Lundahl (2022r) Refuses to Correct the Misleading Title of Lundahl (2022a)
Kevin R. Henke
October 6, 2022
In Henke (2022az), I made the following statements:
“In Henke (2022b), I made the following comments about the talking donkey story in the book of Numbers:
“Lundahl (2022a) further cites the story of the talking donkey in Numbers 22:22-41. As with his other references to the Bible, he cites this story without providing a shred of evidence that it actually happened. He simply wants his readers to irrationally accept the story as history. We certainly know that donkeys and snakes don’t talk. That’s the big problem with these stories. There’s no rational reason to believe them. It’s far more probable that someone just made up these stories. Because others liked and believed them, they got into the Bible.
Without giving a proper reference, Lundahl (2022a) refers to a Bishop Challoner and states that angels are capable of making a donkey talk without violating natural law. Once more, Mr. Lundahl commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Without having a shred of evidence, he invokes a groundless story about an angel to explain another groundless story about a talking donkey. He has done absolutely nothing to rationally convince us that any of these stories ever happened. He just expects us to accept that this account in Numbers was history because it’s in the Bible.” [my emphasis]
Henke (2022g) reviews the mysterious Bishop Challoner and Henke (2022ab) further discusses circular reasoning and how Mr. Lundahl frequently uses this fallacy.
Lundahl (2022k) then replies to the bolded statements in the above quotation from Henke (2022b):
“Henke forgets that, the title of this essay was Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True and that the top just below the title featured how Henke defines the supernatural.”
No, Mr. Lundahl, I did not forget about the title of Lundahl (2022a), which is “Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories Believed to be True.” I just reject the validity of the title and almost all of the claims in Lundahl (2022a). There’s no legitimate evidence anywhere in Lundahl (2022a) that supports the existence of the supernatural and why anyone should believe that these stories are true.” [my emphasis]
Mr. Lundahl then ends Lundahl (2022r) with some responses to the bolded and italicized paragraph in Henke (2022az):
“My title was not Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories that SHOULD BE Believed to be True. It was Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories Believed to be True. These stories are or were in fact, whether they should so or not, believed to be true. This is not a premiss rejected, it is a premiss not even adressed by Henke's "There’s no legitimate evidence ... why anyone should believe that these stories are true."
Being obtuse may give someone the subjective impression of refuting someone, but it will not give everyone else such an impression. I thought and still think that a classification is a good preliminary to discussing the evidence./HGL”
From these statements in Lundahl (2022r), it’s clear that Mr. Lundahl meant the title of Lundahl (2022a) to indicate that the stories with the “supernatural” events are believed to be true. Some individuals, however, might read the title and think that it’s the several types of the “supernatural” that are believed to be true. Either way, there’s no reason to accept what the title is saying. There’s no evidence of the supernatural and, therefore, I’m skeptical of any stories that contain supernatural claims, as I explained in Henke (2022a), Henke (2022b) and my other essays. So, this poorly worded and blanketing title in Lundahl (2022a) does not speak for me and other skeptics of the supernatural. Mr. Lundahl needs to clarify the title of Lundahl (2022a). He could say: “Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Events, which are in Stories that Some People Believe are True.”
Mr. Lundahl is also wasting his time trying to classify claims of the supernatural, none of which have any evidence of ever occurring. When evaluating a story for accuracy, evaluating the quality of the evidence always comes first. Because these supernatural stories are likely works of fiction, they could very well change in Mr. Lundahl’s classification system depending on who said what version of the story and when. Mr. Lundahl just might as well be classifying fictional cartoon characters.