Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Not to defend Kenny, but the about 100 pages may have something to do with putting people off.
Still it does contain much information and one shouldn't argue from ignorance.

It would be good to start a new shroud thread perhaps with the best of the best material, or all still existing good online resources categorised, in the opening post?

Does Kenny want to know all the evidences and facts or is Kenny just looking to debunk it apriori without looking at the facts .
Kenny how bad do you want to know the truth .

He doesn't even need to read through all 100 pages . He can see how the Luigi duplicate has been soundly destroyed on stephen jones shroud blog .

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned Kenny , the church's official stance is neutral, but the last 3 popes have privately believed in its authenticity .

Stephen jones believes in its authenticity because he has looked through all the evidences, and stephen has every reason not to want to believe on it because he is not a catholic . He is in fact a calvinist and if you read what John Calvin said aboit the shroud you would know that he wasn't a believer in its authenticity but stephen jones said that if Calvin was exposed to all the evidences that are known about the shroud today he would probably be a believer in it . You cant really blame him for not believing in it in his time because of all the fake relics that were being peddled during his time .

Kenny why not also visit stephen jones shroud blog . Lets see if your claim that Luigi replicated the shroud stands up to the facts .

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Kenny
What would make you think an image like the image on the shroud could be produced by one of the thousands of others?

I don’t believe the Shroud is a miracle or anything outside the laws of nature; if it were they would be looking in that direction to explain how it was done.
The Italian scientist who claims to have duplicated the Shroud; even though he used ovens and washing techniques to accomplish the effect, he said it could have been accomplished by materials and techniques used in the middle ages, and time.

Ken

Kenny , again how does science test for a miracle ? Science as it is defined today is about enquiring about everything in the material/natural world .every natural explanation has been offered for that image and every natural image has been debunked . The closest anyone has gotten to replicating that image is using some form of radiation or light .

Hmm , what does the bible say about God ? God is light and in him there can be no darkness ?

Kenny How bad do you want God and how much of your life are you willing to give up in order to find him ?

Kurieuo wrote:Not to defend Kenny, but the about 100 pages may have something to do with putting people off.
Still it does contain much information and one shouldn't argue from ignorance.

It would be good to start a new shroud thread perhaps with the best of the best material, or all still existing good online resources categorised, in the opening post?

If a person decides to discuss something and makes statements in an authoritative way, why would they NOT want to KNOW if what they are saying is accurate?
Excuses...

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Not to defend Kenny, but the about 100 pages may have something to do with putting people off.
Still it does contain much information and one shouldn't argue from ignorance.

It would be good to start a new shroud thread perhaps with the best of the best material, or all still existing good online resources categorised, in the opening post?

If a person decides to discuss something and makes statements in an authoritative way, why would they NOT want to KNOW if what they are saying is accurate?
Excuses...

Correct Paul , when I started studying the shroud I went through shroud.com and stephen jones blog like a sponge through water and the more I learned , the more I became fascinated .

I think Kenny doesn't want to learn about the shroud because he might not like what it says to him

I never said I had any interest in the Shroud. I was talking to another person and for whatever reason; she asked me about the Shroud. I gave her my opinion of it and out of nowhere everybody and their mother jumps in with an opinion of the shroud, and there is an assumption that I have interest in it. If I did have interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread dedicated to the Shroud.

Ken

Kenny wrote:If I did have interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread detected to the Shroud.

OK, multiple choice question, which is correct?

A. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread defected to the Shroud
B. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread depicted to the Shroud.
c. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread dissected to the Shroud.
d. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread disconced to the Shroud.
e. It doesn't matter because I don't care.

First correct answer wins. Nothing.

FL

opps

Kenny I was not trying to be rude to you,I just thought you might want to consider the science behind the shroud.You have it a lot easier here than I do on an atheist forum.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kenny wrote:If I did have interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread detected to the Shroud.

OK, multiple choice question, which is correct?

A. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread defected to the Shroud
B. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread depicted to the Shroud.
c. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread dissected to the Shroud.
d. If I did have an interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread disconced to the Shroud.
e. It doesn't matter because I don't care.

First correct answer wins. Nothing.

FL

For Kenny I pick answer E.

Kenny wrote:I never said I had any interest in the Shroud. I was talking to another person and for whatever reason; she asked me about the Shroud. I gave her my opinion of it and out of nowhere everybody and their mother jumps in with an opinion of the shroud, and there is an assumption that I have interest in it. If I did have interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread dedicated to the Shroud.

