Henke 2022co

Cat Resurrection Proposal in Henke (2022b) would be a Superior Test of the Supernatural than Any Arguments for Genesis 3

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 without really understanding how a skeptic would scrutinize an investigation of a supernatural claim:

“Kevin R. Henke: ‘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.’

Under some, but not other circumstance. Depending on the historic case by case probability of either, which again varies according to your world view.

No. The probability of any historical claim should solely depend on the presence or absence of confirmed evidence and not on anyone’s “world view.” In this proposed test to resurrect a dead cat, the previous claim that someone “witnessed a ‘prophet’ raising a cat from the dead” should not be believed. This is exactly why the prophet has to demonstrate his supernatural abilities under strictly controlled conditions that don’t depend on the “world views” of the participants or the audience just taking his or his allies’ claims at face value that he can perform supernatural acts. This is also exactly why historical claims and rumors of the supernatural cannot be trusted.

Lundahl (2022m) continues:

Kevin R. Henke ‘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.’

And someone could then proceed to say ‘no, the live cat was a homozygotic twin, or deliberate clone, of the dead cat." Or even (historically!) deny that the test had even taken place.’”

Certainly, if the supposed resurrection test of a dead cat occurred sometime in the past and the evidence for that test is inadequate, then an individual would be completely justified in being skeptical of the results of the test! If the evidence that the test took place is no better than a written account, like Genesis 3, then the skeptic might very well be totally justified in denying “…that the test had even taken place.”

Now, here, Mr. Lundahl’s skeptic is making a specific claim about fraud and suggesting that “…the live cat was a homozygotic twin, or deliberate clone, of the dead cat.” Some might accuse the skeptic of being a closed-minded debunker that would never accept any evidence of the supernatural, no matter how good it is. However, the skeptic could demonstrate his sincerity by providing evidence to support his accusations of fraud. He could show how the test was flawed and possibly how the dead cat was replaced by a homozygotic twin or clone. So, how would the skeptic do this? Certainly, the team that conducted the test, if they were at all competent, would never allow the prophet or any of his friends to provide the dead cat for the test. That is, the prophet and his allies should not be given any opportunity to manipulate the test by possibly substituting a live homozygotic twin or clone of the dead cat. The skeptic would have to look at the procedures of the test and attempt to identify how a homozygotic twin or clone of the dead cat was obtained. This might not be easy if the dead cat was randomly taken from a veterinarian clinic and if the genealogy of the dead cat was not known. This is especially true if the cat was a stray of unknown origin.

Now, any such competent test of the prophet would likely have a lot of videos and photographs that could be scrutinized for evidence of fraud. If steps in the experiment were not filmed or adequately photographed, those could be times when fraud occurred. The skeptic would certainly note all of this and carefully examine all videos, photographs and written records for evidence of fraud. Perhaps, the video recordings and photographs of the test are often missing or have poor quality. If so, these would be good reasons to suspect the reliability of the test.

To be reliable, the test should also include a large number of individuals to witness all of the test – maybe 20 or 30. These eyewitnesses should include skeptics, conservative Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and a wide variety of people with different political, philosophical and occupational backgrounds and worldviews. Of course, none of them should have met or known each other before the test. The skeptic could interview the eyewitnesses and look into their public records to see if they had any connection with the prophet or anyone else that might have reason to manipulate the test. The skeptic’s interviews should be thorough and resemble lawyers interviewing potential jurors for a criminal trial. It’s possible that the number and quality of the eyewitnesses were insufficient and that would be yet another good reason to reject the reliability of the test.

Next, the skeptic would have to try to identify who replaced the dead cat with an alive homozygotic twin or clone, and when the switch occurred. Was the switch detected by video? Also, how secure was the vault where the dead cat was stored for a week? Did someone switch the dead cat for another dead cat that had an alive homozygotic twin? Do the 24-hour, seven-day per week videos of the inside and outside of the vault show any tampering of the cat or the cameras? Was the seal on the vault box broken? Were any of the investigation team or perhaps any of 20-30 witnesses involved in a conspiracy with the prophet to make sure that he passed the test? If so, these are additional reasons to suspect the reliability of the test.

If the procedures of the test were not thorough enough to convince a reasonable skeptic, then arrangements should be made to redo the test with the prophet. The skeptic could make recommendations to improve the methodology of the test and further minimize the chances of fraud. Other advisors could be involved in improving the second test. Of course, except for the prophet, the participants in the first experiment, including the 20-30 eyewitnesses, would not be allowed to participate in the second experiment. An entire new team and group of 20-30 diverse witnesses would be needed. Granted, a genuine prophet may not be able to convince every skeptic, but this test, if it works, would be far more rigorous and reliable than believing that Genesis 3 actually happened just because some “first known audience”, whoever they were, say so. Also, as I said in Henke (2022b), if people don’t believe the prophet, he could be given a different task to demonstrate his supernatural powers, such as ex nihilo creating a solar system out of nothing or maybe simply making a series of successful future predictions, such as predicting exactly when and where the next seven magnitude 6.5 and higher earthquakes will occur or predicting what would be the most deadly natural disaster in the world for the next 20 days in a row.