Evidence for God from Science

Engaging the regulars on the Randi site is pointless, as even if they are willing to engage as opposed to just laughing at you, or constantly patting each other on the back, or attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them - then they will constantly keep moving the target, forever presenting pointless rabbit trails for you to chase. These are mostly people who have set their truth filter so as to not let any truth that truly matters get through. They laugh at those who believe in miracles, but yet almost 80% of the people on the Randi forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65427) believe The Big Bang is fairly conclusive/virtually scientifically proven and another 14% aren't sure).

And so the vast majority of those on the Randi forum believe that the universe just came about all by itself. That the incredible and necessary properties (to result in the universe we now see) of The Big Bang, within seconds of it beginning, "just happened." It's unfathomable properties, power and precision were just "happenstance." Non-life became life, by itself. And yet THEY say they don't believe in miracles. It's just that they don't believe in CAUSED miracles, because their belief in the Big Bang is nonetheless belief in one enormous chain of miracles, it's just that they don't like to use that word to describe them. Truth is, they have greater faith than I do, as I look at this extraordinary universe as requiring a Creator, and they think it "just got here." Somehow, someway? Wow!

Philip wrote:Engaging the regulars on the Randi site is pointless, as even if they are willing to engage as opposed to just laughing at you, or constantly patting each other on the back, or attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them - then they will constantly keep moving the target, forever presenting pointless rabbit trails for you to chase. These are mostly people who have set their truth filter so as to not let any truth that truly matters get through. They laugh at those who believe in miracles, but yet almost 80% of the people on the Randi forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65427) believe The Big Bang is fairly conclusive/virtually scientifically proven and another 14% aren't sure).

And so the vast majority of those on the Randi forum believe that the universe just came about all by itself. That the incredible and necessary properties (to result in the universe we now see) of The Big Bang, within seconds of it beginning, "just happened." It's unfathomable properties, power and precision were just "happenstance." Non-life became life, by itself. And yet THEY say they don't believe in miracles. It's just that they don't believe in CAUSED miracles, because their belief in the Big Bang is nonetheless belief in one enormous chain of miracles, it's just that they don't like to use that word to describe them. Truth is, they have greater faith than I do, as I look at this extraordinary universe as requiring a Creator, and they think it "just got here." Somehow, someway? Wow!

Philip, James Randi himself has no scientific credentials. He's basically a magician, a flim flam man, but his magic is so good that he has hypnotized and fooled his little randian sheep into believing anything he tells them. What did Jesus say to do with such people ?
Shake the dust off your feet and move on to another town.

- Looks like I have a lot of explaining to do.
--- Jabba

Jabba wrote:- Looks like I have a lot of explaining to do.
--- Jabba

Is something troubling you Jabba?

Anyone, Bippy, know of any well-known Christian apologetic writers/lecturers/debaters, etc. that have said they believe the Shroud is the real deal? I was just reading how Norman Geisler is quite cautious about it, though he doesn't say it's a fraud, either.

Philip wrote:Anyone, Bippy, know of any well-known Christian apologetic writers/lecturers/debaters, etc. that have said they believe the Shroud is the real deal? I was just reading how Norman Geisler is quite cautious about it, though he doesn't say it's a fraud, either.

Gary Habermas on his worst days believes 70 % that the shroud is of Christ and on his better days is 90% sure of it, and he's pretty conservative on many of his arguments. Remember Habermas also came out with the minimal facts on the historical argument of the resurrection.

Im sure there are others but Hanermas is the most well known.
I know William lane Craig has spoken about it as recently as a year ago and he originally wrote it off because of the c14 tests but lately has changed his mind a bit about it, but it isn't an area that he really focuses on in his debates and research, but he's neutral to slightly positive about it recently.

Geisler correctly states that Christianity doesn't rise or fall on the shroud, which I totally agree with him on.
I personally like Habermas's minimal facts argument more so.
The shroud is more of a supplement , and it has value to the modern day doubting Thomases.

As you can see by this 1982 article Habermas has been following it for a long time and his confidence in it has only gotten stronger through the years

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_ ... singer.htm

This article was written before the 1988 c14 tests and before the thermochimica acta peer reviewed research paper in 2005 invalidated the 88 c14 tests.

- The basic idea that ultimately led me to the Randi forum is described at http://shrouddebates.com/. Looking back, I suspect that I was being much too verbose to expect anyone to read the whole thing – and, I didn’t express my case that well anyway…
- I essentially lost my "team" to more substantial objectives when it took me so long to get things organized. No hard feelings – each member had something more obviously useful to do than to help me with my project, and I was taking forever to get things going…
- That’s when I took the drastic step into the virtual lion’s den. But remember that proverb about sticks and stones – and, that the Randi forum is only a virtual lion’s den. I can turn it off any time I want, and not worry about getting eaten.
- I couldn’t fully install my plan over there – but, I knew that I hadn’t been effectively hearing both sides of the Shroud story, and when I couldn’t get a solo expert from the other side to engage, I sort of wandered in over at the Randi forum to see what I was missing. And, I HAVE learned a lot -- about Shroud research, and about human debate.

- I agree with you guys about their tactics over there, but I’ve sort of trained myself to not respond in kind – and, I still have hopes of actually getting somewhere with some of them.
- But also, my major goal over there right now is to show that constantly narrowing our focus can ultimately get us somewhere – will allow us to
1) Clear up some misunderstandings,
2) Come to agreement on some sub-issues,
3) PRECISELY identify our BASIC disagreements, and,
4) Agree to disagree about them (for the time-being).
- This is difficult to communicate effectively, but I think it might be the critical key to actually effective human debate.
- And then, I suspect that actually effective human debate might be critical to human survival – somehow, we humans need to find a way to peacefully negotiate with people with whom we disagree.

