Natural Laws as Effective Descriptions of Reality
Kevin R. Henke
September 23, 2022
In Henke (2022x), I explain how Lundahl (2022i) contradicts his earlier statements in Lundahl (2022a). I make the following statements in Henke (2022x):
“After Lundahl (2022a) repeatedly stated that God does not violate any of the laws of chemistry and physics when he does a miracle, Lundahl (2022a) then contradicts himself in one of most incoherent, irrational and rambling paragraphs that I’ve ever seen:
“God and angelic beings can do things with bodies that physics doesn't provide their ability for. Like the example of God turning the N/m away from downward vectoriality and like demons keeping the body of David Copperfield above the water, like an adult holding a doll, just the "adult" isn't using hands but will and has no body and isn't visible. Btw, both good angels and demons can readily consider us "immature" - they were created over 7200 years ago and made their mature decision for eternity right after creation, we were each created less than 130 years ago (I presume) and as long as we live, we have time to change, and some do so in the last moment, for better or for worse.” [my emphasis]
If “God and angelic beings can do things with bodies” that physics cannot explain; that is, “physics doesn’t provide their ability for”, how are God and angelic beings not violating the laws of physics? At least in this Universe, anything or anyone that can do things with bodies must comply with the laws of physics. The laws of physics are not optional. Granted, our current understanding of the laws of nature is incomplete and physicists need to develop more equations and theories to better understand our Universe. However, if God and other supernatural beings do not violate the laws of physics, then we should be able to utilize equations and theories to exactly explain whatever they physically do in our Universe. Lundahl (2022i) can try to play whatever word games he wants. Any of his baseless speculations about “additions” to physics in Lundahl (2022a) would either be just another form of physics that could be measured, theorized and predicted, or it's a miracle and not physics at all, but a violation of physics. The fact is, if God exists and is omnipotent, then Mr. Lundahl is not going to be able to put him in a box and say what he will or won’t do with respect to natural law. Restraining God to the demands of current or future physics equations and theories does not make him omnipotent.” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022q) then makes the following comments on my above bolded and italicized statement: “At least in this Universe, anything or anyone that can do things with bodies must comply with the laws of physics.”:
“No.
Not even in this Universe. Henke is giving the laws of physics a kind of godlike status that properly isn't theirs.”
No, I do not. I fully admit that physicists’ current understanding of our Universe is incomplete, as I stated in italics and bold in the above paragraph and also in Henke (2022ar). Yet, they see Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation and other laws of physics not only being effective explanations on Earth, but also working in distant galaxies within our Universe.
“The correct status of the laws of physics is : descriptions (made by scientists) of regular limitations and capacities of physical causes.
And none of the laws, of physics or any other science, states that physical causes are the only ones that can have physical effects.”
While it is true that the laws of physics are descriptions, as I emphasized in Henke (2022fv), that does not stop physicists and other scientists from using the laws of chemistry and physics to test and successful explain how our Universe works. These results also allow physicists to explain the physical properties of Universe going all the way back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang (e.g., Bennett et al. 2014; Delsemme 1998; Freedman and Kaufmann 2002; Weintraub 2011). There’s no evidence that anything supernatural or “spiritual” is needed for scientists to explain how our Universe functions.
I also stated in Henke (2022x) as shown in bold and italics in the above paragraph:
“Granted, our current understanding of the laws of nature is incomplete…”
Lundahl (2022q) then comments on this statement:
“The current understanding of causes within nature is incomplete. But the laws are our descriptions of our undestanding of them. And they say strictly nothing about causes outside physical nature or even outside nature tout court.” [my emphasis]
As I argued in Henke (2022aw), where’s Mr. Lundahl’s evidence that there is anything outside of physical nature; that is, outside of our Universe? As far as we know, Newton’s Universal Law and the other laws of physics and chemistry are indeed Universal. If Mr. Lundahl claims otherwise, he needs to present his evidence to physicists. Otherwise, he has nothing but groundless speculation.
I then further state in Henke (2022x):
“However, if God and other supernatural beings do not violate the laws of physics, then we should be able to utilize equations and theories to exactly explain whatever they physically do in our Universe.”
Lundahl (2022q) then responds:
“The exact analogy of stating that the things the player does by picking up and using a pool queue should be describable in equations the physicist got from observing the balls on the pool table moved by the waves around the cruiser.
he’s actually saying that physicists should be able to eventually discover how miracles occur and develop additional equations to describe them.
Not the least…”
How so Mr. Lundahl? If God does not violate any laws of physics when he does miracles as you groundlessly claim, why couldn’t a physicist hypothetically develop equations to explain miracles?
Next, Lundahl (2022q) claims, despite all of the evidence that indicates otherwise (see Henke 2022c through Henke 2022q):
“And the problem is not with my clarity of writing, it is with Henke's lack of mental clarity in reading.”
Anyone that reads the following paragraph from Lundahl (2022a) will immediately recognize that Mr. Lundahl’s writing is rambling and often incomprehensible:
“God and angelic beings can do things with bodies that physics doesn't provide their ability for. Like the example of God turning the N/m away from downward vectoriality and like demons keeping the body of David Copperfield above the water, like an adult holding a doll, just the "adult" isn't using hands but will and has no body and isn't visible. Btw, both good angels and demons can readily consider us "immature" - they were created over 7200 years ago and made their mature decision for eternity right after creation, we were each created less than 130 years ago (I presume) and as long as we live, we have time to change, and some do so in the last moment, for better or for worse.”
Here's another example from Lundahl (2022j) of Mr. Lundahl’s terrible writing, this time involving delusional sun and moon angels:
“Well, to be blunt, by adding, I mean precisely that physics doesn't account for the action as such. But I also mean, this doesn't nullify all physical laws around it, everything apart from such actions, even in the miracle, follow physical laws. It was outside the normal laws of astronomic movement (whether you consider them as physical necessity or as conventions God impose on own daily action and on periodic actions of sun and moon angels) when Joshua stopped Sun and Moon in their courses. However, it was according to normal laws of optics that they could be observed as standing still for "the time of a whole day" (12 or 24 more hours before they set).”
As shown in Henke (2022aq), my long and peer-reviewed publication record demonstrates that I am proficient in both reading and writing in English. Mr. Lundahl’s frequently rambling texts, misspellings and poor referencing demonstrates that he is not. Worst of all, he’s stubbornly unwilling to improve his writing skills.
References:
Bennett, J., M. Donahue, N. Schneider, and M. Voit. 2014. The Cosmic Perspective: Stars, Galaxies, & Cosmology: Pearson: Boston, MA, USA.
Delsemme, A. 1998. Our Cosmic Origins: From the Big Bang to the Emergence of Life and Intelligence: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 322pp.
Freedman, R.A. and W.J. Kaufmann III. 2002. Universe: 6th ed., W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, NY, USA.
Weintraub, D.A. 2011. How Old is the Universe? Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 370pp.