Mr. Lundahl Needs to Use the 21st Century Peer-Reviewed Literature to Establish that Free Will Exists. He Also Needs to Demonstrate that Souls and Spirits Exist Before Claiming What They Can Do
Kevin R. Henke
November 19, 2022
Lundahl (2022w) ends with some extensive replies to Henke (2022gb). My essay Henke (2022gb) deals with healing miracles and, if they occur, how they would unavoidably violate natural law. Starting with Lundahl (2022a) and continuing with his other essays, Mr. Lundahl not only groundlessly advocates for the existence of miracles, but he insists that God will not or cannot break any natural law when he performs miracles. Although I fully recognize that if God exists, he could interact with nature without necessarily breaking natural laws, I also argue that God is hypothetically free to break any natural laws if he wants to. Yet, at the same time, I don’t see how healing miracles could be done without breaking at least some of the laws of chemistry and physics. If healing miracles occur, I have no problem with God breaking natural laws to cure people.
For context, this is what I wrote in Henke (2022gb):
“In Henke (2022aa), I indicated that if miraculous healings were to occur in a manner of seconds, they would violate natural law. I stated:
“Creating new body parts from nothing or rejuvenating damaged body parts is not God adding “…to the agencies usually involved in a process, those being the ones described by natural laws.” It’s God supernaturally interrupting the natural process of decay, overriding the effects of natural law on human biology and immediately reversing the damage or creating new body parts out of nothing when natural law dictates that that can’t happen. Mr. Lundahl needs to have a better imagination and explain his arguments better.”
Lundahl (2022q) then comments on this paragraph:
“Natural laws dictate nothing ever. Natural laws describe what cells within a body can do themselves to make new cells to repair a damage, and the cells doing on their own a complete healing from leprosy would violate these laws.
Later, Mr. Lundahl further states:
So, what Henke responded means, he doesn't adress how natural law is not a cause and none of them anyway have any total control over the physical universe, they are descriptions of factors that are only partial anyway.”
As I mentioned before in Henke (2022fv), yes, natural laws describe natural processes and, hypothetically, it would be the processes that the laws describe that would be directly broken. Again, people normally refer to “breaking natural laws” out of convenience because it’s easier than saying “breaking the natural processes that are described by natural laws.” However, Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022q) has no justification for equating “proof” and demonstration in science and history. In science and history, unlike mathematics, conclusions are never final (see Albert 1986 and Henke 2022ad). Unlike the awkwardness in describing the breaking of natural processes, Mr. Lundahl can easily use the more appropriate phrases: “burden of evidence” and demonstrate, and not “proof” or “proven.”
Lundahl (2022q) continues:
Again, God certainly interrupts a natural process - but so are natural processes interrupted all of the time anyway. Even naturally. Let a pen fall, it will not touch the centre of the Earth 6300 km down, though that is where the gravitational pull is drawing it. If it falls on the floor, or if I catch it in the other hand, either the floor or my hand will be overriding the graviational pull and interrupting the fall.
While damages can be reversed, if the story is true, supernaturally in an instant, they can be reversed naturally with sufficient time for the body's repair system to work.
None of these verbs or participles is any proof that any natural law is actually broken.
Because the electromagnetic repulsion of electrons on Earth is stronger than the force of gravity, we can’t sink into the center of the Earth (see Henke 2022fy). To be exact, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, which include: gravity, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the strong nuclear force. Gravity is about 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force.
Human technologies can also interrupt natural processes and, hypothetically, so could a miracle. Healing, if it naturally occurs, can take days, weeks, months or even longer. However, if we see the process occur in a manner of seconds, it’s possible that an unknown advanced technology is responsible, but, in my opinion, I think that a miracle would be even more likely. A miracle is not a natural process, but an act from a supernatural being or process interrupting and overriding the natural process. A miraculous healing is not an act of nature, but something that overrides, interrupts, replaces, and blatantly contradicts or violates the natural process. There’s a big difference between a natural process that takes a lot of time to repair damage in a body and something that instantaneously does it in a manner of seconds.
Earlier in Lundahl (2022q), Mr. Lundahl even admitted this when he said:
“An example somewhat more serious than the Pool Game Analogy : there are natural laws that describe what our immune system can do against Hansen's disease, and an instantaneous healing through our immune system is contrary to these laws.” [my emphasis]
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, if something is “contrary” to a law that means that it opposes the law. Here are some synonyms for “contrary” according to Oxford Languages: opposite, contradictory, clashing, conflicting, antithetical, incompatible, and irreconcilable. So, Mr. Lundahl, what’s the real difference between a miracle being “contrary” to natural law and violating the natural law? A miracle being contrary to natural law certainly is not simply “adding to” or supplementing natural processes as you indicated in Lundahl (2022a) and your other essays.” [my original emphasis in italics; my emphasis in bold only]
Besides extensively responding to Henke (2022gb), Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022w) also comments on statements from Henke (2022fv) without properly referencing that essay. To appropriately distinguish my comments from his, I’ve added links to the following statements from the last few pages of Lundahl (2022w):
“Henke (2022gb) ‘…yes, natural laws describe natural processes and, hypothetically, it would be the processes that the laws describe that would be directly broken.”
