Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:http://www.theimaginativeconservative.o ... thing.html

Di Lazzaro and his colleagues at Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) experimented for five years, using modern excimer lasers to train short bursts of ultraviolet light on raw linen, in an effort to simulate the image’s coloration.

They came tantalizingly close to replicating the image’s distinctive color on a few square centimeters of fabric. However, they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image, and reproducing a whole human figure was far beyond them. De Lazzaro explained that the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image of the crucified man “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.”

The scientists shrug and say the only explanation lies beyond the realm of twenty-first century technoscience. In other words, the extraordinary burst of ultra violet light is not only beyond the ability and technology of a medieval forger: It is beyond the ability and technology of the best twenty-first century scientists.

maybe there was a time traveler that went back into time and brought his device with him to the 14th century to create this image .
Plus if a forger wanted to fool a 14th century audience he could have done this without going through all of this . He simply would have painted an image and sold this off as one of the many fake Catholic relics that were circulating at that time .

The fact that Hugh doesn't even consider this is amazing .

We're overlooking alien technology though. There's an idea floated that aliens started life here on Earth and shaped it. They've visited us several times throughout history, imparted certain technologies. Jesus was such an alien, and so even if our human technology is limited, they'd have likely conquered the ultraviolet light source necessary, even have healed Jesus before beaming him up into the heavens soon after.

Lol Kurieuo, those are alternatives but for me the evidence that makes most sense is that it is the burial cloth of Christ . The totality of circumstantial evidences is what leans me in that direction , as well as Barrie schwortz even though as of now he will Bly go so far as saying he believes that it's the burial cloth of the historic Jesus .

But if alien technology , who created the aliens and so forth
Argh my heads popping lol

bippy123 wrote:if a forger wanted to fool a 14th century audience he could have done this without going through all of this . He simply would have painted an image and sold this off as one of the many fake Catholic relics that were circulating at that time.

That's absolutely true.

The fact that Hugh doesn't even consider this is amazing.

That's absolutely false. Providing a context for the manufacture of the Shroud is one of the most important considerations any medievalist must concern himself with - possibly more important than the exact means of manufacture. The art historian Thomas de Wesselow has explained in convincing detail why the Shroud is unlikely to be a 'faked' relic, and other sensible reasons for its manufacture, although reasonable in theory, are not yet sufficiently supported by archaeology. However, one of the foundations of the explorer into the unknown, geographically, scientifically or historically, is absolutely to reject the mantra: "It hasn't been done yet, therefore it never will be."

So Hugh what is your timeline before that mantra folds ?? 100 years ,500 years ,1000 years ??
I see the shroud this way .

2 Astronauts arrive on a planet . They see buildings , vehicles of some kind and papers with what looks like some language written on them .

The first astronaut says "this looks like it was created by some civilization . The second one says ""not so fast , we haven't exhausted every other natural possibility yet .

How many possibilities will red to be exhausted before you give up Hugh ? What's your threshold ?

You do realize that wessellow is now a believer in the authenticity of the shroud right ?
And that has nothing to do with his religious beliefs since he's an agnostic but everything to do with his expertise as an art historian .

hughfarey wrote: Paolo di LazNot sure what point you're making.zaro has achieved a few square millimetres of discoloured linen. The characteristics appear to resemble the microscopic characteristics of the Shroud. Something very similar can be obtained by brushing a cloth lightly with a hot spatula, although di Lazzaro has managed to eliminate the fluorescence that normally attends such a scorch. To pretend that this is an "image" of any kind suggests that you haven't read his paper. It's at http://www.frascati.enea.it/fis/lac/exc ... 20JIST.pdf.

The point I was making is what Paolo said, you did read that part, right?

Let me re-post:

They came tantalizingly close to replicating the image’s distinctive color on a few square centimeters of fabric. However, they were unable to match all the physical and chemical characteristics of the shroud image, and reproducing a whole human figure was far beyond them. De Lazzaro explained that the ultraviolet light necessary to reproduce the image of the crucified man “exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today.” The time for such a burst would be shorter than one forty-billionth of a second, and the intensity of the ultra violet light would have to be around several billion watts.”

