Embedded Files
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/on-verifying-supernatural.html
On Verifying the Supernatural
On Verifying the Supernatural
Kevin R. Henke:
Hans Georg Lundahl:
Four Hypotheses of Kevin R. Henke for Historicity of Genesis 3
Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True
Two Arguments for Alexander that Atheists (and Likeminded) Should Not Use - Or Three
Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer
Furthermore, conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews would have a serious problem in choosing between Hypotheses #1 and #2. Yet, there’s a problem with consistency in Hypothesis #1. While advocates of Hypothesis #1 would have to admit that Genesis 1-2:14 came as a vision from God, why exclude Genesis 3 from the same set of visions? Why should any conservative Christian or Jew believe Hypothesis #1 rather than #2?
Mostly dealt with in previous. One more : proponents of #2 for Genesis 3 go against tradition, as the tradition says that Moses had a vision of the Six Days, and they are also likely to be Old Earthers, trying to motivate why an event purportedly 2500 - 3000 years before Moses could in fact have been known if Adam was rather 250 000 BP.
While Alexander the Great was just a normal human being, a Talking Snake would be a supernatural being and not an ordinary snake. That means that you have to demonstrate with positive evidence that a supernatural Talking Snake is even possible.
... I define a supernatural act or “magic” as a feat that violates the laws of chemistry and/or physics. Such a supernatural feat could also be called a miracle. For our everyday macroscopic world, the laws of physics would include Newtonian physics for the most part rather than Einsteinian Relativity. The laws of Chemistry are based on atomic theory. Obviously, as our knowledge of chemistry and physics grows, my views of what is supernatural, artificial and natural might change. However, even with the advent of Einsteinian physics, Newton’s laws still widely apply in our Universe.
... I would define a supernatural being as an individual or thing that is capable of performing supernatural acts or has bodily structures that are inconsistent with biology. Examples would include gods, angels, the Talking Snake, fire-breathing dragons, and trees that produce fruit that can increase lifespans and mental abilities with one bite.
There are exactly two ways to verify a claim of the supernatural - which you misdefine.
One way is metaphysics, one way is to let history decide.
There is a test that you propose which is beside the point:
So, from what we know about the intelligence and the inability of snakes and other reptiles to speak, if a snake starts having a conversation with me and other witnesses, I would have to change my skeptical views of Genesis 3.
It is not here claimed that serpents generally speak, or even that there is a specific type of serpent that does so. Also, the test would, if successful, make you reconsider historicity of Genesis 3 only at stating talking snakes are not supernatural.
It would seem, despite your claim to Agnosticism, that you are only agnostic between the Atheist and the Deist alternative, but very much not agnostic, rather claiming basically to know, that only such alternatives that agree in excluding the supernatural should be considered.
This is why for you, it would be wiser to take up a discussion on metaphysics - is there a kind of God who could conceivably work any kind of miracle, has He created beings superior to us (and to snakes and donkeys) that could give the appearance of these speaking, than to simply go on asking verifications on history with this metaphysic prejudice against miracles and the angelic world presumed, but never discussed.
Another way would be to discuss history, simply laying it aside.
There are tests that can be done without first asking "is it supernatural", such as:
· do we have one version, agreeing with itself?
· do we have several versions, agreeing with each other?
· do we have several versions, disagreeing?
· did the earliest known audience believe it was fiction or history?
· is there specific evidence for fraud, any specific person who was in a position to perpetrate it?
And this test obviously involves strictly keeping apart "fraud" from "fiction". As far as we two are concerned, Joseph Smith is fraud, Superman is fiction.
We also cannot state that the earliest known audience for Joseph Smith believed his "translations from the golden plates" were history, unless we restrict it to the very short time when only his already adepts knew of it. Some in his lifetime did rather see Book of Mormon, not as fiction, but as fraud.
Will you do these tests, or won't you?
I tend to rank claims about historical events as: 1) highly probable or beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) probable, 3) plausible, 4) unlikely or 5) highly unlikely (probably false or myth).
There is a problem when you equate level 5 "highly unlikely" with "supernatural" or at least "supernatural" with "highly unlikely". It is that, while you pretend to assess history independently of your (or anyone else's) world view, you are in fact taking your world view as a test of historic facthood. There is also a problem when you mix "prior likelihood" (as in low such for the supernatural) with "likelihood after assessing the evidence" (as in high such in things you consider "beyond reasonable doubt").
I also have a level five, and of "prior likelihood", but usually it involves my world view in a very upfront way. Let's say I totally exclude Hercules being son of a Most High who is also first cousin with the Sun, and I totally exclude his going down to Hades and fetching Cerberus or going to the Hesperides and taking the vault of heaven on his shoulders. The latter, I exclude due to geography, buth the former two, due to my theology. The Most High is neither father of Hercules, nor first cousin of the Sun, and conquering Hell is not made with muscle power. The Most High is also (usually, except in Romanian) not called Zeus.
If you will drag in the prejudice against "the supernatural" as you define it, and disallow discussing this, you are making the discussion rather pointless. I will nevertheless answer one more, namely whether ancient narrative is adequate for knowledge about historic fact. My contention about Alexander the Great is:
1. a human being that lived in the 4th century BC and not a mythical or fictional being.
2. he was a military leader that had an extraordinary political effect over a wide region of at least the Middle East.
3. five historians from 300 years after his time are adequate for knowing this. The rest of the material presented, if it is considered without these historians, isn't.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ash Wednesday
2.III.2022
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 12:15
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse