Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

[John Jones]

Ed Zachary.

 

[Jabba]

2000 Yrs?/logic

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."

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Since it is clear that you do not intend to present a single bit of actual evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old, I wonder if you might take a moment to address WHY (in your own opinion) this might be so?

 

[John Jones]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

He couldn't have been any clearer.

The argument you are presenting is not logical, and no one is taking your evidence seriously because you haven't presented anything deserving serious consideration.

For instance, where is the evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

WHAT argument, Jabba? You have not presented an argument. How can you ask if it is logical?

Your argument is neither logical nor illogical, it is non-existent!

Hans

 

[jond]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

Did you read any of the responses besides Hugh? Every one of your premises was answered, in detail by several posters. Not one of your premises says anything about the actual date of the shroud, nor does any attempt at connecting all the dots. Indeed, your attempt to tie the shroud to the SoO actually damages your authenticity claim as you acknowledged that it dates to 700CE. That's still nowhere near the date required for authenticity. Jabba, your logic is terminally flawed.

 

[carlitos]

Nh

 

[Loss Leader]

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

No.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. The conclusion of a logical argument must necessarily be true if the premises are true.

Example of an illogical argument:

All boys wear blue.
Bob is wearing blue.
Therefore, Bob is a boy.

This is wrong. Any girl could choose to wear blue without violating the premises.

Example of a logical argument:

Only boys wear blue.
Bob is wearing blue.
Therefore, Bob is a boy.

In this case, the fact that one is wearing blue necessarily means that one is a boy. Bob must necessarily be wearing blue.

So far, this is your argument (giving you every benefit of the doubt):

1. The shroud is covered in blood.
2. The blood is in the shape of a man who was crucified.
3. The shroud's age is not certain.
4. Therefore, this is the true burial shroud of Jesus.

The conclusion is not necessarily true. There are many, many other circumstances which could be true if the first three statements are true including but not limited to: 1) This was made in the middle ages by painting with blood; 2) It was made in the middle ages by mutilating and wrapping up a dead person; 3) It was made 1500 years ago by carving a bas relief and pressing the cloth against it; 4) It is the true burial shroud of someone crucified 2000 years ago who was not Jesus; and on and on and on.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, even if they were true. It is illogical. End of story.

On top of that, though, your premises aren't even true. So, it hardly matters.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

Why can't you present that evidence in brief now? I wager you will not spell your arguments out in a clear and honest form, as Hugh demonstrated, because it would show the logical leaps of fancy stark naked to yourself.

 

[jimbob]

How about:
The shroud looks authentic to me
I don't believe it could be faked
Therefore it is 2000 years old
Therefore the carbon dating is wrong
Therefore the shroud can be 2000 years old
Therefore the shroud can be authentic

?

 

[Giordano]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

I have seen you make this claim multiple times before in other blogs: no, you are being VERY clear. We understand what you are trying to say. You are just wrong. As to your specific logic:

1. We understand that these are your specific premises, and that people will want evidence for them before they believe them.

2. We don't understand why you, who have researched the Shroud for years and spend 3 hours a day on it, can't then include this evidence in the same post as your claimed premises, but okay...

3. In many cases you don't even attempt to then provide the promised evidence ever, let alone in the very next post as you indicated that you would.

4. When you do present the "evidence" it is not evidence at all, for the reasons posted. You don't present counters to these reasons, you then just eventually repost the same "evidence." If you wish me to cite specific flaws in your logic so far: (1) believing something without real evidence supporting it, (2) assuming the antecedent, (3) believing that by raising questions (however illegitimate) about a point must therefore be evidence of the opposite, when many other possibilities would still exist. Just one example: if the Shroud was an image of a dead body, then it is likely to be the burial shroud of Christ. That is illogical just as a statement, and well as based on a series of inaccurate conclusions.

But somehow I am feeling as if we are getting distracted. You were going to present your evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old, right?

