Some Links to Additional Responses from Me on Circular Reasoning, Mr. Lundahl’s Inadequate Evidence for the Supernatural and His Failure to Recognize His Burden of Evidence
Kevin R. Henke
December 1, 2022
In Lundahl (2022z), provides the following brief replies to Henke 2022bt and Henke 2022bu:
“Henke (2022bt): “No Circular Reasoning Fallacy in Henke (2022b): Again, History Cannot Demonstrate the Reality of Miracles”
already answered
Henke (2022bu): “The Supernatural Might be Real, but Lundahl (2022L) Fails to Provide Any Evidence of It”
was too quick a reply, since the evidence is provided elsewhere, my remark answered and objection against rather than giving a proof for.”
It would have helped our readers (if there are any at this point) and me, if Mr. Lundahl had linked to or perhaps even quoted from his essays where he supposedly answered the issues that are raised in Henke 2022bt and Henke 2022bu. The problem of responding too early to issues that are more fully discussed later in our opponent’s essays is a dilemma for both Mr. Lundahl and me. Unfortunately, this is the nature of this debate because Mr. Lundahl from the very beginning of this debate refused to place his comments into only one well-organized and referenced essay per round (Henke 2022d). Considering that I’m far ahead of him in responding at this point in our debate, I have further discussed the topics in Henke 2022bt and Henke 2022bu, and Mr. Lundahl’s misunderstandings of those topics in the following essays (including Proof!):
Circular Reasoning:
Henke (2022fs): “More Discussions on the Phrase ‘Circular Reasoning’: Mr. Lundahl Gets Needlessly Sidetracked with Terminology”
Henke (2022ki): “Circular Explanations?”
Why “Proof” Doesn’t Belong in Science and History Investigations:
Henke (2022it): “’Burden of Proof’ (Onus Probandi) Doesn’t Belong in Science”
Henke (2022jf): “Mr. Lundahl Still Does Not Understand How Science and Historical Investigations are Done. “Proof” Does Not Belong in Scientific and Historical Investigations”
Albert, L.H. 1986. “’Scientific’ Creationism as a Pseudoscience”, Creation/Evolution Journal, v. 6, no. 2, pp. 25-34.
Providing Evidence of the Supernatural: Mr. Lundahl has the Burden of Evidence and Not Me:
Henke (2022go): “Still No Evidence from Lundahl (2022r) that Genesis is History”
Henke (2022hi): “Phony Modern ‘Miracles’”
Henke (2022ik): “Mr. Lundahl is Still Wrong. He has the Burden of Evidence to Demonstrate that the Far-Fetched Story in Genesis 3 Actually Happened”
Henke (2022it): “’Burden of Proof’ (Onus Probandi) Doesn’t Belong in Science”
Henke (2022iw): “The Failed Two-Step in Lundahl (2022t)”
Henke (2022kj): “Still No Historical Evidence for Miracles”
Henke (2022ky): “The Scientific Method Provides the Same Set of Rules for Mr. Lundahl, Me and All Other Investigators”
Henke (2022kz): “Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022x) Still Doesn’t Understand That He Has the Burden of Evidence (NOT PROOF!!) When Investigating Miracles”
Henke (2022La): “More on Mr. Lundahl’s Two-Step Failure”
Henke (2022Lb): “Mr. Lundahl Needs to Provide Evidence that Moses Existed. He Has the Burden of Evidence”
Henke (2022LL): “Genesis 3 and the Rest of the Pentateuch are Likely Works of Fiction Pretending to be History and I Present a Probable ‘Method of Deception’ for Their Origin”
Henke (2022Lo): “Mr. Lundahl Fails to Deal With Hypotheses #3 and #4 by Demonstrating Hypothesis #1 is More Probable As Part of His Burden of Evidence”
Henke (2022Lw): “Mr. Lundahl has the Burden of Evidence to Demonstrate that Any of the Stories about Romulus or the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 Ever Happened”
Also, Mr. Lundahl can always read my additional post-September 15, 2022 essays to find other relevant issues that he needs to deal with.