Evidence for God from Science

A few things always to keep in mind.
No one is unbiased or bias free, including ourselves.
Approach with an open mind to ALL facets, including the "supernatural".
Absence of evidence is just that and for historical items, very common.
21st century writings of historical events do NOT equate to how ancient man viewed and wrote about historical events.
There is a very real push to discredit anything that makes Christianities supernatural claims true AND there is also a very real desire to prove the supernatural by some Christians.

Christianity, the very core and central tenets, ARE supernatural and there is NO WAY around that.
If Christ did NOT die and did NOT come back to life then all hope is in vain.
It is just that simple.

You can see that there is a lot riding on something that can possibly lend validity to that claim.

Remember always that evidence is NOT proof, on either side of the argument.

hughfarey wrote: The series of videos with which Kurieou started this thread go on and on about the scientific evidence for various aspects which would all be nonsense if a miraculous interpretation is inferred. What is the point, for example, of all the attempts to try to falsify the radiocarbon dating? If the Shroud is miraculous, it could end up with any radiocarbon date God liked, and maybe he just liked 1350.

But wouldn't God be a deceiver then? Doesn't sound right.

Possibly, but that's not the point of this particular argument, which is that God does not need Physics to perform miracles.

Well, I said I'd keep you posted, so here you are:



This is a superb piece of invisible mending from Michaul Erhlich of Withoutatrace, in Chigago. However, as you can see, it is not completely undetectable, especially in close up. There is no such thing as truly invisible mending. The Shroud was not invisibly mended.

hughfarey wrote:Well, I said I'd keep you posted, so here you are:



This is a superb piece of invisible mending from Michaul Erhlich of Withoutatrace, in Chigago. However, as you can see, it is not completely undetectable, especially in close up.

There is no such thing as truly invisible mending. The Shroud was not invisibly mended.

In your opinion.
But your personal opinion is far from meeting the criteria of a proven fact.

In fact there is physical evidence from the Shroud itself that indicates that reweaving did take place between a patch of Medieval cloth and the material of the Shroud.
Whether or not Michaul Erlich replicated the reweaving process used on the Shroud does nothing to invalidate the evidence of reweaving within the Shroud itself.

If we apply your own logic above to the many failed attempts to replicate the image on the Shroud, then you would be forced to conclude that the Shroud was not manually created using Medieval techniques.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you want to even pretend to be consistent then you need to apply the same logical acceptance or rejection criteria to invisible reweaving that you apply to the theory that the Shroud was a man made creation.

DBowling wrote:If we apply your own logic above to the many failed attempts to replicate the image on the Shroud, then you would be forced to conclude that the Shroud was not manually created using Medieval techniques.

Not quite. It is true than any experiment that does not achieve a hypothesis-confirming result weakens the hypothesis somewhat, so that if I paint a Shroud and it doesn't have the characteristics of the real thing, then to that extent, that sort of painting must be ruled out. Similarly, experiments with vapour, radiation, coronal discharge and so on which do not achieve accurate verisimilitude do not in themselves invalidate the possibility that one or other of these methods might still be responsible for the image.

However, the invisible mending suggestion was not as vague as 'painting' or 'radiation'. It referred to a very specific technique said to have been used in the 16th century, and said to be currently being used by expert textile repairers today. In the absence of any evidence that any of these specific circumstances in fact occur, this particular hypothesis is considerably weakened.

You do suggest that: "there is physical evidence from the Shroud itself that indicates that reweaving did take place between a patch of Medieval cloth and the material of the Shroud." I don't agree with that, and if you would care to specify some then I will happily explain why. But I must reiterate that earlier posts placed substantial weight on the fact that invisible weaving could be demonstrated. I think it's up to those posters now to show some evidence that they might be correct.

hughfarey wrote: However, the invisible mending suggestion was not as vague as 'painting' or 'radiation'. It referred to a very specific technique said to have been used in the 16th century, and said to be currently being used by expert textile repairers today. In the absence of any evidence that any of these specific circumstances in fact occur, this particular hypothesis is considerably weakened.

I will agree with the observation that the process that Michaul Erlich used on your sample does not appear to match the reweaving that we see in the Shroud.

You do suggest that: "there is physical evidence from the Shroud itself that indicates that reweaving did take place between a patch of Medieval cloth and the material of the Shroud." I don't agree with that, and if you would care to specify some then I will happily explain why.

I believe we already beat that dead horse in the other Shroud thread.
I listed the evidences.
(different cloth, different age, dye on the repaired section, inconsistent dating on the repaired section, reweaving coming apart in a sample, etc)
You presented your rebuttals.
And I personally found your rebuttals unconvincing.

I think there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the samples were taken from a Medieval patch, and that some sort of reweaving process was used to blend the repair into the Shroud itself.