The scientists shrug and say the only explanation lies beyond the realm of twenty-first century technoscience. In other words, the extraordinary burst of ultra violet light is not only beyond the ability and technology of a medieval forger: It is beyond the ability and technology of the best twenty-first century scientists.

bippy123 wrote:So Hugh what is your timeline before that mantra folds ?? 100 years ,500 years ,1000 years ??
I see the shroud this way. What's your threshold ?

Five years at the most. Sooner if the historical research comes up trumps quicker.

You do realize that wessellow is now a believer in the authenticity of the shroud right ?
And that has nothing to do with his religious beliefs since he's an agnostic but everything to do with his expertise as an art historian .

Of course I do. Not, of course, because he has any idea of the science that might have been responsible, but because, quite rightly, he does not think it could be a medieval fake relic. He has not (not in print, anyway) considered whether it might not be a fake relic, but something else entirely, but still medieval.

PaulSacramento - I'm sorry I'm still not with you. Are you claiming that because di Lazzaro has discoloured a few square millimetres with very powerful UV pulses, the Shroud must have been produced like that? Nowhere does di Lazzaro claim that. Furthermore, even if one were to speculate that Jesus's body did miraculously suddenly emit carefully pulsed bursts of UV light at very specific wavelengths, that still wouldn't have produced any image. This quote: "The scientists shrug and say the only explanation lies beyond the realm of twenty-first century technoscience. In other words, the extraordinary burst of ultra violet light is not only beyond the ability and technology of a medieval forger: It is beyond the ability and technology of the best twenty-first century scientists," is mere reporter's sensationalism, as can be spotted instantly by the word "only". Nowhere does di Lazzaro claim that his method is the only way of discolouring cloth, and nowhere does he claim that his method is the only way of producing the image on the Shroud. Quite the reverse; he is at pains to point out, in all his papers relating to the Shroud, that his method must not be considered definitive.

Hugh: This quote: "The scientists shrug and say the only explanation lies beyond the realm of twenty-first century technoscience. In other words, the extraordinary burst of ultra violet light is not only beyond the ability and technology of a medieval forger: It is beyond the ability and technology of the best twenty-first century scientists," is mere reporter's sensationalism, as can be spotted instantly by the word "only". Nowhere does di Lazzaro claim that his method is the only way of discolouring cloth, and nowhere does he claim that his method is the only way of producing the image on the Shroud. Quite the reverse; he is at pains to point out, in all his papers relating to the Shroud, that his method must not be considered definitive.

But none of that discounts the fact that it cannot be replicated - by moderns with the knowledge of what the ancients had available, nor with our own abilities. And THAT is NOT a "mere reporter's sensationalism," but a fact. It matters not what any one person says they cannot do to replicate some aspect of the Shroud, what matters is that NO one can or has. Major problem is that no ancient or medieval forger would have intentionally created the shroud with attributes only moderns could know about or properly analyze. They had a simple audience - for which a mere clever painting would have more than sufficed - and that wouldn't even have required blood. But then we are back to Hugh's suggestion - that the incredible aspects were mostly unknown to the forger and that he just got lucky that he did some techniques that would be able to baffle modern experts and electronic scanning and analysis, chemical analysis, all that. That is beyond preposterous - and repeatedly suggesting that shows a desperation to prove it a fraud. And has even ONE other such burial cloth, with such attributes ever been found? And the one that has just HAPPENS to be long associated with belief and assertions that it is Christ's burial cloth. That's a pretty dang incredible series of sophisticated coincidences, I'd say.

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:So Hugh what is your timeline before that mantra folds ?? 100 years ,500 years ,1000 years ??
I see the shroud this way. What's your threshold ?

Five years at the most. Sooner if the historical research comes up trumps quicker.

