Henke 2022be

Lundahl (2022k) Doesn’t Know What an Agnostic is and He Continues to Make Claims Without Providing Any Suitable Evidence

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I stated that:

“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.”

Lundahl (2022k) replies to this section:

“Once again, Henke will now reuse the fiction he is only scrutinising my evidence and I am only providing or not providing such. I had stated : “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.”

Here Henke blusters in:

// 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. //

I was already saying, more than once, the proof for which I am arguing in this instance, is the historic proof of miracles. I am not providing, unlike CSL in Miracles, a philosophical rationale for God's having to exist and then use that as backdrop for my historic investigation. I am claiming that someone approaching history as a "true agnostic" (something I don't consider Henke's definitions of his agnosticism amount to) would have to:

· use the criterium (referred to more than once), whether first known audience thought of a text as history or fiction

· admit the miraculous occurs

· and that some kind of God or gods exist

· and finally, that on analysis, the miracles of the God of the Bible either require more clearly divine power or are better documented than those of heroic legends in Greek mythology.” [my emphasis]

First of all, as I stated in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022ad), I am NOT asking for proof. How many times do I have to say this? Proof is for mathematics. I’m asking for evidence of miracles, God, etc., and Mr. Lundahl has not given any. Any claim without accompanying supporting evidence is worthless speculation. Secondly, I’ve already stated in Henke (2022b) that miracles cannot be “proven” through history. They have to be demonstrated under present and strictly controlled laboratory conditions. So, there is no such thing as a “historic proof of miracles.” Thirdly, Mr. Lundahl needs to provide evidence for the existence of God before he can argue about what God will or won’t do. He has not done that and the “philosophical arguments” in Lewis (1960) are also worthless because they are divorced from any sound evidence of God, heaven, the reliability of the Bible, etc. Fourthly, as I argue in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bh), Mr. Lundahl’s “first known audience” argument is a worthless scam that ignores the fact that people commonly misinterpret phenomena or lie about them, and then large numbers of gullible people often accept the misinterpretations and outright lies. Even Lewis (1960, p. 159) admits:

“Lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings and hearsay make up perhaps more than half of all that is said and written in the world.”

I would further argue that it is highly probable that the Bible is full of lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings and hearsay – see the secular references in Henke (2022ar).

Fifthly, Lundahl (2022k) does not know what an agnostic is and he did not bother to carefully read what I said in Henke (2022b), where I clearly explained that my agnosticism was limited. I am not undecided about the miracle claims in the Bible. I doubt that any of them occurred. It’s far more likely that they are based on lies or misinterpretations rather than something actually miraculous happened. Nevertheless, if Mr. Lundahl or anyone else gives me evidence of a miracle, I’ll gladly change my mind.

Besides not understanding my limited agnosticism, in the following section, Lundahl (2022k) completely mangles and misinterprets the meaning of agnosticism and what an agnostic should do:

“I am claiming that someone approaching history as a "true agnostic" (something I don't consider Henke's definitions of his agnosticism amount to) would have to:

· use the criterium (referred to more than once), whether first known audience thought of a text as history or fiction

· admit the miraculous occurs

· and that some kind of God or gods exist

· and finally, that on analysis, the miracles of the God of the Bible either require more clearly divine power or are better documented than those of heroic legends in Greek mythology.”

According to The Oxford English Dictionary, which is what Mr. Lundahl prefers according to his emails, an extended use of the word agnostic may be defined as:

“a person who is not persuaded by or committed to a particular point of view; a sceptic.”

Lundahl (2022k) has no idea what a “true agnostic” is. No agnostic or other thinking person would ever trust his “first known audience” charade (see Henke 2022b and Henke 2022bh). The tendencies of humans to lie about and misinterpret events, and others to gullibly believe the lies and interpretations are so common that even if the actual beliefs of “first known audience” could be identified, there’s no reason to conclude what they believed was true.

Now, an agnostic could admit that miracles are possible and still be an agnostic about them. However, if an agnostic actually admits that “the miraculous occurs” as Lundahl (2022k) demands, then he’s no longer undecided about the existence of miracles and he’s no longer an agnostic. He’s become a believer in miracles. Without legitimate evidence, I have no logical reason to comply with these unreasonable demands in Lundahl (2022k). Also, by definition, an agnostic would never admit that “some kind of God or gods exist.” If he does this, then he’s become a theist and is no longer an agnostic.

Mr. Lundahl and his sources have totally failed to provide any evidence or suitable documentation of miracles. They have failed to demonstrate that the miracle stories in the Bible are any more reliable than Greek mythology. Whether they are Greek, Old Testament or New Testament miracle stories, there’s no reason to trust any of them.

Reference:

Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2^nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.