extraordinary evidence would be re-growing a limb. giving us something as prosaic as a sheet which may or may not be 'authentic' is nowhere near extraordinary.
You're moving the goalposts. An image that modern science does not know how it was made qualifies as extra-ordinary. - - - Updated - - - You would be more honest if you said you don't accept the evidence, there are libraries full of it.
You mean this guy that Bippy123 has already exposed as a non-expert? "Then as you correctly pointed out, his sources are old. He uses old sources which aren't peer reviewed. The kicker here is that he also cited Joe Nickell's work. Maybe Taikoo could tell us the scientific credentials of Joe Nickell. I'll give Taikoo a clue. Joe Nickell has the same scientific credentials as I do. In other words he doesn't have a 2 year degree in any scientific field loooool."
Who knows? But because we do not know does not mean he was resurrected. For all we know the Romans cremated him or weighed down the body to be dumped at sea. I could think of a thousand ways a body could be made to disappear... I mean was Hoffa resurrected or was he just placed where no one will ever find him? Who cares? This is still not empirical proof of the resurrection. No, as I do not see the Bible as the word of God. I see the Bible as a collection of mostly stories... because of this I see no conspiracy to cover up. Do you possess empirical proof that the Bible contains the word of God? What evidence? The Bible? Do you believe the stories in The Lord of the Rings to be true? What is the difference between The Lord of the Rings and the Bible? Very little IMO. I am glad you believe the stories in the Bible... but once you try to make me believe the stories are true I ask you to back up your claim with empirical evidence. There is no such thing as satan as he is a theological intangible that I personally think would be better classified as mythology.
So let's see some proof for your conspiracy theories. Why would the apostles die knowingly for this 'lie'? You ought to, it would help your case if His grave was found. Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. How in the world if Jesus really did walk on water 2,000 years ago is that supposed to be empirically verified today? All we can go by is the word of those who were there, or who interviewed eyewitnesses. Do you have empirical proof it isn't? A bogus standard. Science can't observe today much of anything that happened 2,000 years ago. Interesting you bring up the Lord of the Rings, as Tolkein (a Christian) built many biblical parallels into that story. Really, is that the best you've got? Pointing to an obvious work of fiction to try and prove something didn't happen 2,000 years ago? There has to be a name for that kind of fallacy. And you know that how? Can you empirically verify that?
Neural firings don't explain the image on the shroud do they. Neural firings don't explain an image so technologically advanced that not even 21st century science can replicate it. Neural firings don't explain the massive evidences that point towards The authenticity of the shroud do they. Atheists keep also claiming that veridical Nde's are a product of hallucinations even though the evidences point massively against that, but that's deviating from the subject which I won't do
I'd kind of like the sniping to stop. Deal? No s-men either, svp? "Evidence" does not say anything about the quality of evidence. Some think the evidence for J Smiths gold books is enough. I dont There is nothing sufficient for scientific acceptance for anything supernatural. I guess that is where I will set my standards, which I consider to be entirely honest.
I am never dishonest in what I say here. As I asked P7, could the sniping etc please end? I've no more heart for it, and its so unproductive. Your set point for what you consider reasonable and what I consider reasonable are clearly in different places. Likewise with what we consider to be valid evidence. i'd like to see where there is reliable info on such as pollen and rock dust in the shroud.
If you wish to warp this thread into a discussion about the brain activity involved in religious belief....me thinks you may be disappointed in the end result. If you instead wish this to trend toward the psychology behind acceptance of unprovable realities....the end result may very well be the same. You obviously think this relic is proof of the divine Christ, regardless of the actual debate behind it. Others, not inclined to be swayed by faith do not see it as cut and dry, and debate this. You will never be convinced otherwise, and we will not unless there is a compelling and fact based reason to be. We are at an impasse.......myself because there is nothing factual to change my mind, and you because your mind is made up already.
I'd be most interested in understanding what motivates some people to spend that much effort ratifying a rather marginal preconception. What sort of psychological threat would inspire such a desperate NEED to find something as trivial as the shroud of Turin to be "genuine", whatever that might even mean in this context. Why not simply repeat "I believe it's genuine" three times and be done with it?
Are you kidding? Most of us operate on faith most of the time. Maybe not faith in someone else's imaginary god, but nonetheless we all build mental models of the world we live in, and we have no choice but to act as though the implications of those models are correct (and correct the models when we're wrong). And that's a fundamental faith that our models are close enough. Everything we do, we have faith that it's worth doing. Even the generalized religious faith that life has meaning and is worth living is handy. I don't even regard faith in gods as being an appropriate application of faith. That's more of an ego thing, worshiping one's own imagination.