You do realize that wessellow is now a believer in the authenticity of the shroud right ?
And that has nothing to do with his religious beliefs since he's an agnostic but everything to do with his expertise as an art historian .

Of course I do. Not, of course, because he has any idea of the science that might have been responsible, but because, quite rightly, he does not think it could be a medieval fake relic. He has not (not in print, anyway) considered whether it might not be a fake relic, but something else entirely, but still medieval.

PaulSacramento - I'm sorry I'm still not with you. Are you claiming that because di Lazzaro has discoloured a few square millimetres with very powerful UV pulses, the Shroud must have been produced like that? Nowhere does di Lazzaro claim that. Furthermore, even if one were to speculate that Jesus's body did miraculously suddenly emit carefully pulsed bursts of UV light at very specific wavelengths, that still wouldn't have produced any image. This quote: "The scientists shrug and say the only explanation lies beyond the realm of twenty-first century technoscience. In other words, the extraordinary burst of ultra violet light is not only beyond the ability and technology of a medieval forger: It is beyond the ability and technology of the best twenty-first century scientists," is mere reporter's sensationalism, as can be spotted instantly by the word "only". Nowhere does di Lazzaro claim that his method is the only way of discolouring cloth, and nowhere does he claim that his method is the only way of producing the image on the Shroud. Quite the reverse; he is at pains to point out, in all his papers relating to the Shroud, that his method must not be considered definitive.

Yeah but atleast he is heading in the right direction as to how the image was produced instead of going in the wrong direction trying to replicate the image in ways that anybody can see and realize was not the way the image was produced.You don't even have to put it under a micro-scope either to see the failed attempts by the skeptics to try to replicate the shroud image.They still head in the wrong way,being hard-headed in their skepticism,taking the long way around to avoid the obvious to anyone who has researched the shroud and all of the evidence produced. There is noway you could accept evolution and reject the shroud as authentic based on the evidence behind both.The shroud blows evolution away when it comes to evidence it is the buriual clothe of Jesus.I'm really starting to believe that people educated in science don't know how to research something and look for evidence it is true or not.Science of today hinders people's ability to look for evidence and so people don't know how to.I know that when it comes to evolution the scientific method has been abandoned.Yes,I am starting to believe like Wikileaks revealed that there is an effort to dumb us down and distract us in order to push things onto society. Jesus did warn of great deception also in the last days,also.

The truth should matter to Christians because we have a deciever and a liar in our world and we cannot know or realize what is true or not without evidence.It is evidence that is the only way we can determine truth and evidence must be searched out. It is not always so obvious,but you will find it if it is legit and you won't if it is'nt. Just like with the skeptics. It is they that have no real evidence on their side for why they reject the shroud as the authentic burial clothe of Jesus Christ.They wait,instead.

Forgive my ploughing on, but I have sincerely appreciated some of the comments I have received so far. I have returned to the question of reweaving, and been carrying out further experiments on the degradation of cellulose, all stimulated by replies to this thread. Such was the original purpose for my joining it, so thank you all. I have floated my comments on the first two videos proposed by Kurieou in his OP, and here are my comments on the third (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7AGuSspvzM)

Video 3 attempts to ascertain whether the body whose image is on the Shroud can be shown to be Christ’s. There are very few people who disagree with this, although some have argued for some other crucifixion victim, or perhaps Jacques de Molay, the last of the Knights Templar. Obviously, anybody attempting to represent the dead Christ in medieval times would give his image as many biblical comparisons as he could - particularly nail and spear wounds, the crown of thorns and scourge marks.

Next, the video attempts to relate the Shroud to the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has itself been dated to the 8th Century. Marc Guscin’s analysis of it is masterly, but the Sudarium is so blood-soaked that it is hardly surprising its stains coincide with those of the Shroud all over the place.

Then we move onto the discovery of some flakes of aragonite limestone, which is typical of Jerusalem - but also of central France, where the Shroud is first recorded in the Middle Ages. The description of the limestone as “very very rare and indigenous to an area outside of Jerusalem” is simply wrong.