Ken

Kenny , may I ask you why you don't have an interest in the shroud . Sure I have my opinion on it , but my opinion is based off of years of studying so my opinion is based off of some reasonable amount of knowledge .
You do realize the implications here of the shroud if what proponents claim about it is fully true .

Kenny If I were you I would go back to the discussions me and Pierson had on it a while back into the thread. I eventually got to know Pierson a little better later on and found out that he is a very compassionate person that really cares for others as he works in an area that needs these qualities . I don't think he's atheist anymore as he changed his signature from an atheistic quote to one from Marcus Aurelius a known roman agnostic . I mean it was a knock down drag out take no prisoners debate and he is an extremely intelligent debater .

The shroud has changed the worldview of quite a few people , so ask yourself if it did this , isn't there something there of value worth investigating ?

Only you in your heart of hearts Kenny can answer this question.
This is why I initially asked you how badly do you want God ?
The question still stands

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:I never said I had any interest in the Shroud. I was talking to another person and for whatever reason; she asked me about the Shroud. I gave her my opinion of it and out of nowhere everybody and their mother jumps in with an opinion of the shroud, and there is an assumption that I have interest in it. If I did have interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread dedicated to the Shroud.

Ken

Kenny , may I ask you why you don't have an interest in the shroud . Sure I have my opinion on it , but my opinion is based off of years of studying so my opinion is based off of some reasonable amount of knowledge .
You do realize the implications here of the shroud if what proponents claim about it is fully true .

Kenny If I were you I would go back to the discussions me and Pierson had on it a while back into the thread. I eventually got to know Pierson a little better later on and found out that he is a very compassionate person that really cares for others as he works in an area that needs these qualities . I don't think he's atheist anymore as he changed his signature from an atheistic quote to one from Marcus Aurelius a known roman agnostic . I mean it was a knock down drag out take no prisoners debate and he is an extremely intelligent debater .

The shroud has changed the worldview of quite a few people , so ask yourself if it did this , isn't there something there of value worth investigating ?

Only you in your heart of hearts Kenny can answer this question.
This is why I initially asked you how badly do you want God ?
The question still stands

I get a feeling you guys will be talking a little over my head with carbon dating and stuff, but I will look into it and reply if I have any questions. What dates were you and Pierson discussing?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Kenny wrote:I never said I had any interest in the Shroud. I was talking to another person and for whatever reason; she asked me about the Shroud. I gave her my opinion of it and out of nowhere everybody and their mother jumps in with an opinion of the shroud, and there is an assumption that I have interest in it. If I did have interest in the Shroud, I would be on the thread dedicated to the Shroud.

Ken

Kenny , may I ask you why you don't have an interest in the shroud . Sure I have my opinion on it , but my opinion is based off of years of studying so my opinion is based off of some reasonable amount of knowledge .
You do realize the implications here of the shroud if what proponents claim about it is fully true .

Kenny If I were you I would go back to the discussions me and Pierson had on it a while back into the thread. I eventually got to know Pierson a little better later on and found out that he is a very compassionate person that really cares for others as he works in an area that needs these qualities . I don't think he's atheist anymore as he changed his signature from an atheistic quote to one from Marcus Aurelius a known roman agnostic . I mean it was a knock down drag out take no prisoners debate and he is an extremely intelligent debater .

The shroud has changed the worldview of quite a few people , so ask yourself if it did this , isn't there something there of value worth investigating ?

Only you in your heart of hearts Kenny can answer this question.
This is why I initially asked you how badly do you want God ?
The question still stands

I get a feeling you guys will be talking a little over my head with carbon dating and stuff, but I will look into it and reply if I have any questions. What dates were you and Pierson discussing?

Ken

The carbon dating is really a non-issue at this time Kenny, even skeptics don't focus on that anymore ( other than the ones that are not up to speed with all the problems and issues that happened with the tests).

Kenny wrote:I get a feeling you guys will be talking a little over my head with carbon dating and stuff, but I will look into it and reply if I have any questions. What dates were you and Pierson discussing?

If you want the latest summary of the shroud study check this 2 hour video by Dr. McQuaid, forensic pathologist and shroud expert. It is well worth the time. I will post this link in the shroud thread as well.