- In addition, I think it’s possible to develop a scientific consensus that the Shroud is probably authentic, and doing so would be earth-shaking…

- So now, I’m hoping that you guys can help me track down the evidence and arguments against the overall carbon dating process with the Shroud. I re-posted my original ‘brief’ on that sub-issue, over at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 1&page=120 this morning. Now, I’m going back to cite everything else I’ve already posted about it.

- Enough for now.

--- Jabba

Pierson,
- You disappeared from the Randi forum after I referred to you as a "Road Dog" (Post #3154), and I've been worried that you thought the name was meant as an insult. It comes from at least one book by Elmore Leonard, and is actually a positive kind of reference. As best I can recall, it means something like a "blood brother" -- someone who has traveled along with you through the "streets," and that you fully trust.
--- Jabba

Jabba wrote:Pierson,
- You disappeared from the Randi forum after I referred to you as a "Road Dog" (Post #3154), and I've been worried that you thought the name was meant as an insult. It comes from at least one book by Elmore Leonard, and is actually a positive kind of reference. As best I can recall, it means something like a "blood brother" -- someone who has traveled along with you through the "streets," and that you fully trust.
--- Jabba

Jabba, Pierson has actually been very busy in his studies and meals on wheels. he is in a field that is very compassionate and giving. He has a very compassionate heart.
I don't think he left because of anything you said.
He is actually doing pretty good.

Jabba wrote:- The basic idea that ultimately led me to the Randi forum is described at http://shrouddebates.com/. Looking back, I suspect that I was being much too verbose to expect anyone to read the whole thing – and, I didn’t express my case that well anyway…
- I essentially lost my "team" to more substantial objectives when it took me so long to get things organized. No hard feelings – each member had something more obviously useful to do than to help me with my project, and I was taking forever to get things going…
- That’s when I took the drastic step into the virtual lion’s den. But remember that proverb about sticks and stones – and, that the Randi forum is only a virtual lion’s den. I can turn it off any time I want, and not worry about getting eaten.
- I couldn’t fully install my plan over there – but, I knew that I hadn’t been effectively hearing both sides of the Shroud story, and when I couldn’t get a solo expert from the other side to engage, I sort of wandered in over at the Randi forum to see what I was missing. And, I HAVE learned a lot -- about Shroud research, and about human debate.

- I agree with you guys about their tactics over there, but I’ve sort of trained myself to not respond in kind – and, I still have hopes of actually getting somewhere with some of them.
- But also, my major goal over there right now is to show that constantly narrowing our focus can ultimately get us somewhere – will allow us to
1) Clear up some misunderstandings,
2) Come to agreement on some sub-issues,
3) PRECISELY identify our BASIC disagreements, and,
4) Agree to disagree about them (for the time-being).
- This is difficult to communicate effectively, but I think it might be the critical key to actually effective human debate.
- And then, I suspect that actually effective human debate might be critical to human survival – somehow, we humans need to find a way to peacefully negotiate with people with whom we disagree.

- In addition, I think it’s possible to develop a scientific consensus that the Shroud is probably authentic, and doing so would be earth-shaking…

- So now, I’m hoping that you guys can help me track down the evidence and arguments against the overall carbon dating process with the Shroud. I re-posted my original ‘brief’ on that sub-issue, over at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 1&page=120 this morning. Now, I’m going back to cite everything else I’ve already posted about it.

- Enough for now.

--- Jabba

Jabba, I recently had a discussion with a very dogmatic atheist on a political forum about the shroud who claimed that he was very open towards the existence of God. As soon as I brought up the shroud he said to please present the evidence .
As soon as I brought up my first piece of evidence for the shroud he reverted back to the same kinds of arguments I saw on the randi forum. In the past I would have went on my seek and destroy mode as many posters here have seen me, but this time a very wise friend kept me calm and reminded me that there will be lurkers and seekers watching both of our behaviors on the forum.
I basically told him that when he was ready to seek God with an open mind and open heart ill be there, and I left him in peace.

The people on the randi forum don't care about the truth. They have made up their mind about God and they are just there to get emotional,support from their fellow pseudo skeptics .
It's like arguing with Satan that God is right and he is wrong. Satan will never admit it and neither will they.
The people on the randi forum rely on non peer reviewed papers , and joe nickel and Walter Mccrone.
Need I say more?
The honest seeker will come to forums like this and also to the randi forum and they will know who is spewing nonsensical garbage and who actually is postimg from credible scientific sources.

Bippy,
- You're probably right, but I still want to see if I can get some of the Randi members to narrow their focus with me, and see if we can agree upon precisely what some of our basic disagreements are.
--- Jabba

Jabba wrote:Bippy,
- You're probably right, but I still want to see if I can get some of the Randi members to narrow their focus with me, and see if we can agree upon precisely what some of our basic disagreements are.
--- Jabba

As you wish Jabba, but remember if they start to try to degrade the thread there with their mindless drivel, there is no shame in leaving that thread. You are always welcome here my friend
We've saved a spot for u
Bippy

Another excellent article from Stephen Jones on the shroud of turin
This time he focuses on the poker holes, microscopic dirt and limestone particles found on it
A must read folks

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... rks-2.html

Bippy,
- The overall process of the carbon dating on the Shroud -- both leading up to the dating, and the dating itself -- is full of "issues" (questionable decisions and activities). Do you know of a recent summary of these different issues?
--- Jabba