Finally the video moves on to an attempt to authenticate the depiction of the wounds by a comparison of them with known crucifixion practice.

1) The nail holes are not in the palms of the hand. This is a common but misguided claim. For a start there is only one blood mark from the nail holes in the hands, but more importantly, we do not see the palm of the hand at all, so cannot see where the nail went in. By comparing the position of the knuckles with the position of the exit wound, there is nothing to prove that a medieval artist did not intend his mark to illustrate the exit wound from a nail through the palm. Furthermore, although Pierre Barbet demonstrated that nails through the fleshy part of the palm would tear through it if subjected to the full weight of a body, there is plenty of literary and artistic evidence for either a sedile (seat) or suppedaneum (foot-rest) being common, which would relieve the weight considerably, such that crucifixion victims often lived for days. The video’s statement, that we “actually know [nails through the wrist] is consistent with Roman practice” is completely untrue. There is no archaeological or historical evidence either way, although marks about a third of the way along an arm bone associated with the only secure archaeological may suggest nail damage there, also nowhere near the wrists at all.

2) “All medieval representations depict a nail through the front of the feet.” This too is inaccurate. The vast majority of Byzantine depictions of the crucifixion, in medieval times and today, show Jesus standing on a suppedaneum, with two nails through the front of the feet. The Shroud does show what might be a wound right at the bottom of one heel, as if a nail had been driven from the top (front) of the foot downwards and out through the bottom of the heelbone. The airy quote, that the Shroud shows a wound through the “heel or ankle” is disingenuous. Heel yes; ankle no. There is only one single example of a crucifixion known to archaeology, a heelbone with a nail still stuck in it, passing horizontally through it, and not going anywhere near the bottom of the foot, heel or sole, where the blood marks so clearly are. To deliberately confuse the bottom of the heel with the side is disingenuous, I feel. Again then, to say that the marks on the Shroud are “consistent with Roman crucifixion” suggesting that there is evidence to demonstrate this, is incorrect.

3) Then we have the usual model of a Roman flagrum. In this example the lead ‘dumb-bells’ are made lying laterally to thongs of the lash, and there are others in which the ‘dumb-bells’ lie longitudinally. The fact that no-one has studied the difference in marks that these two make is evidence that they know little about them. Furthermore, although it is often touted that the marks on the Shroud exactly match the ‘dumb-bells’ on the model, it is rarely mentioned that the reason for that is that the dimensions of the model were taken directly from the Shroud! There are no known archaeological examples of flagra or the pieces fastened to the lash, and of the few contemporary illustrations, such as on coins and medals, none resemble the models claimed to be accurate reconstructions.

Astonishingly, this video concludes with an interview with an Ahmadiyya Moslem, who was persuaded that the Shroud was authentic by a study of the exhibition at this year’s Jalsa Salana in Hampshire. I say astonishingly, as it is a fundamental tenet of the Ahmadiyya sect that Jesus did not die on the cross, and was not resurrected from the dead. The Shroud, they believe, is conclusive evidence of that.

Hugh, as you appear to be an anti-supernaturalist, seeming to assert God only acts logically, per how He set things up, please see my post (http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=41666), as the assumption seems to be that God's logical way of working is like the best of human logic, that we can understand how or why He does things, or that He won't interrupt that flow in surprising and incredible, immediate ways. But the NORM of how things work is all built upon the miraculous. God is not physical, but spirit. We and the world we live in our created physical beings, albeit made in His image - with shadows of His attributes. The universe, world and humans are miraculous creations that once did not exist. And so what we consider the "norm" of how things typically work is the result of previously miraculous things - actually, ONGOING miraculous things.

