Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote: Do you understand what the dating of the "patch" means for the fuller shroud?

Of course. Duh.

Kurieuo wrote: No one can claim the shroud is a fraud based upon it.

Correct. By itself. But the next step (as yet, not discussed) in the fraud argument first requires an agreement that the radiocarbon dating labs all nailed the shroud patch and 3 control patches dating tests, and that if dating other patches throughout the shroud would all date to the 14th century, then the shroud authenticity is seriously in doubt (i.e., agree that radiocarbon dating is accurate/robust).

Without such a common ground agreement, discussion of any follow-on points is as futile as discussing a perpetual motion machine without an explicit mutual agreement on the rock solid foundation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

PaulSacramento wrote: Carbon dating is just 1 line of evidence.

Yes, but extremely important evidence, for which you still haven't affirmed the points in the penultimate paragraph above, e.g.,, "Yes, radiocarbon dating is demonstrably accurate, and yes, I would seriously question shroud authenticity, if multiple-location shroud samples would all date to the 14th century."

You know what I'm asking and why. Just say "yes" or "no".

On a related note, I notice that you didn't even admit that you were confused (or at best, misleading) about the 1989 article when you stated "Although one swatch was dated to 9BC to 78AD:."

Yes, but extremely important evidence, for which you still haven't affirmed the points in the penultimate paragraph above, e.g.,, "Yes, radiocarbon dating is demonstrably accurate, and yes, I would seriously question shroud authenticity, if multiple-location shroud samples would all date to the 14th century."

You know what I'm asking and why. Just say "yes" or "no".

On a related note, I notice that you didn't even admit that you were confused (or at best, misleading) about the 1989 article when you stated "Although one swatch was dated to 9BC to 78AD:."

The only scientific claim in regards to the carbon dating os the swatches is that the areas from which the swatches were removed can be dated to the 14th century,period.
That is ALL that can be said about the C14 tests, everything else is speculation.

And my point about the older swatch was removed when I edited the post, sorry.


Now, there is a little matter of YOU addressing MY points, which are simply summarized here:

In absence of any other method, we are stuck with only carbon dating BUT that is NOT the situation here since we have multiple lines of other evidence that dates the rest of the shroud to much later.
Then of course we have the simple fact that NO ONE has been able to explain, much less duplicate the image with MODERN technologies MUCH LESS those from the 14th century.
Add to that the other simple fact:
No one realized it was an image until the invent of photography, so, what we are expected to believe is that, in the 14th century, someone ( using techniques NO ONE has ever accounted for and still not able to reproduce in the 21st century) created an image on a line that would NOT be able to be seen UNTIL the photographic process was invented.

Morny, for what it's worth, I was strongly skeptical of the shroud.
Don't like the Catholic "relics" if you will, and often what they used them for and make of them.
See my responses many years ago at the start of the thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225

Now, well, can't be proven. Science isn't like that. It'll never be proven like a mathematical proof.
But, it seems most likely to me given all I've read, I don't know if it was half way through this very long thread I chimed in to re-examine. Then started reading sources and the like, and well, I found myself impressed.

FL was the same way, and he too changed upon reading further.

Really, I'm in the boat where if it is authentically Christ's, then good, if it's not then oh well.
Consider this: there is nothing miraculous about someone being buried in cloth now is there?

I often feel skeptics treat it like if it is true, then Christianity is proven right and their whole world will cave in.
But, only a fool would believe that Jesus never existed given the historical evidence.

So what's it really verify that isn't accepted?
Jesus lived and died. That's a historically accepted fact.

PaulSacramento wrote: That is ALL that can be said about the C14 tests, everything else is speculation.

I can only assume from your answers that future multiple shroud-wide swatch dating to the 14th century would still not have an impact on your belief in authenticity.

Your out-of-hand dismissal of evidence (either actual or hypothetical) is not science.

Before the famous 1919 solar eclipse test of General Relativity, someone asked Einstein what a negative result would do to his theory. Einstein unequivocally said that his beloved GR would have to be abandoned.

