Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:Kurieo, notice how hugh left the invisible reweaving claim by Joe Marino and without a trace .
I find it amazing that Hugh made the claim that he never knew about this and the very company that was mentioned even though it was mentioned more then once on the shroud story blog. Why don't you go back and check on the shroud story blog and see if it was mentioned on the blog then ask Hugh how he could make such a ridiculous claim

I'm sure you're not being deliberately snide, but your comment is unfair. I have already said that I have left the invisible mend question open until I have received back from Withoutatrace the small sample of cloth with a hole in that I have asked them to repair as invisibly as they can. I am well aware of invisible mending and various invisible mending companies, including Withoutatrace, and have already had a sample of cloth invisibly mended by a British company, which I hoped would be good enough. It is very good on one side, but easily visible on the other. What I had forgotten was that Michael Ehrlich had claimed that his mends would be invisible on both sides. Now we just have to wait and see.

There is an extreme bias towards anything anti shroud.

Perhaps you move in different circles from me. There are a few fanatics both pro- and anti-authenticity, but on the whole I have enjoyed sensible discussion with proponents of both sides. If you had bothered to review the videos referenced by Kurieou in his OP, in the light of my detailed comments, you would be able to point out particular things you think I have misrepresented rather than waving these rather vague derogatory comments about.

If one is determined to believe that NOTHING is EVER supernatural, then no evidences, no matter how compelling, are likely to change their mind. To them, it will just remain an unproven thing. But no Christian should ever believe that God doesn't sometimes work supernaturally - that is, that He sometimes works in a manner that immediately interrupts how things typically must function. The Bible is full of such things - believe them or not. But such things were recorded over long periods of time, and were typically associated with God's leaders, prophets and apostles to show by Whose authority they spoke. So, this is not how things work most of the time - even in Biblical times. If they did, they, nor we, would call them supernatural or miraculous, but just another typical thing that happens every day.

Question Hugh. If your cloth sample comes back with invisible stitching, would that impact upon your current position?

Kurieuo wrote:Question Hugh. If your cloth sample comes back with invisible stitching, would that impact upon your current position?

Yes, of course. As I said before, although there are a few extremists supporting both authenticity and a medieval origin, for whom any contrary evidence is either ignored or rejected without consideration, most of the sindonologists I know appreciate that our knowledge is not yet adequate for an incontrovertible conclusion, and that individual opinions are based on quite a delicate balance. The radiocarbon data is powerful evidence in support of a medieval origin, and a comprehensive discrediting of it would certainly reduce its weight.

In this respect, it is probably worth reiterating that remarks such as "If one is determined to believe that NOTHING is EVER supernatural", and "There is an extreme bias towards anything anti shroud", to mention only the most recent, do not reflect my views. Perhaps they do reflect the views of those who made them, suggesting that if there is any extremism in this discussion, possibly coupled to a determination to reject any contrary views without consideration, it is more characteristic of authenticists than non-authenticists.

Argh, sorry. I forgot I asked you earlier.

Where was the shroud originally found? I think this has been covered but I ain't sure.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Where was the shroud originally found? I think this has been covered but I ain't sure.

The earliest definite reference to the Shroud now in Turin lies in a little metal souvenir plaque with embossed designs, including an indisputable picture of the Shroud, and two shields, of the de Charny and the de Vergy family. Geoffroy de Charny was married to Jeanne de Vergy, but died in 1356. This suggests that the Shroud was the subject of pilgrimage before 1356. A letter from the Bishop of Troyes t the Pope in 1389 refers to the Shroud being displayed "34 years ago", giving a date of 1355, and "by the canons of Lirey" giving us a place, the little village of Lirey, about 150km southeast of Paris.

Depends who you ask.

hughfarey wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Where was the shroud originally found? I think this has been covered but I ain't sure.

The earliest definite reference to the Shroud now in Turin lies in a little metal souvenir plaque with embossed designs, including an indisputable picture of the Shroud, and two shields, of the de Charny and the de Vergy family. Geoffroy de Charny was married to Jeanne de Vergy, but died in 1356. This suggests that the Shroud was the subject of pilgrimage before 1356. A letter from the Bishop of Troyes t the Pope in 1389 refers to the Shroud being displayed "34 years ago", giving a date of 1355, and "by the canons of Lirey" giving us a place, the little village of Lirey, about 150km southeast of Paris.

Thing is wouldn't it be found before then? It was supposed to be in the tomb of Jesus. I'm starting to think it's fake, but undecided.