Sudden, immediate interruptions (found throughout Scripture) are suspensions of the ongoing "normal (yet resulting of their miraculous origins) way things operate. So, God has often operated miraculously, first on a grand scale, and then in amazing real-time moments, of which the Resurrection was one. But throughout, the idea that God operates only methodically, and not miraculously (or per the so call GAPS) is not a concept found in Scripture. That He logically sees things as we do is also a concept alien across the entirety of Scripture. These are some things to ponder when going too far in one's assessment of the potentially miraculous. Of course, once our miraculous universe, world and life were in place, the TYPICAL way things work is incredibly consistent, while also allowing for substantial variations and randomness with the parameters of what we consider the way they normally work. By far, what we see is the way things normally work. But what is going on behind the curtains of that "normal?" But the idea that God's logic and ways of thinking are the same as ours - that's just a gross distortion of what we see across all of Scripture. Why believe it? It seems (and I might be wrong), at the root of Hugh's skepticism over the shroud, is a disbelief that the miraculous is not how God ever works - that some supposed kind of God-logic precludes the likelihood of the miraculous, and that everything flows according to natural laws and the parameters within their rhythms as He established them.

Normal and natural for the Divine is supernatural for us.
Not sure why the difficulty of accepting this.
If God exists ( and He must as every Christian knows), then what we view as natural is not relevant to God.

This diversion is more a matter of faith than science, but for what it's worth I do not think a reluctance to accept supernatural intervention in the completely rational progress of the universe is a denial either of God or of his omnipotence. The question is not could he but did he, and I think he did not. This is not to say that he has set something going and then retired. I think that the only way in which the universe existing in one microsecond is followed by another, very similar one one microsecond later and so on is only possible by the sustaining power of God's imagination, which is what I think of as an ongoing miracle, if you like. No, I do not think that God is incapable of "sudden, immediate interruptions"; I just don't think he works that way. Yes, I do think that "some supposed kind of God-logic precludes the likelihood of the miraculous, and that everything flows according to natural laws and the parameters within their rhythms as He established them."

Apart from that, has anybody anything to say about the Shroud?

Hugh: No, I do not think that God is incapable of "sudden, immediate interruptions"; I just don't think he works that way. Yes, I do think that "some supposed kind of God-logic precludes the likelihood of the miraculous

Well, Hugh, then you clearly don't accept what much of the Bible teaches - and PROLIFICALLY so! Why even believe in the resurrection of Christ? What part of creating a physical universe that He began in one moment, which did not exist in the previous moment, eliminates God working miraculously? Really, you're arguing against foundational beliefs and teachings of Christianity, if you deny the miraculous workings of God. You do believe Jesus, fully spirit, became also a physical man, died, was resurrected - right? What do you call that but miraculous? Normal? Rational? What?

hughfarey wrote: Finally the video moves on to an attempt to authenticate the depiction of the wounds by a comparison of them with known crucifixion practice.
The video’s statement, that we “actually know [nails through the wrist] is consistent with Roman practice” is completely untrue. There is no archaeological or historical evidence either way, although marks about a third of the way along an arm bone associated with the only secure archaeological may suggest nail damage there, also nowhere near the wrists at all.

Do you believe that the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus as presented in the four Gospels represent historically accurate evidence regarding first century Roman crucifixion practices?

Let's keep this on the shroud.

Hugh challenging pro-shroud authenticity evidence I see as actually a healthy practice of scholasticism which heavily employed dialectic methods. Whether or not Hugh rejects the shroud because he is anti-supernatural intervention, or he is just employing such scholastic methods which actually help to strengthen arguments, I do not know.

It seems to me Hugh that you have a bias against belief in supernatural occurrences, even of Christ's physical resurrection. I'm not quite sure how you reconcile such, with basic Christian belief in Christ's resurrection, indeed God incarnating Himself into human form as Christ. Whether you place your Christian beliefs in "Box A" and keep such separate from empirical evidentialist beliefs in "Box B", but it seems to me that such leads to a dual-minded intellectual disorder of sorts on matters of reality. Such would make for an interesting discussion in Phil's new thread re: such.

Otherwise, let's keep this discussion on the shroud.