield does a trick).” [my emphasis]

cfr = apparently means “compare to…” (??) – not used in Oxford English Dictionary.

Once more, I fully understand that Lundahl (2022a) was only being hypothetical and definitely not saying that Mr. Copperfield has demonic help in doing his stage tricks. Nevertheless, why would anyone even think of associating Mr. Copperfield with demonic activity or even mention it once, little alone three times in Lundahl (2022a), unless Mr. Lundahl thought that it was a real possibility? Again, Lundahl (2022a) states:

“I am not entering into the debate here with the Dimond Brothers whether stage magicians do their thing with demonic aid.”

Where’s the debate here? Why would anyone think that an accusation of a stage magician having demonic help is a topic worthy of rational debate? Lundahl (2022a) never identifies the Dimond Brothers or their scholarly qualifications, but who in their right mind would even consider this as a possibility or see any need to ever bring it up? I know that Mr. Lundahl believes that demons are real and that makes his suggestions look like he really is open to the possibility that Mr. Copperfield is involved with demons. Mr. Lundahl could have made his point about demonic forces and physics without even bringing Mr. Copperfield into the conservation.

Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022j) again raises the issue of Mr. Copperfield and possible demonic assistants, and inaccurately accuses me of having “reading issues”:

“More Reading Issues:

Section Title in Henke 2022b states: "2.5. Mr. Lundahl Suggests Demons Assist Magicians with Stage Tricks"

No, I don't. I did suggest that could be the case.” [my emphasis]

What???? This comment in Lundahl (2022j) about the Section title in Henke (2022b) makes no sense. The section title indicates that Mr. Lundahl suggests that demons assist magicians (i.e., David Copperfield) with their stage tricks. That’s all that it says. Lundahl (2022j) then disagrees with the title by saying “No, I don’t”, which indicates that he did not suggest that “demons assist magicians with stage tricks.” He then follows this denial by contradicting himself and admitting that “I did suggest that could be the case.”

Now, either Mr. Lundahl completely misread what I wrote and contradicted himself, or he can’t express himself clearly in English. Instead of giving flippant replies, Mr. Lundahl would make far fewer mistakes if he carefully read what I said and then thought before writing.

Now, notice that both Mr. Lundahl and I are in full agreement that he was only making a suggestion. Yet, Lundahl (2022j) then goes off on the following unnecessary and inaccurate tirade:

Henke (2022b): “’Yet, as shown in the two quotations from Lundahl (2022a) in Section 2.3, Lundahl (2022a) injects the absolutely bizarre and unnecessary suggestion that demons are helping David Copperfield or other stage magicians.’ [my emphasis]

Again, here are two sections from Lundahl (2022a) that I’m referring to here:

Lundahl (2022j) then continues:

Hans Georg Lundahl: Henke misread that. He is unable to read in English what someone is really saying. I was on the hedge and really did not want to go into which explanation was the true one, just that neither of them requires Frick's law of surface tension to be broken. [my emphasis]

No, Mr. Lundahl. I didn’t misread anything. Not only can you not write clearly by using poor language and undefined abbreviations, such as “cfr” (see above), you don’t have any justification for even suggesting that David Copperfield might have demonic help. That’s a far too ridiculous and groundless suggestion to even be on the “hedge” (fence) about.

Henke (2022b): "In my February 15, 2022, 8:03 pm US Eastern email to Mr. Lundahl,"

Here is the full context of what I said in Henke (2022b):

“In my February 15, 2022, 8:03 pm US Eastern email to Mr. Lundahl, I said that James Randi, magician and skeptic, used to complain that many people in his audiences thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi . Well, when Mr. Lundahl suggests that David Copperfield and others might have help from demons in doing their tricks, he has joined the same lot of superstitious people that used to be in Mr. Randi’s audiences. With such widespread superstition and gullibility, it’s not surprising that conartists could use magic tricks to start religions and possibly deceive millions for generations to come. “

Hans Georg Lundahl: That would be the number XI on Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke which for Paris time is marked as 2/16/2022 at 2:03 AM.

Here is the full context of what I wrote in this February 15, 2022 email with the relevant part bolded:

“You asked me: "show one example where one generation invented stuff for entertainment and the next or their descendants believed it as fact. Not one single example shown." I think that the Book of Mormon is an example. Although I don't think the Spaulding Manuscript Hypothesis is convincing, I think that Joseph Smith plagiarized one or more entertaining novels that were written at that time, where members of the 10 lost tribes of Israel sailed to the Americas. The Mormons came to believe that story as history. Skeptic and magician James Randi used to complain that people thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi . In the US about 40% of Americans believe that some people have psychic or other supernatural powers despite the legal claims that the psychics have to give that their work is for entertainment only. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/01/new-age-beliefs-common-among-both-religious-and-nonreligious-americans/ It's not unusual for people to be deceived into thinking that entertainment, hoaxes or practical jokes are real. This includes scientists and other trained professionals that should know better. People also often take novels very seriously. Although "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a work of fiction, it proved to be a powerful work for Abolitionists. I think that too many people take Ayn Rand's philosophical novels too seriously. In the US we have numerous "urban legends", which are false information derived from misinterpretations derived from novels, misinterpretations, hoaxes and practical jokes that are widely believed as fact in the US. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_legends In the 1980s, photographs and films from the Gulf Breeze UFO hoaxes even fooled physicist Bruce Maccabee, who is an expert on interpreting hoaxes in photos and films. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Breeze_UFO_incident” [my emphasis]

In response to my statement: "Skeptic and magician James Randi used to complain that people thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers", Lundahl (2022j) makes the following vague statement:

In my answer, number XII on the post [email from February 16, 2022 at 6:47 AM US Eastern Time], I stated :

‘But here we don't have a story, we have an enactment ... and the complaint would be real good publicity, so a thing he would be likely to invent. The Dimond Brothers are obviously right that some preternatural and demonic things point to the reality of the Gospel indirectly (as against Atheism), but I think they are wrong to assume Bian lian is done by demons.”

