Mr. Lundahl’s Constant Repeating of his “First Known Audience” Scam Does Not Make It Reliable. He Continues to Fail to Realize that He, and not Me, Has the Burden of Evidence When It Comes to Demonstrating (Not Proving) the Reality of Genesis 3 and Other Bible Stories
Kevin R. Henke
November 6, 2022
In Henke (2022bi), I made the following statements:
“Previously, I discussed the alchemy stories associated with Theophrastus Paracelsus in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bg). Lundahl (2022k) then makes some additional comments about Paracelsus and the Enlightenment:
“I do not need to believe Paracelsus had an actual contract with the devil, since that could be a misunderstanding on the part of his contemporaries, just as Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II, if I recall correctly) was considered as having made such a contract, because he was exceptionally using some not commonly used mathematical algorithms, probably no more diabolic than long division.
That there is in the Enlightenment era a story about his changing a copper penny into gold doesn't break this, since the Enlightenment era was (like Henke) obnoxiously negligent of distinctions about historicity and generally started to believe legends were a sort of fiction, to which one could obviously add.
However, it could be that the Küssdenpfennig legend should actually be classified as fake history (rather than entertaining fiction) : the owners of that house wanting to obliterate a memory of stingy rich people who "kissed each penny" like Uncle Scrooge, by claiming (falsely) it came from a "near miracle" by Paracelsus, done to sympathetic poor people.”
In this case, I at least agree with Lundahl (2022k) that there is no rational reason to believe any of these stories about Paracelsus or others having contracts with the devil. However, I’m the skeptic in this debate. It’s Mr. Lundahl that cannot separate cartoonish delusions (e.g., Genesis 3) from reality (e.g., an ancient Earth). I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment. All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible. As I state in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), the first reaction to any claim should be skepticism. Skepticism is the default position. This is why good evidence should always accompany a new claim. If the purveyors of a claim simply promise to provide evidence later or if they claim that large numbers of people already accept it as fact or that the “earliest known audience” believed it, it’s wise not to accept the claim until reliable evidence comes forward.”
Lundahl (2022v) then comments on my bolded sentence and continues his vain attempt to promote his “earliest known audience” scam:
“One of the things is not like the others (I think there is a ditty used for games on TV shows, directed at children) ...
· first known audience believed a text to be history, not fiction is NOT a promise to provide evidence later: it is one key evidence about any historic claim;
· first known audience believed a text to be history, not fiction is NOT "large numbers already accept this as fact" (like the latent argument Henke does about "an ancient Earth" being reality, the reality being that large numbers already accept it is such), no: it is an argument stating "if you want to argue the history was misunderstood or manipulated by a fraud - up to you to show such."
First known audience is therefore reliable evidence as far as it goes, namely up to this precise next question, which Henke so far hasn't dared enter into : "is there evidence for a misunderstanding" or "is there evidence for a successful fraud" ... Henke's argument here has been on the level, "misunderstandings exist, therefore this could be one" or "frauds have been successful, this could be a successful fraud" - that is on the precise level as if I had argued, which I have not "some stories from the past are true history, therefore this could be one too" - that's not providing evidence that it is true history.
So, my strategy is and remains two step:
· prove this is history, not automatically true such, by what earliest known audience has considered;
· prove this is true history by refuting any specific claims of it being false history.
And Mr. Henke has so far not made any such claims, but persisted in complaining that my claim for it being history doesn't work even on that level (showing his weak grasp on history), and pretended that I made a claim on it being automatically true history, just because it was believed such, which was not my exact claime either.”
How often do I need to repeat this? Mr. Lundahl’s “first known audience” is a scam and not a “key evidence about any historic claim.” This scam has no way of distinguishing between an actual historical claim and a deceptive work of fiction pretending to be historical (i.e., the New Testament Gospels; Carrier 2014, pp. 387-509). The fact that a lot of people believe a story to be history and not an obvious work of fiction is NO evidence that the story actually is history or even close to history (Henke 2022bh). Until a story has external evidence to indicate that it’s actually history, the story is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. Again, the story could actually be historical or close to it, or it could be a deceptive work of fiction pretending to be history. Only external evidence and not the “first known audience” can make that distinction. Large numbers of people believe all kinds of crazy ideas (e.g., Genesis 3 and astrology), and they think that these stories are real. Genesis 3 and stories about the effectiveness of astrology must be confirmed with external evidence and they haven’t been.
As seen in the discussions in Dalrymple (1991) and, most of all, his references, geologists have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. So, geologists have met their burden of evidence about the age of the Earth. Likewise, Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians have to meet their burden of evidence that Genesis 3 actually happened and they have not. Such confirming evidence does not exist for Genesis 3.
I’ve already explained in a number of my essays that I don’t have to answer the questions: "is there evidence for a misunderstanding" or "is there evidence for a successful fraud" .... The default position for all claims is skepticism (Henke 2022dv). The burden of evidence is on those that want to believe that a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees were real. They have to demonstrate that their beliefs actually happened. We already know that people often lie and misinterpret accounts. There’s also not a shred of evidence for the existence of a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees. Thus, as I argued back in Henke (2022b), Hypotheses #3 and #4 are far more probable when they state that Genesis 3 is a myth as opposed to the groundless wishful thinking in Hypotheses #1 and #2 that claim that Genesis 3 actually happened. So, Mr. Lundahl and his allies have to demonstrate that Genesis 3 actually happened, I don’t have to provide evidence of a misunderstanding or a successful fraud. That’s already the likely default position until demonstrated otherwise. In the exact same way, if someone claims that their house is haunted, I don’t have to demonstrate that the claim is false to his/her satisfaction. He/she has to demonstrate that the claim is true. Similarly, I don’t need to demonstrate that Xenu did not exist, Scientologists have to demonstrate that he did exist 75 million years ago. I also don’t need to demonstrate that Moroni did not exist, the Mormons have to demonstrate with external evidence that Moroni existed. At least the Mormons, unlike Mr. Lundahl, fully recognize that they need archeology to back up the claims in their “scriptures.”
Now, although it’s very difficult to demonstrate a negative claim; that is, to demonstrate that something did not happened, the geologic evidence is now so overwhelming that young-Earth creationism and Flood geology have been demonstrated to be false (Dalrymple 1991; Strahler 1999; Prothero 2007; my website). In turn, Babinski (2010) and Tobin (2010) have also demonstrated that many Bible stories are far-fetched nonsense. The Bible is not a trustworthy source (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). Mr. Lundahl does not understand how to investigate history. He also does not understand the scientific method and why the scientific method has a crucial role in successfully investigating past events. Also, before we can label something as “history” or “historical”, it should have at least some good evidence to justify that label (Henke 2022br2; Henke 2022dt; Henke 2022fg). Otherwise, it should not be called history. Mr. Lundahl’s use of “true history” is redundant.
In the above quotation, Lundahl (2022v) again repeats his two-step process that he introduced in Lundahl (2022t). In Henke (2022iw), I previously demonstrated that this two-step process is a utter failure because it asks for “proof” (absolute certainty), which does not exist in science and history, and it tries to shift the burden of evidence to the skeptic, which is not appropriate. Again, I don’t have to try to demonstrate a negative hypothesis by showing that Genesis 3 did not happen. Meanwhile, in his February 15, 2022 (6:27 am Eastern Time) email to me, Mr. Lundahl openly admitted that he thinks Genesis 3 actually happened. He now needs to provide positive evidence to support his belief in Genesis 3. Otherwise, he can admit that he cannot demonstrate Genesis 3 actually happened and the debate will end in my favor.
References:
Babinski, E. 2010. “The Cosmology of the Bible” in J.W. Loftus (ed.) The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails: Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, pp. 109-147.
Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.
Dalrymple, G.B. 1991. The Age of the Earth: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 474 pp.
Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.
Prothero, D.R. 2007. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters: Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 381pp.
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.
Tobin, P. 2010. “The Bible and Modern Scholarship” in J.W. Loftus (ed.) The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails: Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, pp. 148-180.