I am familiar with the supposed evidence for shroud authenticity (image formation, blood, pollen, invisible weaves, ...). Such evidence would have to be extraordinary to dismiss high quality radiocarbon dating from the top labs, and from top textile experts selecting the material. I would have been happy to discuss and weigh your other evidence, but what's the point, when right out of the staring blocks, you apparently dismiss reliable contrary evidence from scientific consensus?

Can scientific consensus be wrong? Of course. Is simply ignoring scientific consensus out-of-hand a good idea? No.

Kurieuo wrote: Morny, for what it's worth, I was strongly skeptical of the shroud.

Belief or not is OK. You're looking at and weighing evidence, even evidence contrary to your initial beliefs. Sounds like a good (dare I say "scientific"?) approach to me.

Kurieuo wrote:Morny, for what it's worth, I was strongly skeptical of the shroud.
Don't like the Catholic "relics" if you will, and often what they used them for and make of them.
See my responses many years ago at the start of the thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225

Now, well, can't be proven. Science isn't like that. It'll never be proven like a mathematical proof.
But, it seems most likely to me given all I've read, I don't know if it was half way through this very long thread I chimed in to re-examine. Then started reading sources and the like, and well, I found myself impressed.

FL was the same way, and he too changed upon reading further.

Really, I'm in the boat where if it is authentically Christ's, then good, if it's not then oh well.
Consider this: there is nothing miraculous about someone being buried in cloth now is there?

I often feel skeptics treat it like if it is true, then Christianity is proven right and their whole world will cave in.
But, only a fool would believe that Jesus never existed given the historical evidence.

So what's it really verify that isn't accepted?
Jesus lived and died. That's a historically accepted fact.

Isnt this as bit like the preacher whose shtick is to go on about how he was the worst of sinners?

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: That is ALL that can be said about the C14 tests, everything else is speculation.

I can only assume from your answers that future multiple shroud-wide swatch dating to the 14th century would still not have an impact on your belief in authenticity.

Your out-of-hand dismissal of evidence (either actual or hypothetical) is not science.

Before the famous 1919 solar eclipse test of General Relativity, someone asked Einstein what a negative result would do to his theory. Einstein unequivocally said that his beloved GR would have to be abandoned.

I am familiar with the supposed evidence for shroud authenticity (image formation, blood, pollen, invisible weaves, ...). Such evidence would have to be extraordinary to dismiss high quality radiocarbon dating from the top labs, and from top textile experts selecting the material. I would have been happy to discuss and weigh your other evidence, but what's the point, when right out of the staring blocks, you apparently dismiss reliable contrary evidence from scientific consensus?

Can scientific consensus be wrong? Of course. Is simply ignoring scientific consensus out-of-hand a good idea? No.

Answer my question please.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Morny, for what it's worth, I was strongly skeptical of the shroud.
Don't like the Catholic "relics" if you will, and often what they used them for and make of them.
See my responses many years ago at the start of the thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ?f=6&t=225

Now, well, can't be proven. Science isn't like that. It'll never be proven like a mathematical proof.
But, it seems most likely to me given all I've read, I don't know if it was half way through this very long thread I chimed in to re-examine. Then started reading sources and the like, and well, I found myself impressed.

FL was the same way, and he too changed upon reading further.

Really, I'm in the boat where if it is authentically Christ's, then good, if it's not then oh well.
Consider this: there is nothing miraculous about someone being buried in cloth now is there?

I often feel skeptics treat it like if it is true, then Christianity is proven right and their whole world will cave in.
But, only a fool would believe that Jesus never existed given the historical evidence.

So what's it really verify that isn't accepted?
Jesus lived and died. That's a historically accepted fact.

Isnt this as bit like the preacher whose shtick is to go on about how he was the worst of sinners?

Maybe BUT that doesn't make it any less truthful.
I myself believed the shroud to be a forgery because the ONLY thing I knew about it was the C14 tests.
After reading through this thread AND researching all the sources I realized that it is not.

Realize that the shroud being a fake or not has absolutely NOTHING to do with our faith.
There really is NO need for it to be real.

Bippy, I don't think you've yet seen the PM aI sent you still have waiting - about Hugh Ross' comments on the Shroud.

