Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:Hugh , Stephen jones has invited you over to his blog to discuss his c14 theory

That's kind of him, considering that he thinks I am damned. I am very familiar with his hypothesis that the 14th century radiocarbon date was the result of a KGB plot involving the reprogramming of the AMS machines in the three laboratories so that they did not reveal the true date of the Shroud, and of his accumulation of possibilities, which he is firmly convinced amount to proof. To be honest, Stephen does not really do discussion well. He is so convinced he is right that by definition, any dissent must be due either to malice or stupidity - and I flatter myself that he does not think me stupid. Hence the 'dire consequences' that he thinks await me in the afterlife. He has done the most magnificent work of converting series of early publications, including the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletters (and is currently engaged on Rex Morgan's 'Shroud News'), into pdfs, a contribution to sindonology for which everyone is profoundly grateful, but the repetitive tenacity with which he worries away at the fairly insubstantial evidence for his conspiracy hypothesis is less than edifying. It currently extends, with exhaustive repetition, into some 36 parts, and shows no sign of abating, so perhaps I'll wait until an appropriate pause in the flow before submitting any comment.

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Hugh , Stephen jones has invited you over to his blog to discuss his c14 theory

That's kind of him, considering that he thinks I am damned. I am very familiar with his hypothesis that the 14th century radiocarbon date was the result of a KGB plot involving the reprogramming of the AMS machines in the three laboratories so that they did not reveal the true date of the Shroud, and of his accumulation of possibilities, which he is firmly convinced amount to proof. To be honest, Stephen does not really do discussion well. He is so convinced he is right that by definition, any dissent must be due either to malice or stupidity - and I flatter myself that he does not think me stupid. Hence the 'dire consequences' that he thinks await me in the afterlife. He has done the most magnificent work of converting series of early publications, including the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletters (and is currently engaged on Rex Morgan's 'Shroud News'), into pdfs, a contribution to sindonology for which everyone is profoundly grateful, but the repetitive tenacity with which he worries away at the fairly insubstantial evidence for his conspiracy hypothesis is less than edifying. It currently extends, with exhaustive repetition, into some 36 parts, and shows no sign of abating, so perhaps I'll wait until an appropriate pause in the flow before submitting any comment.

I take it that you declined .
If your convinced that his theory is absurd then you should be able to debunk it very quickly Hugh .
I personally don't know enough about this part of the shroud to comment .
Maybe you 2 could help decide this for us .

Today I was ubering and as I was taking my lunch break I stopped by a local pacific beach restaurant and they saw me being a little indecisive about what I wanted so they asked if they could help.

I told them that I wanted a tetradiob sandwich and they looked at me with this weird feet in the headlights look .
They asked what it was and I simply said it was a multi layered sandwich folded a bunch of times .
I know that Rick and Philip wanted to send me one but I thought it wasn't sensible to mail it that far

I wonder what I would have put on it .
Laying off the processed sugars and stTing away from the carbs .

I recently found a Turkish restaurant that had what they said was a delicious sandwich called the edessa special.

Can anyone confirm if they have this scrumptious meal in the uk as well ?

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Hugh , Stephen jones has invited you over to his blog to discuss his c14 theory

That's kind of him, considering that he thinks I am damned. I am very familiar with his hypothesis that the 14th century radiocarbon date was the result of a KGB plot involving the reprogramming of the AMS machines in the three laboratories so that they did not reveal the true date of the Shroud, and of his accumulation of possibilities, which he is firmly convinced amount to proof. To be honest, Stephen does not really do discussion well. He is so convinced he is right that by definition, any dissent must be due either to malice or stupidity - and I flatter myself that he does not think me stupid. Hence the 'dire consequences' that he thinks await me in the afterlife. He has done the most magnificent work of converting series of early publications, including the British Society for the Turin Shroud newsletters (and is currently engaged on Rex Morgan's 'Shroud News'), into pdfs, a contribution to sindonology for which everyone is profoundly grateful, but the repetitive tenacity with which he worries away at the fairly insubstantial evidence for his conspiracy hypothesis is less than edifying. It currently extends, with exhaustive repetition, into some 36 parts, and shows no sign of abating, so perhaps I'll wait until an appropriate pause in the flow before submitting any comment.