 

[Giordano]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

Another request by Jabba directed toward a specific poster for their opinion (almost always asked of the least critical poster and seeking their support). The LCP's subsequent response is then negated by Jabba by (1) suggesting that the poster didn't really understood Jabba's point, (2) the poster misstated their own opinion, which of course was the opposite of what they actually wrote. or (3) a completely incorrect reading of the post as if it supported Jabba's view, when it actually negated Jabba's view.

 

[Mojo]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

Jabba,

- For the shroud to be authentic, it must be about 2000 years old.
- You have therefore been asked for evidence that it is about 2000 years old.
- Your evidence that it is about 2000 years old is that you have concluded that it is probably authentic.

- Do you really not see why your argument is not logical?

 

[Craig4]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

Well, no one is paying attention to your other points because they don't matter if the cloth is not 2000 years old.

 

[Belz...]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

No. Provide evidence that the Shroud is 2000 years old. That is all. Stop stalling.

 

[jimbob]

As an aside, I've just had a bottle of Leffe beer that can trace its roots back (tenuously, but close enough for marketing) to before the probable age of the shroud (AD 1240 in big letters on the front of the bottle)

 

[John Jones]

Did you read any of the responses besides Hugh? Every one of your premises was answered, in detail by several posters. Not one of your premises says anything about the actual date of the shroud, nor does any attempt at connecting all the dots. Indeed, your attempt to tie the shroud to the SoO actually damages your authenticity claim as you acknowledged that it dates to 700CE. That's still nowhere near the date required for authenticity. Jabba, your logic is terminally flawed.

Jabba, I hope you were paying attention.

Even if you weren't, it's still time to provide evidence that the CIQ is about 2000 years old.

 

[Mojo]

As an aside, I've just had a bottle of Leffe beer that can trace its roots back (tenuously, but close enough for marketing) to before the probable age of the shroud (AD 1240 in big letters on the front of the bottle)

Is there a "best before" date on the bottle (or indeed on the shroud)?

 

[hugh farey]

Hugh,

- Well, I'm certainly not communicating very well.
- I'll try one more time.

- I've been trying to say that these are the premises that led me to the conclusion that the shroud is probably 2000 years old. But, I'm not expecting anyone to believe my premises before I present evidence for them...
- I've recently been trying to present evidence for a couple of different premises -- but so far, no one takes my "evidence" seriously.

- Would you now accept that my argument is logical?

I'm not sure you haven't made it even less logical than before, Jabba. Normally the protagonist of a proposal at least has some faith that his premises are credible, while you seem to be accepting that people will not find them so, and therefore that your argument is built on sand. There can be value in asking people to begin by accepting absurd premises, and pursuing a "what if" scenario (such as; what if the speed of light were only 300m/s instead of 300Mm/s, or historically, what if Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo), but such an exercise cannot be used to demonstrate the truth of anything. Furthermore, the premises for that sort of game must not be too constricting. You are getting dangerously near to saying, "If we assume that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, then my conclusion is that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ!" Everybody agrees with that, but it's hardly persuasive evidence for the non-authenticists.

What i think you might find worthwhile would be to say to yourself: Suppose the radiocarbon date had come out at 25AD, is there anything about the Shroud that would convince readers of this forum that it was the burial shroud of Christ? Is there anything to contradict such an opinion?

 

[zooterkin]

You are getting dangerously near to saying, "If we assume that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, then my conclusion is that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ!" Everybody agrees with that, but it's hardly persuasive evidence for the non-authenticists.

FTFY.

What i think you might find worthwhile would be to say to yourself: Suppose the radiocarbon date had come out at 25AD, is there anything about the Shroud that would convince readers of this forum that it was the burial shroud of Christ? Is there anything to contradict such an opinion?

But what does that achieve, except wishful thinking? It doesn't matter, since the cloth is the wrong age. Regardless, various members have pointed out other details which mean that it can't be the shroud of Jesus, but Jabba ignores those, too.