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.”

Here, without any evidence, Mr. Lundahl in his email from February 16, 2022 at 6:47 AM US Eastern Time accuses James Randi of likely inventing his story for good publicity. This is ridiculous. Mr. Lundahl believes in a Talking Snake, but not the long-time experiences of a man that was known for his honesty in dealing with paranormal claims. Unfortunately, Mr. Lundahl again provides no references for the opinions of the Dimond Brothers and why their views on stage magicians and Bian lian Chinese opera are even relevant to reality.

So, anyway, both Mr. Lundahl and I agree that he made a suggestion about David Copperfield. I also recognize that he was “on the hedge” (fence) and did not want to discuss it. However, as I said in Henke (2022b), I was not going to let him get away with such a bizarre and unjustified statement, even if it was only a suggestion:

“Yet, as shown in the two quotations from Lundahl (2022a) in Section 2.3, Lundahl (2022a) injects the absolutely bizarre and unnecessary suggestion that demons are helping David Copperfield or other stage magicians. I will not allow him to make such blanket and superstitious suggestions without him justifying his speculations. I define superstition as the irrational invoking of demons, angels, God, luck, leprechauns, or other supernatural forces or beings without a shred of evidence to superficially explain away unusual events. This is exactly what Mr. Lundahl does throughout Lundahl (2022a) and his other essays. If he can’t or doesn’t want to provide any evidence about the existence of demons and what they can supposedly do, he should leave his groundless speculation about demonic activity completely out of his essays. They don’t help his arguments at all. Also, if he brings up a topic, he needs to be able to support it with good references or evidence, and not just throw out groundless claim after groundless claim. Groundless claims add up to nothing.” [my emphasis]

Sometimes when you’re “on the hedge” about an issue, it’s wise not to bring up the topic. It’s certainly not appropriate to cite the Dimond Brothers without providing any references and other information to justify why their opinions are even worthy of consideration.

But this is not the only place where Lundahl (2022a) considers the possibility that demons interact with people. He mentions a mere rumor that Theophrastus Paracelsus (1493-1541) had a contract with the devil:

“Lead and gold are badly chosen, but Paracelsus seems - seemed - to have turned a copper penny to a gold coin in Vienna. Not sure whether it was real gold or a demonic sham (he had, they said, a contract with the devil, which he managed to wheedle himself out of without losing the benefits).”

Rather than immediately recognizing that the accusation of Paracelsus having a contract with the devil is a totally unsubstantiated rumor and then dismissing it, Lundahl (2022a) seems open to believing that it was a possibility. I respond in Henke (2022b):

“Lundahl (2022a) even suggests that Paracelsus might have had a contract with the devil. Once more, Mr. Lundahl considers groundless claims of demonic activity to explain what was likely a sleight-of-hand trick, if the story about the copper coin ever happened at all. It could be nothing more than a false rumor. Even Mr. Lundahl’s English translation of his German reference at https://www.geschichtewiki.wien.gv.at/K%C3%BCssdenpfennig indicates that the story only appeared in the 18^th century. So, why would Lundahl (2022a) even need to consider the possibility of demonic activity when this entire story can be explained away as a legend or a simple trick? This is another example of superstition. He suggests the presence of demonic activity when such activity is not needed and has no evidential support.” [my emphasis]

Even if it’s only a suggestion or a case of being hypothetical, it’s never a good idea to put the name of any celebrity and speculation about undesirable activities, such as “demonic activity”, “pedophilia”, “murder”, “theft”, and “liar”, in the same sentence.

In another example where he throws out an unnecessary and irrational suggestion, Lundahl (2022j) makes a half-hearted and non-sensical statement involving “Sun and Moon angels” and the far-fetched story about the Sun standing still in Joshua 10:1-15:

“Well, to be blunt, by adding, I mean precisely that physics doesn't account for the action as such. But I also mean, this doesn't nullify all physical laws around it, everything apart from such actions, even in the miracle, follow physical laws. It was outside the normal laws of astronomic movement (whether you consider them as physical necessity or as conventions God impose on own daily action and on periodic actions of sun and moon angels) when Joshua stopped Sun and Moon in their courses. However, it was according to normal laws of optics that they could be observed as standing still for "the time of a whole day" (12 or 24 more hours before they set).” [my emphasis]

Instead of making irrelevant and irrational suggestions, why doesn’t Mr. Lundahl just keep his unsubstantiated claims and rumors to himself? Mr. Lundahl’s support of geocentricism is briefly discussed in Henke (2022aL).