Evidence for God from Science

In my comment, I was referring to the position of the Ahmadiyya Muslims with regard to the Shroud. The reasons for my (and many others') belief were irrelevant to that issue. That is not to say that I don't have any, so to suggest that there is almost no evidence to support it was a bit presumptuous, if I may say so. In my opinion the evidence supporting a medieval origin for the Shroud outweighs the evidence in favour of authenticity - that's why I'm a medievalist. Others, notably Barrie Schwortz, have come to a different conclusion based on much the same evidence. However, the evidence itself is common to both assessments - and there's plenty to discuss on both sides.

hughfarey wrote:In my opinion the evidence supporting a medieval origin for the Shroud outweighs the evidence in favour of authenticity - that's why I'm a medievalist.

Like what?

Byblos wrote:

hughfarey wrote:In my opinion the evidence supporting a medieval origin for the Shroud outweighs the evidence in favour of authenticity - that's why I'm a medievalist.

Like what?

Apparently Hugh hasn't seen the bazillions of Bippy's posts here, which refute that idea.

Or He may be like Morny and simply ignore the evidence?

PaulSacramento wrote:Or He may be like Morny and simply ignore the evidence?

No. I'm guessing he's more like FL. Skeptical, and doesn't want to read through 98 pages of the thread, and all related links and videos.

Hugh you can nitpick on the 2/3rds factor like you did in your debate with Alan whanger and that takes away from the strong evidence of a reweave but you simply can't ignore the evidences of a dye and reweave since ray Rogers spotted it and it was confirmed by the other members of lid alamos labs as well as retired microscopist john l brown .

You also can't run around the obvious linkage between the sudarium of Oviedo and the shroud in the blood stains . I do however agree with your point to Alan whanger that when he proposed neutron radiation to explain this that this is beyond the scope to determine this .... Yet , but not if mark antonacci and his team get their way with the Vatican .

The agnostic art historian thomas de wessellow correctly points out that the shroud corrects medieval art in the placement of the hand wounds .

How about we try to set up a debate between Hugh and Barrie Schwortz on this ?

I don't want to restart anything which has already been debated here before, unless I think you have got your facts wrong. An opinion is an opinion, and while it should be open to changing, it cannot necessarily be refuted by facts. I am very familiar with the Shroud, and all the evidence, circumstantial or not, for authenticity and for a medieval origin, and the idea that a medieval origin has "almost no evidence to support it" is laughable. A list might include the following:
1) The radiocarbon dating of 1988, which clearly dated a piece of the cloth to about 1350.
2) The unnatural dribbling of the bloodflows.
3) The neat and well defined scourge 'welts'.
4) The weave of the cloth.
5) The denial of authenticity by Bishop d'Arcis.
6) The denial of authenticity by Pope Clement VII.
7) The fact that the feet, rather than the head, are at the ends of the cloth.
The long, narrow shape of the cloth.
9) The extensive use of 'shrouds' throughout medieval Europe as part of the 'Quem Quaeritis' Easter ritual.
10) The quantity of red ochre.
11) The absence of any mention of a double imaged relic of Christ before the Shroud's appearance at Lirey.

Now before bippy sharpens his quill for the comeback, let me say that none of these is necessarily conclusive. It is possible for somebody to attempt to claim that there isn't enough red ochre, or that Bishop d'Arcis was lying, or that a Roman scourging really would leave neat and well defined welts, but my point is that these are opinions, not facts. I would never claim that the Shroud is indisputably medieval, merely that in my opinion, the weight of evidence tends towards that conclusion. If bippy, or anyone else, thinks they have conclusive evidence in favour of authenticity, I'd love to read it; but I certainly wouldn't claim that any of my evidence was conclusive.

