Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[zooterkin]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

Your logic is absent.

 

[carlitos]

Here's a link to that BBC article on the pope venerating the shroud.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33164668

 

[Belz...]

my logic is illogical?

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[John Jones]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

You are not using any logic.

 

[grmcdorman]

[delurk]Your logic is a pretty bird sitting in a tree...^* In other words, no, I agree with the others: it is not 'logic'.[/delurk]

* Star Trek (Original Series) reference.

 

[Craig4]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

What you did isn't logic. You want the shroud to be something it's not so you searched for ways to fit the square peg of reality into the round hole of your beliefs. If you need the cloth to have this meaning, take a leap of faith and decide that it has some undefinable spiritual nature that defies science. Then you can go on believing with out the burden of defending those beliefs.

 

[Stee]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

I think it would be fair to say that you are not using much logic with your reasoned arguments for the authenticity of the shroud. I assume when you use the word 'authentic' you are meaning that the Shroud of Turin is the actual burial shroud of jesus?

If you are then it seems like you are coming at it from a presuppositional position. It simply won't do for you to make your conclusion of the shrouds 2000 year age first, and then find statements that you think supports your conclusion.

As already stated, you seem to be doing this the wrong way around. You need to look at the available evidence that we have, of which there is some, and then draw a sound conclusion based on that evidence. If your conclusion currently, with the information we have, is to regard the shroud as being authentic, then it is not sound.

I don't think the posters on here are determined to ignore your evidence or arguments Jabba, they just (rightly) do not deem them to be very sound.

I have absolutely no problem with the proposal that the shroud is what you say it is, but you need to supply evidence, and this evidence cannot be bald assertion coming from your presupposed position on the shroud, it needs to point in a very definite way to your conclusion!

 

[Loss Leader]

Funny that isn't it?

Just apalling that they know there is no good evidence that it is authentic, in fact the tests done thus far have pointed the other way...but apparently for most not conclusively, and therefore it remains a mystery and it is suitable for encouraging another tax on the gullable...meh.

I think that relics have an important place in the history of christianity. They're invaluable as artifacts of the way in which christian thought evolved.

I'd place them in the same category as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." It's not real, but the effect it had on people is.


ETA: Jabba's thoughts about the shroud are utterly devoid of logic.

 

[Giordano]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

To quote the movie, Taxi Driver, "Are you talking to me?"

Well, no matter, I'll tell you my answer to your question anyway:

No, you are not being logical at all. You have strung together a series of "intermediates" that each themselves lack demonstrable positive evidence in their support, and instead have substantial evidence against them. You nonetheless conclude that these "intermediates" are correct, and then reach a totally unrelated conclusion that is absolutely incorrect based on very firm, scientific, independently confirmed carbon dating evidence. So logic has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Even supplying proof that a number is not 42 (which, by the way, you have not done in the case of the Shroud) does not make the number by default 7843 (or the Shroud 2000 years old). Not at all.

But oh my, this discussion may distract you and I wouldn't want to do that. You were about to present evidence that the carbon dating was incorrect. At your very next post. Let's get back to that. Thanks!

 

[Stee]

I think that relics have an important place in the history of christianity. They're invaluable as artifacts of the way in which christian thought evolved.

It is being based on dishonesty though, it is no more a true artifact of christianity than finding a random piece of stone and saying it is a fragment from the tomb of jesus and having people gawp at that as well.

 

[Giordano]

[delurk]Your logic is a pretty bird sitting in a tree...^* In other words, no, I agree with the others: it is not 'logic'.[/delurk]

* Star Trek (Original Series) reference.

I just wanted to let you know that I understood your reference without the hint. That probably reveals something scary about me.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I just wanted to let you know that I understood your reference without the hint. That probably reveals something scary about me.

...evidently, about a number of us...

LLAP

 

[grmcdorman]

[delurk]Your logic is a pretty bird sitting in a tree...^* In other words, no, I agree with the others: it is not 'logic'.[/delurk]

* Star Trek (Original Series) reference.

