Henke 2022cn

“Metaphysical” Arguments are Worthless without Evidence

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I wrote the following about verifying history and the supernatural:

“According to his second essay, Lundahl (2022b), there are two ways to verify the existence of the supernatural; namely, metaphysics and history. He is definitely wrong to claim that history is capable of verifying the supernatural. C.S. Lewis (1960, p. 2), a source used by Lundahl (2022a), even agrees with me that “history can never convince us that a miracle occurred.” We can never rule out the strong possibility that “witnesses” to a past “supernatural event” outright lied and made-up a story, or misinterpreted what they saw. These are the bases of Hypotheses #3 and #4 for the Talking Snake, which Lundahl (2022c) utterly fails to adequately address as discussed in Section 5.0 of this essay.

Lewis (1960, p. 87) is also correct when he states that the “progress of science” has not eliminated the possibility of miracles and that science has not demonstrated that miracles are impossible. However, again, Lewis (1960, pp. 17-85) fails to demonstrate that human reasoning or another other process involves the supernatural. He also failed to realize that the burden of evidence for miracles are on those that argue for miracles. Despite his often vague rambling, Lewis (1960) presents no evidence of miracles.

The only way to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural is to have it demonstrated under strictly controlled conditions with multiple investigators from diverse backgrounds. These investigations would certainly involve logic and mathematics, but not any unnecessary pedantic and flawed metaphysical arguments.

As an example, someone might claim that he witnessed a “prophet” raising a cat from the dead. Obviously, this claim could be a lie or a misinterpretation. So, how could anyone confirm that this prophet has the ability to raise animals from the dead? The only reliable way is to test the prophet under strictly controlled conditions. First, you collect a DNA sample from a cat that has just died. Get three veterinarians to independently confirm that the cat is indeed dead. Next, place the cat in a well-secured storage area where it can rot for a week. Then under strictly controlled conditions involving videos, get the prophet to raise the cat from the dead. If the cat comes back to life, immediately collect another DNA sample to confirm that it’s the same cat.

Let’s say that someone was actually able on their own without technological assistance to resurrect a cat from the dead. Perhaps, he lays his hands on dead animals, prays, and in all cases the animals come back to life. Now, some superskeptics might simply argue that the individual has discovered a new, but totally natural, way of resurrecting the dead and that the supernatural remains undemonstrated. For example, someone might argue that aliens from space could have hidden advanced technologies or natural powers that would allow them to resurrect dead animals even after a week. The process would look supernatural to our primitive minds even though natural law was not violated. It is said that advanced technologies appear as “magic” to less technical societies. If this is a genuine concern, have the “prophet” do a bigger task, such as producing a complete solar system from nothing within a light year of Earth. The prophet could be given six days to do it. Now, someone might groundlessly speculate that in a million years people might develop the technology to raise the dead or create solar systems from nothing – ex nihilo creation. Maybe, but if humans every gain the ability through either technology, now unknown natural powers or magic to raise the dead or create entire solar systems from nothing; that is, utterly control space and time, then they might meet the definitions of a god and they might deserve the right to be called gods. However, that doesn’t mean that they deserve worship as gods. Their moral character still may be quite human and flawed. Nevertheless, I’m skeptical that humans will ever be able to do ex nihilo creation and resurrect the decayed dead.

Now, I fully understand that a god, prophet, psychic, ghost, demon, or angel probably would never agree to submit to testing, but this is the only way to verify the supernatural. So, believers in the supernatural are in the unfortunate position of not being able to demonstrate that their claims are real. Too bad for them. Nevertheless, skeptics have no rational reason to lower their standards so that believers’ likely nonsense could be labeled as reality. Advocates of the supernatural have to find some way to meet strict scientific standards and demonstrate their claims.” [my emphasis]

Lundahl (2022m) then comments on the bolded paragraph of this section:

“How about necessary, unpedantic, and correct metaphysical arguments? Ah, is that not on Henke's board? Well, sorry, Henke is metaphysically illiterate, then.”

Contrary to the groundless and uninformed proclamations in the above statement from Lundahl (2022m), I understand logic and philosophical arguments. It’s part of the scientific method and I am thoroughly trained and tested in it as I got my Ph.D. in geology, when I did my post-Doc in chemistry and during my profession as a research scientist. I also taught numerous students to use logic as part of the scientific method. Thus far, Mr. Lundahl has not given a shred of valid evidence to support Genesis 3 and any other miraculous claim. Without this evidence, his “metaphysical” arguments are indeed unnecessary, pedantic, and not demonstrably correct.

“Metaphysical” or philosophical arguments are unreliable and worthless if they’re not supported by solid evidence. As I illustrated in Henke (2022aj), apparently logical arguments become useless if the scientific evidence turns out not to support one of the premises:

“Philosophy is worthless without evidence to support it and science and history are worthless if they are not based on sound logic. They must go together. For example, let’s say that you go to the zoo and make a list of 50 birds that you’ve seen. You then come to the following conclusion about your list:

All birds are animals.

All of the birds on my list can fly.

Therefore, all of the birds on my list are animals that can fly.

This looks like a perfectly logical argument. However, a biologist sees your list and notices that you’ve made a serious mistake. Animal #32 is a little spotted kiwi, which is a flightless bird. Because your second premise is false, your conclusion is false. Logic needs to be supported by evidence from either good science or valid history.”

So, how was Mr. Lundahl trained in “metaphysical arguments”? Who were his mentors and what university courses or other formal training has he had on logic, philosophy and the scientific method? How many courses did Mr. Lundahl teach on logic and metaphysics? How many students did he have? What are Mr. Lundahl’s credentials and what justification does he have to judge mine?