If it's any consolation Hugh I'm it gonna damn you
I have come to believe that we just approach the shroud from different philosophical positions

What's mass like in the uk ?
I remember Catholic school in Beirut and the nuns were built like defensive linemen and snapped like them as well lol

I'm afraid I cannot dignify Stephen Jones's hypothesis with the term theory as it stands. It rests upon some very shaky foundations, and the edifice built thereon is circumstantial to the point of transparency in most cases, so there is little to refute. I would not say his ideas are necessarily absurd until there is more to go on, but I do think that the strength of his conviction that he is right is wholly unjustified.

1) Stephen's argument begins with his total conviction that the Shroud is authentic. The word 'overwhelming', describing the preponderance of evidence, occurs more than a hundred times in his blog. There is therefore absolutely no question in his mind but that the radiocarbon date must be wrong.

2) He proceeds with a quotation from Harry Gove, confirming the accuracy of the medieval date:

"The other question that has been asked is: if the statistical probability that the shroud dates between 1260 and 1390 is 95%, what is the probability that it could date to the first century? The answer is about one in a thousand trillion, i.e. vanishingly small." (Gove)

Unfortunately, although he is a science teacher, his unfamiliarity with statistics enables him to believe that this statistical extrapolation is literally true, and that the inverse of this statement demonstrates something which it doesn't:

"But then the improbability that the Shroud, being 1st century, had a radiocarbon date of 13th/14th century would be, "astronomical" and "one in a thousand trillion." (Jones)

In fact, of course, plucking any random radiocarbon date from 2000BC to 2000AD out of the air has a one in four thousand chance of being exactly correct, and if we narrow the range down to say, 30AD to 1530AD, and widen the possible accuracy to plus or minus 25 years, then a completely random date has a probability of one in thirty.

3) However, given that even a one in thirty chance is an unlikely bet, Stephen then cast his mind about for possible ways in which the dating could have been fixed. He rejects material interpolations (contamination, reweaving, etc.) of any kind, since, unless the interpolator was working to achieve a 14th century radiocarbon date, his random additions would be as unlikely as any other random number, so has deduced that fraud is the only possible explanation. Rejecting Bruno Bonnet Eymard’s suggestion that various samples were switched during the unvideoed procedure of placing them into little metal vials in the sacristy in Turin, he turns to the AMS procedure itself, and by guessing rather arbitrarily that these were easily programmable to produce manipulated results, picks on one of the Arizona team, Timothy Linick, to appoint as a KGB agent.

4) Stephen selects a casual off-the-cuff remark of Linick’s, similar to that of many others, to the affect that “even if the Shroud were proved to be 1st century, that wouldn’t prove it was Jesus’s”, to declare him an extreme anti-authenticist, by implication ready to do anything to prove he was right. The fact that Linick killed himself the following years adds fuel to Stephens speculations, especially as it was within a few days of the death of a European KGB agent and computer hacker named Koch.

5) While Linick hacked into the Arizona computer, Koch travelled to Oxford and Zurich and hacked into theirs simply in order to produce a medieval date for the Shroud. There is no evidence for this at all.

Typo I meant I'm not gonna damn you .

Bippy wrote:
I told them that I wanted a tetradiob sandwich and they looked at me with this weird feet in the headlights look .

Why do I get the feeling that something got lost in the translation?

Tetradiob sandwich? Feet in the headlights?

The bottom line is this all a person has to do is look at and examine the attempts of sceptics of the shroud and what they have produced in an attempt to try to show the shroud is man-made and any non- biased person can compare them to the real shroud image and can see that they are not anything like the real shroud image.Based on this it does not really matter to get bogged down on the dating.The fact is we know that the evidence shows that man cannot produce an image like what is on the shroud. So that,if you are a sceptic? You must ignore what the evidence shows in order to remain a sceptic.

Therefore it really does you no good to focus on the dating when the evidence shows that it could not have been made by man regardless of the dating.It could not be made by man in the 14th century,1st century and even today it cannot be made by man. It is the sceptics that have no evidence that shows it could be made by man in the 14th century.Keep in mind that the shroud is the most scientifically tested relic ever too.

RickD wrote:

Bippy wrote:
I told them that I wanted a tetradiob sandwich and they looked at me with this weird feet in the headlights look .

Why do I get the feeling that something got lost in the translation?

Tetradiob sandwich? Feet in the headlights?

