Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:I do not know yet whether it was mentioned in this thread, but here you can see the shroud youselves even maybe in 3D with 3D glasses. You tell me what you see as I was born such that I do not see 3D. My eyes do not cooperate.

Ok 1ovwr137
What I can see in that pic is the oval shaped object under the chin and in front if the neck . This is very clear to me . It could be an identity marker.
I can also see the blood marks on the top of the head which tells us that the crown of thorns was more of a miser than a ringlet , which actually was more accurate of an ancient kings miser then medieval art depicts .

bippy123 wrote:

1over137 wrote:I do not know yet whether it was mentioned in this thread, but here you can see the shroud youselves even maybe in 3D with 3D glasses. You tell me what you see as I was born such that I do not see 3D. My eyes do not cooperate.

Ok 1ovwr137
What I can see in that pic is the oval shaped object under the chin and in front if the neck . This is very clear to me . It could be an identity marker.
I can also see the blood marks on the top of the head which tells us that the crown of thorns was more of a miser than a ringlet , which actually was more accurate of an ancient kings miser then medieval art depicts .

Thank you.

I wish I could see 3D.

Here is another excellent article which points to possible evidences to something unnatural happening .
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/evidenceAmalraj.pdf

Evidence of “Resurrection of Jesus” in the Shroud of Turin
by Joseph Amalraj

2.Spectra and photography have confirmed that the entire image was formed by the same
2
mechanism . So this either should have been a contact mechanism or a non-contact
mechanism. If part of the Shroud was touching the body when the image was formed and another part of the Shroud was not touching the body, then the portions of the image where the Shroud touched the body would appear different than the portions of the body where the Shroud did not touch the body. As the Shroud could not have touched the whole body, the image should have been formed when the entire Shroud was not touching the body.


3 3.IsabelPiczek hasfoundthat
• The Shroud face shows no distortions
• The back of the body, which has lying on rocks, also shows no depression
from rocks.
Based on the above findings, she says that it is not possible for the image to have formed on the cloth as shown in figure 1.


But the image would have formed when the body was hovering (suspended in weightlessness) between the upper portion of the cloth and the lower portion of the cloth. And both the upper and lower portions of the cloth would have been absolutely flat when the image was formed (figure 2).

The image was formed in the same manner in which it is viewed now i.e. when it is stretched flat. Otherwise there would be too many distortions.
4
4. Peter Schumacher , Eric Jumper and John Jackson were able to get a 3 dimensional
5 image from the Shroud when it was placed in a VP-8 Image Analyzer. Aldo Guerreschi
using Photo-Relief technique was also able to get a 3 dimensional image from the
6 Shroud.Inthe2008OhioShroudconference,Dr.PetrusSoons explainshowheand
others were able to produce a hologram from the Shroud. A hologram is also 3 dimensional.
A 3 dimensional image of a body can only be formed on an object (like cloth) when there is a distance from the body and the cloth (i.e. when the body is not touching the cloth). It is not possible to have a 3 dimensional image on the portions of the cloth where it is touching the body.

The above figure represents the tip of the nose on which the Shroud would have rested. The points A and B are close together but the point B is lower that point A. If both the points on the Shroud are touching the nose, then the intensity of the image on both points should be the same if the image was formed when the nose was touching the Shroud.


If the image was formed when the Shroud was not in contact but stretched flat, then the distance of the Shroud from point A would be less than the distance of the Shroud from point B. In the Shroud the intensity of the image for the points closer to the Shroud (such as A) is more than those that are further away (such as B). There is a relationship and correlation between the intensity of the Shroud image and the distance of the Shroud from the body. This is also true for the portion of the Shroud image under the body – one more reason which shows that the Shroud was not in contact with the body when the image was formed.

Conclusion
The article shows how there is evidence of Resurrection in the Shroud of Turin. It shows that within a short time of the burial, an event occurred, when the body was floating inside the Shroud (which was held flat) and the image on the Shroud was produced. This should be considered as evidence to the Resurrection of Jesus and it corroborates the account of the gospel writers in the Bible.

The rest of the article talks about the double slit experiment and it's correlation to the Harold image . This is something that 1over137! Would understand better as it's way above me. Physics is not my area of expertise

1over137 wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

1over137 wrote:I do not know yet whether it was mentioned in this thread, but here you can see the shroud youselves even maybe in 3D with 3D glasses. You tell me what you see as I was born such that I do not see 3D. My eyes do not cooperate.

Ok 1ovwr137
What I can see in that pic is the oval shaped object under the chin and in front if the neck . This is very clear to me . It could be an identity marker.
I can also see the blood marks on the top of the head which tells us that the crown of thorns was more of a miser than a ringlet , which actually was more accurate of an ancient kings miser then medieval art depicts .

Thank you.

I wish I could see 3D.

Your very welcome my friend and don't worry too much about not being able to see 3d as most of it is almost as visible without the 3d . The 3d makes it stand out more , but we do see the amulete better though.

You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

If think the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is rather extraordinary itself....

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

If think the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is rather extraordinary itself....

Is that objectively true, or subjective?

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

If think the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is rather extraordinary itself....

