Another Unsatisfactory Reply in Lundahl (2022q)
Kevin R. Henke
September 23, 2022
Rather than carefully reading and thoughtfully responding to my essays, Lundahl (2022q) continues to rush through them and often give flippant and incoherent responses that do not adequately address what we’re discussing. He needs to take some time to go through each of my essays and respond properly. Again, we would not have this problem, if Mr. Lundahl had simply responded with one coherent and well-organized essay per round rather than breaking up my essays with a lot of flippant line-by-line comments.
In response to Henke (2022u), Lundahl (2022q) simply makes the following comments:
“Basically repeats the same as previous. And that they "cannot" violate natural law is not a requirement for my case of giving the miraculous accounts same burden of historical evidence as for other important events, it is the opposite that is a requirement for motivating Henke's tactic of giving them a hugely more massive one.”
Here, again, Lundahl (2022q) makes claims that he cannot support with evidence. How can Mr. Lundahl 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? Before Mr. Lundahl can claim that there is “historical evidence” of miracles, he’s got to demonstrate that miracles are even possible under strictly controlled present-day conditions (Henke 2022b and Henke 2022co). He has not done so.
As I again stated in Henke (2022u), I agree with Mr. Lundahl that God can act without violating natural law. However, starting with Lundahl (2022a), Mr. Lundahl repeatedly claimed that God would never violate a natural law when he does a miracle. In Henke (2022u), I again asked him to finally answer my question: how does Mr. Lundahl know that if God exists that he would never violate natural law? Yet, in his previous statements in Lundahl (2022q) about an instantaneous healing of someone with Hansen’s disease, Mr. Lundahl admitted that miracles can be “contrary” to natural law (see Henke 2022fr). How is being “contrary” to natural law not admitting that miracles contradict or violate natural law?