Lundahl (2022w): ‘My point is, counteracting and bypassing are not breaking. I can break a fall of sth that I catch, that doesn't break the natural process of fall other than by interrupting it with equal naturality. My mind only controls the things the body can perform within the limit of the calories disposable. I can break the fall of a pen, I could not break the fall of a car.
The point is, a natural process does not cease to work the way it does, as to its type, just because an individual instance of it is interrupted due to another factor. For this to be true, it absolutely doesn't matter if the factor interrupting it is natural or supernatural.’
Henke (2022gb): ‘Because the electromagnetic repulsion of electrons on Earth is stronger than the force of gravity, we can’t sink into the center of the Earth (see Henke 2022fy).’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘Yes, and that electromagnetic repulsion is another factor than gravity, which is governed by a mode that can be described as Newton's equation.’
Henke (2022gb): ‘To be exact, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, which include: gravity, the weak force, the electromagnetic force, and the strong nuclear force. Gravity is about 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘Given the existence of God as precondition for either, both would be infinitely weaker than the will of God.’
Henke (2022gb): ‘Healing, if it naturally occurs, can take days, weeks, months or even longer. However, if we see the process occur in a manner of seconds, it’s possible that an unknown advanced technology is responsible, but, in my opinion, I think that a miracle would be even more likely. A miracle is not a natural process, but an act from a supernatural being or process interrupting and overriding the natural process.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘Yup.’
Henke (2022gb): ‘A miraculous healing is not an act of nature, but something that overrides, interrupts, replaces,…’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘... either of two natural processes : medical healing or further deterioration. Each of which would otherwise interrupt or replace the other, as well as overriding it.’
Henke (2022gb): ‘… and blatantly contradicts or violates the natural process.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘No.’
Henke (2022gb): ‘There’s a big difference between a natural process that takes a lot of time to repair damage in a body and something that instantaneously does it in a manner of seconds.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘Indeed, that's why miraculous healings in Lourdes have to be instantaneous in order to be approved as miraculous.
But the difference is not in the one respecting and the other disrespecting the natural progression of the disease. BOTH are defeating the disease.
Miracles are usually given by God when there is no natural process of healing available to defeat a disease. Marc 5:25-27
“And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things from many physicians; and had spent all that she had, and was nothing the better, but rather worse, When she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind him, and touched his garment.”
Whether or not a modern doctor could have made her well within twelve years or not, the doctors back then couldn't. Or, more sinister option, wouldn't.’
Henke (2022gb): ‘According to the Oxford English Dictionary, if something is “contrary” to a law that means that it opposes the law. Here are some synonyms for “contrary” according to Oxford Languages: opposite, contradictory, clashing, conflicting, antithetical, incompatible, and irreconcilable. So, Mr. Lundahl, what’s the real difference between a miracle being “contrary” to natural law and violating the natural law? A miracle being contrary to natural law certainly is not simply “adding to” or supplementing natural processes as you indicated in Lundahl (2022a) and your other essays.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘Here is what I had stated [in Lundahl (2022q):
“An example somewhat more serious than the Pool Game Analogy : there are natural laws that describe what our immune system can do against Hansen's disease, and an instantaneous healing through our immune system is contrary to these laws.”
It is not contrary to these laws if God heals instantaneously. It would be contrary to these laws if the immune system healed instantaneously. As it is the immune system and not God who is bound to procedures described by these laws.’
At this point, Mr. Lundahl begins to quote from Henke (2022fv) without properly identifying or linking to this essay:
From Henke (2022fv) and not Henke (2022gb): ‘Again, nature is certainly controlled by processes that are conveniently described with natural laws. Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl has yet to demonstrate that supernatural beings with wills even exist.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘Physical objects are certainly partly controlled by such processes. But they are also controlled by freewilled agents.
This shows there is nothing to exclude they are also controlled by freewilled agents that do not have bodies. Bodies in and of themselves are not free wills, so whenever a man does something willingly at some point the human body is controlled by something that is not a body.’
From Henke (2022fv) and not Henke (2022gb): ‘As discussed in Henke (2022x), neurologist Harris (2010, pp. 102-112) denies that human free will exists.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘In practise, that position is untenable. No one could live while considering his willed actions as reflexes of physical and chemical processes.