It's a silly claim since we DO accept the most extraordinary of claims with little more than "expert" opinions and minimal evidence.
EX:
The concept of our solar system/galaxy/universe.
We accept what we are told based on the expert views of scientists and some pictures.
There is NO extraordinary evidence for the VERY extraordinary claims.
One can argue that same for evolution and, of course, almost 100% of quantum physics.

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

Correct Kurieuo
And it's a mantra that atheists and naturalists always use as a last second escape card.
In this off topic article Dean Radin of the institute of noetic science shows that remote viewing has been proven in every scientific way , and even quoted so by one if it's top critics who is a naturalist and atheist Richard wiseman , but then wiseman uses his escape card and says that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences . This is how naturalists keep pushing the goal posts further back whenever they want to. It causes them to be very close minded .

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/s ... ng-is.html

Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper:
In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality.

Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality.

I agree that remote viewing would be difficult to explain using 17th century ontology, which from today's perspective would be a naive, classical physics view of reality. But I suspect it will be explained through 21st century expansions of those assumptions.

Even though remote viewing has been priven scientificallay only 2% of the national Academy of Sciences believes in it.
That tells us something folks .

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

If think the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is rather extraordinary itself....

Correct and it can't be proven scientifically

RickD wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

If think the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is rather extraordinary itself....

Is that objectively true, or subjective?

See the irony of naturalism Rick lol
They will claim that they will not believe in something unless there is good scientific proof but when it's proven and goes against naturalism , they change the definition if what good proof is

PaulSacramento wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

If think the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is rather extraordinary itself....

It's a silly claim since we DO accept the most extraordinary of claims with little more than "expert" opinions and minimal evidence.
EX:
The concept of our solar system/galaxy/universe.
We accept what we are told based on the expert views of scientists and some pictures.
There is NO extraordinary evidence for the VERY extraordinary claims.
One can argue that same for evolution and, of course, almost 100% of quantum physics.

Of course it's a silly claim Paul , but how else could these folks hold into their claim that naturalism is all there is
It's extremely interesting how , even after our government had a very successful remote viewing study that they claimed to have scrap the research all together . Most people think that the government is still doing research into remote viewing as a possible military intelligence gathering weapon. Based on the results of these studies I think they want to take the publics attention away from this kind if psi skill

bippy123 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

Correct Kurieuo
And it's a mantra that atheists and naturalists always use as a last second escape card.
In this off topic article Dean Radin of the institute of noetic science shows that remote viewing has been proven in every scientific way , and even quoted so by one if it's top critics who is a naturalist and atheist Richard wiseman , but then wiseman uses his escape card and says that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences . This is how naturalists keep pushing the goal posts further back whenever they want to. It causes them to be very close minded .

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/s ... ng-is.html

Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper:
In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality.

Even though remote viewing has been priven scientificallay only 2% of the national Academy of Sciences believes in it.
That tells us something folks .

Perhaps if remote viewing has amassed evidence via experiments, that many are simply unaware rather than purposefully denying it afront?

I for one am not averse to such phenomena, but have never heard of it being demonstrated. It's now on my radar to look into further though.

There are just so many claims people make that it is often easier to reject and know you're perhaps 99.5% correct rather than being found gullible. Even as a Christian.

Perhaps if remote viewing has amassed evidence via experiments, that many are simply unaware rather than purposefully denying it afront?

I for one am not averse to such phenomena, but have never heard of it being demonstrated. It's now on my radar to look into further though.

There are just so many claims people make that it is often easier to reject and know you're perhaps 99.5% correct rather than being found gullible. Even as a Christian.

That is correct for most of us as I never heard of remote viewing being proven scientifically before seeing this article about the government study , but I remember professor Dean Radin presenting this evidence to neil degrassi tyson and the rest of the national Academy of Sciences and instead of excepting it he kept trying to demean and ridicule the study because it was such a threat to his and their paradigm-if view if naturalism . Not very scientific of them is it

Yea I have been keeping it on my radar as well but we won't be seeing results from any government studies anytime soon.
The government claimed that they scraped the study because they had a hard time controlling it at a distance but I call baloney on that. If our government had something like this I don't believe that it would be very smart to disclose it to their enemies , but if controlled right it can be a great intelligence gathering weapon .

PaulSacramento wrote:

Squible wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know I was watching an old debate of Craig vs Ehrman on the resurrection.

Craig uses normal historical facts to argue for the resurrection as the best explanation of facts many historians accept.
Ehrman balks on any miraculous explanation because (to paraphrase) "miracles are the most improbable explanation therefore any other explanation is better."

But, in discussions, you often hear the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
However, I was thinking even if faced with extraordinary evidence, that such does not matter. It is just ignored all the same and disregarded because it is repugnant to the Metaphysical Naturalism -- one of the reigning philosophical frameworks in Western society today.
So it seems for extraordinary claims, even extraordinary evidence wouldn't be enough.
Brings Luke 16:31 in mind.

If think the claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is rather extraordinary itself....

It's a silly claim since we DO accept the most extraordinary of claims with little more than "expert" opinions and minimal evidence.
EX:
The concept of our solar system/galaxy/universe.
We accept what we are told based on the expert views of scientists and some pictures.
There is NO extraordinary evidence for the VERY extraordinary claims.
One can argue that same for evolution and, of course, almost 100% of quantum physics.

What's I said was a way to refute the claim itself.