Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:As someone that thought the Shroud was a fake also AND as someone that does NOT view it even remotely necessary for MY faith, I can say this:
IMO, all the arguments FOR the shroud being a fake have been refuted to one extent or another.
NO ONE from the skeptic camp has been able to replicate all the conditions of the shroud image.
I do NOT know if the image is of Jesus, my faith tells me yes but there is no proof of that ( though the evidence leans towards that being the case).
What is fascinating REGARDLESS of theology and religion is HOW this happened and WHY it hasn't been duplicated.

If you dont mind, what conditions are you referring to?
and..
Do you have the same opinion on one side or the other of the subjects I brought up?

You'd have to go over the thread to see what I am referring to.
As for your question:
No, I do not believe in a global flood, the account can be read as pertaining to a massive localized flood that, according to the literary genre of Genesis, would have been worded as a "world flood".
I believe that what we call evolution is indeed how life came to be on this planet, I believe it was ONE of the process that God used in His creative process.

And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

Good enough for what?

Oh did I use the saying wrong? I just mean, did we come to a point where there was nothing else to talk about there.

Audie wrote:And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

Good enough. As long as we remember 'a god' among many is a contradiction and an uncaused cause is a matter of necessity.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

Good enough. As long as we remember 'a god' among many is a contradiction and an uncaused cause is a matter of necessity.

We remember that is what some say.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

Good enough. As long as we remember 'a god' among many is a contradiction and an uncaused cause is a matter of necessity.

We remember that is what some say.

Of course. It just so happens to also be logical and indisputable.

I'm also hoping we're at a point where I can bust your chops without you putting me on ignore.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

Good enough. As long as we remember 'a god' among many is a contradiction and an uncaused cause is a matter of necessity.

We remember that is what some say.

Do you dispute that everything that comes into being has a cause?

Audie: And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

NOT if it's REALLY the burial linen of the Ressurrected Christ!

Of course, our faith is not based upon a piece of cloth. But if that cloth is the REAL deal, as purported to be, then you have a major problem of considerable urgency.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

Good enough. As long as we remember 'a god' among many is a contradiction and an uncaused cause is a matter of necessity.

We remember that is what some say.

Do you dispute that everything that comes into being has a cause?

If you are referring to the "law" of cause and effect, as far as anyone knows, it holds true.

I've seen the workaround that makes it possible to have an "uncaused cause".

if there is an exception to a law, its not a law.

What do you mean, "comes into being"? Referring to the basic building blocks of mass/energy and physical laws, or the consequences of interactions among those?

Philip wrote:

Audie: And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

NOT if it's REALLY the burial linen of the Ressurrected Christ!

Of course, our faith is not based upon a piece of cloth. But if that cloth is the REAL deal, as purported to be, then you have a major problem of considerable urgency.

What problem is that? Real deal meaning, proof of god? That would be cool, and something to make the most of it.

Id say for sure its a sorry faith based on a apiece of cloth. I do, tho, see people who say that if certain (here not mentioned again) bible stories are not literally true, then christianity is a lie. So while their faith is not based entirely on "literal or lie", its sure based in part on lie.


BTW the thing someone said about it being "atheist kryptonite" was kinda dumb.
Of course, it went along with more about how them atheists are profane. illiterate and generally of low degree, so I guess it was at least in keeping.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:And id say the shroud could be real, and there could be a god. Good enough?

Good enough. As long as we remember 'a god' among many is a contradiction and an uncaused cause is a matter of necessity.

We remember that is what some say.

Of course. It just so happens to also be logical and indisputable.

I'm also hoping we're at a point where I can bust your chops without you putting me on ignore.

If we are at a point where no offense is intended, none will be taken.

I will not forget that you believe the claim is indisputable.

Audie: What problem is that? Real deal meaning, proof of god?

That would mean that if you did not, at least at some point during your life, come to have faith in Christ, your eternity will be extremely bleak.

That would be cool, and something to make the most of it.

Absolutely correct! And the only way to do so: Have faith in Christ!

Id say for sure its a sorry faith based on a apiece of cloth.

Correct. Believing that The Shroud is the burial garment of the Resurrected Christ will not save ANYONE! Our faith is based upon a Person, Who is also God. But as evidence, it might contribute to one beginning their path to faith.

Audie wrote: I will not forget that you believe the claim is indisputable.

Well Aristotle's uncaused cause argument has been around for a few thousand years and Aquinas' prime mover argument for more than 700 years. When properly understood (meaning when not some caricature of either is attacked) neither has ever been disputed, let alone refuted. So I do certainly hope you remember I said they are indisputable and do welcome any counter arguments.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote: I will not forget that you believe the claim is indisputable.

Well Aristotle's uncaused cause argument has been around for a few thousand years and Aquinas' prime mover argument for more than 700 years. When properly understood (meaning when not some caricature of either is attacked) neither has ever been disputed, let alone refuted. So I do certainly hope you remember I said they are indisputable and do welcome any counter arguments.

If cause and effect has one exception, how about more than one? After all one exception means its not a law.

Philip wrote:

Is there a place or an article that notes all the skeptic issues with the shroud and then refutes them one by one?

IF not, why not start one here (Bippy!)?

Yea Philip. I recall a few sites that have some good refutations but I can't seem to find them right now . They would make my job a lot easier. I'll try to find a few of the old sites I used to frequent . Right now I'm dealing with tough financial times and most of my focus is just trying to stay above water .

I'll look over some of my old bookmarked sites

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Is there a place or an article that notes all the skeptic issues with the shroud and then refutes them one by one?

For balance, how about one that does the opposite?

Isn't that redundant?
I mean, when you are addressing any skeptic ( of anything) the skeptics issues are already being noted.
Or do you mean an article refuting the answers to issues put forth by skeptics?

I would not necessarily put it that way, but the site that "debunks" everything about evolution will be what I call a 'creosite" and, you know, the one that "debunks" everything about creationism will be a, what, "evosite"? This seems the same sort of thing.

Personally, I doubt that this shroud is the real thing, just because there is such a long and sorry history of fake relics, and to me its such an unlikely story. And of course, whether it is real or not, there is an awful lot of woo woo that is concocted about it.

Now, if someone were allowed to test it thoroughly and properly, perhaps all could be laid to rest. For whatever reason(s), this apparently has not been done or allowed.

It has a kind of "wake me when its over" aspect to it. IF it turned out to be real, that has profound implications. But so far it is mired in controversy and Im not going to make major life decisions based on controversy.

Audi, many have started with the same suspicions about the shroud as u do right now. Mark Antonacci's started his research into the shroud as a start into his research of Christianity as an agnostic to show to his. Christian girlfriend that Christianity is a fairy tale . His 25 years of research into the shroud eventually lead him back into reading the bible and coming to Christ.
As Philip and others here have said , at least go through the research of all the posts here and see where the evidence leads u
When researching the shroud u should research it from the perspective of a private eye. In other words get ready to become Sherlock Holmes and be ready to investigate the greatest mystery of our age, with incredible implications .

It took me 2 years to believe in the authenticity of the shroud . I was originally a skeptic myself because as Audi said there far so many fake relics out there. This was why I originally started my research into the shroud mainly from skeptic sites only.