• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Miracle of the Shroud V - Blood and Limestone

Jabba said:
I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
Click to expand...

I elaborated on that twice yesterday. And I told you that after having done so I would leave you to wallow in the certain appearance of abject indifference and ignorance.

If you don't understand it and you won't be taught, then you're clearly unteachable and intractable.

Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'
Click to expand...

Then go away. Seriously. You complain about how you're too enfeebled to participate fully here, so we wonder why you bother. You insist we've reached an impasse, yet you keep showing up to do ... whatever.

Why?

This desire of yours to hold the thread hostage until you get want you want is incredibly childish. You say you have evidence, but you won't present it until we agree it's what you say it is. You can provide no cogent argument for agreeing with your belief in the nature of evidence. No one is going to agree with your characterization of evidence they have not seen, and it's disingenuous of you to ask. No one is going to recharacterize evidence they've already seen and dismissed, just because you wish it.

I analyzed this at length yesterday, but of course you ignored it.

If you are unwilling to present evidence in support of your claims then simply go away. You will not get any better offer.
 
Jabba said:
Jabba said:
- If I could show that
1) the stains on the shroud are, real human blood, and that
2) real human blood stains of the characteristics of these particular stains are much more likely on an authentic shroud than on a non-authentic shroud,
- would anyone here agree that I have provided some circumstantial evidence in favor of authenticity?
Click to expand...

- You all seem to agree that my hypotheticals should be ignored...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
elbe,
- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
Click to expand...


Why did you quote yourself in post #1102, stating that nobody responds to your hypotheticals, and then go on to deny that the original post had anything to do with hypotheticals?
 
I Am The Scum said:
Why did you quote yourself in post #1102, stating that nobody responds to your hypotheticals, and then go on to deny that the original post had anything to do with hypotheticals?
Click to expand...

Because he's long been slapping out perfunctory responses while avoiding any question of evidence for authenticity in the face of overwhelming to the contrary. It's shamelessly dishonest.
 
Last edited:
I Am The Scum said:
Why did you quote yourself in post #1102, stating that nobody responds to your hypotheticals, and then go on to deny that the original post had anything to do with hypotheticals?
Click to expand...

And why has he ignored that this fact has already twice been brought to his attention? He himself called it a hypothetical. He has already waived his right to now appeal the nature of the question.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Why did you quote yourself in post #1102, stating that nobody responds to your hypotheticals, and then go on to deny that the original post had anything to do with hypotheticals?
Click to expand...
I Am,
- If I understand what you're saying: in post #1118, I wasn't referring to #1102 (the original post?), I was referring to elbe's post of #1116.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Because he's long been slapping out perfunctory responses while avoiding any question of evidence for authenticity in the face of overwhelming to the contrary. It's shamelessly dishonest.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Jabba's quibbling has stooped to the playground level, along the lines of "I know you are but what am I?"

He has no direct evidence, and he knows we all know it. He has no new "circumstantial evidence," and he knows we all know it. He's taking flak for holding the thread hostage until he gets his way. Why should we expect any of the rest of his arguments to rise above a spoiled toddler level of discourse?

He's literally quibbling up an insinuation that because elbe didn't quote Jabba's entire presentation, it somehow stops being a hypothetical question. This from the guy who happily and intentionally misquotes and selectively quotes the very people he's now accusing of chicanery. This from the guy who lies about not having time to maintain his blog, as an excuse not to act upon requests to correct it.
 
Jabba said:
I Am,
- If I understand what you're saying: in post #1118, I wasn't referring to #1102 (the original post?), I was referring to elbe's post of #1116.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Your question was hypothetical by nature. You quoted your own post and applied the label "hypotheticals" to it. The nature of the question has been addressed. The substance of the question has been addressed. You are patently able to cope with neither. Correct those deficiencies or drop the question and move on.
 
Jabba said:
You don't answer an hypothetical question by saying that the hypothesis is wrong.
Click to expand...

Here again Jabba admits the question is hypothetical. His objection to the way his question was addressed is founded upon accusations that his critics simply note the hypotheses are false or unproven.

The elements of a hypothetical question are (1) the request that the answer be a matter of judgment or reasonable inference, and (2) that the basis of the judgment or inference be the proffered assumptions as opposed to known fact or probable belief. The goal is to explore the rational relationship between the proffered premises and the response as a matter of logical structure, without considering the factual or probable truth of the assumed premises.

Jabba (a) correctly notes that a hypothetical question is not properly addressed by questioning the validity of the represented premises; (b) correctly observes that some of his critics question the validity of the premises; and (c) concludes that they are not properly addressing his question as a hypothetical.

That is circumstantial evidence that Jabba (1) knows what a hypothetical question is, and (2) intended his questions to be hypothetical questions.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I Am,
- If I understand what you're saying: in post #1118, I wasn't referring to #1102 (the original post?), I was referring to elbe's post of #1116.
Click to expand...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

In the time it took you to type out this misdirection, you could have put your "map" on hiatus...

I remain helpfully yours, &ct.
 
As for human blood on the Shroud, in addition to EVERYTHING EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID, Jabba has not shown that there was human blood in Jesus's veins. I posit a God would have divine eternal blood and not paltry human blood.
 
Jabba,

- Based on the credible information available about the shroud, I believe a reasonable estimate of the probability it is a fake is greater than 99.99%.
- You would prefer to focus on just the likelihood it is, in fact, the one and only authentic burial shroud for Jesus following his crucifixion.
- You have provided no evidence to support your claim, though.
- Since the shroud is either a fake, authentic, or maybe something else, I have an upper bound on the likelihood it is authentic.
- The probability the shroud is authentic is less than 0.01% (and possibly 0).


- Now, under your view of circumstantial evidence and how it works, do you have anything that would move the probability of an authentic artifact to something above 0.01%?
 
Ladewig said:
As for human blood on the Shroud, in addition to EVERYTHING EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID, Jabba has not shown that there was human blood in Jesus's veins. I posit a God would have divine eternal blood and not paltry human blood.
Click to expand...

I don't think "human blood" is an unreasonable premise to accept, and if we assume it's some non-human blood that opens up a more complicated door of what if the not blood stains on the shroud could be the same as this mythical divine blood.
 
elbe said:
I don't think "human blood" is an unreasonable premise to accept, and if we assume it's some non-human blood that opens up a more complicated door of what if the not blood stains on the shroud could be the same as this mythical divine blood.
Click to expand...

In short, if we assume something supernatural, anything goes. I have suggested this way out long ago to Jabba: The shroud is supernatural, and everything is possible for God. Fine, have a happy life.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
elbe,
- I don't understand how the entirety of the question is a hypothetical. Can you explain, or elaborate?
- Also, so far, no one here agrees with my understanding of what makes for evidence. Until I can get some agreement on that, it does no good to present my 'evidence.'
Click to expand...

Why not just discuss the Shroud? For a thread about the Shroud of Turin, you seem to work very hard at not discussing the Shroud.
 
MRC_Hans said:
In short, if we assume something supernatural, anything goes. I have suggested this way out long ago to Jabba: The shroud is supernatural, and everything is possible for God. Fine, have a happy life.

Hans
Click to expand...

This is why I've long said that it would be 1,000% more honest of Jabba would just come out and invoke blind faith.

"It's a miracle that God did by magic" is intellectually hollow, but at least it's honest.

Pretending you can explain something that you take on faith is intellectually hollow and intellectually dishonest, both to yourself and others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom