Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Thanks, Hugh -- now, I've got to figure out where to start...
- At http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php, you'll find my description of what I claim will yield effective debate.
- I'll be back.
Click to expand...

And that is *exactly* why this thread is full of fail: you have chosen the wrong tool for the job.

I said this in another thread about debates, but it bears repeating here:

Debates are a formal way of arguing about opinions. Their purpose is not to weigh evidence, but the quality of rhetoric.

Having a debate about an aspect of science or mathematics as a way of evaluating evidence or "proof" is about as relevant using astrology to pick a winner in a horse race.

ETA - We have some State debating champions in the family. It was not at all unusual to make up references, quotes or statistics on the fly to distract or confuse the opposition...
Click to expand...
 
Loss Leader said:
It's worse than that. He's declared that if the dating is wrong, this supports it being 2000 years old. The dating could be wrong by a thousand years and the shroud still wouldn't be old enough to be genuine. He doesn't seem to understand that, even if the C dating is wrong, there are a couple hundred million possibilities other than this being the burial cloth of Jesus that are just as if not far more likely.
Click to expand...


That's what I would like to know (ignoring the ... ahem... dating problem for a moment). Why does it have to be the burial cloth of JC.

Why can't it be a late century burial cloth of, say, I. Barbarous Capricious?


Jabba, the shroud is not unique.

Cold Case Files Season 2 Episode 9 "The Lady in the Box"

http://www.aetv.com/cold-case-files/video/lady-in-the-box

John Smith murders his wife, cuts off her legs and puts her into a wooden box. Before nailing the lid shut he folds her dress over her face resulting in a "shroud like image"

Go to 37:55
 
Shroud Debate/Painting?

hugh farey said:
Hi Jabba; I would be delighted to discuss anything you like with you using whatever rules you choose. However I have to confess that I have no idea what those rules are, as they keep being obfuscated by clauses and sub-clauses and goodness knows what. Unlike most of the other commenters here, I would really like to change my mind and agree with you that the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth of Jesus. Unfortunately, such is my scientific training and experience that I feel the weight of evidence suggests that it is a medieval creation. However, there is no more fertile field than myself if you wish to test your skills of persuasion. How shall we proceed?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Thanks, Hugh -- now, I've got to figure out where to start...
- At http://messiahornot.com/Treatise.php, you'll find my description of what I claim will yield effective debate.
- I'll be back.
Click to expand...
Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?
 
Jabba said:
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic
Click to expand...

You mean, the direct evidence for the 2000 year age of the shroud ? Please do so now.

If you can't (and it does seem that you can't), then admit that you have none, and that your opinion is entirely based on faith.
 
Jabba said:
Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?
Click to expand...

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage.

I strongly suggest that, if you intent to simply ignore the vast majority of posters on this thread, and pretend that you and Mr. Farey are having a private tête-à-tête, you (and he) do so by PM, or on your own blog.

You are (rather rudely) ignoring one question (put to you by multiple posters, myriad times), that is:

What evidence (empirical, non-apologetic, physical,non-anecdotal, objective evidence) is there that indicates that the CIQ is, in fact, ~2000 years old?
 
hugh farey said:
Hi Jabba; I would be delighted to discuss anything you like with you using whatever rules you choose. <snip>
Click to expand...
You have done a substantial disservice to this thread by agreeing to debate Jabba under his rules. This is not a one-on-one debate presentation with the remainder of ISF simply audience members. It is an open forum for all participants and lurkers.

If you would like to directly engage with Jabba elsewhere, fine. Knock yourself out. NOT HERE. As noted by Agatha, the are no secondary posting/debate rules in any thread on ISF. The OP - or any other poster - does not "own" the thread and is not capable of imposing additional rules.

I emphatically urge you to withdraw your offer here on ISF. Continuing on will earn you nothing but disdain and disrespect.
 
Jabba said:
I just ask that you follow my rules in this one thread. And, all I need is for just one of you to follow my rules.
Click to expand...


So, instead of posting your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old, you've gone back to talking about how people should talk about the subject. (Conveniently, this pushes the requirement that you present your evidence for the age of the shroud far, far down the road).


- In my 'private' conversation with Loss Leader, he quit because I broke one of my own rules -- I answered two questions in one post instead of just one question, as I had said that I would.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. In our debate about debate, you failed to address any of the several objections that I raise. Then you failed to address them when I wrote them again. Then you failed to address just the one objection you made me pick. At the same time, none of your posts actually demonstrated your theory of debate. As you say, even you could not follow your own rules.

However, I don't see why any of this matters now. All you need to do is present your evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.



Jabba said:
I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?
Click to expand...


This again? It's not evidence of anything. Even if the shroud had real blood on it, all you've done is cross out one of the infinite number of ways the shroud could have been created. The fact that there is no paint does not make it one tiny bit more likely to be the real burial shroud of Jesus. For one thing, paint or not, it's still only about 700 years old.

Please make use of effective debate by branching out on the tree of reasoning to the sub-sub-sub issue of the evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.

We will, according to your silly rules, discuss only that. Paint/blood has nothing to do with the age of the shroud so do not bring it up again.
 
hugh farey said:
Hi Jabba; I would be delighted to discuss anything you like with you using whatever rules you choose.
Click to expand...

NO. You've been way too lenient with Jabba. Do not allow him to squirm away from providing the evidence that he must present, or admit defeat. You are giving him the ability to wiggle away from honest discussion.
 
Jabba said:
Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. You need to "rethink and summarise" the evidence you have never presented. On the basis of this same non-evident evidence you suspect in some vague way that the CIQ might, perhaps, if you squint in just the right direction, be 2kya. Let's be clear, in your words, you "suspect" it "might" and in lieu of evidence you appeal to someone else's opinion about whether or not it might be paint.

Give it up. Present evidence for a 2k age and stop with the nonsense.
 
abaddon said:
Let me get this straight. You need to "rethink and summarise" the evidence you have never presented. On the basis of this same non-evident evidence you suspect in some vague way that the CIQ might, perhaps, if you squint in just the right direction, be 2kya. Let's be clear, in your words, you "suspect" it "might" and in lieu of evidence you appeal to someone else's opinion about whether or not it might be paint.

Give it up. Present evidence for a 2k age and stop with the nonsense.
Click to expand...

Dread one, your sage advice is years too late.
 
Jabba said:
Hugh,
- I need to rethink, and re-summarize, my reasons for suspecting that the shroud is authentic, but I can start with the issue of whether or not the image is a painting. I don't think it can be a painting; what do you think?
Click to expand...

No you don't. You need to provide evidence the cloth is 2000ish years old. This is nothing; it's just hiding behind process.
 
I think the discussion would be interesting to watch. Both Hugh and Jabba want to believe. Hugh will have many logical arguments, but Jabba will be un-persuadable. Hugh will be highly persuadable, but Jabba will have nothing with which to persuade him.

Ward
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom