Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: [...] after I gracious[sic] answered your post, [...]

Incorrect.

After numerous requests, you still dance around the original crucial scientific falsifiability question, regarding the reliability of C14 dating of just the cloth itself.

You may to be confused, thinking that I'm saying that the proposed C14 cloth dating would invalidate the shroud's authenticity. I'm not addressing your OTHER shroud evidence now. As a starting point, I would happily accept the answer: "The shroud is almost surely supernatural in origin, even though God for some reason seems to have retroactively put the supernatural image on a 14th century cloth."

Without appropriately acknowledging such rock solid C14 cloth dating results, you would be free to ignore virtually any scientific evidence.

And simply saying that further C14 tests "would put SOME doubt in my mind" is vacuous, regarding whether you are rational about the weight of that scientific evidence for dating just the cloth itself. Both Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Pope John XXIII had SOME doubt regarding the divinity of Jesus.

I still cannot imagine what would be necessary to have you admit SOME doubt about this bizarre claim from your earlier post:
"No one realized [the shroud] was an image until the invent of photography, [...]".
(My response was: Huh?! Everyone in the 14th century knew the shroud was an image of a man. You seem to be just making stuff up.)

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: [...] after I gracious[sic] answered your post, [...]

Incorrect.

After numerous requests, you still dance around the original crucial scientific falsifiability question, regarding the reliability of C14 dating of just the cloth itself.

You may to be confused, thinking that I'm saying that the proposed C14 cloth dating would invalidate the shroud's authenticity. I'm not addressing your OTHER shroud evidence now. As a starting point, I would happily accept the answer: "The shroud is almost surely supernatural in origin, even though God for some reason seems to have retroactively put the supernatural image on a 14th century cloth."

Without appropriately acknowledging such rock solid C14 cloth dating results, you would be free to ignore virtually any scientific evidence.

And simply saying that further C14 tests "would put SOME doubt in my mind" is vacuous, regarding whether you are rational about the weight of that scientific evidence for dating just the cloth itself. Both Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Pope John XXIII had SOME doubt regarding the divinity of Jesus.

I still cannot imagine what would be necessary to have you admit SOME doubt about this bizarre claim from your earlier post:
"No one realized [the shroud] was an image until the invent of photography, [...]".
(My response was: Huh?! Everyone in the 14th century knew the shroud was an image of a man. You seem to be just making stuff up.)

Yes a very solid c14 testing that was the biggest bumble in c14 testing .
If this is how science is done we might as well start watching bugs bunny and Daffy Duck and allow them to do c14 tests

"70 points of coincidence".

God has a subtle sense of humor.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: [...] after I gracious[sic] answered your post, [...]

Incorrect.

After numerous requests, you still dance around the original crucial scientific falsifiability question, regarding the reliability of C14 dating of just the cloth itself.

You may to be confused, thinking that I'm saying that the proposed C14 cloth dating would invalidate the shroud's authenticity. I'm not addressing your OTHER shroud evidence now. As a starting point, I would happily accept the answer: "The shroud is almost surely supernatural in origin, even though God for some reason seems to have retroactively put the supernatural image on a 14th century cloth."

Without appropriately acknowledging such rock solid C14 cloth dating results, you would be free to ignore virtually any scientific evidence.

And simply saying that further C14 tests "would put SOME doubt in my mind" is vacuous, regarding whether you are rational about the weight of that scientific evidence for dating just the cloth itself. Both Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Pope John XXIII had SOME doubt regarding the divinity of Jesus.

I still cannot imagine what would be necessary to have you admit SOME doubt about this bizarre claim from your earlier post:
"No one realized [the shroud] was an image until the invent of photography, [...]".
(My response was: Huh?! Everyone in the 14th century knew the shroud was an image of a man. You seem to be just making stuff up.)

First off, I don't need to justify myself to you.
Second, I don't really care what you choose to believe or not, that is your problem.
BUT I do care about this site and as it is very CLEAR on our rules here that Skeptics will only be tolerated IF they show they are here for open dialogue and for understanding and that you are clearly NOT doing that.

Heh: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ium-oviedo

A new study released last week included new evidence that links and further authenticates two holy relics that millions of Christians believe offer physical proof of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

SoCalExile wrote:Heh: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ium-oviedo

A new study released last week included new evidence that links and further authenticates two holy relics that millions of Christians believe offer physical proof of the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

SoCal, what have I said about just posting off links. How rude!

New shroud film focusing on the 1988 c14 tests and the events that lead up to them .


http://www.shroudenigma.com

Guys did you see Barrie Schwartz doing a shroud presentation to a group of Muslims ? You really should watch this one

Can you give us the summary?

Paul I'll give a short summary as I've been fighting some kind of flu/infection for the last 3 weeks .
It talks about all the events leading to the c14 tests and how the head of the labs bullied the church to take out the sturp team from having any input whatsoever in the c14 testing even though they knew the shroud better then anyone else .

The video ends with Barrie Schwortz giving s shroud presentation in front of a large crowd of Muslims .

And, remember, the Quran teaches Jesus to be merely a prophet of God, like Moses, etc., but not God. It denies the Resurrection or that Jesus claimed to be God. And Muhammad is considered the last and greatest prophet of Islam, and more authoritative than all previous prophets of Allah.

I was present at the Jalsa Salana of the Ahmadiyya Moslem Community in the UK last summer, where this and other interviews were recorded. While mainstream Islam suggests that Jesus was not crucified, and did not die, but was raised to heaven, the Ahmadiyya believe Jesus was crucified and interred, but recovered and made his way to Pakistan, where he eventually died and was buried. The relevance to the Shroud is as follows. To mainstream Islam it must be fake, but to the Ahmadiyya it could be authentic, but if so, it is evidence that Jesus did not die, and was interred alive. Barrie Schwortz's belief that it is authentic but shows a dead man was listened to with respect and discussion, but the assembly thought he was wrong. My own belief that the Shroud is medieval does not clash with Ahmadiyya belief, but sadly does nothing to support it either.

Hugh your belief that the shroud was a medieval mistake had almost no evidence to support it yet has lots of evidence against that view

We scientists, bippy, rarely make dogmatic statements like "your belief [...] has almost no evidence to support it."

hughfarey wrote:We scientists, bippy, rarely make dogmatic statements like "your belief [...] has almost no evidence to support it."

No, 'we' don't.

hughfarey wrote:My own belief that the Shroud is medieval

'We' only make personal 'belief' statements unsupported by current scientific research.