Henke 2022cv

Again, Lundahl (2022m) is Wrong. History Can’t Demonstrate the Existence of Miracles

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]

To respond to the bolded section of Henke (2022b), Lundahl (2022m) simply repeats his typical groundless proclamations using his usual procedure of just making flippant comments on fragments of my sentences rather than composing a coherent, well-thought-out and well-referenced reply:

“Kevin R. Henke: ‘…but this is the only way to verify the supernatural.’

No, it would be the only scientific way to verify the supernatural as a part of the natural world. Which is a very huge strawman.

No. It’s not a strawman. How can the claim of a past miracle be demonstrated when the event did not occur under strictly controlled conditions in compliance with the scientific method and where confounding variables could be minimized? How can the claim of a past miracle be thorough verified when critical evidence is unlikely to have been preserved? How could the likely possibility of a hoax or misinterpretation be ruled out if the claim was not done under strictly controlled conditions?

Lundahl (2022m) continues:

Kevin R. Henke: “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.’

How about strict historic ones, but given that history faculties may have procedures a priori excluding miracles, and these would not be equal to strict historic standard?”

What strict historic standard has Mr. Lundahl used during any of this debate? Although Mr. Lundahl is an extremely intelligent man, I’m still going to be quite blunt here. Mr. Lundahl’s procedures for “investigating” history are lax, naive, full of superstition, ineffective, and not strict at all. After seeing how Mr. Lundahl blindly accepts whatever some ancient texts say about the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 or even what they say about Alexander the Great, at this point, he has not demonstrated that he understands how investigations of the past should be done, the capabilities of those investigations and, most of all, he does not understand their severe limitations. Mr. Lundahl’s ideas of “strict historic standards” are simply not good enough to detect a miracle and to separate history from myth. The only way to convince an open-minded skeptic that miracles are real is to demonstrate them under strictly controlled and present conditions. After that’s done, investigators still will not be able to demonstrate past claims about miracles, but, at least, they would then be more open to the possibility.

Reference:

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