Evidence for God from Science

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... -robe.html

The scientists set out to "identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a colour similar to that of the image on the Shroud." They concluded that the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers – technology that was clearly not available in medieval times.

The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth.

They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)." Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection.... "But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate but we will leave the conclusions to the experts, and ultimately to the conscience of individuals."

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate but we will leave the conclusions to the experts, and ultimately to the conscience of individuals."

Sounds like this is where faith takes over. Just the way wants it.

Whats funny is, if you present this to an atheist they will tell you how these researchers are obviously bias fundies who know nothing about science. Thus they are wrong. So it doesn't really matter. They'll always have an excuse to dismiss this type of evidence.

However, if the article made the opposite claim they would have jumped up and down for joy and claimed how super uber awesome the researchers are and they can't be refuted.

Swimmy wrote:Whats funny is, if you present this to an atheist they will tell you how these researchers are obviously bias fundies who know nothing about science. Thus they are wrong. So it doesn't really matter. They'll always have an excuse to dismiss this type of evidence.

However, if the article made the opposite claim they would have jumped up and down for joy and claimed how super uber awesome the researchers are and they can't be refuted.

Don't you know? Any thing that gives the bible even a little modicum of realism is by default super biased because of it. No question about it. If any one does give the bible any plausibility to its claims of miricles then we are to launch holy crusade to deliver the just judgement of rationality.

It took me about 5 minutes to stop laughing long enough to post, and now I can't even remember what I was going to say. You guys -- so funny Oh wait, there's the thought. Got it.
Wrain, you're SO right. What a simple statement yet it's brilliant. Of course God would allow our scientific methods to point in the direction of His existence but, as the nature of free will, He won't force us to believe it, but hopes we'll be open to it. It's so, so sad how many people cut themselves off to true miracles by being so willfully blind.

It's so true. The bias is overwhelmingly clear but even if Christ Himself jumped up and down before them and said "I'm the Messiah, here's a cake made out of tacos" (dear Lord I don't mean to be blasphemous) out of thin air, they'd go out of their way to discredit THEIR own testimony to the event by saying they were on drugs or something ludicrous.

"If any one does give the bible any plausibility to its claims of miricles then we are to launch holy crusade to deliver the just judgement of rationality."

Love this line Wrain. Love it so much it hurts.

Swimmy wrote:Whats funny is, if you present this to an atheist they will tell you how these researchers are obviously bias fundies who know nothing about science. Thus they are wrong. So it doesn't really matter. They'll always have an excuse to dismiss this type of evidence.

However, if the article made the opposite claim they would have jumped up and down for joy and claimed how super uber awesome the researchers are and they can't be refuted.

This is laughable, I don't believe in god and I didn't think that when I read it. I thought oh, it needs modern technology to make that shroud obviously the shroud is a fake. Surely you can see that going from needing a laser to Jesus becoming a laser when he resurrected is a bit of a leap...

I'm so glad that someone mentioned this! After this and some more reseach that I did on the shroud, I'm more convinced as ever that it really could be Christ's burial cloth AND direct evidence of His resurrection.

Although I do want to point out, just like what Habermas and others have said, if it is NOT the burial cloth that does not hurt the case for Christ's resurrection one bit. If it is that is terriffic and great, but we don't need it to help the case at all, since the historical evidence is more than enough to convince most honest seekers.
One of the things I was hung up on for quite sometime that helped fuel my skepticism about the shoroud had to do with a pesky detail concerning Christ's "possible" head covering otherwise known as the The Sudarium of Oviedo.

I orginally thought that both the shroud and the sudarium were both around Christ during the entire time He was in the tomb, which caused a problem for me since the sadarium does not bare a image of the face like the shroud does.

But I later found out that from people that have studied both artifacts that it strongly suggests that the sadarium was removed from Christ's head before the shroud was placed over His body, possibly sometime between when Christ was removed from the cross and placed in the tomb. Which would then make sense as to why there is no image on the sudarium.

But anyway, here are some interesting links that you all can check out if you all haven't seen these already.

This first one is from the shroud.com website. In this PDF the site owner critiques an atheist's attempt to recreate the shroud in a effort to expose the real shroud as a mideval fraud. In he does a side by side comparisan with the real shroud and the one done by the atheist artist to show how drastically different both of them really are.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf


The next one is a blog done by a shroud researcher who in this link, lays out a very good case of the Shroud being Christ's burial cloth
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... et-of.html

And this link is from a fairly recent apologetics conference where Gary Habermas talks about some new findings and details about the Shroud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU1P1du8NCc

Plus speaking about Habermas, he recently had a interview with Christian apologist Frank Turek on his Cross Examined radio show a few weeks back. You can check out that site and go to their Itunes radio podcast link to find the show.

Anyway, that's all I've got for now. See you all later.

manicsloth wrote:

Swimmy wrote:

obviously the shroud is a fake

Evidence?

manicsloth wrote:

Swimmy wrote:Whats funny is, if you present this to an atheist they will tell you how these researchers are obviously bias fundies who know nothing about science. Thus they are wrong. So it doesn't really matter. They'll always have an excuse to dismiss this type of evidence.

However, if the article made the opposite claim they would have jumped up and down for joy and claimed how super uber awesome the researchers are and they can't be refuted.

This is laughable, I don't believe in god and I didn't think that when I read it. I thought oh, it needs modern technology to make that shroud obviously the shroud is a fake. Surely you can see that going from needing a laser to Jesus becoming a laser when he resurrected is a bit of a leap...

Please explain how they would have faked the shroud with a laser in the medieval period?
There was an intense light coming from Jesus at his resurrection as described in the Bible, it was not a laser "beam" but an intense light equal to that of a laser that would have made the impression.
Did you actually read the article?


Dan

There was an intense light coming from Jesus at his resurrection as described in the Bible

The real question is: Why would God need to use something that is similar to advanced technology in order to resurrect Jesus? Just asking.

Why not?

BryanH wrote:The real question is: Why would God need to use something that is similar to advanced technology in order to resurrect Jesus? Just asking.

Why would our technology need to resemble God's modus operandi?

BryanH wrote:The real question is: Why would God need to use something that is similar to advanced technology in order to resurrect Jesus? Just asking.

Perhaps it was the result of God's interaction in our world during the resurrection process in our physical reality.

Why would our technology need to resemble God's modus operandi?

If our technology resembles God's modus operandi, soon enough we will be able to resurrect people.

BryanH wrote:If our technology resembles God's modus operandi, soon enough we will be able to resurrect people.

That's quite a stretch don't you think... leaving an imprint on a piece of cloth through "intense light" is far far far far removed from restoring dead organs, tissue and consciousness. There were multiple, unique events that took place during Jesus' resurrection, the least of which was leaving markings on a piece of burial cloth