Mr. Lundahl Misreads Lewis (1960) AGAIN
Kevin R. Henke
November 13, 2022
I discuss a number of issues related to natural laws and miracles in Henke (2022fv), including again the hypothetical pool (billiard) game in Lewis (1960, chapter 8) and how that supposedly illustrates the existence of miracles (also see Henke 2022t and Henke 2022u). In the relevant section of Henke (2022fv), I begin by quoting Henke (2022b):
“The pool (billiards) analogy from chapter 8 of Lewis (1960) and summarized by Lundahl (2022a) is totally ineffective in defending the existence of the supernatural. It only illustrates that a physicist would have difficulty making predictions about a pool game if a human (not a supernatural being) unexpectedly decided to hit one of the balls in the middle of the game. Although the conditions of the pool game might change, notice that Mr. Lundahl admits that no “laws of movement” were violated in this account. That’s because humans, and not God, demons, angels, or other supernatural agents, were playing in this game. When humans play pool, we’re stuck obeying the laws of physics. Now, if God exists, he, by definition, is not necessarily forced to obey natural laws. He supposedly created natural laws and if he can create natural laws, then supposedly he can make exceptions or undo them. God could play pool by either using his supernatural powers or he might simply restrict himself to using only natural laws. If he exists, he could do anything he wanted to. God could remove the effects of gravity from a pool ball and cause it to pass through the ceiling or allow the atoms of the ball to pass through the table, but humans can’t do these things.” [original emphasis]
Lundahl (2022i) then makes the following vague comment on the bolded sentence from my paragraph in Henke (2022b):
“Yes, and there is no law of movement broken in the former, namely His Omnipotence, it is an agency outside their field of description, but not a result contrary to their essence.”
In response, I make the following statement in Henke (2022fv):
“Here, Lundahl (2022i) seems to be claiming without any evidence whatsoever that God would not break any “law of movement” when he does anything supernatural during a pool game.”
In response to Henke (2022fv), Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022w) again completely misreads Lewis (1960) just like he did earlier in this debate (e.g., Henke 2022ch; Henke 2022jd):
“The point is, there is no pool game and there is no God involved in the analogy. Mr. Henke fails to distinguish what is being represented in an analogy from what is representing it. The point is, a man, simply by taking up a queue, could make a result other than the one that the scientist was predicting from watching pool balls being moved by the waves of the steamship.
Will he realise the mistake in the next one?”
I made no mistake! I fully admit that Lewis (1960) is poorly written and argued, but Mr. Lundahl actually needs to read and understand what Lewis (1960) is saying. In his billiard (pool) analogy, Lewis (1960, page 91) specifically states that the agency tampering with the billiard balls may be “natural or supernatural.” Later on page 92, Lewis (1960) mentions that one of the “new factors” involved in the billiard game may be a “Supernatural power.” Considering that Lewis (1960, pp. 215-216, 226, 228) describes God as a Power, if this singular “Supernatural power” with Supernatural capitalized by Lewis (1960, p. 92) is not God, then Who/what is it? Instead of Lundahl (2022h; 2022w) making false accusations about me being illiterate, he actually needs to get a copy of Lewis (1960), reread it and actually understand what it’s saying.
Reference:
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.