While composing this, I've just seen the new post above. For those not familiar with the issue, it is sometimes claimed that the area tested by the radiocarbon labs was a mixture of 1st century threads and some much later addition, say 16th or 17th century, and together the mixture resulted in the fortuitous date of 1350, which coincidentally matches the date of the first confirmed appearance of the shroud at Lirey in France. It is a matter of simple mathematics to show that the interpolated material would have to be twice the mass of the original material to achieve this date. Various studies have suggested that there may be a smear of pigment over the area, and some have claimed to find cotton fibres in various proportions, but no-one has recently defended the two-thirds-modern one-third-ancient composition, since Marino and Benford's original proposition (that the radiocarbon sample area was neatly divided lengthways into two strips, one ancient, one modern) was shown to be untenable.

The 'obvious' linkage between the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin is not as obvious to me as it is to authenticists. Although both artifacts have been well known for centuries, the 'obvious' linkage was not made until a few years ago, when various scientific tests may - or may not - have been performed on the Sudarium. It is said to have been carbondated twice, with neither date anywhere near the 1st century; it is said that it is largely covered in pleurocardial serum; it is said to have the same pollen assemblage as the Shroud; and it is said that marks on the Sudarium correspond with marks on the Shroud to an extraordinary degree. There is no published evidence for any of these statements. Various reputable authors of impeccable integrity believe them, and refer to them, but I have never seen any evidence to substantiate their belief, in spite of continuous inquiry.

It is popularly supposed that the 'wrist wound' on the Shroud clearly demonstrates that the nail is not in the palm of the hand, as shown in most medieval crucifixions. Few people have even noticed that the medieval crucifixions show the hands from the front, while the Shroud shows the hands (one hand) from the back. Fortunately the knuckles are quite well defined, and measurement of the length of the fingerbones, relative to the distance of the nail-hole from the knuckles, brings the site of the exit wound far further forward than the wrist bones. Arguments that nails through the palms would tear out are completely negated by the fact that most early crucifixes show Jesus standing on a platform, so he wasn't actually hanging from the nails at all.

Let me reiterate that I don't want to proselytise for a medieval origin here, but I would like simply to make it clear that the authenticity of the Shroud is far more debatable than bippy suggests.

Footnote: while previewing this comment, I see that the number 8 above has been replace by a grinning alien. Weird.

The sunglasses guy, is an emoticon that is made by an 8 and a right parenthesis. I've done it myself a few times.

Hugh what's funny is that you thinking vague refutations make fir solid evidence .
First Hugh let's start with the chi squared number
Please let us know what an acceptable number is for that test
And then tell us what the acceptable hand calculated number is .
While your at it you can also tell us what the computer calculated chi squared number is .

And while your at it please let us all know what one of the heads of one of the labs was quoted as saying about this number .

Hugh why is it that only you see the 14th century mistake theory and not any of us

You didn't want to restart this but stating your opinion on a shroud thread is something you know is going to a response from us . Hugh how about that chi squared number please

Oh and by the way , I think a debate with Barrie Schwortz would be great .

Hugh after your done with the chi squared number you can then explain the congruent matches between the shroud and sudarium . If you can't then that obliterates the the c14 and your 14th century mistake theory all together .

I personally feel you have some kind of problem with the shroud being authentic.
I can't prove or disprove my opinion scientifically , just call it gut instinct
This is the very reason why I asked you if science has both an atheistic and materialistic bias when I brought up ndes

This was the clue I wanted to get out of you Hugh and I believe I did

Like I said Hugh lucky for you I don't have much time on my hands because of my current situation .
If I did I wouldn't have just brought up the sudarium and the chi squared number , I would have obsessively researched each of your points again into the ground .

Remember if just the sudarium or chi squared number are correct your 14th century mistake theory goes right down the tubes .
Oh by the way this isn't Dan porters blog

Hugh I just saw your post on the sudarium and I'm sorry but your reasoning shied your bias . Your saying that because the sudarium Carbon dated to the seventh century this doesn't give conclusive evidence by itself for authenticity .

As I and others who knowc14 dating know that the method by itself isn't conclusive . The problem here is that the history of the sudarium is indisputable to at least the 700's ad
This alone crushes your 14th century theory and if you have a problem with the recent congruent linkages between the 2 clothes then by all means please state them .