I just wanted to let you know that I understood your reference without the hint. That probably reveals something scary about me.

I figured quite a number would, but also many wouldn't, especially the kids who weren't even born then...

That was one of the better episodes in TOS, though.
[/derail]

Is there not some formal name for Jabba's failed logic? It's not quite post hoc ergo propter hoc; nor is it affirming the consequent, as the basis for his 'logic' is the assumption that the Shroud is genuine. Definitely circular, though.

Jabba, any direct evidence for a 2,000 shroud yet?

 

[Loss Leader]

Is there not some formal name for Jabba's failed logic?

To a certain extent, it's affirming the consequent. Really, though, it's all just a pile of irrelevancies.

It is being based on dishonesty though, it is no more a true artifact of christianity than finding a random piece of stone and saying it is a fragment from the tomb of jesus and having people gawp at that as well.

Well, it's a true artifact of christian development in Europe during the middle ages. Traveling relics and churches that claimed to have them did a lot to bring religion to the otherwise illiterate and very concrete-minded masses.

It's just silly to venerate relics now.

 

[Mojo]

To a certain extent, it's affirming the consequent.

He's also begging the question. For the shroud to be genuine it must be 2,000 years old. When challenged to produce evidence that it is 2,000 years old Jabba argues:

- I should try again to explain my logic re my current conclusion about the shroud -- my conclusion being that the shroud is probably authentic (and therefore, about 2000 years old).

He's trying to assume his desired conclusion as part of his premises.

 

[SezMe]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

*changes nic to "Hugh and Ward*
Yes. You are using no logic at all.
*rescinds change to nic*

 

[John Jones]

He's also begging the question. For the shroud to be genuine it must be 2,000 years old. When challenged to produce evidence that it is 2,000 years old Jabba argues:

He's trying to assume his desired conclusion as part of his premises.

Exactly. That has been pointed-out over and over again. Jabba's reply has always been: "I'll get back to you really soon."

Jabba, do you have any evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old? Nothing else matters.

 

[tsig]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

Jabba, where are the miracles, if the shroud is true it should be the most powerful sacred article in the world and should be generating scores of miracles but where are they?

 

[tsig]

For the logic being illogical there should be a logic first. I could not see any logic in your posts.

Logic flees his posts because they are logical slaughterhouses.

 

[hugh farey]

Hugh and Ward,
- Do you guys agree with the rest -- that my logic is illogical?

I think that by definition logic cannot be illogical, but if you mean "is my argument logical?" then the answer, I'm afraid, has to be no.

To pursue a logical argument you present premises which are acceptable even to those who disagree with you, and upon those premises build to a conclusion which demonstrates that you are correct. Those who disagree will then find flaws in your connections, which tend to weaken your conclusion, and you explain why they don't, and eventually a consensus is reached.

Unfortunately your last long post was a list of premises, scarcely any of which are acceptable to skeptics. From such an unpromising start, nothing is likely to be achieved, but as it happens, you do not build on it all.

One of the good things about a logical argument is that by writing it out yourself, you can sometimes spot the flaws even before you present it to your opponents, and then go back for a rethink. You might for instance try this:

"No modern copy of the Shroud has been made."
"It is impossible to copy the Shroud."
"Therefore the Shroud is not a copy."
"Therefore it must be the original Shroud of Christ."

This is quite a common argument among authenticists, but surely, if they presented it to themselves, they would see how weak it is, and the flaws in it.

Here's another:

"The Shroud has wounds which look as if they could have come from a scourged and crucified man."
"Jesus was scourged and crucified."
"Therefore the Shroud is that of Jesus."

And one of our favourites:

"The Carbondating could be wrong because of a patch."
"There is no patch visible on the Shroud."
"An invisible patch is not visible."
"Therefore the carbon dating was wrong because of an invisible patch."