• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba, in the eary stages of your attempt at a provenance for the shroud, you admitted to the fact that your conclusion is based on faith. As far as I am concerned, I see no problem with that and I know that convincing you that you are wrong is futile as is convincing any religious person about the non-existence of god. In fact, the Vatican itself has settled for this and despite the knowledge that it is a fake, they have declared the object as an article of faith. As far as they are concerned, faith in its authenticity trumps objective evidence of its inauthenticity. I personally think it is dishonest, but then this is a characteristic of all religions.

However, the issue is with your expectation that others accept the faith based syllogism as objective (dare I say scientific?) proof of authenticity.

The fact is that, even assuming that the carbon dating is flawed (based on nothing more than a strong belief, on your part, in wanting it to be flawed), there is no evidence to even an AD 1st Century provenance. There is no documentary evidence predating AD 13 C, apart from this, the weave, the material, the anatomically incorrect image, the style in which the body might have been wrapped to obtain such an image, and more dispels any suggestion that the CIQ is Jesus's burial shroud.

Take it on faith as you take the Bible and the existence of God on faith. But don't try to pass off your faith based belief as objective scientific evidence.


PS: Or are you trying to win the argument by getting in the last word?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- It can if my wish is for evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
Click to expand...
My wish is for my bank account to have £1m in it, but no amount of wishful thinking will put that money in there. Just like no amount of wishful thinking will garner you evidence that the cloth is 2kya.

This is not a binary proposition where 'a' is "the shroud is from the 13th century" and ~a is "the shroud is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus".

~a is everything other than than a, so any other date including 1st 2nd, 3rd, 4th [...]12th, 14th, 15th, [...] 21st century dates. Casting doubt on the carbon dating, which in any case you have yet to do, does not increase the likelihood of the cloth having been wrapped around Jesus.

You need to show some positive, direct evidence for the cloth being 2kya. If that evidence is accepted, only then could you start looking at whether it's a random piece of cloth from that era or whether it actually came into contact with Jesus.

So, do you have any direct evidence for a 1st century date?

Wishful thinking is not evidence.
 
On the plus side, it's nice to see Jabba admitting to using wishful thinking. Honesty is refreshing in the pro-authenticity side of this debate.
 
Jabba said:
Hugh,

I guess I should start with the following.

- To that, I would add the following.
9. Numerous respected scholars do not accept the carbon dating as final. For example, from http://shroudstory.com/:
...Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial.
...Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists.
...Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.”

- But anyway, I would like to start by asking questions re your positions on various sub-issues -- the likelihood that the image was painted being the first one.
Click to expand...

Dear Mr. Savage:

Never mind that all of that material has been dealt with before.

What you need to understand is that non of it, not one single bit of it, indicates in any way that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.

Please present any evidence (practical, empirical, non-anecdotal, non-apologetic, objective evidence) that the CIQ is ~2000 years old.
 
Jabba said:
- It can if my wish is for evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
Click to expand...

OTH, you could do as actual seekers of truth do, and, instead of wishing for what is not there, consider reality. Multiple lines of evidence converge on an age of ~780 years old for the CIQ. What evidence do you have that indicates that the CIQ is, instead, ~2000 years old?
 
Jabba said:
Monza,
- The question is binary: Is the shroud about 2000 years old, or not?
Click to expand...

Jabba, are you trying to say that if the shroud is not NOT 2000 years old, then it must BE 2000 years old?

That's just playing word games.
 
2000 Yrs?/Evidence?/BinaryQuestion

wollery said:
...
No amount of wishful thinking can make the carbon dating result address the binary question you want it to address...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- It can if my wish is for evidence that the shroud is 2000 years old.
Click to expand...

wollery said:
Oh dear. No.

You can wish for it, but that doesn't make it so. That was kind of my point...
Click to expand...
- You're right.
- I was trying to be cute. I should have just said that the carbon dating result does address my binary question. You can argue that the basic objective of the dating was to determine the age of the cloth – but, the dating still addresses the issue of whether or not the shroud is about 2000 years old, and its conclusion is “No.”
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- You're right.
- I was trying to be cute.
Click to expand...



Rather than trying to be cute, why don't you try saying this in the mirror: "I believe that Jesus Christ is my rock and redeemer. Through his sacrifice, I am saved from damnation. I believe this as a matter of faith without need for any evidence outside the peace Jesus grants my soul. Faith without proof is the highest form of worship. As such, I need no outside validation. My obsession with the Shroud of Turin ends here."
 
Jabba said:
- You're right.
- I was trying to be cute. I should have just said that the carbon dating result does address my binary question. You can argue that the basic objective of the dating was to determine the age of the cloth – but, the dating still addresses the issue of whether or not the shroud is about 2000 years old, and its conclusion is “No.”
Click to expand...

Jabba logic:

  1. The 14C dating says the shroud is ~780 years old.
  2. Therefore, the 14C dating says the shroud is not ~2000 years old.
  3. If we assume that the 14C dating is wrong, then the shroud is not not ~2000 years old.
  4. Therefore if we assume that the 14C dating is wrong, then the shroud is ~2000 years old!
The 14C dating addresses the issue of whether or not the shroud is ~2000 years old by determining that the shroud is ~780 years old, and therefore not ~2000 years old or any other age.

Your binary question is just a word game, as I said previously.
 
Jabba said:
- You're right.
- I was trying to be cute. I should have just said that the carbon dating result does address my binary question. You can argue that the basic objective of the dating was to determine the age of the cloth – but, the dating still addresses the issue of whether or not the shroud is about 2000 years old, and its conclusion is “No.”
Click to expand...

Jabba, You don't do 'cute' effectively.

Now is the time for you to present evidence that the CIQ is 2000 years old. Your refusal to provide evidence of it is intellectual effrontery.

Do you mean to deliberately insult the intelligence of every lurker and interlocutor on this thread?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- You're right.
- I was trying to be cute. I should have just said that the carbon dating result does address my binary question. You can argue that the basic objective of the dating was to determine the age of the cloth – but, the dating still addresses the issue of whether or not the shroud is about 2000 years old, and its conclusion is “No.”
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage:

...as long as you realize that the question, addressed by the 14C dating, is NOT, "Is the CIQ either ~2000 years old, or is it ~780 years old?" this is fine as far as it goes. I might suggest that the actual question asked by the 14C dating was, instead, "How old is the CIQ?", to which the evidence-based answer is, "~780 years old".

Notice the corollary to identifying the question correctly. Even if the 14C dating were proved to be a pulled-from-an-orifice-SWAG, that would not, in any way, indicate that the CIQ was ~2000 years old. It would not "increase the likelihood" that the CIQ was ~2000 years old. In fact, it would not address in any way the claim that the CIQ was ~2000 years old. At most, you could sway that the failure of the 14C dating simply meant that the apparent age of the CIQ (~780 years) was not supported by 14C dating. You would still have to deal with historical provenance, physical characteristics, and contemporary accounts--all of which also indicate an age of ~780 years old.

What you really, really ought to be doing is marshaling and presenting the objective, empirical, non-anecdotal, non-apologetic evidence the indicates that the CIQ is ~2000 years old. Really you should.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom