Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:Cool could it be because there are almost no Nde experts that back your view of it

No; it's because it's got nothing to do with the Shroud of Turin.

In case it was missed, I'd be interested in your thoughts here?

Kurieuo wrote:Hugh, a question. What do you make of the Sudarium's relationship to the Shroud? I'm talking of:

Three-dimensional reconstructions of the face of the man on the Shroud are compatible with the stains present on the Sudarium. “Once the cranial proportions in both relics are known, and after its comparison, it is checked that they concur, what has permitted the sculptor D. Juan Manuel Miñarro López to make a reconstruction of the face of the Man on the Shroud of Turin; said reconstruction is absolutely compatible with the face of the Man of the Sudarium of Oviedo, not only in his anthropometric proportions, but also in the traumatic wounds that both present.” (Stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo coincide with those on the Shroud)

Thanks, Kurieou. I wish I knew more about the assumptions made when these comparisons are carried out. Starting with the Shroud, the image markings so vague that it is extremely difficult to derive sensible measurements from them. Where exactly, on your head, for example, are the blood marks at the back of the scalp? Estimations of this kind cannot be more precise than a centimetre or two either way. Placing markers on the lips and the corners of the eyes is a little easier, but even the point of the nose is somewhat debatable - can you mark with a small dot the indisputable tip of your own nose?

Next, these markings have to converted into a recognisable human head. The celebrated VP-8 analyser produces a kind of bas relief, more or less flat, with a corrugated background just ahead of the ears, as though a flat-faced model is emerging from a large plate of porridge. From this, a complete reconstruction must be derived. I do not know how this was done. Never mind, now mark on the statue the blood rivulets. But wait - are we following the theory that the blood marks and the image were made with the Shroud in two different configurations (one wrapped and one horizontal), or the theory that both marks were made at the same time. The bloodflows down the sides of the face are either in the hair, or down the cheeks, but not both.

Whatever we come up with, now lets turn to the Sudarium, which shows huge masses of blood, most of which is bound to cover the rather smaller amount of blood on the Shroud. The plan here is to mark, on the Sudarium, the points that correspond to the origins of all these blood flows, and then, wrapping the Sudarium over the statue of the head, see whether the points of he Sudarium match the points on the head. Hardly surprisingly, it can be arranged so that some do, especially if various wrinkles and folds are postulated, but others most definitely don't. The solution to this is to decide that the Sudarium was repositioned as many times as necessary so that all the points on the Sudarium could, at one time or another, have matched all the points on the Shroud. Its not impossible, nor even the half hour periods of 'drying time' between each repositioning as suggested by Mark Guscin, but it resembles special pleading to the extent that very good evidence for it must be provided before it can be generally accepted, and I have never seen such evidence.

The much vaunted "70 points of congruence" or whatever the current figure is, is largely based on Alan Whanger's once rather original, but now commonplace, overlay technique, in which a semi-transparent flat image of the Sudarium is placed over a flat image of the Shroud, assuming that both were exactly similarly wrapped around the body, and finding places where the blood marks, or the blank spaces, coincide. Pace Bippy, but this is exactly analogous to my 'scribbles' example above. Even so, I have never seen a diagram or an enumeration of these dozens of points of congruence, and rather think the exact number is more of a guess than a count.

It is possible that I could be completely wrong, and that something far more convincing has been carried out, but, as I have said from the start, I have never found any full description of the procedures, and do not accept mere statements of conviction from people, even scientists, convinced of their conclusions before the start of their experiments.

The thing that sicks out to me about the shroud is the fact that although there are skeptics of the shroud none of the skeptics have been able to show how man could have made it.Every attempt to try to show how the shroud could be made by man have all failed because they are not like the shroud image.

However based on the miracles we read about Jesus performed in the New Testament Jesus could have easily took a selfie of himself as he rose from the dead to remind us of what he went through for us.So skeptics are gonna deny it but they are the ones with the problem if they are such experts on how the image on the shroud was man-made but yet have not been able to show how it was man-made.So far the evidence shows that man cannot make an image like what is on the shroud.

hughfarey wrote:Thanks, Kurieou. I wish I knew more about the assumptions made when these comparisons are carried out. Starting with the Shroud, the image markings so vague that it is extremely difficult to derive sensible measurements from them. Where exactly, on your head, for example, are the blood marks at the back of the scalp? Estimations of this kind cannot be more precise than a centimetre or two either way. Placing markers on the lips and the corners of the eyes is a little easier, but even the point of the nose is somewhat debatable - can you mark with a small dot the indisputable tip of your own nose?

Next, these markings have to converted into a recognisable human head. The celebrated VP-8 analyser produces a kind of bas relief, more or less flat, with a corrugated background just ahead of the ears, as though a flat-faced model is emerging from a large plate of porridge. From this, a complete reconstruction must be derived. I do not know how this was done. Never mind, now mark on the statue the blood rivulets. But wait - are we following the theory that the blood marks and the image were made with the Shroud in two different configurations (one wrapped and one horizontal), or the theory that both marks were made at the same time. The bloodflows down the sides of the face are either in the hair, or down the cheeks, but not both.

Whatever we come up with, now lets turn to the Sudarium, which shows huge masses of blood, most of which is bound to cover the rather smaller amount of blood on the Shroud. The plan here is to mark, on the Sudarium, the points that correspond to the origins of all these blood flows, and then, wrapping the Sudarium over the statue of the head, see whether the points of he Sudarium match the points on the head. Hardly surprisingly, it can be arranged so that some do, especially if various wrinkles and folds are postulated, but others most definitely don't. The solution to this is to decide that the Sudarium was repositioned as many times as necessary so that all the points on the Sudarium could, at one time or another, have matched all the points on the Shroud. Its not impossible, nor even the half hour periods of 'drying time' between each repositioning as suggested by Mark Guscin, but it resembles special pleading to the extent that very good evidence for it must be provided before it can be generally accepted, and I have never seen such evidence.

The much vaunted "70 points of congruence" or whatever the current figure is, is largely based on Alan Whanger's once rather original, but now commonplace, overlay technique, in which a semi-transparent flat image of the Sudarium is placed over a flat image of the Shroud, assuming that both were exactly similarly wrapped around the body, and finding places where the blood marks, or the blank spaces, coincide. Pace Bippy, but this is exactly analogous to my 'scribbles' example above. Even so, I have never seen a diagram or an enumeration of these dozens of points of congruence, and rather think the exact number is more of a guess than a count.

It is possible that I could be completely wrong, and that something far more convincing has been carried out, but, as I have said from the start, I have never found any full description of the procedures, and do not accept mere statements of conviction from people, even scientists, convinced of their conclusions before the start of their experiments.

It is valid to understand the process and how the conclusion was arrived at, rather than just believe the conclusions. After all, people never draw wrong conclusions do they?

If the Sudarium was verified as linked to the shroud, then would you consider it reasonable to date the shroud further back in time rather than assuming a later time based upon the cross stitching?

If the Sudarium was verified as linked to the shroud, then would you consider it reasonable to date the shroud further back in time rather than assuming a later time based upon the cross stitching?

This, alone, is a no-brainer, because there is a known and FAR older date for when the Sudarium was first historically noted.

Good points all.
abelcainsbrother: Although it is often convenient to divide opinions about the Shroud into ''authentic" and "medieval", there is a far more fundamental dichotomy between "rationalist" and "miraculist". The rationalist camp includes both authenticists and non-authenticists, while the miraculist camp, as far as I know, is largely restricted to authenticists - although it is not impossible that somebody thinks the image is a medieval miracle.

Miracles are not to be easily assumed, and although it is unwise of scientists to deny the possibility of absolute denials of the laws of nature, they are unlikely to be swayed by anything other than the strictest of evidence. Theistic rationalists believe that God does not deviate from the laws he maintains, although admitting that he could if he wanted to, and many, perhaps most, authenticists, are far more comfortable looking for a naturalistic cause rather than a miraculist one. That being so, the argument that we don't know how the image formed, in the 1st or 14th century, is not evidence of a miraculist origin. It is merely ignorance.

Kuriuo: If there were conclusive evidence that the Shroud and the Sudarium were both associated with the same dead body, there would certainly be some rethinking among medievalists, although they would not necessarily assume that that in itself was proof of authenticity. Just as some medievalists think that the present Shroud could be a copy of an earlier version, then so, perhaps, could be the Sudarium, although it that case I think one would have to postulate that someone had been horribly murdered in order to achieve them.

Philip: See my answer to Kurieou. In my case, I think I would consider that the delicate balance of probability had definitely shifted towards the authentic rather than the medieval, although I would still remain a 'rationalist' rather than a 'miraculist.'

