Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Carbon Dating Doubts/Repair&Contamination Otherwise
- Sorry, Hugh. I misunderstood what you said.
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I want to believe in god, an afterlife, all sorts of cool paranormal stuff, and that the shroud is genuine. I don't, because I have examined the evidence for all these things and reluctantly concluded that it does not support those beliefs. Some human beings have a little integrity.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Actually, instead of trying to force the evidence of reality into the mold of what we have decided to believe, or want to believe, some of us actually conform our understanding to the evidence.
Seconded. It would be extremely comforting to believe in an all loving God, knowing that I would be eternally happy if only I were to add praying and church-going back into the normal things I do anyway.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mainstream Science/Unexplainable
- For the whole exchange, start with #1831.
- For the whole exchange, start with #1831.
- If you think that there is such a thing as free will, you believe that there is something unexplainable. So far, you've been saying the opposite. If you don't think that is relevant to our discussion, I'll just have to agree to disagree.
hugh farey
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 506
Everything depends on the process by which a dead body might transfer an image of itself to a cloth. Certainly, a uniformly smeared body wrapped with a cloth would produce one of those weird distortions. No authenticist believes now, or ever has, that that was the process, which has been largely produced as a straw-man from time to time by anti-authenticists.
However, the alternatives are difficult to justify. Even authenticists agree that a cloth draped loosely over a body could not produce the image by contact, so some form of action at a distance is required, and that really opens a can of worms, regarding the attitude of the man (lying flat or with head up and legs bent?), the attitude of the shroud (following the contours of the body above and below, or above but not below, or completely horizontal above and below?), and the direction and dispersion of the emanation (vertical, with a spherical wave front, or convective in various directions?). None of these has been satisfactorily explained, let alone demonstrated.
A better option certainly seems to be some kind of bas relief, although the imagination balks slightly at somebody producing a detailed bas relief of the naked back of a man, just for it to be half of a transferred image.
One problem here is the angle at which blood can actually flow down an arm without dripping straight off, closer to vertical than 45° being demonstrated by Garlaschelli. That's not impossible, as Giulio Ricci's reconstruction demonstrates, but the random twisting and twining of the stream seems precluded at that angle. Some pathologists think the blood would be thicker than normal, and others that it would be as thin as normal, even in a suffering man. It is very unlikely that any blood at all would be produced from a wrist wound after death.
I sympathise, but for me, the solution is to proceed in very small steps. The overall appearance of the Shroud, especially the negative image, strikes many people as a staggeringly realistic portrait of a crucified man and others as a ridiculous caricature. These are just impressions, and can only be justified be detailed comparison with anatomical measurements and specific examples of Byzantine art, and that's just the start. The details of archaeological finds, the geology and botany of Jerusalem, medieval pigments and binders, the script of the Quem Quaeritis ceremony and the proportion of cotton fibres in a Shroud thread are all clues to a more exact understanding of what the Shroud really is.
Or not a shroud at all...
Mojo
Mostly harmless
"There are some things that science cannot explain" is not a reason to assume that science is wrong about everything else.
I'm impressed!
Look at how much art has improved since the Byzantine period. It would be neat if we had photographs from that era. People then had some good technology like aqueducts, and the sculptures that have survived can be incredibly lifelike. There are bust of, say, Alexander of Macedoonia that give us a very good idea of what he looked like. It would be neat if their painting was as good, because it would be cool to see what so many people looked like. But their art forms in Byzantine times generally looked like drawings and Mosaics.
Now in the renaissance period some artwork did get very good, although people are harder to draw.
It's interesting that it's only recently in the modern era that I have seen such stark, realistic images like the ones you found drawn with a biro. Perhaps part of the issue is that nowadays we have photographs and the author could hold the photograph and spend time drawing it motionless. Back in renaissance times they didn't have photographs and their drawings didn't have that intense level of detail, shading, texture, etc. I have seen very good renaissance paintings, but the biro drawings you showed go beyond that.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Believing What We Want to Believe
- The people on my side also think that they conform their understanding to the evidence.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Last edited:
Then, since you believe in free will, you accept that the shroud was created by Satan to tempt Christians into worshiping idols, yes?
Belz...
Fiend God
That doesn't follow. But you haven't answered my question: do you agree that belief has nothing to do with this ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Do you realise that the breakdown of cause and effect makes free will self-contradictory ? It cannot exist if it is illogical.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
What evidence is there that actually ties the shroud to Jesus? And, preferably, what evidence is there that hasn't been shredded already in this thread and it's length predecessor?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Vermeer?
Perhaps so. The point being that you're wrong that it's impossible to artistically create an image as detailed as the one on the Shroud. Better can be done with a biro.
And, of course, it should be noted that the figure on the Shroud looks like someone drawn in the Renaissance, rather than an actual anatomically-correct human being.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
This is not evidence that the shroud is genuine, or the dating is in some way compromised.
ETA: And if you want to use free will as a basis for your argument in favour of the shroud, then you're going to have to establish that it exists first.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
In what way does wanting the CIQ to be "really real" represnt "conforming your understanding" to:
1. The 14C data, for which no reasonable counter has ever been offered;
2. The anatomically inaccurate representation of the "body" (including the fact that the head comes to a wedge point and the front and back do not conform to each other);
3. The posturally impossible aspect (did you, in fact, ever try to assume the "shroud slouchTM" as I suggested?);
4. The casual ignorance of the laws of physics, as exemplified by the "blood" and "hair" of the image; and,
5. The utter disragard for scriptural accuracy;
...among others?
You keep ignoring the actual evidence, depending instead upon wishes, and innuendoes of incompetence, dishonesty, collusion, and/or outright fraud.
- Status