If you can't then we have to assume that the shroud has to date to at least the Least the 600's ad which means your 14th century theory goes down the drain .
Then the problem becomes even worse for you as you will then have to adopt a 7th century mistake theory .

So what are your rational objections to the connections found between the shroud and sudarium ?
Please educate me on them Hugh

Bless you, Bippy, but I don't think you have actually read or understood my comment or the intention behind it.

Hugh what's funny is that you thinking vague refutations make fir solid evidence.

I do not think vague refutations are evidence. I didn't make any vague refutations. I didn't claim anything I wrote is solid evidence. Try re-reading my comment.

Hugh why is it that only you see the 14th century mistake theory and not any of us?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "14th century mistake theory" but I'm sure I'm not alone in knowing about it. What are you saying?

...you can then explain the congruent matches between the shroud and sudarium

Please re-read my comment. I don't know that there are any congruent matches between the Shroud and the sudarium. That was my whole point.

Oh by the way this isn't Dan porters blog.

No. So.... do you want me to reply to your questions or not? I don't understand the point of your remark.

...your reasoning shied your bias...

Does this mean something? If so,what?

Your saying that because the sudarium Carbon dated to the seventh century this doesn't give conclusive evidence by itself for authenticity

I didn't actually say that at all, as if you had read my comment you would know. However, it sounds as if you disagree with it. So may I ask if you think that dating the sudarium to the 7th century is conclusive evidence that it wrapped the head of Christ?

I find myself on the horns of a dilemma here. Do you in fact want to know why I am not as convinced as you that the shroud is authentic or not? Oh well, you do say: "Please educate me on them," so I'll have a go.

1) The chi-squared number. Forgive me if there are statisticians reading this, but it's not clear to me that Bippy understands what a chi-squared number is, or what it means. It is a measure of how well groups of observations match, so that one may make a decision as to whether the groups are from the same total population or not. A value of zero implies a perfect match, and increasingly large values suggests an increasing likelihood that the samples are from different populations. The value achieved by Damon et al. (6.4) suggests a less than secure probability that the radiocarbon samples were from the same population, but it does not suggest that the samples were certainly of different different populations. There are a number of ways of responding to this uncertainty.
a) Statistically improbable events do occasionally occur.
b) The Shroud samples were from different cloths.
c) The errors estimated by the laboratories were smaller than the actual errors.
d) The samples came from the same cloth, but were variously contaminated.
The authors of the Nature paper decided on the third option; most authenticists opt for the second; and I opt for the fourth. My reason for not adopting the second option is that there is no evidence for any patchwork visible on the Shroud (other than the obvious patches applied after the 1532 fire). My reason for adopting the fourth option is due to the work of Riani and Atkinson (Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbondating of the Shroud of Turin), who demonstrated a chronological gradient across the radiocarbon sample. It this was caused by contamination, it would have caused a minor alteration to the actual date of the Shroud, in proportion to its quantity. It could not have made a 1st century cloth into a 14th century one. Furthermore, if one adopts the second option, one must conclude that the different cloths dated by the laboratories were all medieval, not that any of the dates were demonstrably incorrect.

2) The alleged similarities between the Sudarium and the Shroud. As I said before, I have no evidence that the Sudarium has ever been radiocarbon dated or bloodtyped, and am not prepared to accept unsubstantiated claims. If Bippy can lead me to any primary sources that might confirm that it has, I should be delighted to read them. Regarding the alleged "points of congruence", I'm afraid I have not been able to find out how many there are or how they were established. I hope that an analogy might illustrate why we need to know these things. Imagine giving two people each a square of graphpaper divided into 1mm squares, and ask them both to scribble randomly on their papers with pencils. When the two pieces of paper are compared, there will inevitably be many equivalent 1mm squares which both show pencil marks, and a great many more which both don't show pencil marks. It may well be that the number of squares which show pencil on one sheet but blank on the other is less than the number of 'congruent' squares. It seems that some people would conclude from this that the scribblers had fortuitously drawn almost identical scribbles, although a simple side by side comparison would show how different they were.