Hugh wrote:
In my case, I think I would consider that the delicate balance of probability had definitely shifted towards the authentic rather than the medieval, although I would still remain a 'rationalist' rather than a 'miraculist.'

Hugh,

Just curious, when it comes to the miracles of the virgin birth, and Christ's resurrection, what's your belief on those?

In your mind, Is there a rational explanation for those?

In his excellent book, 'Jesus of Nazareth, The Infancy Narratives', Pope Benedict XVI explores the meaning of the Virgin Birth far more than the fact, as if the details of the actual occurrence were of lesser importance than its significance, and in 'Jesus of Nazareth, Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection', he does the same with the Resurrection, dismissing the physical reality, being far more interested in what happened as a result of the Resurrection rather than the occurrence itself. However he also says: "Naturally we may not ascribe to God anything nonsensical or irrational, or anything the contradicts his creation" which I think is a salient point. I think it is clear that he believes that a rational explanation for the virgin birth is possible, and it is certainly clear that he believes in the empty tomb. Anything more physically specific is simply unknown.

I am not a theologian, and unwilling to be drawn further. I believe that Jesus actually lived, and that he had a full complement of male chromosomes, but I cannot be sure how he acquired them. Similarly, I think there can be no doubt that a 'Resurrection' event occurred, or, as many have pointed out, the growth of the early church seems more or less inexplicable. But I do think there is a rational explanation for them both, and the term 'miracle', which can certainly be validly applied in both cases, need not require that God contradicted his creation.

Does that mean you believe in a literal virgin conception and birth of Christ?

And a literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Christ?

Frankly I don't know what happened at either event. I am happy to say that "I believe" in a Christ who "came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father." What exactly physically is meant by coming down, becoming incarnate, rising, ascending and sitting at the father's right hand, I don't know. The Creed does not concern itself with physical details, and there is nothing physical to use as evidence. It's a theological expression, not a science book. In the absence of evidence, I would say that I take these things largely on trust. I also, in common with Pope Benedict XVI, think that "we may not ascribe to God anything nonsensical or irrational, or anything the contradicts his creation," and in common with Pope Francis, that God is not a "a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand," but lets things "develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness."

Thanks Hugh,

That was a good explanation.

"we may not ascribe to God anything nonsensical or irrational, or anything the contradicts his creation," and in common with Pope Francis, that God is not a "a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand," but lets things "develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness."

Um, I hope by that you are not dismissing the miraculous! Upon the Big Bang's beginning, the design and functionality of the things suddenly appeared did not slowly develop. They INSTANTLY appeared, whereas moments before, they did not exist. And what came into existence IMMEDIATELY had incredible design, function and purpose. These did not "develop," as 1) they did not previously exist, and 2) they appeared already designed and functioning - which also included astounding possibilities within their created parameters. The Beginning was one huge series of amazing miraculous things. Jesus physically dying, and returning to life, on the the third day, is not a natural development. So, this idea that God just puts things into existence and lets EVERYTHING slowly develop - yes, He does that with many things. But not all things. So if one wants to be a hard rationalist, in which everything ONLY develops slowly, well, the original designs of things were not things that slowly developed. And whatever subsequent changes must be an inherit possibility within whatever physical thing one is speaking of, and per the possibilities within the original design and its functionality. Things do have parameters that allows for change. But what is found within those parameters originated within the ORIGINAL design, which allowed for the changes. But as God is Spirit and not physical, as everything He originally created, they were simply created out of nothing physical, and were products of God's mind, intentions and purposes. These are miraculous things. The universe began most astoundingly and INSTANTLY. There is no rational or physical explanation for this. So, if God did this, then He clearly can intervene in how things normally work, anytime He so desires. And those are called "miracles" - which no Christian should have a problem believing to be possible.



And, as God had ALWAYS intended to take on human form, ALWAYS knew Jesus would die, live again - ALL that - this means that things turned out precisely as God so designed and desired. Humans are no random ACCIDENT of slow-plodding processes. God always intended to create man, at a specific time, for a specific purpose. So, man, as designed, and as he functions, is both miraculous and planned. His appearance, like that of the earth, is precisely as God designed it. Just like the planet He prepared for mankind was always part of God's plan, and always known to Him.

Yes, on the whole I think I'd go along with that - at least with the scientific implications.

RickD wrote:Thanks Hugh,

That was a good explanation.

Agreed Rick