I think the burden of proof is on those who assert that the image on the Shroud was manually created using Medieval processes. Every effort to date has been a failure.
I think there is more physical evidence to support the reweaving theory than there is to support the 'man made creation' theory.

I, on the other hand, think the burden of proof is on those who assert that the image on the Shroud was naturally created using post-mortem physiological processes. Every effort to date has been a failure.

And I don't think there is more physical evidence to support the reweaving theory than there is to support the 'man made creation' theory.

I dare say we should leave it at that.

It is totally ok to agree to disagree about things like this.

Regardless of the arguments over the dating, reweaving, etc., the Shroud displays other inexplicable attributes for a medieval - or fake of any time that was pre-scientific. It cannot be replicated today. And it this one-of-a-kind artifact, that has so many remarkable attributes, that it has long been studied with our best tools of analysis, an entire professional team scrutinizing it (who are still baffled), and it just happens to also be an artifact long held in Christian hands and believed to be the burial garment of Christ. And it matches another artifact / the head piece - also known to be very old. What are the odds that these things all center around Christ, amaze so many, are so inexplicable, and it is of a pre-scientific age thing we cannot replicate today? Amazing set of coincidences, I'd say.

Philip wrote:It cannot be replicated today.

I think it can. Hurdle after hurdle of the various "it can't be done" specifications have been demonstrated false (impossible to make a negative, impossible to make a 3D, paint always goes through the cloth, all painting have brushmarks, degraded cellulose always fluoresces, there is no pigment on the cloth, etc. etc.) and the hunt is closing in on the 'smoking gun'. Sure, it hasn't been replicated yet, but it's a bold assertion to claim it can't be. I'll be sure to let you know when it's done!

Philip wrote:it has long been studied with our best tools of analysis

It has not been studied at all for 40 years. 40 year old photographs of it have been studied, and 40 year old reports of 40 year old scientific studies, and some interesting and highly contradictory conclusions derived from them even among authenticists, but to suggest that "our best tools of analysis" are engaged on it at present is misrepresentation, I feel.

We were having this discussion over the weekend and a friend of mine ( agnostic physicist I have known for years) simply stated this:
Until someone replicates the shroud with all the characteristics VIA methods available during the time it has been dated to, then it being a "forgery" is just as big a stretch as it being of supernatural origins, by which I mean: WE DO NOT KNOW HOW IT WAS MADE.

PaulSacramento wrote:Until someone replicates the shroud with all the characteristics VIA methods available during the time it has been dated to, then it being a "forgery" is just as big a stretch as it being of supernatural origins, by which I mean: WE DO NOT KNOW HOW IT WAS MADE.

Not really. If "we do not know how it was made", then "medieval" and "supernatural" and "authentic but natural" are all valid positions. You seem to imply that the first two are somehow less likely than the third, which you omitted to mention. If none of these three possibilities can be resolved by the "how it was made" question, then other evidence may suggest which one or two are more of a stretch than the other/s.

However, if the gist of your comment is that those who think that an inability to replicate the Shroud is per se evidence of authenticity are wrong, then I whole heartedly agree.

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Until someone replicates the shroud with all the characteristics VIA methods available during the time it has been dated to, then it being a "forgery" is just as big a stretch as it being of supernatural origins, by which I mean: WE DO NOT KNOW HOW IT WAS MADE.

Not really. If "we do not know how it was made", then "medieval" and "supernatural" and "authentic but natural" are all valid positions. You seem to imply that the first two are somehow less likely than the third, which you omitted to mention. If none of these three possibilities can be resolved by the "how it was made" question, then other evidence may suggest which one or two are more of a stretch than the other/s.

However, if the gist of your comment is that those who think that an inability to replicate the Shroud is per se evidence of authenticity are wrong, then I whole heartedly agree.

Hmmm, I think his point was because we do NOT know how it was made and have NOT be able to replicate it it then calling it "man'made" or a "forgery" is incorrect.
As for the term "supernatural" well, I know that for some it is a loaded term because of their deep rooted materialistic view but, by definition, anything that can't be explained via natural terms is, well, outside of nature and as such "supernatural".

But that really isn't the point, the true point is that any forgery we have CAN and HAVE been replicated exactly, hence they are acknowledged as forgeries.
This is NOT the case with the Shroud.

"any forgery we have CAN and HAVE been replicated exactly, hence they are acknowledged as forgeries." Really? Can you name any acknowledged forgery at all which has been replicated exactly? I think there is too much enthusiasm among authenticist circles for the rather pejorative word "forgery". Although there are still a few medievalists who think the Should was made in order to be mistaken for the real thing, this is currently very much a minority view. What I hope you mean is "artificial" or "man-made". And the claim that every single man-made artwork has been shown to be man-made because it has been replicated is a little far-fetched, I feel.