Oops sorry Rick I meant Tetradiplon lol
Remember that yummy sandwich that folded just right in a certain way .
Not sure if they have it in the UK

RickD said: Doesn't "no separation" mean they are the same?

No, it doesn't. What are we, Rick? Just physical? Just Spritirual? Both?

Mallz wrote:There isn't a separation between physical and spiritual.

The only way to make it [term supernatural] work is to equate natural with material or physical

And you know I don't believe in purely the physical

If you equate natural with physical/material, well I can't even go there. It's not a real statement. It's false

Um, the physical world and everything in it is composed of spiritual. There's no such thing as just a 'physical world'.

So, I see the term 'supernatural' to be a self contradiction. I believe we are physical and spiritual and there are different levels of spiritual essences expressed physically in different ways.

Of what I said in conversation to you, I'd only question myself where I've underlined. Such as a rock, does rock have spirit? From what I see, there is
1) purely spiritual
2) Spiritual & physical composits
3) Purely physical (like a rock)
Although I'm not completely convinced on #3 yet. I have to figure out more.


RickD said:

No. Logically God cannot be a part of the universe. He cannot logically be a part of something He created.

You're wrong, Jesus Christ exists as the apparent rejection of your logic. No need to go beyond Him for further evidence.

you are conflating physical and spiritual

Still waiting for you to show me this accusation.

Back to redefining words again, I see

Still waiting for you to 'show' me this, too.
It's a problem that you don't take Colossians 1:17 seriously, imo.

God is literally outside the universe He created. Although He did choose to enter creation at the time of the incarnation, that doesn't mean God is part of creation.

Bad logic. Even if He is 'literally outside the universe' (whatever that means), doesn't follow that He isn't 'literally inside the universe'. God who is eternal, became a part of creation through Jesus Christ. Regardless of that fact, I don't see how He wasn't 'in' creation. You'll have to show me that.

And my point discussing this whole issue, is to show that there is a spiritual realm that is separate from the physical. Which gets to the point that miracles, however rare, aren't able to be known by the senses, because miracles go beyond the physical, or beyond the natural. And are therefore supernatural.

There is a spiritual realm that is separate from the physical. What is our realm, Rick?
You are right that miracles come from (the movement starts) spiritual. But we don't live in a realm that is just physical, right?

Mallz,

From what you just wrote, I'm seeing that as far as physical/spiritual, we're saying pretty much the same thing. I was just confused by something you had said.

As far as God not being part of the universe He created, I mean when He created it. Logically, something/someone can't be a part of something it/he creates. That's just basic logic. But then, in the person of Christ, God entered into this creation.

See the difference?

I'm not sure I could do it any justice explaining it further. Jac or Byblos explained this before, and they'd do a much better job of explaining that.

RickD wrote:Mallz,

From what you just wrote, I'm seeing that as far as physical/spiritual, we're saying pretty much the same thing. I was just confused by something you had said.

Cool, but I think I'm taking it from a different angle and not saying quit the same thing. (Why we had confusion over the pantheist thread. My poor explanations doesn't help anyone).

As far as God not being part of the universe He created, I mean when He created it. Logically, something/someone can't be a part of something it/he creates. That's just basic logic. But then, in the person of Christ, God entered into this creation

.
Do you think that the something is apart of what created it?
I see the difference, which is why I'm not a pantheist
I also see creation is inseparable from the creator.
Which is why I don't see miracles to be so.. miraculous. More, normal? And expected?



I'm not sure I could do it any justice explaining it further. Jac or Byblos explained this before, and they'd do a much better job of explaining that.[/quote]
I dunno if I'd completely agree with what they explain

Mallz would you say that your close to weak panentheism ?
Here is a good video explaining this .
https://youtu.be/_xki03G_TO4

bippy123 wrote:Mallz would you say that your close to weak panentheism ?
Here is a good video explaining this .
https://youtu.be/_xki03G_TO4

Yeah, that's pretty close. There are some things I'm not sure about. I'd have to look into it further.

Mallz wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Mallz would you say that your close to weak panentheism ?
Here is a good video explaining this .
https://youtu.be/_xki03G_TO4

Yeah, that's pretty close. There are some things I'm not sure about. I'd have to look into it further.

Interesting, I know the Greek Orthodox believe in weak panentheism also , it's not heretical . I'd like to study this a bit more as well . My curiousity is peaked