How's that?

""Please re-read my comment. I don't know that there are any congruent matches between the Shroud and the sudarium. That was my whole point""

I have read your comments Hugh and like I said before I can only focus on one or 2 topics .

First your claim that you don't know if there are any congruent matches steer. The shroud and sudarium is amazing .
I'm sure your more then familiar with Mark guscins research Hugh .

https://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm

1.The sudarium alone has revealed sufficient information to suggest that it was in contact with the face of Jesus after the crucifixion. However, the really fascinating evidence comes to light when this cloth is compared to the Shroud of Turin.
2.The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.

3.The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the image of the Shroud.

4.If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping movement.

5.A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr. John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its presence.

6.The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with the bloodstains on the Shroud.

7.Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion is that the Oviedo sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud.

I'll state it again if these congruent matches are correct that alibe destroys your 14th century theory .this is my sole goal here Hugh .

""I didn't actually say that at all, as if you had read my comment you would know. However, it sounds as if you disagree with it. So may I ask if you think that dating the sudarium to the 7th century is conclusive evidence that it wrapped the head of Christ?""

What I'm saying is that if the sudarium matches with the shroud that obliterates your 14th century mistake theory Hugh . It's finished , destroyed , obliterated .
I'm not going to focus on whether we can date it to the time of Christ Hugh as I just don't have the time , what I'm going to do is crush your theory

And we have a new study that links the shroud and sudarium together . As I said Hugh my goal here in our debate isn't to show that the shroud is from
The time of Christ . It's only to obliterate your 14th century theory . And when I say there aren't many who share your belief in this theory, I didn't include atheists who absolutely love your work
Make no mistake Hugh I take you extremely seriously and despite your hidden biases which I uncovered in my Nde question to you
You are a formidable opponent .bsck to your favorite cloth the sudarium

http://aleteia.org/2016/04/11/new-study ... me-person/

The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo “almost certainly covered the cadaver of the same person.” This is the conclusion from an investigation that has compared the two relics using forensics and geometry.

The research was done by Dr. Juan Manuel Miñarro, a sculpture professor at the University of Seville, as part of a project sponsored by the Valencia-based Centro Español de Sindonología (CES) (The Spanish Center of Sindonology).

The study “doesn’t prove in itself that this person was Jesus Christ, but it does clearly advance us along the path of being able to indisputably demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium were wrapped around the head of the same cadaver,” Miñarro explained to Paraula. -

stains

In fact, the investigation has found a number of correlations between the two relics that “far exceeds the minimum number of proofs or significant points required by most judicial systems around the world to identify a person, which is between eight and 12, while our study has demonstrated more than 20.”

Specifically, the research has discovered “very important coincidences” in the principal morphological characteristics (type, size and distances of the markings), the number and distribution of the blood stains, the unique markings from some of the wounds reflected on both of the cloths or the deformed surfaces.

There are “points that demonstrate the compatibility between both cloths” in the area of the forehead, where there are remains of blood, as well as at the back of the nose, the right cheekbone and the chin, which “present different wounds.”

Regarding the blood stains, Miñarro explained that the marks found on the two cloths have morphological differences, but that “what seems unquestionable is that the sources, the points from which blood began to flow, correspond entirely.”

The variations could be explained by the fact that “the contact with the [cloths] was different” in regard to duration, placement and intensity of the contact of the head with each of the cloths, as well as the “elasticity of the weave of each linen.”

Certainly, the coincidences demonstrated on the two cloths “are such that now it is very difficult to think that they came from different people,” according to Jorge Manuel Rodríguez, president of the CES.

In the light of this investigation, he said, “we have come to a point where it seems absurd to suggest that ‘by happenstance’ all of the wounds, lesions and swelling coincides on both cloths. … Logic requires that we conclude that we are speaking of the same person.”

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.—Luke 8:17

- See more at: http://aleteia.org/2016/04/11/new-study ... o2Hn7.dpuf