Philip

PaulSacramento wrote:

Yes, but extremely important evidence, for which you still haven't affirmed the points in the penultimate paragraph above, e.g.,, "Yes, radiocarbon dating is demonstrably accurate, and yes, I would seriously question shroud authenticity, if multiple-location shroud samples would all date to the 14th century."

You know what I'm asking and why. Just say "yes" or "no".

On a related note, I notice that you didn't even admit that you were confused (or at best, misleading) about the 1989 article when you stated "Although one swatch was dated to 9BC to 78AD:."

The only scientific claim in regards to the carbon dating os the swatches is that the areas from which the swatches were removed can be dated to the 14th century,period.
That is ALL that can be said about the C14 tests, everything else is speculation.

And my point about the older swatch was removed when I edited the post, sorry.


Now, there is a little matter of YOU addressing MY points, which are simply summarized here:

In absence of any other method, we are stuck with only carbon dating BUT that is NOT the situation here since we have multiple lines of other evidence that dates the rest of the shroud to much later.
Then of course we have the simple fact that NO ONE has been able to explain, much less duplicate the image with MODERN technologies MUCH LESS those from the 14th century.
Add to that the other simple fact:
No one realized it was an image until the invent of photography, so, what we are expected to believe is that, in the 14th century, someone ( using techniques NO ONE has ever accounted for and still not able to reproduce in the 21st century) created an image on a line that would NOT be able to be seen UNTIL the photographic process was invented.

Paul let's not forget the sudarium of Oviedo which had a history to the 7th century and that it had 125 congruent matching points with the shroud .
This evidence alone by itself dates the shroud to at least the 7th century and if you believe the story that it was hidden away in the cave of mark until 600 ad it goes all the way back to Christ , but the most verifiable history dates it to the 7th century and the pollen found on the sudarium matches its history trip to its current spot in Spain from Jerusalem .

125 congruent matching points makes it impossible to be a coincidence .

Let's not forget it's congruent matching points with the Christ pantocrator at 528 ad .

It was at this the that the face of Christ on frescos started to change to more match the shroud

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: That is ALL that can be said about the C14 tests, everything else is speculation.

I can only assume from your answers that future multiple shroud-wide swatch dating to the 14th century would still not have an impact on your belief in authenticity.

Your out-of-hand dismissal of evidence (either actual or hypothetical) is not science.

Before the famous 1919 solar eclipse test of General Relativity, someone asked Einstein what a negative result would do to his theory. Einstein unequivocally said that his beloved GR would have to be abandoned.

I am familiar with the supposed evidence for shroud authenticity (image formation, blood, pollen, invisible weaves, ...). Such evidence would have to be extraordinary to dismiss high quality radiocarbon dating from the top labs, and from top textile experts selecting the material. I would have been happy to discuss and weigh your other evidence, but what's the point, when right out of the staring blocks, you apparently dismiss reliable contrary evidence from scientific consensus?

Can scientific consensus be wrong? Of course. Is simply ignoring scientific consensus out-of-hand a good idea? No.

Answer my question please.

I would be happy to, when you answer the all-important question about the falsifiability of your position given more extensive radiocarbon swatch testing.

Otherwise, we'd be wasting each other's time.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm asking you whether future extensive radiocarbon dating to the 14th century would require that you seriously reconsider your position.

Richard Smith (editor British Medical Journal) wrote: A scientist is somebody who constantly questions, generates falsifiable hypotheses, and collects data from well designed experiments -- the kind of people who brush their teeth on only one side of their mouth to see whether brushing your teeth has any benefit.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: That is ALL that can be said about the C14 tests, everything else is speculation.

I can only assume from your answers that future multiple shroud-wide swatch dating to the 14th century would still not have an impact on your belief in authenticity.

Your out-of-hand dismissal of evidence (either actual or hypothetical) is not science.

Before the famous 1919 solar eclipse test of General Relativity, someone asked Einstein what a negative result would do to his theory. Einstein unequivocally said that his beloved GR would have to be abandoned.

