The Scientific Method Provides the Same Set of Rules for Mr. Lundahl, Me and All Other Investigators
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 (2022kx), I previously responded to some of his other comments in this section of Lundahl (2022w). In this section, Lundahl (2022w) again responds to my comments without bothering to notify our readers that he changed his reference from Henke (2022gb) to Henke (2022fv).
No, Mr. Lundahl, a discussion of what God means by a miracle cannot be separated from the need to provide evidence that God exists and actually did a miracle. That is, before Mr. Lundahl can provide any discussions about “what God implies in the case of a miracle”, he MUST first demonstrate that God exists, that miracles occur, and then demonstrate that his view of how God does a miracle is correct. Otherwise, Mr. Lundahl’s statements about God and miracles are worthless speculation and a waste of time. Similarly, let’s say that someone makes a statement about ghosts being able to go through walls. Yet, if ghosts don’t exist, then any statement about what ghosts could supposedly do is also worthless speculation and a waste of time.
I am also not giving Mr. Lundahl one set of rules, while I’m following another set. I’m calling on Mr. Lundahl to use the same scientific method that I’m using. The scientific method, and not me, dictates how the past should be investigated and, for this debate, Mr. Lundahl finally needs to learn that fundamental method (e.g., Strahler 1999). The scientific method is quite clear. The individual making a claim (i.e., a supposed statement of fact) has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that this claim is actually true. For Mr. Lundahl, this means that he must produce good and positive evidence that God exists, miracles occur and Genesis 3 happened. Because he has not met these requirements, he’s simply engaging in worthless speculation about God, miracles and Genesis 3. For me, I needed to demonstrate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that Noah’s Flood as described in the Bible never happened. I’ve successfully done that as shown in the essays at my website and in my references, including: Strahler (1999), Dalrymple (1991), and Prothero (2007).
Mr. Lundahl does not understand that “social equality” depends on the situation and the topic of discussion. Now, Mr. Lundahl is far better at linguistics and Greco-Roman mythology than I am. I am NOT his equal on those subjects. If I lived in Paris, I would benefit from him instructing or mentoring me on those topics. On the other hand, Mr. Lundahl does not understand science, history, or the scientific method. If he doesn’t want to learn some science from me, he can quit this debate and find another instructor. Until he learns the scientific method and some science from someone that is an expert on these topics, Mr. Lundahl is simply not qualified to speak on those topics. As for my relationship with my nieces, Mr. Lundahl knows absolutely nothing about my family. He needs to keep his uninformed opinions and emotions to himself.
Mr. Lundahl has a footnote labelled * at the end of Lundahl (2022w). This footnote applies to Henke (2022fo): “I agree with Lundahl (2022q) that Donkeys and Snakes Cannot Biologically Talk. Yet, My Explanation of Numbers 22 is More Probable than the Supernatural Explanation Given in Lundahl (2022a, 2022k, 2022q)” This essay contains important discussions on why Mr. Lundahl’s claims about Genesis 3 and Numbers 22 are totally worthless because he has failed to find any good evidence to demonstrate that these stories actually happened. Currently, he’s just making baseless proclamations about probable biblical myths. Mr. Lundahl would be better off carefully reading this essay and thoughtfully responding to it rather than just attempting to dismiss it with a mere footnote.
References:
Dalrymple, G.B. 1991. The Age of the Earth: Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 474 pp.
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.