If it were true, it would furthermore be unknowable (see C. S. Lewis Miracles, chapter 3).
Therefore it cannot be treated as a known fact.’
From Henke (2022fv) and not Henke (2022gb): ‘Even if he is wrong and I am capable of acting under my own discretion, my actions are always limited by the laws of chemistry and physics. When I’m standing on my front yard, I can choose to walk to either the left or the right, but I can’t flap my arms and go up.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘That is because the human spirit is tied to a human body. Nevertheless, the free will of man is imposing results beyond what blind natural processes could impose.’
From Henke (2022fv) and not Henke (2022gb): ‘Furthermore, as I have explained many times before, the individual making claims about the existence of God, angels, demons or other supernatural beings, and not the skeptics, has the burden of evidence here.’
Lundahl (2022w): ‘A discussion of what God implies in the case of a miracle is distinct from a claim that God exists and did a miracle.
Mr. Henke maliciously keeps shortcircuiting this discussion of implications by referring to this being a claim, and equally maliciously makes his own unilateral discussion of implications the prerequisite of discussing the claim.
He follows one set of rules and asks me to follow another set of rules. He pretends to be the master, and to have me for - bad - disciple. I am insisting, this should be a discussion between equals, socially, none talking down to the other. And either he behaves very differently to his nieces or I feel very sorry for them.’
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady of Mercy
24.IX.2022
* I missed answering this one. More probable or rather sole possible - in his world view. But he's shortcircuiting both the discussion of world views and the discussion of historic evidence relevant for chosing such.
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 13:11
Libellés : Kevin R. Henke“ [my emphasis in italics and bold]
In this essay, I will only reply to the bolded and italicized red comments in the above quotation from Lundahl (2022w). In Henke (2022kt) through Henke (2022kw), I previously responded to some of his other comments in this section of Lundahl (2022w) and I’ll reply to some more of his comments in an upcoming essay. At this point, Lundahl (2022w) responds to my comments without bothering to notify our readers that he changed his reference from Henke (2022gb) to Henke (2022fv).
Certainly, people manipulate objects. However, contrary to the above statements from Lundahl (2022w), all of the evidence indicates that our actions are controlled by our brains, which are part of our bodies. It’s also not obvious that free will exists. Harris (2010, pp. 102-112) denies that it exists, but I’m not going to participate in that argument. I briefly reviewed the controversies over the existence of free will in Henke (2022x), and I simply stated:
“Actually, the laws of physics are the sole determinant on what we can physically do in this Universe. Even our brains are controlled by the laws of physics and chemistry. Also, neurologist and atheist Harris (2010, pp. 102-112) claims that free will does not exist. For now, let’s assume that he is wrong. Even if I have free will and I can imagine a lot of decisions that I want to make that does not mean that natural law will allow me to do those things. Unless I can break them by doing miracles, the laws of nature place restrictions on everything I do. “
Instead of Mr. Lundahl just proclaiming that physical objects are controlled by freewill agents, he first needs to get a copy of Harris (2010), read the book and check its references, and then obtain additional information on the issue of free will both pro and con from 21st century peer-reviewed journals before dogmatically proclaiming that free will exists. Nevertheless, let’s assume that Mr. Lundahl is correct and that free will exists and that humans can of their own free will control physical objects. Does that mean that humans can violate the natural laws that describe how these objects behave? No. Of course not. These laws also describe how human actions are limited. We can only interact with physical objects within the limitations described by the laws of physics and chemistry. That is, the laws of chemistry and physics permit me to have thoughts within my brain that allow me to see and then pick up a rock off the ground. However, I can’t instantaneously change the rock into pure gold. The laws of chemistry won’t allow me to do that.
If free will exists, it originates in our brains, which are part of our bodies. Mr. Lundahl has no evidence that human decisions have anything to do with imaginary souls or spirits. Again, Mr. Lundahl should not be relying on Lewis (1960) as an authority on human consciousness and free will. Lewis (1960) is an outdated book written by an English literature professor that knew nothing about neurology, human consciousness or the issue of free will. Mr. Lundahl should know better than to rely on this outdated and poorly written and argued book as a reliable resource. As I discussed in Henke (2022gk) and Henke (2022hs), Mr. Lundahl needs to be studying Harris (2010), Dennett (2006; 2018), and their references, and then evaluate their arguments on free will and human consciousness.
References:
Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon: Viking Penguin: London, UK, 448pp.
Dennett, D.C. 2018. “Facing Up to the Hard Question of Consciousness”: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 373, 20170342.
Harris, S. 2010. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Hunan Values: Free Press: New York, N.Y., USA, 291pp.
Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.