I am familiar with the supposed evidence for shroud authenticity (image formation, blood, pollen, invisible weaves, ...). Such evidence would have to be extraordinary to dismiss high quality radiocarbon dating from the top labs, and from top textile experts selecting the material. I would have been happy to discuss and weigh your other evidence, but what's the point, when right out of the staring blocks, you apparently dismiss reliable contrary evidence from scientific consensus?

Can scientific consensus be wrong? Of course. Is simply ignoring scientific consensus out-of-hand a good idea? No.

Answer my question please.

I would be happy to, when you answer the all-important question about the falsifiability of your position given more extensive radiocarbon swatch testing.

Otherwise, we'd be wasting each other's time.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm asking you whether future extensive radiocarbon dating to the 14th century would require that you seriously reconsider your position.

Richard Smith (editor British Medical Journal) wrote: A scientist is somebody who constantly questions, generates falsifiable hypotheses, and collects data from well designed experiments -- the kind of people who brush their teeth on only one side of their mouth to see whether brushing your teeth has any benefit.

IF there were carbon dating done to the actual IMAGE on the shroud and they came back to the same time period then the HUGE question then would be:
HOW did they do it?
And yes, of course they would put SOME doubt in my mind and say SOME simply because, as I have pointed out over and over, the C14 dating is onlY ONE line of evidence and ALL the other lines ( or at least the majority of them) would also HAVE to be addressed.

Now, answer my question please.

Philip wrote:Bippy, I don't think you've yet seen the PM aI sent you still have waiting - about Hugh Ross' comments on the Shroud.

Philip

Philip I just saw it the other day and I sent a pm back to you . Actually Hugh I believe was discussed a few years ago here .
I love 99% of his other info as its backed by good science .

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: That is ALL that can be said about the C14 tests, everything else is speculation.

I can only assume from your answers that future multiple shroud-wide swatch dating to the 14th century would still not have an impact on your belief in authenticity.

Your out-of-hand dismissal of evidence (either actual or hypothetical) is not science.

Before the famous 1919 solar eclipse test of General Relativity, someone asked Einstein what a negative result would do to his theory. Einstein unequivocally said that his beloved GR would have to be abandoned.

I am familiar with the supposed evidence for shroud authenticity (image formation, blood, pollen, invisible weaves, ...). Such evidence would have to be extraordinary to dismiss high quality radiocarbon dating from the top labs, and from top textile experts selecting the material. I would have been happy to discuss and weigh your other evidence, but what's the point, when right out of the staring blocks, you apparently dismiss reliable contrary evidence from scientific consensus?

Can scientific consensus be wrong? Of course. Is simply ignoring scientific consensus out-of-hand a good idea? No.

Answer my question please.

I would be happy to, when you answer the all-important question about the falsifiability of your position given more extensive radiocarbon swatch testing.

Otherwise, we'd be wasting each other's time.

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm asking you whether future extensive radiocarbon dating to the 14th century would require that you seriously reconsider your position.

Richard Smith (editor British Medical Journal) wrote: A scientist is somebody who constantly questions, generates falsifiable hypotheses, and collects data from well designed experiments -- the kind of people who brush their teeth on only one side of their mouth to see whether brushing your teeth has any benefit.

IF there were carbon dating done to the actual IMAGE on the shroud and they came back to the same time period then the HUGE question then would be:
HOW did they do it?
And yes, of course they would put SOME doubt in my mind and say SOME simply because, as I have pointed out over and over, the C14 dating is onlY ONE line of evidence and ALL the other lines ( or at least the majority of them) would also HAVE to be addressed.

Now, answer my question please.

Paul the problem for hardliners sceitics is that if they would be simply remove honest enough to look at the serious doubts about the c14 testing that would open the pandora station box for them and they would have to start looking at the other evidences such as the matches between the Christ pantocrator , the sudarium and the 8th century Roman coins , all having multiple congruent matches with the shroud . After this they will start to see how the forgery theory starts to crumble .

Even agnostic art historian thomas de wessellow believes the shroud is authentic based on the evidences alone , but because he won't allow a supernatural foot in the door he refuses to accept anything but a natural explanation for the image

Not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.shroudenigma.com/