No he has a PhD in folklore and that is what he commented on. It is a medieval forgery and it was known as such then.
Who knows, but this still does not prove the shroud has the image of Jesus on it. The burden of proof is upon those who claim the resurrection is true. Trying to get me to prove something that did not happen... did not happen... is impossible. None of this brings us any closer to whose vestige in on the shroud. I agree... but why should I trust the 40+ authors of the Bible? Why do you? What makes the word of men long dead infallible? Why trust without verification? Again the burden of proof is upon you. If I say that God is a purple unicorn that farts rainbows that smell of cotton-candy... PROVE ME WRONG... can you prove me wrong? How do you prove something that does not exist... does not exist? This is why the burden of proof is upon those who make the claim that the shroud has the image of Jesus on it... or that the Bible contains the infallible word of God... or that the resurrection actually happened... and so far I have not seen a single shred of empirical proof. And there is your folly. I am in no way shape of forum trying to "prove" anything here. I am open to the possibility that the shroud has the image of Jesus on it, as I am open to the possibility that the resurrection happened, as I am open to the possibility that the Bible contains the infallible word of God... but as of yet no one has been able to offer me empirical evidence that the stories in the Bible are true... or that the shroud is proof of the resurrection... etc. Again the burden of proof is upon those that claim that satan is real.
And some have a need to deny evidence in its favor. - - - Updated - - - Actually, he thinks that BECAUSE OF the actual debate behind it. I don't think the Shroud has to be proved, just that it is more likely genuine than not.
Cite? Or they accurately described what they saw. "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16 Why would I do that, we don't set eyewitness aside in court cases. You have a massive circular reasoning case going on, i.e., we know miracles never happened, but only if we disregard testimony to the contrary. Continuing to parrot 'no evidence' doesn't change that. As I've pointed out before, atheists here say they would become a Christian if they saw the miracles, yet by their own standard their own evidence would then be inadmissable as 'biased'. See how that works?
That's kind of like a podiatrist commenting on heart surgery. And the medieval 'forgers' planted pollen, dirt, and flowers from the Jerusalem area on the shroud, when those things couldn't be detected back then? Who were they going to impress? Maybe we should give them a posthumus Nobel Prize. You still need to explain how they put the image on the shroud when modern science doesn't even know.
Maybe so. I had never given it any thought. I did a quick read, and discovered that the evidence is ambiguous but some of the claims seem implausible. In addition, those who keep jumping up and down about "evidence" seem fanatically desperate to find something "genuine" in the shroud. When everything added together sums up to "undetermined", those who are determined to be convinced lose credibility. But if you were to factor out your desire that it be "genuine" (whatever that means), would your opinion change? The evidence presented so far says that after some testing, nobody knows how it was made, or when, or where, or why. We have two different carbon datings. One says it was made about the time it was first brought to light, shortly before 1400 AD. The other says it was somewhere around the time of Christ's birth or death, and that the first guys dated a chunk of cloth added later. Others say that no, there was no later addition, it's all the same piece. The most likely conclusion is that it's going to be basically impossible to resolved this because, as I said earlier, if rigorous testing showed it to be a genuine the testing would damage a priceless object, and if it were shown to be a fake the church would lose both face and revenue.
The shroud has been definitively been shown to be not that of Jesus. Radiometric Dating does not lie. AboveAlpha
Cite what? All those sources that don't exist? And who is "they"? Again, set your bible aside, it's fiction. Produce evidence. But you have no eyewitnesses. We do not allow hearsay in court, especially not third-hand hearsay passed through the hands of people determined to fabricate a fable. On the contrary, claims of miracles are carefully investigated. All fail the tests, without exception. We do not have "testimony" to the contrary, we have FICTION. Ok you swallow the fiction hook line and sinker. We see this. No need to keep repeating it. Nope. As an atheist, I tentatively accept evidence properly generated and verified. Now, I'll agree that the scientific method is biased - toward accuracy! If you wish to buy fantastic tales related by proselytizers who allege third-hand (and inconsistent) "eyewitness" claims of other people not named, and think this is "evidence", feel free. Don't expect sane people to agree that your standards of evidence are even remotely helpful. What you never seem to grasp is that people lie. ESPECIALLY people who are trying to sell a load of crap. But hey, you have FAITH, so why are you so concerned about fabricating imaginary "evidence" that you can use to beat rational people over the head with? Do you expect that to work? Seriously?
Sorry, but the most recent dating from the University of Padua says it is genuine. And radiometric dating can lie if it tests a later patched area.