You should start here Kid: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225 (note, my posts on that first page ). I'd like to think I followed the evidence to where it most likely pointed. Have really no reason to accept, given I was on the other side (anti-shroud authenticity), especially since the shroud smells "Catholic"

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Thing is wouldn't it be found before then? It was supposed to be in the tomb of Jesus. I'm starting to think it's fake, but undecided.

There are a few people who don't think Jesus existed at all, but most people, even atheists, think there is enough evidence, however circumstantial, to support the belief that Jesus did exist, and did die, and therefore, reasonably, was covered with a shroud (some people think that Jesus didn't die, but was covered with a shroud anyway). So far so good. But is the Shroud of Turin the same shroud that covered the body of Jesus, or a representation of it, made much later in time? These are the sort of questions you might ask in order to help decide:

1) Do we know anything about 1st century Jewish shrouds and burial practices, and if we do, how do they compare with the Shroud today?

2) Does anybody incontestably identify the Shroud earlier than 1350, by describing or depicting characteristics that must apply to the Shroud of Turin and not any other relic?

So far, so impartial, but, as you will already know, I myself do not find the answers to these questions sufficient to demonstrate the authenticity of the Shroud, while many others do. I shall be happy to explain why if you want, and no doubt others will explain the opposite point of view. However, I think I should warn you that many people are not too interested in the answers, as their Faith is all they need to justify their opinion. That's fine, but then they nearly always try to justify their faith, and then their chief evidence is based on arguments from ignorance, to the effect that because we don't know something, therefore their opinion must be correct. It hasn't been reproduced, therefore it's authentic, or it isn't mentioned in the bible, therefore it's medieval, or we don't know how it got to Lirey, therefore it's authentic, or we don't know how a dead body can produce an image, therefore it's medieval. Needless to say, not knowing something is not evidence for anything, and I'm sure you will not fall into such a fallacy.

I'd say besides going through that very long thread I linked to, the videos in my opening post of this thread are, I think, a good start.

What Hugh provides, as I see it, is really a different analysis of the data heavily based upon the controversial C14 dating which he places a lot of trust in. Everything else one might present, seems negated by that dating. You can then read Hugh's responses to the videos here, and others who have replied to them.

You'll need to decide for yourself what is the most reasonable conclusion given what is there. Really, I see the evidence is very good that it is authentic. I think you will likely be surprised at just what is there, hidden in the shroud.

Yes, you could indeed look at the videos Kurieou links to in the OP, but do please also read my reviews of them. If you want some kind of balance, that is. If not, then by all means ignore what I've written. Lots of people do!

hughfarey wrote:Yes, you could indeed look at the videos Kurieou links to in the OP, but do please also read my reviews of them. If you want some kind of balance, that is. If not, then by all means ignore what I've written. Lots of people do!

I certainly don't ignore what you've written. I've read your posts with great interest, though I do still lean towards authenticity. And I am very interested in your take on why the shroud does not compare to first century relics.

hughfarey wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Thing is wouldn't it be found before then? It was supposed to be in the tomb of Jesus. I'm starting to think it's fake, but undecided.

There are a few people who don't think Jesus existed at all, but most people, even atheists, think there is enough evidence, however circumstantial, to support the belief that Jesus did exist, and did die, and therefore, reasonably, was covered with a shroud (some people think that Jesus didn't die, but was covered with a shroud anyway). So far so good. But is the Shroud of Turin the same shroud that covered the body of Jesus, or a representation of it, made much later in time? These are the sort of questions you might ask in order to help decide:

1) Do we know anything about 1st century Jewish shrouds and burial practices, and if we do, how do they compare with the Shroud today?

2) Does anybody incontestably identify the Shroud earlier than 1350, by describing or depicting characteristics that must apply to the Shroud of Turin and not any other relic?

So far, so impartial, but, as you will already know, I myself do not find the answers to these questions sufficient to demonstrate the authenticity of the Shroud, while many others do. I shall be happy to explain why if you want, and no doubt others will explain the opposite point of view. However, I think I should warn you that many people are not too interested in the answers, as their Faith is all they need to justify their opinion. That's fine, but then they nearly always try to justify their faith, and then their chief evidence is based on arguments from ignorance, to the effect that because we don't know something, therefore their opinion must be correct. It hasn't been reproduced, therefore it's authentic, or it isn't mentioned in the bible, therefore it's medieval, or we don't know how it got to Lirey, therefore it's authentic, or we don't know how a dead body can produce an image, therefore it's medieval. Needless to say, not knowing something is not evidence for anything, and I'm sure you will not fall into such a fallacy.

I also have some encyclopedias and reference books from decades back I can look into.