Henke 2022fr

Still No Evidence of Miracles in Lundahl (2022q), But At Least He Now Recognizes that Miracles May Be “Contrary” to Natural Laws

Kevin R. Henke

September 23, 2022

In his response to Henke (2022t), Lundahl (2022q) makes the following repetitious comments:

“C. S. Lewis demonstrated the supernatural way before the chapter with the Pool Game Analogy. I claim here to demonstrate it through the miracles historically known.”

As I already stated in Henke (2022t), Henke (2022u), and Henke (2022cm), I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of miracles in C.S. Lewis’ Miracles (1960). Again, I was not impressed with the arguments in this book even when I was still a Christian 40 years ago. As further stated in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022co), and Henke (2022cv), I have thoroughly refuted Mr. Lundahl’s claim, repeated above in Lundahl (2022q), that miracles can be “historically known.” The existence of miracles can only be demonstrated under strictly controlled laboratory conditions.

Lundahl (2022q) then continues to comment on Henke (2022t) with some incoherent rambling in the second paragraph:

Either way, none of us is interested in demonstrating the supernatural by the Pool Game Analogy, we are interested in using it to answer an objection, namely that miracles would be contradicting already known knowledge, the one we have of natural law.

In order for miracles not to contradict the already known knowledge for natural law, it is sufficient if "the supernatural" can do them without violating natural laws, it is absolutely not necessary for God to be unable to undo them. You see, as long as you do not have as a fact that miracle so and so needed to go through the agencies normally described by natural law, and went through them in ways that broke these laws (which by now are part of our knowledge), you cannot validly argue against the veracity of the miraculous accounts from these miracles, if occurring, contradicting natural laws.

It's difficult to know exactly what Lundahl (2022q) is trying to say in the second paragraph. He needs to write better. Nevertheless, I made the following statements about miracles in Henke (2022t), which Mr. Lundahl should have clearly addressed:

“Now, because there is no evidence of the supernatural, what a hypothetical supernatural being might be able to do is only limited by people’s imaginations. Unfortunately, C.S. Lewis and Mr. Lundahl have limited imaginations because I have no problem thinking of situations where a supernatural being could violate the laws of nature and produce a miracle if they decide to do so, as I mentioned in Henke (2022b), where the pool ball could pass through the solid table. Again, I also argue that God and other supernatural beings, if they exist, could act in some cases without violating natural law, such as in a pool game. However, unless natural laws are violated, I would not consider the actions of those supernatural beings to be miracles. Here’s why… When C.S. Lewis and Lundahl (2022a) claim that miracles do not violate the laws of chemistry and physics, they are not only limiting their imaginations, but they are also preventing miracles from being detected and any entity from being identified as supernatural. If a “miracle” never violates the laws of nature, then how do we know that the act was done by a supernatural being? Could it be a magician’s trick rather than an act of demons as Mr. Lundahl might think? As I mention in Henke (2022b), how would Mr. Lundahl using the C.S. Lewis approach to miracles be able to distinguish God from a non-supernatural extraterrestrial being with abilities that are so far technologically advanced that its actions look like magic to us? We have no choice but to define a miracle as violating natural law to really be able to say that it’s not something natural or artificial.”

Lundahl (2022q) continues:

An example somewhat more serious than the Pool Game Analogy : there are natural laws that describe what our immune system can do against Hansen's disease, and an instantaneous healing through our immune system is contrary to these laws. There are laws that describe how antibiotics can cure Hansen's disease, and an antibiotics cure takes six months. But neither of these laws argue about what God could or could not do to Hansen's disease, and so an instantaneous healing from leprosy (also known as Hansen's disease) is a very good "calling card" for God, because we know that such instantaneous healings are not what our immune system or antibiotics are able to work.” [my emphasis]

Yes! An instantaneous healing of Hansen’s disease would be an example that is “…is contrary to these laws.” So, what’s the real difference between an instantaneous healing being contrary to natural laws and an instantaneous healing being a miracle that violates the natural laws? How can something that is contrary to natural law be described as “adding to” or supplementing natural law? No, something that is contrary to natural law opposes or contradicts the natural law and does not “add to it” or supplement it as Mr. Lundahl started to claim in Lundahl (2022a) when he stated “…a miracle is not a break away from natural physics, chemistry, or biology, but an addition to them.” (Again, as Lundahl 2022q correctly points out, natural laws describe the natural processes and technically it would be the natural processes that would be contrary, contradicted, broken or violated. We refer to natural laws “being broken” out of convenience – see Henke 2022fv.) In my opinion, if such an instantaneousness healing occurred entirely in a matter of seconds and was thoroughly documented, it would likely be a miracle. However, the identity of the Supernatural being or the supernatural process that would be responsible for this rapid and unnatural healing may not be possible. Lundahl (2022q) would have to provide evidence that his God was responsible for the miracle.

Lundahl (2022q) further states:

“With this out of the way, let's look at the historic evidence that Jesus actually healed lepers. Or in other terms, are the Gospels historic accounts or not? And if they are historic accounts, how likely is fraudulent writing or misunderstanding as explanations of these passages?”

Here, again, is where Mr. Lundahl and I part ways. I would say that the Gospels are not historic accounts. Besides the lack of external independent evidence for the events in the Gospels, Carrier (2014), Doherty (2005), Price (2003), Price (2007), and many other critics argue that the four Gospels of the New Testament are works of fiction. In particular, Carrier (2014) looks at the Greek texts of the Gospels in a lot of detail and sees that they have structures that are common in ancient Greek fictional “histories.” Just as one example, Carrier (2014, pp. 411-415) argues that Mark 4-8 has a classic fictional “Sea Narrative Structure.” Furthermore, as I mentioned before in my other essays, how can we demonstrate that miraculous claims in the distant past were real, when any physical evidence is long gone and when we know that people often lie or misinterpret events? Anyway, Mr. Lundahl has the burden of evidence to challenge the conclusions of Carrier (2014) and others, and demonstrate that the Gospels are historical. For once, he should study and evaluate the references that I recommend.

Lundahl (2022q) continues:

What is the use of following all the rules Henke sets up for a writing that serves a certain type of reader, if a simple argument cannot be made without Henke misconstruing it's intended scope of proof, but complains it is not proving something it was not meant to prove, because either author has adequate other proof for that something else?” [my emphasis]

As I have said numerous times, I’m not asking Mr. Lundahl to “prove” anything (e.g., Henke 2022ad)!! History and science deal with evidence and probabilities, and not “proof”. Proof is for mathematics.

No, Mr. Lundahl, these are not my rules. These standards come from the scientific method and rules of scholarship that must be followed in any thorough investigation involving the past. If anyone is interested in our debate, they would want to see good evidence from Mr. Lundahl that Genesis 3 is history and miracles occur. Mr. Lundahl has utterly failed to provide any high quality and reliable evidence for the supernatural. Instead, he just wants people to accept Bible stories as fact simply because some “earliest known audience” in the early Church and ancient Israel were gullible enough to believe in them.

References:

Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.

Doherty, E. 2005. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Age of Reason Publications: Ottawa, Canada, 380pp.

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

Price, R.M. 2003. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 389pp.

Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press: Cranford, NJ, USA, 279pp.